Member Info for bluetigeruk

No consolidation // revese share split or share splits either - its the same share class - albeit with a few more shares issued.

So yes its now worth ~ £80k

The upside is if you managed to spot GGP in 2014 your portfolio must look pretty strong in places.

Thanks Blue

Maybe you should apply to make a market in GGP - you can then spend all your day snipping 0.25p from trades by offering live quotes into the market. Actually it gets quite boring after a while !!

Thanks Blue

Hi CB - market language

When i worked as a dealer a few years back - the SPREAD is the bid/ask difference from a specific MM say 20 to 1.5 but the TOUCH is the best bid/ask across the market - say 20.5 to 1

So the MM is rule bound to offer price and size against their published quote - say 20 bid in 10,000 shares - but its very unusual for one MM to be best bid and offer price - someone is selling and someone is buying - so thats how it works.

Although i was a phone dealer and we did not use virtual MM / matched trades automatically.

I am old!

Thanks Blue

OK maybe i have read the Twitter wrongly - is this a Newmont sample or is it done by Panther - and if it is by Newmont what are they doing on the Panther licence? Big Farm In maybe?? Panther would have to RNS it if it was their work surely. Can someone explain in simple terms for me - i dont fully understand this currently - thanks in advance. Blue

Unfortunately its 25k away from the Panther Licence and is owned by Newmont. Nothing wrong with a bit of optimistic nearology though.

David has gone a bit quiet on listing on a different exchange.

I would guess its an announcement for the Final year results then probably a vote at AGM to do this.

So sometime in January for announcement then I dont know how long it takes to organise brokers etc to switcheroo.

Any better insight than these vague words?

Thanks Blue

£1.12p

Hi Phil

yes you are correct here - i think in the design they would also want to add one of the General Health Questionnaires to understand the health / mental wellbeing of people with chronic conditions, and then ask the physical response type questions - but its a hard area to measure scientifically - i did some research using a thing called test / retest - basically you ask the same person the same questions twice - you would think you get the same answers - you dont. Hence the difficulty of proving within statistical findings differences from placebo in the P2 and almost certainly the P3 studies.

Thats the point i keep trying to make here on the board - its not a simple measure or experiment to separate effect from placebo when you have human psychological interpretation layered into the study - and it works both ways - also just being in a medical study almost certainly creates a placebo effect across all participants - so both placebo and treatment may give unconscious positive bias just by knowing they may be receiving a treatment.

Its interesting.

Thanks Blue

PHIL & WonderGoals

Maybe Gastro drugs dont work very well then if they cant be separated from placebo.

Its a tough environment an acid bath full of competing bacteria that are very well established to get a therapy or drug into and measure against. Especially as the recipients are long term suffering with their conditions and will probably unconsciously wish their IBS improves.

I was trying to make this point before - the INSIGNIFICANCE of the results is important as I believe in my limited knowledge that without proper significance a treatment or therapy cant be claimed as effective if it does not get some clear separation between it and the placebo.

Thats why the results were poor - and i think it puts some real questions into any Phase 3 design - and will definitely add to costs.

Thanks Blue

Its not misinformation - its literally written into their RNS ... see below ... "statistically non-significant overall response rates - compared to placebo"

It means taking a sugar pill made almost no difference than the treatment.

Only when they added the two trials together did the response just get over the significance line - probably due to a fall in standard error coefficient - but they are not great results - i just want people who rea the board to understand this point.

Great results would have been Statistically Significant - meaning the difference between placebo and treatment was not possibly just down to random variation in the humans taking part in the trial.

· In IBS-C patients (n=76) a numerically superior but statistically non-significant overall response rates of 25% compared to 17.1% for placebo (n=82) (p=0.152), representing an RR of 1.46 (95% confidence interval: 0.791, 2.711); and

· In IBS-D patients (n=94) a numerically superior but statistically non-significant overall response rate of 23.4% compared to 17.8% for placebo (n=101) (p=0.216), representing an RR of 1.31 (95% confidence interval: 0.753, 2.290).

The results were not decent - please tell the truth - they were poor. Neither the C or D trials could offer results any better (statistically at the 95% confidence rate) than the placebo. There may be some effect - which can be seen when combining both trials into one data set - but even then its really marginal, and really truthfully could be the placebo effect of taking part in a medical trial - - optimism bias effects.

I took a loss today as well, but don't paint the RNS as anything but poor.

The question is if this is the effect in IBS is there a similar weak or none effect in other areas?

Thanks Blue

LUKE so my reading is this.

C patients gave INSIGNIFICANT results
D patiets gave INSIGNIFICANT results

Combining C&D to increase the population and reduce something called Standard Error - then the results just trickled over the line - being a difference of 7 in 100 +ve reactions over placebo - thats very marginal in my opinion and the results only appear when combining both data sets into one.

I am happy to be wrong and hope you get a winner here.

Thanks Blue

· In the IBS-C/D combined group (n=170), a statistically significant overall response rate of 24.1% compared to 17.5% for placebo (n=183) (p=0.0625), representing an RR of 1.38 (95% confidence interval: 0.913, 2.083);

· In IBS-C patients (n=76) a numerically superior but statistically non-significant overall response rates of 25% compared to 17.1% for placebo (n=82) (p=0.152), representing an RR of 1.46 (95% confidence interval: 0.791, 2.711); and

· In IBS-D patients (n=94) a numerically superior but statistically non-significant overall response rate of 23.4% compared to 17.8% for placebo (n=101) (p=0.216), representing an RR of 1.31 (95% confidence interval: 0.753, 2.290).

LUKE - theirs opinions do have more information than mine i agree - and no i am not trying to pull down the share price with one lonely comment on a bulletin board - just putting my opinion on it - i know it doesn't align with yours but insignificant results wont get any approval - that i do know - i have a masters degree in quantitative research methods from Surrey - so i dont understand the molecular biology but i do understand the statistical interpretation of results.

Thanks Blue

Terrible results - statistically INSIGNIFICANT means there is no difference between placebo and the treatment - they wont get any regulatory approval for such a treatment as proposed and so its difficult to even see how this moves into Phase 3 trials without Phase 2 showing positive results.

I lost a few 000s and sold this AM having jumped in at the 130p zone so not too much damage.

Its a shame - its really pours a bucket of cold water on their hypothesis.

Good Luck - Blue

Price Off

Guys if you are going to have a 'price off' you need to add in RISK.

So take your maximum value and then multiply by 0.6 or 0.7 for risk.

So yes take 50p but add risk as a multiplier, please.

Thanks.

Yes lets say NHS negotiated hard due to the size of the contract so Gross Margin is 30%

Part 1 of the contract is EBITDA £75m / 71 NOSH = ~ £0.25 p into this ears EPS to Dec 31st and say £0.75 into next.

If Part 2 is then called probably + £0.50 into next year and £0.50 into year after.

That's getting to be quite visible cashflow / earnings and so a rerating must be due - although the market is still sceptical that revenues in the CV-19 space will remain.

Also I have said this before - some evidence of real market entry into USA will make a huge difference too, and may point towards a NASDAQ listing in 18 months ish.

Thanks.

Yes JAMBO - read about Return On Capital Employed.

Thanks

... increase to 15 times not 5

I have a spreadsheet which calculated as below. So really its just this year for £22.50 - and then revenue growth to £600m ish ... and a PE increase to 5 x will do it.

Jan - June TO £63m and EBITDA £41m (margin 65%)
July - Dec TO £40m x 6 = £240m (margin 50%) gives EBITDA £120m

PTP = £41m + £120m ~ £160m / NOSH = 71m = EPS £2.25 at 10x PE (Aim + Risk) = £22.50 per share

One more point - the RNS was great but the Trading Statement shows that they are way behind in the US - which needs absolute focus to get maximum shareholder value. If they can produce UK type sales in the US ver the next 12 months then list on NASDAQ as they are global with US Earnings then they are in a different league and you can then see much greater valuation multiples. Look at TESLA no margins - static sales and a PE ratio in the hundreds.

US Investment Funds dont seem to be able to value businesses correctly in my opinion - which is good if you are receiving the benefit.

Thanks

Novacyt Potential Share Price:

Hi - i posted this months ago but you can probably find it somewhere if you search:

My low share price target is £22.50 a share - Mid is £45 and High is £76 - so yes it can certainly go past £10.

This requires the market to value to business at a PE of at least 10x and then for sales to continue to increase with a more or less stable GM of 50%.

Thanks.