Member Info for DRB83

Well done for posting some actual research though. Even if it is misleading.

I did see that article from Michel. Not sure why he would refer to it as Lab21 acquired Novacyt.

So should we ignore:

The Novacyt RNS's
Novacyt accounts
The AIM submission document
Several investor articles
GM himself

We'll ignore all that and go with Michel. Lol

Huey, the document says Novacyt acquired Lab21.

For the benefit of everyone else Woody is one of your many aliases. Shame you couldn't remind us of some of the positives. One day you'll contribute something.

I don't think I'm humouring him B2. I think he's genuinely confused and way out of his depth in business. I'm happy to help fellow investors learn and understand things but Huey took it a little too far. Point taken though.

You don't sound bitter though Woody.

Can you contribute to why JDW is a good investment case. Maybe analyse the accounts and give us some feedback. Even if it's just the positives. I may have missed some. The fixed price supply contracts are a huge benefit and will be for the next 12 months. Can you share what you see as positives here. I know you had quite a bit invested in here. Not sure if you still do it not.

I see very little downside from here in terms of SP over the long term so it all comes down to time. How long can you keep your capital tied up.

I weren't last Friday. Went into local spoons and it was empty. Lol

Kaeren, it's not relevant to today. It's not even relevant to Novacyt deciding to discontinue Lab21 but somehow Huey linked the 2 and made a song and dance about it. DA is discontinuing Lab21 not rebranding it.

Also, what is this tripe:

"I'd go further as would any business person and say if you control something you effectively own it."

Someone needs 50% + 1 share to control a company. That doesn't mean they own the company. They still only own 59%+ 1 share. You're embarrassing yourself and disrespecting this BB by this persistent posting of tripe.

What's this?

"Ok SH in old Novacyt got a bigger slice of the new company than Lab21 SH. But there are 000's of Novacyt SH and only a few Lab21 SH. All SH are individual owners of a piece of Novacyt, Lab21 SH got much bigger slices of a smaller portion than the slivers dished out from the bigger portion to old Novacyt SH. So Lab21 SH would have controlled any SH votes."

Lab21 got 46 % altogether. Even together they don't have control. As soon as the transaction happens they cease being a Lab21 shareholders are now Novacyt shareholders the same as all other shareholders. You say they had a few shareholders. How many is a few? 5, 10. It's likely that by the end of the transaction not one person owned more than 10% of Novacyt. No one had a controlling interest. You're funny though, how you try to bend the information to support your rediculous claim that Lab21 bought Novacyt.

I've already dispelled the reverse takeover theory. I'll let you research that further.

I'm becoming a fool now. Must stop

Oh and Lab21 was no more an investment vehicle than it was a diagnostic company who bought other complimentary diagnostic companies. This happens all the time in business too. You may as well call Novacyt an investment vehicle as they acquired several companies too. Oh and want about Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Apple. Are these all investment vehicles too.

Lab21 had a basket of companies and maybe Novacyt only wanted Microgen but the Lab21 shareholders said no, it's all or nothing so Novacyt went with all. Maybe Novacyt saw value in all of the Lab21 companies, after all they were all connected and already functioning so why not. You make it sound like Lab21 were a conglomerate and that it would be impossible for Novacyt to be interested in them.

Huey, I appreciate I have been on the fence as to whether it was a Novacyt acquisition of Lab21 or a merger of equals.

Having carried out more research (which you should try also) I have concluded that it was in fact a Novacyt acquisition of Lab21. Here's what I think happened based on more than just an opinion:

Novacyt bod approach Lab21 bod about a acquisition. Both bods agree so GM talks to the Lab21 shareholders who say 'no' I prefer a merger. GM agrees with Novacyt to sell it to the Lab21 shareholders as a merger and to help him sell it as a merger GM will become CEO. Lab21 are happy and agree to the terms.

However, when it comes down to the actual transaction it can't be treated as a merger because that means dissolving both companies and creating a new one. That means Novacyt would lose their public listing status and ALNOV ticker. I'm assuming it would take time and money to get the new company back on the market. So they decide, the only practical way they can do this deal is if Novacyt acquire the entirety of Lab21 by issuing Novacyt shares in which Lab21 would then become a 100% owned subsidiary of Novacyt.

This would explain why GM refers to it as a merger because that is how it was sold originally to the Lab21 shareholders. This is more of a psychological thing. It also explains why everyone else including Novacyt and the media and the rest of the investor world treat it as a Novacyt acquisition of Lab21 (remember the word technically). It also explains why ALNOV who listed in 2012 are still listed today (no new company). All that would have happened is a reshuffle of the board and the appointment of a new CEO which happens all the time in companies.

Check the share capital of Novacyt between 2013-2015. You can see it increases dramatically because they issued 2.5m shares to acquire Lab21.

Also, see extract from 2015 annual report:
The General Meeting of 13 June 2014 approved the contribution to Novacyt of 100% of the
shares of British company Lab21 Ltd paid for exclusively by Novacyt securities. The Lab21
Ltd shares were contributed at a value of €18,846,745.90. The contribution resulted in a
capital increase of €168,203.93 and a contribution premium of €18,678,550.97.

Looks like I got my €18m purchase the other night spot on.

Hopefully, this now settles the dispute. I really should be getting paid for this. Lol.

I have shared lots of extracts, articles, reports, statements to support what I believe. Please tell me you weren't pinning your belief solely on GM being CEO.

If they want to get anywhere near that £7.77 figure then they need to start being more open. Maybe it's too early in the transition yet given that H123 is probably when we're going to start reaping the rewards of the strategy. In the meantime I can only believe that 107 is the bottom or close to it and eventually we'll get some positive financial news.

It's a long wait to April for a Q123 update but that may be when we really start to see some traction on the way to £7.77 by Dec24.

It's been an education.

Huey, black really is white with you isn't it. I gave you the benefit of the doubt the other night and gave you a chunk of my time. I'm certainly not going to be 'that guy' anymore that argues with you that 'black is black'. That's a fool.

All I will say is check the Novacyt investor page and review the 2015 accounts. That one set of accounts include restatements for 2013-14 and 15. Have a look at the terminology used around the transaction with Lab21 and how it was Lab21 accounts that were brought into Novacyts accounts.

For some reason you arrived at Lab21 acquired Novacyt and now regardless of what you are shown and by whom, you just can't shake it. That's a really bad characteristic.

Ask yourself why you can't find any respectable source that supports your theory. That is all you have 'theory'

You're trying to make reality fit your narrative rather than the other way round and whilst I enjoyed the research I feel I've done all I can to help clear things up for you. I suggest you take your debate somewhere else so we can move on.

No bad smell Steve. I'm not invested here but using JDW as a study case. I'm completely neutral. Have nothing financially to gain from SP going up or down. I say what I see and happy to be challenged on what I say as I may have missed some things. Up to now, no one has highlighted anything to me that makes me think differently about the stormy seas that lie ahead for JDW. The annuals will be out soon and we'll see just how TM has been financing the last 6 months and what the going concern statement will consist of.

I just hope he doesn't come in and blow Bills Q1 iron ore production into H2. Bill has no distractions now so is purely focusing on Han****. To me that means things should progress quicker. Come on Rodders. I do hope Bill is still incentivised to make Han**** happen sooner and not later. Surely is

Yes. If you are going to share such a claim GG then at least share the method of how you arrived at such a claim.

Thanks bigpunt. Well as I do know what I'm talking about I'll not refrain.

Even discounting the reclassifications annual depreciation on PPE is £20m. How is that immaterial for a loss making company which has a total equity of £270m. Bizarre.

£20m is significant for JDW and as my point was, it closes the £200m gap between net debt and PPE NAV by 10% alone. Which by the way was a gap you eluded to not me. Personally that gap is pretty meaningless on its own.

Just about all companies use their supply chain for 30-60 day financing. TM hasn't pulled a rabbit out of the hat here. The reason I eluded to it was because it needs paying back quickly and when you only have £40m cash in the bank then them loan covenants start to look very precarious indeed.

Profitable trading? You have to appreciate that TM is probably referring to Op profit at best. When Finance charges of £60m are applied then you're back to a loss. Likely to be a £30m loss. Who knows what the exceptionals will be. So yes making money but not enough to repay the loans that are falling due soon.

In the interims they lost £25m off £800m sales. In H2 they must be forecasting a loss of £5m off what £900-£1000m sales. I don't know but that means annual sales of possibly £1.8bn. That's impressive and yet still delivered a 30m loss.

So £2bn sales is the target Zoon to breakeven excluding exceptionals. £2bn in this economic environment. Let's see.

Bigpunt, in this environment debt and disposable income are really brought to the fore. Yes the value of pubs currently exceed the value of debt but that is a huge false sense of security and something the lenders will be keeping a close eye on I'm sure. How long until those 2 numbers meet. After all depreciation is only going to reduce the NA whilst debt looks to be increasing. If the debt covenants are breached then the debt could be called immediately. Any gap between NBV and current market value gets slashed as a fire sale will begin.

Throw into that a current ratio of 1:3 in favour of liabilities and things can become messy really quickly.

Disposable income may bring in some new customers for jdw but it's probably jdw's current customers who are going to be stung the most over the next 12 months so not convinced that the disposable income decline is a good thing for JDW.

You could be forgiven for looking 12 months out and seeing a better future but with a whole host of fixed low cost contracts expiring in 2023 and the £100m covid loan falling due and wages continuing to rise then cash flow starts to feel very tight indeed.

Debt is still cheap but probably because it comes with a ball and chain. The current economics have left jdw swaying dangerously close to the edge of the cliff. Not a great place to be especially with a ball and chain.

Not sure I'd be delighted with the position.

% does matter Huey. That's why.