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'm sorry to have to post this having been heavily invested for some time now. But as a Director of my own company I think rinsing their shares today was totally irresponsible. They could have sold them over the remaining days to September for their personal gain with some respect for your shareholders. I cant think (excuse me) for a palatable reason for doing this and as a result Richard Marsden has gone substantively down in my estimation. Apologies to LTH.
@WelshFalcon 100% agreed. Neither Synairgen nor SNG-001 were named by Dr Castro therefore no need for them to highlight the interview via their Linkedin page or Twitter.
Indeed it was a 'soft' RNS by linking the mis-speak with SNG and in doing so they are stating 'this is our product the good doctor is referring to' .
Clever marketing imo.
Totally agree 100% Woodstock1970 their shambolic factual inaccuracies and poor journalism is one thing.
My concern (allied I believe with yours) is what is the cost of their 'work' speaking 'with authority' to the private investor?
They require regulated imo.
There is a new article from another author in the link below from another article titled 'Hargreaves Lansdown investors are buying Synairgen shares. Should I buy too?'.
This was posted just after 5pm with a different take.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/hargreaves-lansdown-investors-buying-synairgen-160956213.html
Is it any surprise the Motely Fool releases a factually incorrect appalling piece of journalism when the sp retraces back to the placing price?
Immaculate timing when you consider 25% of the company shareholding was bought at the placing price following which investors have seen the sp plummet to a £1 per share.
My favourite quote was "If SNG001 does make it to market, then yes, the Synairgen share price could be propelled to even higher levels". Nonsense.
You are welcome Oakleaf72. Another point worth noting is the point at which the market cap was at its highest point. I had a look at some numbers previously (and I apologise if this matter has been raised previously on the board).
When the sp reached 258.46 p back in August last year this gave the company a market cap of (approximately) £398.77m was based on a float of roughly 154m shares (pre placement). I always considered this to be the high however post placement when the float increased to 200m shares and the sp hit the 197-199 range on the market cap was at a similar level owing to sp dilution.
My point is that if the share price crosses the £2 threshold the company will be at its highest valuation.
GLA
#Oakleaf72 what is of interest from a charting perspective is that we have broken out of the downtrend created by the previous sp highs. This is the first time since the high middle of August last year that the sp has achieved this and on increased daily positive volume which I consider is significant imo.
GLA
Correct Vorag any shareholder who acquires 30% of the company's float is required to tender an offer for any company in the UK.
In my earlier comment I suggested that to get to this position would require several weeks of buying which would significantly increase the share price.
If we cast our minds back to the placing I believe it was prudent for RM and the board to be opposed to any one investor taking all the placing shares (to avoid such an eventuality).
Any offer would likely be given short shrift by the BOD given where we are in the proceedings leaving the party concerned having to acquire >51% of the float further increasing the share price.
Just my opinion and happy to hear anyone else's viewpoint.
GLA
Good evening Vorag. Whilst I agree with the arithmetic (Float 200m shares, £1bn buy out equates to £5 a share) I think we are looking at a higher commercial valuation providing we prove efficacy (I appreciate that wasn't the thrust of the point you were trying to make which was in the best of intentions).
If SNG-001 demonstrates efficacy (or is believed to prior to the outcome of the trials) I don't think RM (or the BOTD) will accept a low ball offer at 2bn. If they have the cash in bank to see the trials through to their completion why wouldn't they to realise the company's full worth? (Appreciabley as investors we want the roller coaster to end in profit but why sell ourselves short?)
Furthermore the prospect of a hostile takeover isn't viable (for those concerned) given Polar are the largest stakeholder at 8.9% and the critical mass required collaboratively to force such a situation isn't viable. This would require acquiring a considerable position from the PI's and based on the average trading over the last ten days of 3m shares (1.5% of float) would result in a significant increase in the SP over many weeks.
I think that it's to Polar's great credit that they haven't sought to exploit the recent sp fluctuations to improve their position and shake the tree further.
This is just my opinion and I am not ramping just stating the facts as I see them.
GLA
typo good
#strictlyinc because like me because it seems to go to be true. I too have been wary thinking what may I have missed here.
#Steptoe711 Nice one mate that simplifies matters.
The price on both markets has to align at some point imo.
#pmehta I totally agree that is a no brainer to buy TLSA at the present price levels.
Based on the LSE close of 1.61 the current price of 3.42 dollars (2/1 shares) is a bargain. Using the LSE close it should be trading @ 4.41 dollars (1.61*2/0.73).
That's a disparity of 0.99 dollars or 28.9% below the LSE price.
Happy to be corrected if I am missing something. GLA
#Oxford12 the latter figure also is the one that sticks in my mind from RM's presentation but remember that didn't have a potential COVID-19 therapeutic factored in to the companies revenue stream and consequential value.
#Org30 in friendly takeovers a public offer of stock or cash is made by the acquiring firm. The board of the target firm will publicly approve the buyout terms, which subsequently must be approved by shareholders and regulators, in order to proceed with the acquisition.
Apologies #Zwartkops I have noticed a couple of typos on reading the post ;
1. "board of shareholders" should have read "board of directors"
2. "stockholders" should have read "shareholders"
Another point I forgot to mention was that in a hostile takeover the acquiring company only has sight of the target companies information that is in the public domain. Therefore the acquiring company would potentially be blind to any potential problems in the running of the target company.
In a friendly takeover the acquiring company would have full access to all the target companies information in order to run due diligence audit and sense check their valuation. GLA