Member Info for Blue83

EVR was offerring sales easier that morning than all week up until they were switched off.

Great this is up, I dont know much about Poly but I would not assume business will carry on as usual not the west is beginning to look beyond the corporate veil to make life difficult for an aggressive enemy.

SNG holders need to know what conditions absolutely must not be treated with cortiosteriods because they would include the circumstances that INF could come into its own.

If you have time listen to what he says about the chance of a Russian invasion of Ukraine on 2 Feb. Its only 4 minutes but its surprising how clearly he understood the situation back then.

knightrider - I don't know anythng about POG but check what the government says. EVR is specifically mentioned in connection with possible supply of steel to build Russian tanks so it basically HAD to be suspended with specific urgency, rather than just out of limiting teh personal liberty & other interests of an oligarch (like those unrelated to war of a football club).

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1059927/Russia.pdf

This could be ages though. RA & co shouldn't be able to take the assets away, unless the Russian government sequestates them or something. It should continue trading but imagine coming out of it at the end having to prove whether they have not profited from conflict in Ukraine (& wherever next). It suggests, to me at least, there has to be a regime change in Russia to avoid being sent to the financial gulag. In the meantime, we'll continue to own shares, frozen on our accounts until who knows when.

Yes

BBR is right IMO

The net debt reduction from £1,077m to £879m of £198m is huge - hugely disappointing, that is, if businesses worth £700m have been offloaded.

But we have got to remember here is that we are dealing cretinous decisions :

The new system was deemed necessary to provide effective functionality across
the then six reporting divisions, supported by the central functions and
covering a multifaceted legal entity structure. In addition, the decision to
invest in new financial reporting systems was predicated on the fact that the
Group's existing ERP platform would not be supported by the relevant supplier
beyond 2025.

During 2021, the Group simplified its divisional and management organisation
structure with ongoing programmes to streamline the legal entity structure of
the Group. As a result, the Board concluded in late 2021 that continued
investment in a new system was not critical to support the finance
transformation. This coincided with confirmation from the supplier that the

Group's existing ERP platform will be supported until at least 2030.

These developments allowed management to reconsider the technical imperative to
move to a new ERP platform and to assess the extent to which the Group would be
better served by continuing to use its existing platform. It has become clear
that it is feasible to use the existing platform and, in doing so, avoid the
disruption, additional cost and risk of a transition to a new platform. The
simplified operating model makes possible a continuation of the systems already
available with more limited investment to achieve the required functionalities
that will deliver the prime objectives of standardisation, automation and
improved quality of information.

Therefore, the Board approved a revised approach at the end of 2021 to focus on
optimising the current financial reporting systems and not migrate to an
entirely new finance system. As such, an impairment of £53.5m was recognised at
31 December 2021 representing the book value of the elements of the new finance
system which are no longer expected to be utilised.

You couldn't tell how much this systems builder wrote off last year on the new system but they should have known that they wouldn't "need" it in the first place. The stuff about when support is due to run out 2025 (when they want to build it) & 2030 when the penny drops needs a pinnochio. Perhaps it was the idea the FD, Butcher, who left - do you remember he had a sell order in during presentation of results 2 years ago while Lewis was surprised the SP crashed from 160p to 30p.

Best take away IMO is that they have started saying transition is over so the gauntlet is now down for them to perform..

I was about to sell out of risk of the listing being suspended BUT then, I thought, if the dividend goes ahead (& why wouldn't it, distributions are dealth with under company law not government policy) then we'll receive the dividend with shares suspended until trading reopens (or whatever arrangement is made) by which time the Mcap will have had uncertainty over it lifted & be driven by NPV of expected cash flows.

Just read Tweet from Covid News Network [https://twitter.com/COVIDnewsfast/status/1499830309243609089]

"The entire planet needs to be paying attention to Hong Kong...with an unknown BA 2 variant emerging out of here"

Cases up from 8,700 new infections & 49 deaths 10 days ago 23/2/22 to 37,000 new infections 220 deaths yesterday [https://epidemic-stats.com/coronavirus/hong-kong] in a population of 7.5m

Wonder where it orginated.

Thanks for your responses. My contribution was only a guess at what Polygon are in it for now - how do their expectations work? Bound to be wrong, personally I hope for far more but don't have that pathway to add to a discussion titled honest realism just now.

Polygon'd base cost was c £146m (64+8+74) & they sell on at c£300:
*bought 20% or 40m shares at 160p = £64m (could be low by what 20p so add another £8m)
*they have added now & keep going up to 9% or 18m shares at a cost of £8m which is 44p so c£4m too much in error
* and then they offer us all 52p to by the remaining 71% or 142m shares cost £74m - may not get away with it, we hope but what would we do it the market only values the business at 20-26p?
I put it as: "Lets say Polygon bought 20% at 160p + 9% at 20p + 71% at 52p = their cost would be (64+ 8+ 74) = c 146m so they would make 154m on their sale at 156p"

What does anyone else think Polygon's strategy is? What is in it for them? Hopefully we all stand to get 100p -150p but how & why?

Honest realism - not sure its realism, lets call this honest guesswork about prospects & what Polygon's motivations.

Guess No 1 is that Polygon will issue a TR1 > 25% on their way to 29%, an offer will be made for teh company. Not sure whether it will wait for ACTIV reactivation/termination decision, a new virus variant to emerge, or SPRINTER detail - so I'm not guessing about timing yet.

Polygon, or whoever they may be in tandem with, see value in the business in spite of SPRINTER's outcome. So how do they get it? Perhaps the question would be better phrased as "how will we PI's lose out"?

I'd guess at 29% Polygon will offer will say 39p - 52p (being Mcap of 75m - 100m) representing 13p for 25m held in cash & the balance as token value of research to date (ie not nothing for know how but nothing close to value if how how was brought through trials).

IMO the prize now is for a big pharma to add a range of treatments worth about £800m and at 52p or 100m there would be room for Polygon to treble buy out price to (156p or 300m) & a pharma double theirs. Lets say Polygon bought 20% at 160p + 9% at 20p + 71% at 52p = their cost would be (64+ 8+ 74) = c 146m so they would make 154m on their sale at 156p

The covid opportunity before news was worth 360m at 180p, successful might it have doubled? to 360p & into production to 500p or £1bn + COPD and others.

V disappointed SPRINTER didn't save us from scraping the barrel like this, you can imagine Polygon might have run a similar model for that scenarios with more gain for all involved but them still prevailing over us PIs

343 deaths reported yesterday in UK, 1,765 in US persumably lots Omicron & who knows what else.

I agree with points made about availability when paused to test on next variant if/when one emerges.

still standing but paused, phew!

I sold out because leaks & scams had happened on successive occassions in favour of insiders.

I would be bothered about an investigation into what happened if I still held because without it the company has potential run scams & fraud at expense of PIs at any point in time.

Yes, it is a shame. His rate of selling seems to have slowed with the general outflow from the sector/growth stocks adding to weakness.

I agree. Sir Stephen & co have spent years developing this treatment. They need to say why spending that effort and money was prefereable to relying on cortiosteriods that became the standard care. If there a significant advantage in SNG without SOC against SOC (with or without placebo)?

I wonder whether there will be any health jurisdictions covered in Sprinter where steriods are not given as SOC to answer the question.

It does seem the test was designed with SNG neutralised if they knew about steriods in SOC.

Can you imagine Sir Stephen et al who have spent the later parts of their careers & finest science developing this treatment receiving the news that it is no better than the steroid alternatives.

I wonder if it has taken this long to get this far because the health authorities had steriods prioritised as standard care

The market capitalisation (MCap) of NCYT is currently say 1.95p per share x 71m shares in issue = £140m

The mcap represents the value the market places on NCYT encompassing a realisation value of everything it currently owns + the net present value expected from future cash flows.

The salient asset is its cash, I forget exactly the figure - call it £100m + realisable value from assets like trade debts & say DHSC (net debt due x chance of outcome scaled down for plava & risk so probably = not much)

Expected future cash flows from business might be estimated as essentially 2022 YE revenue £50m at 70% GP less admin & R&D running currently at say £30pa = £5m PLUS potential for growth discounted for risk and time value of money (in effect adding about 40m in Mcap or 5m pa in perpetuity less risk at discounted at 12.5%)

Any increase in revenue generates 70% profit so the business is rather explosive in terms of potential growth, it also has some amazing intellectual property in tests and kit plus it could easily with just a little direction manage the £30m admin & R&D cost to free up more profit.

Projections back in Oct 2020 had the post covid business running at profit of £25m pa which led to a share valuation of 1433p = £1bn Mcap with about £639m derived from the expanding capability from 2025 onwards. The conversion during 2021 & 2022 was critical to the price so the 2021 underperformance by the BoD has been particularly costly.

We would have to hope that they can catch up on what they ought to have been doing by adding £5 - £15m to revenue (to get to 250p - 400p) or the value to Biosynex is back in the old ball park working on a NCYT base profit of £25m pa with great growth prospects. Does everyone get how destructive the timing of a year of apparent distraction was?

Biosynex has 10.3m shares in issue values at SP 17.2 so Mcap = euro 177m or £147m of which 31m euro £25m (plus a recent loan? 100m = £83min) cash so business value contributes £120m to its Mcap with a profit of 96m euro or £80m estimated YE 21 according to yahoo finance.