George Frangeskides, Chairman at ALBA, explains why the Pilbara Lithium option ‘was too good to miss’. Watch the video here.
It will be very helpful if any other trolls want to clearly show their colours today by pushing the “x% down!” narrative after the nonsensical uncrossing trade yesterday. We’re actually 3/4% up today in real terms, and you know it well.
Interesting. Who/what was the test for? The UK gov 2 day test has required PCR til now surely?
Have read through the document for a bit of morning fun. Couple key points:
Yes the tests used will need a CE mark, but that has to cover the proposed use case. From section 4:
“The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has published target product profiles (TPPs) for different types of test, setting out the ‘scope’ of what that test should be used for, including target use, target user and target use settings.
The provider must declare that they’re using the test in line with its published scope. MHRA has set out guidance explaining how both virus and antibody tests work.
The manufacturer’s Instruction for Use (IFU) set out the target use, target user and target setting and seek to ensure that, for example, the tests which are being sent for self-administration at home are the right sort of tests for that purpose.”
In other words, if the test is to be done at home, it needs to be a CE mark for that purpose. On the one hand, we haven’t got that yet, but on the other, if/when it is granted, it is a less crowded market place.
And back in Section 3, about the need for a CE Mark:
“This requirement is to ensure that the testing device has a CE marking (or, following the UK’s exit from the European Union, a UK marking) and does not benefit from a derogation from those standards.”
This would imply to me that exceptional use authorisations previously granted (eg which allowed Innova to be used at home) will not apply in this case, which is great news for levelling the playing field.
HP, what test provider/brand was it, and what country? I didn’t think this was in standard use in Uk already…
I would say the UK is not the only game in town, and every fart or whistle from our morbidly corrupt, demented government should not have so much sway on sentiment as we afford it.
Hi Rivaldo. These are really nice looking results aren’t they?
Tbh I had a small holding and sold early in the pandemic on the premise that I was edgy about anything with sales at physical stores, and there were exciting rainbows to chase so that I could go and learn lessons from some mixed results… But CSSG have done better than I expected and the security provision seems to be really growing and has been largely pandemic-proof.
Current assets minus current liabilities looks closer to ~£5m when you also include inventory, receivables and payables. So enterprise value ~£8.8m? For £32m revenue and £1m earnings… For a business set to rebound, with growing dividend.
This is looking really credible. Nice, well run business. Very tempting again. Especially while it looks good value and nobody’s really talking about it.
I guess I’m asking myself how will the loss of government income support but the reopening of stores affect margins and cost of sales going forward? What are the trends in the last 6 months since the April reopening? What was the trade like in 2019 vs the last two pandemic years? I need to dig deeper and look backwards a bit further.
Well this escalated quickly. Remember kids, be wary of strangers on the internet… no not me, the other strangers!
I’ll be delighted to be shown phenomenal news today/tomorrow. However, I think we’ve all been here too many times to buy into precise deadlines at this stage. It wouldn’t be the first slippage vs expected plans. Personally, I’m happy to give the benefit of doubt that information has been shared in good faith, and it is coming. Ophidian, your Mologic collaboration call did transpire to be spot on, which IMV is too specific for a lucky dart throw.
Ah, I see! I hear what you’re saying, but I think you’ll find that we are in violent agreement. :)
I do love a good false dawn though. Settles the market’s nerves, for a time. Amazing that everyone always seems to forget the last ones when the next one comes round.
I agree with that to a large extent PL, and if all news comes as a surprise or at unexpected intervals, it would be independent.
But buys/sells and their impact on charts are about psychology. And expectation of news within specific time intervals has an impact on psychology, which feeds into buy/sell decisions and therefore charts. Just look at small oil stocks in the run up to drilling results.
So I was reflecting that they can be dependent, if the chart is coiled up ready for a breakout, but whether it does or not depends in part on whether positive news lands within the expected timeframe or not. So if Wyn says the chart looks like a 60% chance of that breakout, maybe in broader terms it means the market is on average 60% confident of good news landing some time around the end of the pattern… If he’s reading the tea-leaves right, of course!
And perhaps nefarious individuals have been driving that expectation, or perhaps it’s been driven in good faith. We’ll get there in the end.
Thanks - very reassuring thread for my remaining TILS shares in the proverbial bottom-drawer! Also on ii and was worried I might have missed something I should have done already… W-8BEN form locked and loaded.
GLA. Nice rise on TLSA yesterday, hopefully a sign of good things to come.
I think there was a presentation AS gave last year in which he said that the neutralising therapy angle was probably a no-go. But then they were incorporated into the stem-cell project with Daewoong/AffyXell, which is trying to do something that can’t be done directly with antibodies.
The interpretation at the time was there were just no bites from pharma majors to use the Affimers as a neutralising therapy. Unlike antibodies, therapeutic Affimers are untested in the human body and the route to regulatory approval would be longer and more arduous.
Given what we now know about LG Chem’s work with the PD-L1 inhibiting Affimers, and the use of Affimer XT serum half-life extension… It’s probable that if the neutralising Affimers were injected on their own they would be cleared quickly via the kidneys due to their small size. So they might need to be combined with the XT tech to make a bi-specific that also binds serum albumen. More development time, more deviation from the simple function of neutralising antibodies, more chance for something to go wrong or additional side effects to be introduced. They might work fantastically well, but it’s a much more complex project than just using antibodies, which in this capacity, “ain’t broke”. I think Affimers for therapeutics are best when you need exquisite specificity, and/or small molecule size for better tissue/tumour penetration. Neither are necessary in a simple virus-neutralising capacity.
Not an expert. Very happy to be corrected if any of my layman’s understanding there is wrong.
It’ll be interesting to see how that chart formation plays out with news or lack thereof by the end of the week. A lot of expectation has been built in certain quarters. People talk about charts and news being separate and independent, but they do tend towards co-dependence as the SP coils like a spring when good news is anticipated.
Personally I can’t see why the EU body dealing with HUA would give two figs about UK gov timelines with respect to granting their approval, but I remain open to pleasant surprises.
*IS also implied by progression! Darn autotypo!
It was news of being passed on safety today, indeed, but there is the small matter that Dr Castro already dropped a couple times that it was going to progress (implying effectiveness) before having to retract and recently state that safety was still being assessed. I would say efficacy isn’t also implied by progression.
Still would be lovely to see that data and get the additional boost from it. It might also give other strands of mainstream media more attention-grabbing info to hang an article on. :)
Woo! Official confirmation SNG is through to US-gov funded Phase 3 trials - quick bank the 12% gain. AIM works in perverse ways sometimes. Actually, most of the time.
The difference between today’s SNG news and the 555% gain is I didn’t wake up hearing about it on Radio 4! Probably only those who watch the market daily and read RNS’s know about this news.
Positive mainstream media exposure for these small companies seems to lead to protracted gains over a few days. Like the first run up to £2 when we teamed up with the boohoo boys.
Thanks for sharing these well laid-out thoughts! I may be mis-characterising your overall thesis, but if you invested based predominantly on a good long look at the SARS-CoV-2 LFT side of the business (as your shared analysis focuses on this), does it in your view underpin the current share price on it’s own? Or do you apportion a significant part of the value case to other parts of the business, albeit they might be less within your area of expertise?
Interesting discussion. I completely agree with Poirot about the proposition of the combined entity being more appealing as a stand-alone company, due to the ability of diagnostics to make profit and reinvest into therapeutics to avoid dilution. There is also an embarrassment of IP and projects with high potential, allowing exposure to the upside of therapeutics, but with a high floor on value provided by the proven diagnostics.
But I can see that for a takeover buyer, it’s a big wedge of cash, and most buyers would be looking for a strategic fit into their operations that would be provided specifically by one or other division of the business, and would likely regard the other division as unnecessary spend.
I think the solution is what we’re seeing played out. Keep both divisions together, but increasingly set each up as self-sufficient entities that would be minimally impacted by a future split, perhaps to accommodate a partial takeover. Hence separate management teams (beefed up over the past year) and office locations. The penny dropped for me on seeing “Appointment of Dr Fiona McLaughlin as Chief Scientific Officer of Avacta's Therapeutics Division” on 2nd September, when previously Amrik Basran was sometimes described as CSO at a corporate level. Then on 6th September, “new appointments to the Scientific Advisory Board of its Therapeutics Division”. I think it tells you something when each division has separate external strategic guidance.
A few take-homes for me:
- The Brazilian market is in its early stages. Fixed-odds sports betting was legalised in Brazil in 2018, but remains unregulated.
- “Once the regulations are finalised and implemented, Brazil will likely become one of the world's hottest gambling markets. Of course, like in many other regions, the pandemic has complicated things; but even with the resulting delays, the market is expected to be in full swing by 2022 (by law, the Ministry of Finance has four years to develop a regulatory framework).”
- Individual states currently may pass different laws and thus areas may open up at different rates. [This suggests it’s a great time to get in and become an established player capturing market share as the market establishes itself and grows.]
- Bolsonaro said in September he plans to veto planned regulation, so there is some uncertainty over when other avenues of iGaming (eg casinos) will open up in Brazil. Currently the sport betting is legal but unregulated.
On current estimated market size:
“President of the Instituto do Jogo Legal (IJL) Magno José – also editor of BNL Data – … reported that the overall gambling industry in Brazil is worth around $13bn. On the other hand, unregulated gambling represents $5bn of the total and sports betting, not yet regulated despite being authorized, generates an approximate of $1.8bn.”
Elsewhere: “The Brazilian Legal Gaming Institute (IJL) reported that 2017 revenue consisted of $6.4bn worth of illegal betting.”
While Vixio show estimated revenue from “regulated online gambling” in all of LatAm in 2021 of c.$500m.
Growth potential:
”Something to consider is that while LatAm is dominated by land-based operators, the number of online players has been growing quickly with the spread of smartphones and mobile data coverage.”
“Before the global COVID-19 pandemic, 200,000 Brazilians were travelling to foreign casinos to gamble every month. Las Vegas alone receives about 150,000 Brazilians a year. For all of us who have been in the industry for a long time, we have always referred to Brazil as the sleeping giant because we have been waiting for the country to start displaying its full potential.
Once Brazil becomes a regulated market, it could eventually rise to being the third biggest market in the global betting industry behind the Asia Pacific market and North America which accounted for 38% and 20% of the global gambling market respectively.”
Vixio estimate LatAm growth of “regulated online gambling” to $2.6bn by 2025.
Meanwhile elsewhere: “Experts state that, should iGaming in Brazil become entirely legal, the country could see gross profits of $101bn by 2024.”
Clearly a huge spread of outcomes. But a big pie, and largely Terra nullius.
A few interesting articles on Brazil and the Latin American markets. Apologies if some already posted:
https://sbcnews.co.uk/features/2021/06/10/nsoft-all-eyes-on-brazil-the-largest-potential-latin-america/
https://vixio.com/blog/5-areas-to-monitor-in-the-latin-american-online-gambling-industry/
https://slotegrator.pro/analytical_articles/gambling-market-in-brazil-history-statistics-and-prospects/
https://sbcnews.co.uk/southamerica/2021/09/28/bolsonaro-veto-expected-for-proposed-brazil-gambling-regulation/
https://www.captainwords.com/igaming-in-brazil/