The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
I think you're being pretty unfair to Andy (both of them), no-one is predicting a doomsday scenario, it's just frustrating that the company is not well-known at present. Pretty fair comment in my opinion.
On a different note, does anyone know how much they are planning to sell the drug for, and the expected profit margin on each treatment course? Have they discussed this recently?
I know I'm sounding slightly negative, that's why I sold! To be fair there are a number of positives for Futura, in particular you have those big professors sounding very supportive, and presumably they must think that it's unlikely to be just a placebo effect, this always was one of the main pulls for me. Clearly they are not stupid. Presumably they have made an estimate of what is the likely greatest placebo affect they could imagine even allowing for the fact that it is a gel, and the effectiveness of MED3000 is bigger than that, and it seems like the FDA have reached the same conclusion. But then you have this long delay in reaching a major deal, I mean it was 19th March when they got the "recommendation for approval" so they could have started discussion then with companies. That's over 9 months. Surely it has to show something? I suppose it could be Futura being very picky about the terms of the deal, but I still find it strange that it would take that long to sift through the companies interested, and if they were happy, surely then some would make fair offers and Futura would see quickly what the best terms available were - how long can it take? So that's why I'm suggesting that the companies might be reasonably convinced of the efficacy, but still not happy to do an actual full launch in their own name without a proper placebo-controlled study, and are perhaps demanding trial launches or a new placebo-controlled study, or weak terms. Obviously it's impossible to know and time will tell. If the price would go down to about 25p I probably would buy back in, but at the moment I'm just a bit nervous.
TheItalian, I've looked on the official list of shorts at https://www.fca.org.uk/markets/short-selling/notification-and-disclosure-net-short-positions and it looks like no-one has disclosed a short position either now or historically, although of course there may be some under the threshold for reporting. Also, I am assuming that AIM shares sold short also have to be reported but I am not certain.
TheItalian, I didn't mean the price has risen just because booth stopped posting. I meant that maybe the shorts have decided that now is a good time to close, because their main agent (booth) can't post any more, so it will be harder for them to keep pushing the price down - and that the shorts closing has pushed the price up. Although admittedly that is probably also a bit far-fetched.
I looked over your earlier comments as to why you thought the RNS is positive. I have to say I don't really agree that there is anything newly positive, except maybe that they are now referring to "multiple" interested parties as opposed to a "number" - they say "Futura is in advanced discussions for other commercial out-licensing agreements covering additional major regions and countries of the world with multiple interested parties." I don't see that completing the human factors study or enrolling people to the US trial is at all surprising or positive - why shouldn't they have managed those things easily?
They are now talking about deals being reached now in 2022, whereas I am sure they previously said 2021, though to be fair I can't find an RNS where it says that - maybe it was in an investor call, not sure. Or maybe I am just thinking of them saying in July "Manufacturing scale up and capacity to meet projected demand is progressing well in conjunction with commercial out-licensing agreements covering the remaining major regions and countries of the world with a number of interested parties. As previously outlined, Futura expects to be able to update shareholders further during the remainder of 2021 Futura expects to be able to update shareholders further during the remainder of 2021" - which I took to mean they would announce a deal in 2021, though I accept that would have been a misunderstaning as technically it doesn't really have to mean that. Does anyone recall them stating specifically they expect a further deal in 2021 and if so where?
Also, they say "agreements covering additional major regions and countries of the world" - which we assume includes the EU and UK, but we can't be sure it does, it could be Africa or Australia, Russia or Canada which may need regulatory approval although admittedly I don't know if that is the case. And it may also include the EU, but maybe only one or two of the multiple interested parties are interested in the EU, i.e. it's multiple altogether but not for any one particular region.
As I said, the main thing that has bothered me is why it is taking so long to get an EU deal agreed. I am wondering how long it really should take to get a deal like that agreed - does anyone have any way of knowing what is "normal"?
Just checking back in today as I haven't looked for a couple of weeks as it was getting so ridiculous with booth, well done to all those that kept on knocking him down and eventually getting him "boot"ed off. I had previously had some arguments with him but eventually couldn't be bothered anymore, so well done all.
So now it's safe to make an admission without the risk of booth using it as a rod - I actually sold all my shares some time ago, basically as I was concerned that it was taking so long to get deals agreed for Europe and no signs of big names for the other regions. My worry was that the big pharmaceutical companies were delaying making deals as they were concerned about the lack of a placebo in the trial i.e. against MED23000, which was itself the "placebo" against MED2005. Now previously I was worried about this, but when I saw that the FDA were allowing a final trial without a placebo I was encouraged that they must be convinced that all is well and didn't need the reassurance of the placebo. But now I find myself worrying along the lines that - yes, maybe based on the science logically there is a good chance that the gel is good, but the big companies are nervous since there wasn't a placebo, so if hypothetically it eventually turned out that really all was just the placebo effect (which I think we all agree is not impossible, even if a low chance) - then they will look really bad at having sold the product in their name and people will say - how could you sell it if it wasn't properly tested against a placebo? Then that would be bad for their reputation and they are worried to take the risk. Oh dear I sound like a deramper now, but if you think I am one then you are welcome to look back at my arguments with booth.
But anyway I wish all holders well and hopefully the product will turn out good for the benefit of shareholders and ED sufferers. I am continuing to watch this and I am running the risk of missing out on a major announcement, but it's difficult to know what to do.
I am interested in the share price increase in the last few days. It looks like it's a result of the last RNS though I find that hard to understand as there was nothing really new or interesting in it, just a delay to 2022 of finding partners, which also make it unlikely that news is about to drop. So I am wondering whether it's the shorts (booth) closing, perhapsn because booth is off LSE.
Indigo, when you say Jason has all the contacts needed, how do you know that? Also, surely if this would be the case then they wouldn't have needed all the contacts like Younes Mammar, Freepoint, etc?
Wonga, thanks. So basically you're saying that if you drill then the oil isn't mixed with sand at all therefore you don't need the Petroteq process. So do you get simple crude oil like standard oil drilling? If so what's this insitu process? I mean normal oil extraction isn't called insitu as far as I understand - I thought insitu is some form of processing that separates oil from sand. Sorry I'm still a bit confused here as you can see! And is the Quadrise process relevant to insitu?
bertyb01, thanks, you seem to be right especially in the light of the interview which came out just after your reply. It's two separate things.
Could you please explain - with the insitu drilled wells, what do you get? Do you get proper crude oil or do you get something like oil sands which need further processing, or do you get bitumen? From looking around wikepedia etc it looks like insitu is a process of extracting bitumen from the sands, it's instead of Petroteq's process. So if it's so good why can't the same process be used for the surface-mined sand, and what's the point of building a POSP? I thought the POSP converts sand into bitumen. Also, with the insitu production is Quadrise' technology relevant or is that only for the surface mined sand which is processed with the POSP? Thanks very much to whoever can clarify.
I want to ask a question which I admit may be stupid due to my lack of knowledge, but hopefully someone can explain. Tomco is now talking about wells. Does this tie in with the Petroteq sands processing methodology, which I thought means you just take sands from the site - how does a well come into it? It sounds like conventional oil extraction. And it they are doing that does this mean that the Petroteq technology for which they have a licence, is irrelevant?
And is this "in situ"production, which they previously referred to? Or what exactly is in situ production? Some clarity would be much appreciated. Thanks.
Bucolic, yes, I did notice that actually (the "have been a shareholder"wording), although subsequently he did try to say that he is still a shareholder as far as I remember. Anyway it's all irrelevant. Notice how when he gets caught out quite badly as now he posts a whole lot of posts just to distract and divert attention more, and confuse more. HIs attempts are getting really pathetic now. It's a shame as he is obviously intelligent, but wasting all his time and brainpower on twisting facts into absolute nonsense, with seemingly little benefit for anyone. Even if he's being paid, it's got to be pretty depressing to keep having to write total drivel. Come on booth, do something better with your life.
Yet more nonsense from booth. So it's a conspiracy that they excluded the absolutely most extreme cases of ED. How many such cases do you think actually exist? I don't believe it's more than 1% of ED sufferers, if that, probably less. So how much difference could it possibly have made to the results if they would have included a few such people even if the gel wouldn't have helped? Even if they would have allowed such sufferers to join the trials there wouldn't have been more than a few of them, because hardly any exist in the first place. So please don't try to make a drama out of this.
And by the way the study showed that the gel helped mild and moderate sufferers as well as severe cases. The extreme cases that you want Futura to have included obviously would have been classed as severe, so clearly they could not have affected the results for the mild and moderate cases.
Also, are you saying that all inclusion and exclusion criteria have to be exactly the same for studies to be comparable? And by the way the other trial excluded cases where "Subject has anatomical deformation of the ***** such as angulation, cavernosal fibrosis, or Peyronie¡-s disease, or history of genital surgery" which don't seem to have been excluded for Futura. So maybe that swings it for Futura? There are probably others as well but I haven't bothered to check.
And that's why none of the exclusion criteria needed to be mentioned outside the actual protocols - because it's so utterly insignificant. All this is just total and complete nonsense from booth designed, as usual, to confuse.
Booth you are just impossible. Why should they have stopped all foreplay? The point is that obviously they did whatever they always used to do, but those things had previously not helped. Whereas now suddenly everything was OK. So why do you think that was? Obviously because the gel helped. No need to pretend you are stupid here. And by the way, no, the criteria did NOT require people to respond to manual stimulation, it also allowed for people who responded just to visual stimulation. As you know very well. And as I explained before. And there is nothing sinister about it because if someone in the previous 3 months had not responded AT ALL to either manual or visual stimulation then he is clearly a very extreme case and was deemed inappropriate for the study. Sorry, there is no conspiracy. It's all very easy to understand and makes perfectly good sense. Maybe move back to one of your other nonsensical objections.
As usual booth keeps skirting around the issues, adding in misleading points, etc.
Again, he has not answered why Futura included the requirement "Subject has been involved in a continuous heterosexual relationship for at least 6 months prior to screening" - where is the safety issue which requires a 6 month relationship? And the other trial which he linked to did not include this requirement. So is there some sinister reason for that also?
And he implies that Futura trained people to have visual stimulation - where does he get that from? As far as I can see the training was just how to apply the gel. The link that he provided has no connection to Futura.
Anyone thinking straight will see that the truth is very simple - they didn't want the most extreme or unusual cases. As indeed they also excluded someone with "Any penile surgery except circumcision". Or "Subjects with severe premature ejaculation". And actually the other non-Futura study that he linked to has the exclusion "Subject has anatomical deformation of the ***** such as angulation, cavernosal fibrosis, or Peyronie¡-s disease, or history of genital surgery." It's very simple, you exclude highly unusual and extreme cases. It's a total non-issue.
But expect more confusion and distorting tactics from booth, I may not bother to reply because as usual it's just getting stupid.
So on we go round and round
And what conspiracy theory can he come up with to explain why they excluded people over 70? And indeed why did they make the requirement of "Subject has been involved in a continuous heterosexual relationship for at least 6 months prior to screening"? But the obvious truth is that they didn't want to include anyone whose problems are likely very severe or possibly unusual and thus placing an unfairly high burden on the gel to be effective. They wanted to cover cases which are more normal, even if moderate or severe.
I assume the "£1 a share BP has promised us all" is said in jest?