RE: Finance8 Aug 2020 10:06
Trek, evidently the cash burn is several orders of magnitude below your 5th August expectations no? At the half year to 30 June there was £611k cash in the bank.
The 5th you said:
"If you look at the balance Dec 2019 it’s £865, 875. Admin costs are £859,171. So even without all the other expenses they are evens. Then factor in carry forward loss of £617k, zero tax liabilities (obviously) and allowing for same in revenues there really isn’t much cash left when you take in the spend from Dec 2019 to now."
I don't think you "freewheeling to a deal" can be used on the 5th and again yesterday.
I note your reference to a £2.75 five year grant to "subsidise revenue" and "(this may help)". Actually the number referenced in the half years is $2.8m. You also missed the $2.6m awarded in June. These are both NIH grants and together cover "60% of the development cost of IB" at current staffing. Very specific to IB and includes all costs, so wrong to separate R&D from administration costs.
You will do well to note IQ-AI intends to make further applications to NIH for additional grants in 2020 and following IB being recognised as the US 'national standard' in June, do you not see a situation where IB could be almost fully covered by grants? That would be an extraordinary achievement for a micro cap health tech co.
I note in your posting history you are partial to a short or two and frequent this type of stock. That's fine, it's a legal trade after all.
I think IQ-AI management would take exception to this being called a "lifestyle company". I see the complete opposite given director holdings of 36%, rapid development of StoneChecker and IB, and imminent sale of StoneChecker that will be transformational to the share price.
If you watch the Proactive interview, IQ-AI wants a more robust market cap so it can take advantage of acquisition opportunities.
Never rule out a raise from a micro cap, but not all raises are made equal.