The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
I'm surprised no one else has mentioned "unaudited" before you. It was the first thing I noticed in the RNS title. As I understood it, the delays have been due to the auditors and yet the results are still unaudited. Does this mean whatever the issue was still hasn't been resolved?
"... some of whom had unfortunately over-committed financially, based partially on the optimistic moves of the company to invest in new personnel and enlarged co. structure"
It was in the public domain that they would be doing this *prior* to results so that they would be in a good position to capitalise on them if positive. The problem was that a lot of people on here saw the new hires, ignored or forgot what was already known, and assumed that the company must have seen good results.
"Apply pressure" to do what exactly? What are people expecting? If they have significant new information it will have to come out in an RNS. Otherwise, you aren't going to hear anything from them that wasn't implicit in last Monday's.
I have seen people say that they had sight of the results but I don't know if there is evidence of this. I thought that the analysis was all outsourced. It's not clear what starting to put all the wheels in motion gained anyone if they did already know the results. Pretty clear also that, contrary to what many were saying, Polygon didn't have any more insight than the average person on here.
I'm in a similar position to you BTW. Small percentage so my losses are contained, but it's still enough to be very painful. I also was tempted to put more in but never lost sight of the fact that this was a lot riskier than many on here were willing to accept. I got criticised for pointing that out on a couple of occasions. I take absolutely no satisfaction in being proven to be correct. I would much rather have had the money.
"More nonsense from you…it might be a long way off, but it’s entirely possible."
mattw, I think hsd was, like me, questioning the pre-readout valuation that has been mentioned. I think we can all see that potentially the sky is the limit *after* good P3 results.
Matml, What was confusing me is that I understood this to be a new note that has just come out. It's one thing being wrong but this seems not to bear any relation to where we know we are at the moment. Thinking about it, maybe I am missing the point. Is it just that they are saying what they think the valuation *ought* to be in an ideal world rather than where they expect it will be?
Brand, I was being genuine. I'll admit that I don't know much about chart analysis but I get the gist of how it works. My issue was with understanding how charts could possible help to make this sort of prediction. In fact, what I am hearing is that the charts tell us when people *think* we will have an RNS, which is fair enough. Given that information that is in the public domain tells us that is is likely to come in January, it's probably not unreasonable that people would on average guess at about the middle of the month. Meanwhile, though, there is real work happening in the background and that will be done when it's done.
So, are you saying that information has leaked and that the charts are giving us an indication of this?
If not, I can't see what other plausible mechanism can generate this sort of information about something that is happening at whatever pace it needs to happen within the company, the details about which we are not generally privy.
Surely longer term price is determined by concrete events such as trial results, whether manufacturing can be scaled up, revenue predictions, partnerships and takeovers, etc.
Call me sceptical but I don't see how extrapolating lines on an historical graph helps with any of that.
I don't get this "not ready for winter", "missed the boat" argument. Surely, the valuations being talked about wouldn't be warranted by a "one shot", single year's demand anyway, and rely on the assumption of an ongoing market for the product in years to come.
" just one persons opinion and obsession with the Activ2 platform trial which in my opinion has far less significance for SNG than the Sprinter P3 "
I don't see anyone being obsessed with Activ - it is generally recognised that Sprinter is by far the more important trial. I think you are getting mixed up with the assertion that US will be more important in terms of orders. This is probably true and most likely will come off the back of good P3 results, not Activ.
Radium,
"The fact is, untill proven otherwise, equally, the odds are that it doesn't."
Why *equally*? The fact that there are two possible outcomes does not automatically make them 50/50. Nothing is certain, but we have some prior results plus an increasing body of science that supports what has been seen so far. That surely pushes the odds towards it working. (To be clear, I say this as someone who has often been uncomfortable with some of the more "dead cert" postings on here.)