The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
@spotify, I also think it probable that this suspension will end. I've stated this view in the past. I'm not sure why you always need to become abusive.
AZ has too many shares that he still needs to offload to pi's for him to quit now.
@spotify, when it comes to throwing around abuse I have to accept that you are the master. Clearly you were dragged up rather than brought up.
And so far as hiding behind anonymity is concerned - that is the very nature of this BB. I'm not aware that you have released your name and address? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
@hartlebury, I'm not sure that makes much sense. The FCA is notoriously slow. This could have been sitting on someone's desk for days, with various sign-offs necessary. And the indication from info from AZ and their press relations is that they have not been communicating on matters with the FCA - suggesting that the FCA is not really probing in any depth. Of course if AZ comes out and explains that they have had to deal with all kinds of challenges from the FCA that is a different matter. But so far he has indicated that this is not the case and that they have simply published the accounts and are waiting for sign off from the FCA.
The £225m was first recognised as goodwill in the prospectus. The interim accounts last year then showed it as a share based payment loss. The recently released interim accounts show it as an equity adjustment booked at start of the comparative period. Three different treatments. I was thinking that it was this that the FCA was likely looking into. What else do you think?
@steve1972 - you may be right on the FCA not wanting to challenge professional opinions. But I don't know what else could be causing this delay.
I suspect that the FCA will get comfortable with the change in approach for the £225m loss but leave the issue over the onboarding fees for the auditor at year end. I can see the FCA being concerned over the £225m because it is inconsistent with what has been previously announced. There is not that same inconsistency with the onboarding fees and it is not the FCA's role to audit.
What is critical is for the SH transaction to be completed, and the amount securitized to be announced. That's all that matters. If AZ can't get this over the line it's all over.
They've pushed back the transaction which led to the £225m loss to the beginning of the comparative period, and so it only shows in reserves and not in the income statement. Which probably makes sense.
But nothing else new here, that I can see.
There is an emphasis of matter over going concern.
It is also explained that "a few customers" have signed "term sheets" - i.e. nothing legally binding.
Which is disappointing.
But at least they've got these accounts out.
@londoninvestor, given your post is a little short on facts (and I'm being generous here) let me give you two:
1. The company has yet to complete a single transaction.
2. The chairman had just sold almost all of his (enormous) holding.
And as I've said many times before, whatever you do DON'T invest more than you can EASILY afford to lose in a penny stock and an unproven business model.
@extrader, it's business strategy would certainly need reworking! But it wouldn't necessarily mean the company is not a going concern - which is what the auditor will be focussed on. This is where the fact that Syme is so small may be beneficial to them. AZ could commit a reasonably small sum (1-2 million?) and demonstrate that this is enough to tide the company over for another year.
@waddaweknow, if only it was that simple. The company could simply argue that if the client did not believe in the true sale approach it could account for it as financing. Or that syme would simply change its business strategy. The only real way for AZ to put this to bed is to provide the accounting analysis and opinion that supports the true sale approach. Alternatively only time will tell.
@seadoc, I agree that reading exactly what the audit report states will be very important. However many of the disclosures made by the auditor concerning the business model and principal risks etc only apply to premium listed companies. For a standard listed company the responsibilities of the auditor are fewer.
I think the real test of viability will be customer take-up. The company has been working on SH since last April. Let's now see the amount that has been financed!
@angusscott, I don't think that many are shorting this share. Any who do will be likely doing so via spread bets or cfds. Their potential losses (if retail investors) can be restricted to the margin by simply withdrawing excess funds from the account. This goes for those with long positions held via spreads or cfds as well. The risk of this gapping down significantly on reopening becomes a risk of the financial institution for these investors. Of course if you own the stock outright your risk is to the full extent invested - you can lose it all. It's a strange world isn't it?
@hughez87, these facts you have laid out are a distortion of reality. Even the first one. How can you just explain that the CEO has recently topped up without pointing out that this was just the small residual from the chairman dumping almost all of his shares worth £20m. You are just ramping.