Member Info for ChrisToffer

I take it that puts to bed the questionable suggestion that the company were repurchasing shares the other week hahahaha

I cant believe you're all still engaging with a supposed doctor that has supposedly invested several hundred grand in a high risk stock, gives out medical advice on a bulletin board and has a football club as pseudonym.

He's here to disrupt and nothing else.

Been reading the WHO budget for the next year. They still have a $900m donation that hasn't been allocated. Its amazing to think how transformative even the smallest part of this budget could be for NCYT. With their focus on POC equipment and with agreements already in place, it's entirely possible they could see some of it.

https://www.who.int/news/item/28-10-2021-new-act-accelerator-strategy-calls-investment

C suite executives (CEO,CCOm CFO etc)

Dunc, the 52 week high does not matter unless a bidder, holding more than 5%, has paid that amount in the previous 12 months.

A bidder could accumulate <5% to >30% before making a bid for the rest, but im pretty sure the price would be a lot higher than 600p by the time they got enough.

The other option they have is agreeing the terms of a bid with NCYT BOD before making an official offer for all of the shares from the outset. However in that case the BOD would have to recommend the offer to share holders and the bidder would still need the majority to accept the offer. Its highly unlikely that recommendation would get ot over the line at 600p

Additionally, the company cannot commence with a repurchase of shares without first publishing a repurchasing plan.

Its all in here;
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.amf-france.org/en/eli/fr/aai/amf/rg/20161218/pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj_hs_2wOzzAhVoAhAIHcXQDa0QFnoECBMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0_mr2be2Jg7N9e9485xzTW

This link lays out the french rules that NCYT have declared they fall under.

P.s that AMF document that I shared does link to the EU rules. First line states;

"Information boxes have been inserted within the General Regulation. They allow for a direct access to the relevant European regulations on the subject matter"

Haha happy birthday B2 and and thanks for being our very own harvard referencing!

Hi B2, I believe this link has the whole 2021 french code; section IV does indeed state that the law changed in 2016 and that a company should publish a buyback program.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.amf-france.org/en/eli/fr/aai/amf/rg/20161218/pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj_hs_2wOzzAhVoAhAIHcXQDa0QFnoECBMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0_mr2be2Jg7N9e9485xzTW

Thanks a million B2, That is indeed a fantastic reference!

Yes that 2006 one was where I found the process which stated the company was under no obligation to declare. After a brief read, I dont think the glass Lewis one contradicts the process laid out in the earlier doc? I'm gonna look further now that we have the exact articles.

No worries man, i think that's what most of us are on here for (with a few obvious exceptions). I think when the share price is down and some posters let emotion get the better of them, they can be reported which results in a whole thread being taken down. Its very frustrating.

Hopfully we don't have to wait too long for DA to shed some light on his plans. He's got a reputation for strategy so I expect he'll want to time his entrance for maximum impact.

Ah its reappeared for me. Comment on CO still stands though. What an awful thing to say

I see Poidsters thread that was a genuine discussion had to be removed because of the disgusting comment from covid opportunist. I hope you got the answers you needed P.

Poidster, this is something I've been looking at for a while now because it doesn't add up to me either. I don’t believe the board are complicit in driving the share price down. I think the RNS language this year has been neutral/non-committal mostly due to dispute and that, coupled with large PI holding, exaggerates the effect on the SP. Having said that, a takeover is one of the only explanations that make sense but i believe the value would be somewhat in line with its peers;

Regardless If GM was pushed, James Wakefield should know his replacement because its his responsibility to appoint him on behalf of shareholders. He didn't seem to know him from Adam at the AGM.

I'm not overly concerned however, because James Mccarthy appears to be firmly in any future plans. He has a small holding of 10,000 shares at an average of 895p but more importantly he appeared (to me at least) to have a handle on things.

GM, if you'll believe it, also said he will remain a shareholder with a similar average.

Finally, Mccarthy has reiterated the underlying business is delivering 100m rev and 40m EBIDTA target several times now and reading across the sector, that would give us a minimum EV of 400m. Add the cash position to that EV and we're looking at 470-500m (661p-700p). This is an absolute bottom in my view (10x EV/EBITDA is ridiculous for this sector) and, like kaeren says, any whiff of it coming and the SP will rocket because there are so few shares.

BYP, 2020 £35.5m of Opex will also be linked to direct material costs for £277m in sales.

The business continues to make money and the EBIDTA and subsequent capex guidance they give considers the headcount.

Also, its because of ongoing operating expenses that they wouldn't be expected to pay back a settlement in one go. It would be paid off over an agreed time.

BYP, a worst case outcome of the dispute would not wipe out the companies cash position.

Firstly, it would crystallise the 17m tax rebate which would be added to 77m cash position (which itself was calculated after exceptional costs related to dispute were taken out). That would give the company a cash position of 94m. Even before any H2 cash is added.

Again, its unlikely that will be the outcome but its even more unlikely that they would have to pay it all in 1 go.

P.s the redacted contract is on the bidstats website here https://atamis-1928.cloudforce.com/sfc/p/#0O000000rwim/a/4J000000kEFW/0a.XEpAnsXhWLPDFwBk_JAjjG7TOqEVnG58sfxOiFmw

Hi Steve, that all comes down to the BODs determination. The possible but not probable scenario.

89m would be due in the possible scenario and the board have estimated replacement of goods at 19.8m iirc.

Of course there is another scenario where NCYT win, don't have to pay anything and claim additional damages because of the write down in stock they had to incur.

BYP, "What are the current cash reserves today after the previous update (eg anyone know the monthly cash burn?)."

We can work this out from the guidance and expected EBIDTA & cash conversion. £100m revenue guidance at 40% EBIDTA, with 80% cash conversion is about 33% cash from sales. So with 100m 2021 sales - 53m H1 = 47m *.33 = around 15m cash. Add that to H1 and the 17m Tax rebate and we have about 110 year end cash. As long as sales remain on target im confident in these numbers.

As for the payback in the event of a full refund. Remember the DHSC have an outstanding invoice of 40m so the maximum payback would 129-40 = 89m and there is no way in my mind that they'd be expected to refund that in one go.

DRB, It could have been a short squeeze but I didnt think there were that many shares in shorter hands. If it was then a short squeeze and fall back can sometimes herald a sustained rise.

My thoughts exactly Chris/Steve.

They also release a liquidity statement on the 1st of every month so we'll find out on Monday if they are. That would have a positive effect on the SP.