Member Info for Blue83

I agree with that naewise, the BoD show they don't believe in the business. They are saying they don't know what to expect next year & we have no reason not to believe they mean it.

It looked like the government was hell bent on trashing testers even more than they have already held them back having made a choice of cheapies that hasn't seemed to make sense, except on price.

I took the RNS outlining the potential impact as (only) £3m in revenue, so call it £2m in gross profit, as a positive message.

Of course it would be far better if tests had been approved or there was predictability & timeline to the approval process.

How many of us could say what our income will be next year?

I'd guess none can be precise but every one of us has a good idea & at least enough to give a guide.

NCYT has guidance for the next 10 weeks but they can give no guidance of what to expect to anyone supporting the company. This makes the business practically "uninvestable" if we wanted to put it forward as a prospect in a fund management investment meeting. Practically every other prospect with guidance beyond 10 weeks would be worth considering first unless the SP is down to no expectation.

Not sure whether James Wakefield reminded me of Harry Enfield's Minor Royal character or Tim Nice but Dim, the corporate sense of responsibility to financiers is practically that of teenager Kevin's.

What planet are they on to not have any idea of what they expect next year? How is the business managers, what for example did they set as targets for their sales resources? Or do they wait for orders on their website. Take the USA expansion drive that produced revenue £1.45m H1 2020 vs £3.1m H1 2021 = 214% up in a period when the number of PCR test taken in the USA rose 617% from H1 2020 35m PCRs vs H1 2021 216m (only my estimates - correct if you can) but you get the point. A measure of expectation is useful or Kevin might as well be in charge to decline relative share of the market about 2/3rd of what they once sold while its booming & they have over supply in the UK unused.

Here is morningstar ownership page link for sept.

https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xlon/ncyt/ownership

Jo Hambro added 610,000 in Sept according to them and Blackrock sold 235,570 to hold only 47,391 (0.07%) again according to them & in absence of a TR1.

Lets see what changes there are when Oct is available.

Thanks & all the best

Thanks, it was great to see the move on Friday. I was curious about the speculation this week. Can I ask how do you get the official holding data?

Should we expect a TR1 if the volume of transactions on Friday were an institution buying in as is usual under UK rules or not?

RNSs (look at 1 Oct 21 as example - copied below) make clear the company is bound to declare changes in shareholding according to the French Code & its articles and is NOT under the transparency rules of the FCA.

The volumes on Friday tracked by Blackbird Investing on twitter (>7m) would suggest someone was buying in. 71m shares in issue would mean 700k shares were 1% & 2.1m would be 3%. There'd be no reason not to think a stake was being accumulated/ this is not a deramp to try to buy in cheaper etc but without confirmation we do not know.

The last TR1 was filed back in March & by Blackrock. I wonder whether notifications are only made by UK institutions running on autopilot or whether all institutions, such as those who may have been buying on the continent on Friday, are obliged to declare interests in the same way. I believe they are but it seems strange not to have ANY changes declared since March, nor any this week, doesn't it?

Does anyone with experience of French disclosure requirements know if a TR1 is to be expected if a stake is being built or how it usually is done?

Thanks.

Text from RNS 1 Oct 21 under total voting rights
"The total number of ordinary shares in the Company is 70,626,248. This figure may be used by shareholders as the denominator for calculations by which they will determine if they are required to notify their interest in, or a change to their interest in, the Company pursuant to Article L. 223-7 of the French Commercial Code and the Company's Articles. The Company is not subject to the disclosure guidance and transparency rules made by the Financial Conduct Authority under Part VI of FSMA. "

With 71m shares in issue 1% would be 700k shares & 2.1m would be 3%.

I never know whether we should expect a TR1 as RNSs (look at 1 Oct 21 as example) make clear the company is bound to declare changes in shareholding according to the French Code & its articles and is NOT under the transparency rules of the FCA. (copied below for ease). The last TR1 was filed back in March & by Blackrock. I wonder whether notifications are only made by UK institutions running on autopilot or whether all institutions such as those who may have been buying on the continent on Friday are obliged to declare interests in the same way. Does anyone know?

Text from RNS 1 Oct 21 under total voting rights
"The total number of ordinary shares in the Company is 70,626,248. This figure may be used by shareholders as the denominator for calculations by which they will determine if they are required to notify their interest in, or a change to their interest in, the Company pursuant to Article L. 223-7 of the French Commercial Code and the Company's Articles. The Company is not subject to the disclosure guidance and transparency rules made by the Financial Conduct Authority under Part VI of FSMA. "

The problem on both is knowing when to sell.

Suppose GM or someone else was responsible in some way for the entitlement the DHSC is reported(*) to feel for swapping exsig tests for later products launched by Primer Design (i.e. PROmate).

Reported (*) this BB discussions with referred to an "elusive" term in the contract allowing replacement of exsig with later products. The 28 Sep contract seems very clear in specifying tests are exsig. I can't find words to support a claim on future products & would appreciate help if anyone else has it or more information on it. Perhaps the reason for the impression is not documented.

BUT it seems from the dates that the relationship with the DHSC went pear shaped at the time PROmate launched.

The last DHSC regular payment under the contract was made on 29 Nov. It must have related to exsig delivered up to 15 Nov, ie the day before PROmate was launched on 16 Nov.

In the RNS 29 Jan - Full Year 2020 Trading Update discussions were said to be still active about extending the contract but with PROmate. "the Company continues to support the DHSC and the NHS following the deployment of its rapid PCR testing system, for the contract with the DHSC, announced on 29 September 2020, and the Company is in active discussions with the DHSC to extend this phase of the contract. Novacyt's PROmate™, a new product to improve the workflow efficiency when used with the Company's q16/q32 instruments successfully completed an in-service validation conducted by Test and Trace's Technology Validation Group (TVG), with the TVG concluding the performance of the PROmate™ aligns with the acceptable standard for point-of-care (rapid testing)"

Section 2 of the 28 Sept contract on its Term says
"This Contract shall commence on the Commencement Date and the Term of this Contract
shall expire on 28 January 2021, (“the Expiry Date”). The Term may be extended in
accordance with Clause 15.2 (Extension) of Schedule 2 provided that the duration of this
Contract shall be no longer than six (6) months in total

i.e. 29 Sep commencement, expiry was officially 28 Jan but with possibility of extension no longer than 6 months from commencement - i.e. 29 March. We know PROmate was supplied in Q1 separate from the contract in NCYT's view & is dragged into the dispute.

Nick Plummer, legal advisor, was appointed on 1 April. GM announced the existence of a dispute on 9 April with his intention to "retire" announced on 29 July.

no share buy back is being considered.

Poor James timid McCarthy is wondering what proportion of YE 2020 sales £120m they might, in the worst of all scenarios, that will probably never happen, have to pay back of reported 30 June balance of £77m (guess 50% of £120m). Incidentally, unassertive poor timid James also has a feeling that if they exerted contractual rights according to the contract they would have got 100% or all outstanding debts paid some time ago but that he doesn't want to mention that in case it upsets GM & whatever he plans post NCYT

good for y

come on, break out

No surprise there then, unless perhaps among his former fan club on this BB who shut down discussion of such possibilities until this week

It seemed odd to me too as did the departure of Nick Plummer on 15 Oct.

Nick was appointed 1 April so first. It wouldn't make sense to appoint him as an officer of the company last April, 4 months after the DHSC had stopped payments, if his role was intended only to be this duration. It would be interesting to know what changed. Was it a precautionary appointment with a resolution to be announced soon or has he left in frustration at a stalemate. Lets hope of an RNS on Monday not continuing vacuum.

In either case this situation shows value in having legal support.

Perhaps they don't view the cash balance as free to use as we imagine.

Would we spend cash if it was possible that it we might have to fork out some of it out for some unresolved reason or set that amount aside until all possibility was removed?

IIs would follow consistent leadership run for benefit of shareholders not the current vacuum.

Clr - just for you -

There's no point in asking, you'll get no reply
Oh just remember I don't decide
I got no reason it's all too much
You'll always find us out to lunch

Oh we're so pretty
Oh so pretty
we're vacant
Oh we're so pretty
Oh so pretty
A vacant

Don't ask us to attend 'cos we're not all there
Oh don't pretend 'cos I don't care
I don't believe illusions 'cos too much is real
So stop you're cheap comment 'cos we know what we feel

Oh we're so pretty
Oh so pretty
we're vacant
Oh we're so pretty
Oh so pretty
we're vacant ah
But now and we don't care

& good bye !

GM as Johnny

Amers, no.

Revenue is the sale of goods (tests) to third parties currently estimated as the £100m. The P&L account then knocks off costs associates with sales ( materials) to get to gross profit, then admin expensese to get to operating profit, finance costs come off then to get to Profit before tax then tax is charges to get to Profit after tax which can be distributed as dividend or retained as accumulated profit i.e. "reserves".

They paid £17 on account in two elements. If the previous year tax charge is less than was deducted to get to PafterT then there would be a credit (reduction of a charge) to add into the amount available to retain as reserves of distribute as div. The £10m paid on account of what they expected would be due for YE21 is just an up front payment & recoverable as a refund if it turns out not to be due. The P&L for YE 21 has not been done yet, when it is they will estimate tax due for YE & show that as a liability with the £10m payment on account knocked off or shown to the extent it is due back/recoverable.

Hope that makes sense & helps. Revenue won't be increased by 17m to an estimate of 117m

Quoting June cash figure doesn't bode well, if Sep was up, why not say what cash currently is?

£75k invested by three directors is strong. Good.