Member Info for Blue83

It was one step worse. Link were appointed to administrate the wind up of Woodford's holdings. They had the independence of having being administrator for Woodford before the wind up & indeed of him being a long term shareholder of their former owner. Link offloaded Woodford's bio pharma holdings in a group to an LA based fund manager called Acacia & they out what they had bought in the deal on some basis including SNG in the weeks before their P2 results. I presume they sold quoted stocks first as they received some unquoted investments that were behind woodford's liquidity & valuation issues (with Link also being valuer) but you'd have thought Acacia would have waited for P2 results, wouldn't you? Acacia might have "core & non core" decisions to make but covid therapy trial about to complete in world pandemic sounds like a sensible exception when it wasn't clear it would take the time it has to progress as it has.

Really, this BoD deserves a hostile takeover.

A new owner could have cash to fund their consideration, assert what contractual rights there may be with the DHSC through the Courts & point the business towards greater commercialism. I mean what "business" develops a LFTs for home use while telling shareholders, as we were heard 18 Aug, that there is no market for LFTs while the govt gives them out free. Duhh.. then, why don't you develop something that does have a market & create some shareholder value or is that not cricket?!!

The thing is Oliveira may have stopped for now & be a distressed seller as Sang says but he can start selling again like he did after his previous 1% sell RNSd 19 Aug.

I should say I hope GM & NCYT would be far fairer on their supply chain than the DHSC has been with NCYT as the DHSC has been abysmal. There seem to have wilfully breached all conventions in procurement from small businesses like a bunch of incompetent thugs.

We can not say whether invoices will not be paid for inventory not delivered without knowing the contract & relationships involved. NCYT may have clauses guaranteeing purchase of a minimum order from their supplier like they had to supply the DHSC. That would make sense back to back until it came to the DHSC suspending normal business practice v NCYT. IMO NCYT under GM would be far fairer on their supply chain than the DHSC has been with them. Perhaps they have termination clauses etc to honour too.

I wonder whether there is be a miraculous resolution or if this will be as brutal as the DHSC can make it. They've fought the suppliers of unusable PPE & Abingdon's seemingly as the bully boy remedy for incompetent procurement like one of those, "how wrong can it get?" situations. Let's hope we won't find out.

Porky - With writing off £ 38m CAB stands in H1 we stand at £ 77.2 Cash at Bank to end of H1.

We can not tell how much pf the £38m has been paid out of cash vs how much has been set aside as an accrual (i.e. not yet paid) on the information given. It could be NCYT have agreed with their supply chain to defer settlement (for instance until DHSC settles with NCYT) OR it could be NCYT & GM settled in cash & don't carry accruals - something to check when more info is available.

Urraca is right.

They've taken the hit so it can't get any worse, other than if the outcome they feel are remote were to occur.

There is something to be said for NCYT providing £28m to wind up the supply contracts it made sure were in place at the request of the DHSC.

Does it seem to anyone else that NCYT has actually stood up publicly for a change by drawing attention to the DHSC's request to NCYT that they secure these supplies in place?

Johnnyk - this RNS deals with accounting treatment for H1, effectively blanking out the DHSC sales in Feb (the recognise them in the accounts but immediately provide in full against them even though their legal opinion is that they are enforceable). You are right that the treatment in YE 20 for the £129m is different: they have been recognised as income and NOT provided (as they believe they have strong ground to enforce them) but they have been required to draw attention to the possible (but NOT probable) eventuality of having to replace supply. This shows that they judge that eventuality among others is the leading possibility.

i.e. H1 accounts are more prepared with greater caution than the YE. YE20 would need to be restated with a prior year adjustment if the £129 (& other DHSC income) had to be repaid which NO one thinks would happen.

It is as people have said here an attempt to keep YE21 ready for upside only when what they think is most probable occurs.

The provision of £28m for inventory (& I presume earmarked supply from NCYT suppliers & contract termination clauses) is normal business practice in contrast to the DHSC treatment of its supplier NCYT.

The Good Law Revenue, MPs & all ought to expose the DHSC's use of devastating power against small, specialist home suppliers . It seems to have been disgusting & the boffins running NCYT tragically placed to have dealt with their shareholders fairly as it unfolded. I'm not surprised GM is off, it is a great shame & hope he has a genuinely restful retirement & this hasn't been all a rouse.

France hasn't moved much, if I'm looking in the right place 4.015 Euros = 340p ish

Looks as though it's at $1 a share or $8 per ADS

Kitzie, it'd be in everyone's interest including your own, to accept discussion beyond the narrow focus of ramping NCYT to learn more about the markets they are in and how they stand. NCYT may have handicapped itself with singularly poor SH communication, you & the team closing down discussion on BBs just doesn't help PIs or the shortcomings of NCYT.

I listened again yesterday to the 18 Aug Q&A response on LFT. Their answer started by pointing out the government is giving out free LFTs. Can you imagine, this bunch of commercial cretins developed their own LFT over the months since the government have given away LFTs for the sake of having their own test (probably to match their other range of LFTs) & they go on about the benefit of home use WITHOUT a business case & James McCarthy isn't strong enough to fight the corner.

GM has driven a technological achievement on LFT like Don Quixote , so any range of commercial outcome might have come from gene sequencing, good or poor, & not only would we not know but the probably wouldn't either. Its tragic, don't shut conversation down however much you think not speaking ill builds the SP, it is just bamboozling your.

Rio

A company is owned by shareholders.
To know what slice of the company 1 share is worth check the number of shares in issue. In this case 52m so 1/52,000,000
The RNS issues another 1m so 1 share is worth a little less or 1/53,000,0000 which is called "dilution" & as BB says it is insignificant being 1.9 of 1%.
The Mcap is an important number being SP x Shares in Issue so today 53m x 36p = £19,080,000 i.e 19m
If the market has news good or bad the SP changes by the value ascribed to it - say an offer was received to sell a patent for £52m, with 52m shares in issue you might expect the SP to increase by £1 less whatever was baked into the existing share price in the hope of that happening.

Very approximately in theory an analyst might say the patent was worth £52m but the chance of it being sold was 10% so 10p might be in the existing price of 36p for it.

See fundamentals
Shares in Issue 52m
Market Cap. £19m
Market Size 7,500
PE Ratio 1.017
Earnings 36.38
Dividend 0.00
Yield 0.00%

It is important to think about the company is worth so you can tell what is a good price to sell at (not that I ever can)

GL

I wonder if we'll ever find out that the Chinese bought their way in on a massive scale or there was something else skewing procurement decisions away from UK producers. Can their tests really be so significantly a better buy?

Y, looks like insider have been tipped off again.

I sold 70% of my holding last week because governance has been so crooked in the past & the signs including BMD were there

The problem is that slack governance has allowed Brokerman Dan to be more reliable that official announcements of the BoD, notably over the placing. If he says anything for whatever ulterior motives he may have, it is sensible to wonder whether inside information has been leaked again. It is a great shame that as the prospect approaches key milestones there is all the more reason to be concerned that inside information will be leveraged for insiders and their friends against interests of LTHs.

What a f****g mess.

I have other opportunities elsewhere & reduced my exposure to the risk of fraud on investors again here today.

Its leaky right enough, they can spook the market because the BoD have been misleading before, hard to know if they are doing it because it is good news or bad.

You can admit they needed the funding for development though, can't you? They had a core objective & have funding now.

I don't want to get into a tangle, I enjoy your contributions, thanks & good wkend

KR

I get y, mate. understand

My criteria aren't as science based as yours. Just saying it is useful to see how bagholding happens particularly where there is a credible science/business case. Why exactly has the business listed & what does it seek? What are there motivations in decisions say like registration in Bermuda. Was it a) accidental, b) to improve science c) for better returns to PIs or d) for personal tax position of directors? lol

Btw just seen AVCT making a move. That is another case in point - do they have the best LFT ever not quite commercialised yet or have they spotted an opportunity to support other objectives on a very ramp-able but peripheral story that might never commercialise as indicated. Humm? If they could see benefit in their core tech why wouldn't they get a placing out of it

KR

y, fine, y know what i mean though. Its like watching old Trevor on BRH, Trev's selling = sell quick he must be up to something, Trev's done a placing to himself with some of teh money he made = buy quick its going back up. GL to y & thanks for your points