focusIR May 2024 Investor Webinar: Blue Whale, Kavango, Taseko Mines & CQS Natural Resources. Catch up with the webinar here.
Sentiment gets killed when your CEO announces sales are growing exponentially only to admit they have declined just a few months later. Sentiment gets killed when the CFO let's it be known that a placing is probable unless the company can flog some of the family silver. Sentiment gets killed when the CEO suggests tests may need to be included in treatment guidance notes in order to gain market traction, whilst simultaneously demonstrating ignorance of the largest prostate screening trial in decades.
Either write to Burrows and complain about the effect his leadership is having on your investment, or cut your losses so you can stop whining about how an individual posting on a forum is materially influencing the share price. One of those options might suggest you have some sense, the other hints at paranoia even if it is rather comical.
They have already stated that they are hoping to find buyers for some or all of the colorectal cancer/canine cancer portfolio in order to keep the ship.afloat. I think this demonstrates managerial naivity. They are asking for 10's of millions for some or all of two business segments that do not yet exist and have zero revenues. Burrows should consider going on Dragons Den as I suspect the experience may prove educational.
The liklihood of a takeover is, in my opinion, miniscule relative to the liklihood of a dilutive placing coming our way soon.
@agakhan,
My questions were sent to investor relations immediately following the webinar. It's pretty clear that they have no intention to acknowledge or respond to them. I fear the management of OBD leaves much to be desired. Almost all of the senior managers, including our CEO, have 2nd jobs and many share past employment history with Burrows. There is no indication that competitive recruitment processes have been used prior to appointment of many/most of these highly paid, but underperforming managers. Worrying indications of potential cronyism?
My questions on this;
Have we directly approached NIHR/Prostate Cancer UK to request participation and if so what was their response?
We already employ several senior managers for whom research proposals and negotiations are 2nd nature. Why then has it been deemed necessary to employ a 3rd party advisor to lobby for participation? Is this reflective of low prioritisation of participation in Transform?
Since Dr Burrows states that it is imperative that we are involved who in the company is responsible for securing participation or are we wholly reliant upon a '3rd party advocate'?
4. Since we are in discussions with third party organisations concerning partnerships, are we entering these discussions with a clear vision of what type of demand would constitute a deal breaker? I am particularly concerned about potential implications for ownership or control of our IP.
Yours Sincerely,
Still awaIting an acknowledgement, let alone a response to my email below.
Dear Investor Relations Team,
The webinar and ensuing fall out with respect to the share price has been very disappointing. I have some questions and remarks in relation to this and would appreciate your response.
1. There appears to have been a lack of transparency in the company's dealings with shareholders. For example the mid-year webinar suggested that CiRT sales were growing exponentially, albeit from a low base. On Wednesday, we were told that the peak sales figure attained at that time was actually recognised to be a spike and that sales were expected to tail off through the summer. Why are such contrary messages to shareholders deemed appropriate when they serve only to confuse and damage trust?
2. The company issued an RNS on the appointment of Steve Arrivo, presumably as the information was considered to be price sensitive information. No such announcement was made in relation to Ryan Mathis and I note his linkedin profile does not yet indicate current employment by Oxford Biodynamics. We were informed in the webinar that he is to be responsible for improving the marketing and sales of CiRT. What exactly is his relationship with the company? Is he a full time employee, a consultant, or something else? If he is an employee why was precedent not followed with regards to an RNS on his appointment? Has he started working for OBD or is there a delay to him taking up his post?
3. I wrote to you earlier this year to enquire about the prospect of the company participating in the Transform Prostate (TP) screening trial. I received a generic response stating that this information was price sensitive and would only be released by RNS.
During the webinar we were told the company has employed a '3rd party government advocate' to lobby for inclusion in the trial. I don't understand why this is necessary as it is my understanding that the TP project has specifically been designed to future proof it against the emergence of new technologies like Episwitch PSE post the submission deadline. Prostate Cancer UK are fully aware of our technology and have stated publically that they would like to see PSE properly validated via a randomised control trial conducted at scale. We should be pushing on an open door!
Dr. Burrows says we have written to the Transform team and that we "must be involved". Please inform him that contrary to his belief that the trial 'won't be set up till 2024', the project has been designed, the call for proposals has expired and individual participants are being recruited. The only new information due to be announced in the coming months is the identity of organisations and partnerships involved and their associated budgets. We appear to be very late to the game.
It was quite shocking to see our CEO continuously having to refer to notes when discussing the largest ever trial for a national prostate screening programme.
My questio
@scoredagain.
I agree. For now. more than ever, it's a question of personal view of the risk reward balance. I've reduced my holding as I am convinced a placing is coming very soon. I also wonder if we could become a target for a takeover at this depressed share price but I don't think that's as much of a possibility until the hype is backed up with regulatory approvals following trials at scale.
I have a pot of cash waiting but won't be increasing my shareholding until future financing is secured.
Presumably we all invested here because we believe in the science. That's not the problem here. The issue is that after 2 years we are still counting daily CiRT sales on the digits of one hand and whilst it is early days for PSE it hasn't hit the road running either. Why is Episwitch apparently news to these precision medicine specialists? Has the corporate publicity campaign in the US flopped?
Hopefully our growing gang of Marketing and Sales VP's can take this positive publicity beyond a specialist conference audience and convert it to sales.
@Jiffy.
The technology is why I'm still invested here (albeit with a reduced holding reflecting the current risks) but it doesn't guarantee anything. Biotech is an expensive hobby to have for small cap companies and markets can be difficult to access for all sorts of reasons (including manipulation by big pharma). There's a warning in an RNS from today as to what can happen if you don't get revenues and rely on fund raises.
https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/AVO/further-update-on-financing-discussions/16313052
Bottom line here is the 10% of our employees that are customer facing V.P's need to start earning their crust by selling and our CEO needs to identify and remove barriers that may be preventing them from doing so.
The safety net is that I can envisage a takeover. So at least we should see some return on investment, but it may not be as much as it should have been.
hi tav,
not a thing mate. i'd post any reply i get as promised.
seems increasingly clear to.me they are determined to ignore any awkward questions. can only hope the message gets through regardless. have to say it's **** poor that our chairman is in hiding. i suspect he must be embarrassed that the cronyism he's endorsed is delivering what it is.
Have never doubted the commercial potential of the science, but I do have major issues with an overblown, rapidly expanding management team recruited by cronyism and delivering nothing that matters. Agreements with insurers don't keep the lights on unless and until our multitude of VP's start selling.
There's a placement coming imminently and a 12% spread on the ask/bid. I'll wait till the dust settles on those before investing anymore.
Big feature item on colorectal cancer on this morning's BBC news. Another chance of free publicity goes begging whilst our US based management team focus on the 'biggest market' to accomplish a couple of tests sold per day! 5 VP's, 3 recently employed to sell and this is what we get.
Maybe we'll get an update on PSE sales following the first month of the US insurance code going live, in order to halt the slide in the SP.
....or maybe not.
Couldn't sell a lifebelt to a drowning man.
Hi Jiffy,
Yep V.P. is an abbreviation of Vice President. Sadly we have many of them, all charged with doing one another's job.
The science is good, if yet to be validated to the satisfaction of the medical community. Competent management is another thing, but it will happen in time, as I suspect we are moving headlong to a takeover. Sadly that looks like happening on the cheap.
Tav ,
WRT Burrows salary and work as President of Contracts Division at polarityTE (now RegenETP) I posted external links to this info earlier in the thread.
Here's another on his other part-time employment
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/RGTPQ/profile/
The interesting thing is it confirms RegenETP as another small (42 employees) organisation top-heavy with senior managers. Almost 1 in 4 employees there are in executive posts. Where have I seen that before. Funnily enough if you scroll down the named senior managers you will find that the guy just employed to head upthe push on CiRT is also a part-timer.
GMS,
As I said once before on this thread, when the facts change I change my.mind, what do you do?
As for the paper the very last sentence in the conclusions section states
an
."Further extended prospective blinded validation of the new combined signature in a screening cohort with low cancer prevalence would be the recommended step for PSE adoption in PCa screening"
Which is pretty much what Prostate Cancer UK also say.
I suggest you do some research on Stockholm3. It hasbeen used o. Tens of thousands of men in Scandanavia. It too is a blood test and not a drug, but the UK National Screening Committee say it also needs further validation due to a lack of diversity in the ethnic groups to which it has been supplied hence it will highly probably be the candidate blood test in the Transform trial.
What I'm saying is Burrows promised exponential growth of revenues back in July and actually delivered a month on month decline by December. The cash burn will scarcely notice the incremental growth (if there is any!) That you seem to think acceptable.
Burrows is highly likely to ask for £20 million from shareholders or buyers of our IP just to keep the doors open. The Transform trial is a god sent opportunity to get the extensive validation the medical community expect, and to do so at zero cost to OBD. Budgets are currently being negotiated with the participants and the first few thousand volunteers will have been tested against the candidate tests by this time next year. Its an absolute no brainer, yet our CEO had to sit reading extracts from the Prostate Cancer UK press release in a comical attempt to appear knowledgeable.
As for BUPA I have used them on a number of occasions. When you call them to get approval to progress to a treatment the first thing they do is tell you the names of their practitioners that you can consult. They are not BUPA employees but BUPA use them as paid consultants. Oh and yes I understood from the RNS that a deal had been struck with BUPA. What it seemingly omitted to say was that we would be running workshops to try to persuade their consulting oncologists to use their tests. A bit like the failed P2P model that has delivered 'exponential growth' (or not as the case actually is).