Member Info for BoringBernie

The last full set of results ( https://otp.investis.com/clients/uk/provexis_plc/rns/regulatory-story.aspx?cid=1569&newsid=1192993 ) included some text associated with the company being a going concern

"The annual financial statements of the Company for the year ended 31 March 2018 and the report of the Directors thereon include a going concern statement which concludes that based on the level of existing cash, projected income and expenditure, and excluding the potential additional sources of funding, the directors are satisfied that the Company and the Group have adequate resources to continue in business for a period of more than twelve months from the date of approval of the financial statements. "

So, back in Sept 2018, they were saying they wouldn't need to raise cash for at least twelve months. Obviously not having to raise cash till ( at least ) Sept 2019 doesn't mean they won't raise cash before then, but I suspect we'll not see another cash raise till late 2019 or early 2020.

*cue an RNS tomorrow proving me wrong

BB

Dior

Well, to be honest, I'm clueless as to what your point was then !

Trades of

1,974,206 @ 0.252 and 2,000,000 @ 0.25 show as going through at 9:26 today ( 11th April ) and they don't show on here under the trades tab at http://www.lse.co.uk/ShareTrades.asp?shareprice=PXS&share=provexis

I'm content with being clueless though

BB

Err, those trades are on NEX at http://www.nexexchange.com/member?securityid=18752 so this site won't show them.
Surely everyone knows that by now ?

Anyway, they look suspiciously like Bed and ISA trades

BB

Yea, it'll be related to the CMA announcement and subsequent RNS
To be honest, after many years of being a shareholder, I sold out first thing yesterday morning.

The sp drop may well be an overreaction. There will, presumably, be a one-off cost associated with a fine some time in the near'ish future. In itself, that's no big deal, but breaking up the ( alleged ) cartel will hit profits in that area.

There will also be some nervousness as to whether or not similar cartels are being operated which include VP. There's nothing to suggest that's the case, but that won't stop people wondering.

The main reason I sold up was because the CMA started in 2017, and this week was the first I'd heard of it. It's quite possible that I missed reading about it in an RNS, but it does seem like the company have been sitting on bad news in the hope that it'd just go away.

BB

Alf

DSM are a related party, therefore, they're included in the "Not in Public Hands" %

From the Aim rule book

Not in public hands
-------------------------

AIM securities held, directly or indirectly (including via a related financial product) by:

(a) a related party;

(b) the trustees of any employee share scheme or pension fund established for the benefit of any directors/employees of the applicant/AIM company (or its subsidiaries);

(c) any person who under any agreement has a right to nominate a person to the board of
directors of the applicant/AIM company;

(d) any person who is the subject of a lock-in agreement pursuant to rule 7 or otherwise; or

(e) the AIM company as treasury shares.

So DSM's shares are lumped in to the "Related Party" number.
From memory, I think there some held in trust for employees / consultants, which probably make up the difference

No shares are held in treasury

As for where the 40 million came from, I offered two possibilities, namely Rising Stars and McKeeve Both may well have held / be holding that sort of numbers. There's also a poster ( on here ? ) who said they were holding ~2%, so they're another possibility. I'd say Rising Stars is the most likely, but wouldn't rule out McKeeve.

BB

The vast majority of the "Not in public hands" shares belong to DSM, so, if they had been sold to Mr Lucas then there'd have been, or should be soon, a holdings RNS from DSM, which I doubt very much we'll see.

BB

I'm guessing here, but I reckon Lucas has effectively bought those shares from another large holder, my best guess being Rising Stars with McKeeve also being a possibility ( both of whom are below 3% so wouldn't have to declare )

Fair play to Lucas. He plainly believes there's value here.

BB

From the Interims :-

"Studies conducted in China are needed to obtain ‘blue cap’ health claim status for dietary supplements, as required by the Chinese State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR), with BY-HEALTH intending to make its first
submission to the SAMR for Fruitflow® in February 2019."

So, they might have submitted, and it's debatable whether or not that would be worth an RNS ( though a Reach RNS would be nice if they have submitted )

Or, it's slipped a bit and they havn't submitted yet.

BB

Alf

Just in case anyone else is looking at the RNS tab on this site and missing out on more up to date data ...

I don't know why this site doesn't show the Interim Report RNS from a month ago, but you're quoting stuff from the finals back in Sept.

From the Interims at https://otp.investis.com/clients/uk/provexis_plc/rns/regulatory-story.aspx?cid=1569&newsid=1220120

Total revenue for the period of £194k, 56% ahead of the prior year (2017: £124k).

I think the other bit ( about BY-HEALTH ) is pretty much the same

BB

W$ - Absolutely.

Icke is a massive fruitcake.

Anyone that thinks his views are in any way relevant to Fruitflow and Provexis is a fruitcake of more normal proportions.

I'd guess that the admins on here considered a link to a one and a half hour vudeo of Icke rambling on off-topic, and removed the post, and, because the replies would have made no sense without the OP, reoved them as well.

BB

Alf

I'm not wholly convinced that there are substantial one-off factors, though I'd be surprised if there weren't any. All we really know for sure is that revenue from H&B is received "net of sales rebates". We'll have a better idea come Sept, but I suspect one reason why GM fell off a cliff and may recover a bit would be related to the initial stock delivery to H&B, so the mix of sales of direct compared to H&B was more skewed to H&B than it might be normally.

If H&B shift enough stuff, then it'll sort itself out, but the inventory figure suggests to me that, without another production run, we're not expecting the H&B contract to be better ( in terms of cashflow ) till late 2019 or some time in 2020. Obviously if we're told some time over the next six months or so that we've refreshed our inventory to meet demand from H&B then my guess would be miles off !

Your words on initial supply makes more sense than the previous words on it coming from DSM. The cost of switching the production line to FF+ would be fixed, so doing a few runs for multiple brands and switching the packaging would make it more cost effective.

BB

Alf

Well, you pretty much repeated what I said on GM, so I'm reasonably sure we're singing from the same hymn sheet on the Gross Margin front. :-)

I even think you're accepting that, for the period just reported on, the initial effect of the H&B contract is that we've just about broke even on the FF+ side ? Hopefully that'll improve over the next few months and FF+ will make some decent sort of contribution in H2, though that'll require H&B to sell a multiple of what we've been selling directly. Come September, we'll know the score on that one way or the other.

I wasn't aware we'd received any stock directly from DSM. Is that something that Ian told you ? I havn't checked, but I don't remember seeing any note in the accounts about a related party transaction in relation to money going from us to DSM - the only notes I remember are in relation to the AA or DSM passing on marketing revenue

To be honest, whether the original stock came from DSM or the main supplier, the difference in price per unit is unlikely to be significant.

I don't know what you mean by "Receipt of marketing support from DSM validates my assumptions in that respect.". The first set of marketing support came in via revenue and went out in admin costs, so is unlikely to have been DIRECTLY related to FF+ costs, because that's not what admin costs relate to. There's been no detail reported on what the marketing support has been, or will be used for this time round, so that may be different this time round though.

As an aside, but it's a very important aside, and probably, longer term, much more important than FF+, the twelve month rolling revenue from the AA is now pretty damned close to the R&D spend. As that continues over the next few years, if the sp doesn't buck up ( pun intended ), then sooner or late someone will start to think they can strip out the unnecessary costs associated with the company ( essentially the BoD and the costs associated with being quoted ), and actually turn a profit on the AA side of the business.

There's likely a long way to go on that front though.

BB

Bloody brain and keyboard don't work together very well

"physical assets rather than assets"

=

"physical assets rather than cash"

Alf

I worked in "oil and gas" a hell of a long time ago, but I was a geeky geo bod at the time rather than a driller, and certainly don't consider myself as an oilman !

I'm more of a jack of all trades ( a cross between an engineer and an IT geek ) master of none these days, but will happily pretend to understand stuff about asset management ( physical assets rather than assets ) for a few quids consultancy.

Anyway, gross margin on FF+ was happily pottering along at a very respectable 68% or so in the last two years of full accounts, but fell to <45% in the results recently released. So, it's gone from chipping in the odd 10k here and there, to chipping in the the best part of bugger all.

That ( the drop in gross margin ) might be a temporary thing, but it seems more likely that it'll stick around that sort of number, though selling and distribution costs may well drop as a "cost per packet" kind of thing. The drop in GM is to be expected as H&B are likely to be making more per pack per sale than we are, and, longer term, that's fine so long as H&B sell appreciably more than we've been doing via direct sales.

Until the full year accounts come out, we won't really know the full story, but revenue growth caused by more sales coming via H&B might make a good headline figure, but if it masks a negative influence on cashflow then anyone with a bit of common sense isn't going to be impressed with top line growth coming from H&B.

On the plus side, growth in income from the AA was decent, and the drop in cash flowing out of the business in H1 was good to see. If those trends are repeated in the full year to a similar extent, then I think it'd be safe to say that the company will have turned the corner, but, as far as I'm concerned, FF+ is a distraction for the board, and it's certainly a distraction for shareholders, and potential shareholders for that matter.

Happy New Year by the way, and well in for continuing to buy direct from the company. I struggle to see why anyone with shares in the company would buy from H&B. If people are so price-sensitive to switch because of a buy one, get the second half price offer, then it makes me worry about their finances and question whether or not they should really be investing in companies, especially those on AIM !

BB

Google translate takes

"Liebe Sirco Freunde und Kunden,
Mit Ende dieses Jahres wird Sirco den Vertrieb in Österreich und Deutschland einstellen."

and translates it as

"
"Dear Sirco friends and customers,
By the end of this year, Sirco will cease distribution in Austria and Germany. "

BB

Odd one that.

It seems unlikely, but I wonder if it's a cock up on LSE's part and it's something to do with Pharmaxis which is quoted in Aus under the PXS ticker ?

https://www.asx.com.au/asx/share-price-research/company/PXS

BB

Miti

Well done on your profit and I must admit your bit about " I like telling people I have bought and sold as early as possible and not a month after as is so often the case" made me smile

Way too often on the bulletin boards we see people being wise after the event and telling everyone how they'd sold out a few weeks or months earlier but never bothered to mention it, or the converse, and having previously said they'd sold out, then saying they've held for years, so it's always good to see an honest poster.

Good luck with your future investments

BB

I just clicked the link and it's showing as "In Stock" now

I've always assumed they're the result of algorithmic trades, carried out as CFD's or similar, which the MM's automatically cover with a "real" trade - so we just end up seeing the latter.

AfaIk MM's are exempt from stamp duty and plainly don't have to pay dealing costs.
As to why the people who write the algorithms end up using PXS to deal in such a way - I havn't the foggiest

BB