Member Info for Blue83

Agree RNS is good news especially for adding to inertia to business as usual.

It is shameful for the fate of tests approved under temporary protocol of the CTDA to be in suspense in 6 working days time.

Just how do they expect customers and suppliers to cope?

On the other hand, I hope this disgraceful regulatory performance has some positive for NCYT if it is not resolved in the next week such as a boost for PROmate 2g as an alternative (if that is possible).

I am hoping for another low key RNS on extension of the Novacyt's PROmate® COVID-19 1G Real-Time PCR test soon. It would only be decent for CTDA to do have made progress on the other 7 tests too but having them blocked is a the underlying purpose of the CTDA pantomime.

its hopeful either way IMO, an arrangement like this might be what that DA meant when he said distribution was in his DNA. It would be a move on from organic growth as a strategy that seemed to contrain NCYT over the past year and would add stability to their share register - good moves. I would be pleased if Biosynex have wider ambitions as few management can be more deserving of some pressure & threat of takeover than this lot after the past year.

I read the RNS as ODX practically saying the government has given such business to Chinese companies and one is buying the operation that the UK government betrayed for next to nothing (£1m) out of what they made from the UK government.

The long established once reputable British diagnostics companies have been the casualties that Private Eye and the Good Law Project are prepared to throw under the bus trying to expose the government's preference for substandard VIP lane PPE supplies. The double standards applied in favour of Chinese diagnostics is a story in itself they overlook while casting blame over victims like Abingdon, the RTC and ODX.

yes 3% up this RNS after a 0.5% down reported last week. wonder what their strategy was

12m was the delay to the next decision, the last one was pretty much in the bag, so is the next one, except it might not be & reading the annual resulst before your next post you might find the same peculiar outcome. that was the piont of the post, could the FDA decision making process be fixed by lobbying of existing technology? if you don't want to consider it because you have read teh latest annual report and are relying on it like the one before it good luck, wish you the best in all sincerity.

yes, i am, so what? what's new? its not just this share - what is your point?

Speculation on the thread removed - I enjoy poidster's posts & noticed before that threads disappear that he has contributed to. Could be the subject matter, he is always so helpful IMO.

Thanks Hillseeker for your post again & thanks B2 for the link to the testing spreadhseet.

I had a look at what it records. It seems to support my guess that the week commencing 16 Nov was a turning point but I might be wrong that the PROmate launch announced that day was the trigger

I looked through the spreadsheet of test results.

8 labs tested ex sig results against a comparator that 2 of them specify as Panther hologic recording 515 samples in all with 33 results removed from a report covering 482 tests. I wonder whether there is anything to glean from what the testing, its timing and the information recorded so I've summarised my reading of it & especially what they give up on recording:

Lab 1 testing between 5th - 11th Nov
21 samples tested 2 discrepencies bwtn ex sig & Panther found which seem to be excluded in total reported of 19.
I'm guessing the test is of accuracy as the discrepencies seem disregarded as though the test method had unreliability

Lab 2 tested 50 samples between 4th-6th November. No discrepencies, best quality of data recording of all Labs.
Lab 3 tested 40 samples 4-6th November 8 discrepencies (including additions error in spreadsheet) then 4 more samples 17 Nov. This lab didn't have time to redo or avoid discrepencies or review spreadsheet & carrying out an extra 4 samples on 17 Nov is interesting.
Lab 4 tested 61 samples 9-11th Nov with 9 discrepencies where they did not enter a value for ex sig - i.e. they had time to test teh comparators but not ex sig, the object of the exercise.
Lab 5 tested 78 samples. They did 30 samples between 9th-11th November with one discrepency that they noted a mistake with the comparator that they wanted to repeat against an "Anatolia assay". Then they did 48 more samples 17-18 Nov with one discrepency. Good well run lab, looks like they were asked to extend the test.
Lab 6 tested 166 samples btwn 11-17 Nov with 11 discrepencies left out so reported 155 results out of which 132 had not recorded values ex sig (only positive or negative final outcome)! The test they recordedwas of values of RNAP control (whatever that is) against a comparator assay of inhibition except where that was left blank in 45 samples. Seems like going through motions on an obligation at pace and disinterest.
Lab 7 45 samples tests on 13 Nov with no discrepencies and no value scores for ex sig not recorded on 30 samples.
Lab 8 50 samples, one discrepency. 36 tests carried out 13-17th Nov just on a results summary basis with 14 tests added 26th Nov.

I agree that it is hard to see what announcement might revive the SP.

IMO the trading update concerned suspicions that NCYT was not been led with commerciality foremost in mind beyond the bonanza prospect with the DHSC that turned sour. GM floundered & spent the key months encouraging more & more tests to be developed while he was dropping out to end up non exec at Love Hemp .

DA has to convince a world leading research function to keep their high end skills motivated while developing an entirely different set of skills & culture along side them - market, distribute, service, produce in volume and monitor cost. The Trading update RNS signals the extent of refocus and weakness in commercial management. On the other hand DA expresses aspiration to appeal to the scientists as "global first responder" with an international scientific advisory board to assist with market surveillance and direction of future innovation & retain "agility to deliver critical product"

DA says marketing is in his "DNA". Perhaps we can hope for impact in widening distribution channels with imagination in structures of relationships, incentives, measureable targets & an interest in communicating progress.

The managment accounting function has been weak and uninfluential IMO where DA needs it to be strong now. I would have considered replacing the Finance Director, James McCarthy. He is a nice guy & one of us after he put £80k in of his own money at 800p on the other hand he supported GM without ocking the boat as the boat headed for the rocks. Perhaps DA sees disruption in a change & benefit in his interpersonal people skills in moving this research originated culture to commerciality.

Whatever a process for managment accounts, business based approval for spend, targetting & controls of sales functions and involvement in acquisitions or JVs needs to be delivered. Personally I would have guessed that a conventional commercially driven number controller type, perhaps in the mold of our very own Shearclass or the other experienced contributors here, would have a better chance of success.

I hope for a series of small announcements between now and April that indicate building towards a predicatble value creating organisation accountable to its shareholders & away from a brilliant research organisation that got lucky with a contract.

29.9% threshold for formal offer

The RNS today is a step in the right direction & £3.54 seems a fair bench price.
Lets hope the BoD are better aligned & motivated to build sustainable mcap.

My initial view was that you are right but I'm 50:50 now.

The publically available version of the contract with DHSC is very specific about the tests being ex sig and makes no mention of PROmate. NCYT presumably also keep sample assays systematically to prove quality of what was delivered.

This does not explain why NCYT did not get on with the dispute resolution process they agreed in order for NCYT to provide exsig. Since they haven't, I wonder whether there is a side agreement or some other sub contract that ought to have been made public as price sensitive information but was not such as to create the belief (& legal grounds?) in DHSC that they could swap out exsig for PROmate.

Freedom of Information requests show the DHSC made a payment in 24 February 21 for £44,271,360 along with 4 other amounts coming to £3.6m. There hadn't been a payment before that since 29 Nov and none after 24 feb so it looks like settlement for something although perhaps it is a matter of dispute bwt both sides what it settled.

It would seem from information available & what the company represents to us to be payment against exsig delivered but we don't know what the DHSC may believe it was for.

We do also know GM invested £497k in his 60,875 shares and McCarthy £89k in 10,0000 on 12 November shortly ahead of the R&D update announcing PROmate launch on 16th Nov. It is a fair presumption that they thought it was a winner, however the dispute began from the day PROmate was launched with only two payment runs thereafter - the payment on 29 Nov for exsig delivered up to 15 Nov & the £44m in Feb.

I'm 50% against because the solicitor recruited after the dispute as made public left in October so perhaps it is a mess.

The two who resigned in DX where non execs asked to carry out the inquiry (because they were non execs & separate from whatever went on). They resigned because they could get access to or provide the information that GT requested to arrive at their conclusion. The executive board, CEO & CFO, who have run the day to day operation could provide all information they have. It seems to me the non execs went when they wouldn't hand it over. It might also be that the issue & GT asked for some information to be produced that was not already in the books and records so some reconstruction or additional work was necessary to get it. It might be that the Executive did not provide that information.

The executive in their wisdom claim it is governance related and does not have impact of financial performance but GT can't be so sure. There is a risk of ommission as we know DX has an expanding branch structure. What controls did they have over a branch manager skimming business or running separate books from the DX. business accounts?

Knowing what system was in place in each branch would help, was it the same one, was there a central debtors ledger & bank account, how was performance reported, what checks were done btwn branches & do they have an internal audit function?!

Interesting - non execs given the job of leading the inquiry and the auditors resign. They seem to be in agreement with reputations to maintain! I wonder what the CFO's position is? David Mulligan qualified as a chartered accountant with Ernst & Young in 1995.

Grant Thornton resigned over concerns over: (i) actual or potential breaches of law and/or regulations by the Company and/or by an entity in the DX (Group) Plc group and/or by employees; (ii) the performance of the investigation and subsequent corporate governance inquiry referred to by the Company in its announcement on 25 November 2021, and action in response to the evidence generated by that investigation and inquiry; (iii) the provision of inaccurate information, which in Grant Thornton's view did not give a full picture of the scale and seriousness of the facts referred to in (i) and (ii) above; and concerns over insufficient access to relevant information and documents, in relation to the matters being investigated by the Company.

Nice post Hillseeker, enjoyed reading it & mainly concurred, thanks

It was daft for the BB to censor discussion rampers didn't like.

The argument that only positive comments should be posted if you are invested here so a questioning comment shows you are a shorter or trader is bound to end in tears Larry, New Forms of Research, Mavis, Karen & others.

Yes a dispute with the DHSC a) exist & then b) might not be settled easy & amicably, the CEO might be selling plebs down the river for as much benefit as he can get, he might not retire when he is pretending to want to aged 53, the BoD may be complacent and ineffective, the FD may be too gentle to have a grip on commerciality of decisions, the whole lot may not believe the plans they feed us plebs and share a slow attitude to acquisitions & growth etc. Its worth having someone air these persectives in contrast to teh reasons for hope.

Many of us have been like ostriches with heads in the sand and far too attached to Nova but not all.

Latest view is c 50m revenue business with 70% gross profit and a cost base running at c30m. It could be good & growing or moribund.

What would you want to observe happening? Market obviously doesn't have high hopes, they are in line with the lacklustre performance DA releaved in the trading update.

An R&D update proud of effort on tests that are uncommercial would imply the company is headed deeper down it's rabbit hole, on the other hand, an indication of new or different distribution channels would be heading towards the light. There should be hints of direction in the next quarter, consider them for the EBITDA & cash they'll generate.

Would the SP jump if some more the BoD left? There has got to be a plus in cost savings & best to start at the top IMO. GM would do NCYT well to get his mellowest mates round to love hemp for a love in, perhaps they'd be too laid back for the scene there though.

The GoodLaw report referred to many debacles in PPE procurement where "there was no contract dispute". I.e. the goods were supplied as contracted but the VIP lane had contracted to buy goods of an inappropriate standard. They were an inappropriate use of public money due to failure in the DHSC over standards for procurement

It is different from the situation with NCYT is an much as there is an argument over the fulfliment of the terms of the contract it seems.

Procurement failure seems like crime to me, I don't see why the DHSC can't publish an explanation of how & who was responsible for not knowing the criteria relevant to the PPE they bought.

I also read a popular pundit who promoted POLX tweet against another share that he had made money on POLX. His view at the time was to big up the result date as though it had a good chance without mentioning he hadn't sold down. Perhaps they had an inkling to cover both bases while ramping hard. There is obviously a game for all to play on round two when it comes.

& Polarean is effectively a US company that listed on AIM but you get my point. I think it was in Randy Barron's interview on RENX back in October that he cited another example where from what he said larger existing competitors had been able to lobby the FDA to reject a new technology. He had invested in it & lost out but said something like "the strong do what they can" as though it was normal. That's why I wonder. Hope not, the directors couldn't be more invested in this. How bad would it be if this were held up corruptly. GLA

As you say the FDA doesn't seem free from politics.
No one seemed to expect the outcome of POLX's application in October.
Could existing technology providers lobby the FDA against POLX?

Kamakiriad - it would be really very sensible for money to have been used to acquire a smaller company particularly one that might have provided a distribution channel in a new PCR territory such as EKF's acquisition RNS'd by them 28 sept - headline copied below. They just didn't have the gumption. GM opted to retire instead & much of the year seems to have been taken up with that while supposedly looking passively for businesses that "fitted" (i.e. less pain & less gain) & doing more of what they were comfortable with such as developing a LFT that they said, without embarrassment, could not be sold against free LFTs.

I take it that DA wants to get back to the job that should have been going on in the para from his RNS below and is considering all effective vehicles to enhance distribution not only acquisition. The market IMO is deducting credit at the moment for ineffectiveness of their efforts to date and the prospect of a indirect costs running at c30m to generate revenue c50- 60m at 70%. Its a wake up call, that this needs management focus.

"Another key pillar of Novacyt's strategic development to date has been geographic expansion, with a focus on building direct sales, marketing, and distribution channels. This focus remains, with the Company now leveraging adjacent markets across Europe with CE marked products, and obtaining targeted registrations to enable sales in additional territories. Beyond its key target markets, the Company will also continue to strengthen and work with its international distributor network to support growth and ensure enhanced global reach for its IVD, RUO and instrumentation portfolios.

It is a shame that they didn't have a Chris Mills pushing them to do this:
"EKF Diagnostics Holdings plc (AIM: EKF), the?AIM-listed point-of-care business, announces that it has agreed to acquire, pursuant to the terms of a securities purchase agreement dated 27 September 2021 ("SPA"), the entire issued capital of Advanced Diagnostic Laboratory LLC ("ADL Health"), a Texas based PCR-focused testing laboratory certified under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments ("CLIA") for high complexity testing, for an initial consideration payment of $10 million payable in shares on completion, with further performance-based consideration payable over the following three years as detailed below (the "Acquisition").

ADL Health's CLIA-certified laboratory covers the fields of clinical, forensic and microbiological tests. The business has ISO 15189 Medical Laboratory accreditation giving it recognition in 44 countries and reflecting ADL Health's commitment to high standards. Using its expertise in Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) testing, ADL Health also provides COVID testing needs for dozens of Fortune 500 companies and government agencies. In addition, ADL Health is expanding its range of testing capabilities across a broader suite of healthcare applications. Under EKF's ownership, further investment is anticipated