Member Info for equality

Part 3 of 7

The narrative that the company is backed into a corner at 15p is factually, mathematically, and strategically absurd. The company started the year with £12.4m cash in the bank, supported by a 49% strategic stake in the CME business—an officially recognized £29.5m asset on the balance sheet. This isn't just "paper value"; it provided a £1.2m profit share in the first half of 2025 alone, and that interest continues to grow as the CME network scales high-margin sales across Europe. To put it bluntly, that 49% stake alone is worth significantly more than the company may need to reach breakeven by a long margin under the new cost base and core organic revenue growth—even excluding the big-ticket robotic opportunities visible in 2026. When you then consider the exponential "pull" from Intuitive and CMR—revenue which is not yet fully factored into management’s base-case forecasts—the business is on a clear path to self-sufficiency. With these catalysts hitting this year alone, there is a high probability that further capital will not be required. Very few AIM companies have a profitable ~£30m safety net they can monetize or borrow against if required, effectively removing the need for a traditional dilutive raise from the table.

Part 2 of 7

Unfortunately, us long-term holders paid for the R&D, including the mistakes along the way. But now that the risk has diminished dramatically, it’s all about the sales execution—or more accurately, with the giants now backing us, it's about "the pull." When you have global robotic powerhouses like Intuitive Surgical and CMR Surgical integrating our tech, and a giant like the NHS moving toward national adoption of Speedboat, the commercial trajectory is no longer a question of "if," but "how fast"—especially as the NHS Accelerated Access Collaborative (AAC) begins to prioritize high-impact medtech via the MedTech Funding Mandate.

As a long-term holder myself, I had conviction from the start and continue to have it—I’ve always topped up when I could, especially at today’s prices, which are lower than where management and the institutions are anchored. This conviction is reflected by the institutional support from the likes of M&G, River Global Investors, and Canaccord, who recognize that the current market cap is a fraction of the replacement cost for the technology. Even more telling is the strategic partnership with the giant Micro-Tech (Nanjing) via the Creo Medical Europe (CME) business. This is a massive two-way benefit; we gain factory-level pricing and a global sales engine, while they secure a foothold in the most advanced surgical IP available today. It is in Micro-Tech’s interest to accelerate the NMPA regulatory process (the Chinese FDA equivalent), making it a clear win-win for both companies. It provides the least path of resistance in the lowest timeframe to get Creo products into the huge Chinese market as a major bonus. We have to separate past sentiment from the 2026 structural reality.

The market has already penalised the historical cost base, which is exactly why the entry price is 15p today. However, under the new Chair Kevin Crofton’s leadership, the facts show that cash burn and cost reduction are now aligned with growth. Last year we saw 50% revenue growth, while underlying operating costs were reduced by 20% (£5m saving). This resulted in the underlying operating loss narrowing by over 40%—a massive structural shift. Crucially, the accelerated growth already seen is carrying over into 2026 and beyond. This momentum will impact the financials month-on-month, squeezing the gap to break-even as high-margin commercial revenue scales against a now-stabilized cost base.

Part 1 of 7

I’ve been reading the recent posts across various investor forums regarding the new broker appointment. There is a lot of unjustified speculation suggesting a new broker always equals an immediate capital raise, but as someone holding 1.8m shares, it surprises me that anyone holding would subscribe to that narrative without looking at the facts—especially when you consider that Shore Capital recently highlighted the company in their research as a "House Stock at 16p" with a 40p price target and an official "Buy" recommendation.

A few posters have been critical of me using AI to help me pull these posts together. I’ll be honest: As a long-term holder, I use it as a research tool specifically to fact-check and cross-reference the mountain of RNS data, historical share issuances, and technical indicators we've seen over the years. I understand the skepticism from those who focus solely on the company’s historical record; that record is exactly why we are at 15p. However, my previous posts were intended to provide a clear-eyed look at the 2026 structural shift—not just for new investors, but for anyone who hasn't yet fully grasped how fundamentally the commercial landscape has changed since the R&D days. I know many have "heard it all before," but the difference now is that the R&D promises are finally becoming P&L reality. While I am not challenging the frustration of some long-term holders—or perhaps those who have other motives and may not even hold Creo shares—that should not stop any of us from performing factual analysis. Regardless of whether you are a long-term or a new investor, this is my take using facts available to all of us—pulled together to help put the fear-mongering to bed. Now you can check the math yourself.

We must also remember the 'silent majority'—thousands of retail investors who don't post but come here seeking clarity and guidance. During these low-volume drifts to 15p, the sentiment on this board has a ripple effect. It is up to those of us who are active to support the factual reality of the company, helping fellow investors separate temporary market noise from the massive commercial trajectory we are actually on.

It is completely understandable why those who entered at the market peak feel a deep sense of frustration at the current valuation. A ~90% decline from those highs is a massive loss of capital that naturally impacts how you view the leadership. However, for both institutional and retail investors who have simply participated in all capital raises from the IPO, the volume-weighted average cost is anchored closer to 48p—and that assumes no additional open-market top-ups, which we know the institutions and many retail holders have been doing. At 15p, we are looking at a ~69% discount even to that conservative "passive" average.

Computer909, I respectfully disagree that 'dilution is irrelevant' to retail. If the share count moves toward 750m, the market cap required to reach even 20p jumps from £93m to £150m. Dilution is the primary anchor on the share price.

1. The 'Flight' Myth: Suggesting costs drop to 'a few flights' ignores the Technical FEED, EPCM recruitment, and Specialist Lab Assays required for a £30m project build. The 'meter' doesn't stop because the drills do.

2. Market Price Fallacy: At the current ~7.40p [1.4], the 8p warrants are 'underwater' and provide £0 cash. Bridging a £10m+ gap without warrants or a discount in this market is arguably an optimistic assumption.

3. Lender Covenants: The US DFC doesn't care if retail is 'happy' with a smaller %; they care that the Parent Company has the cash buffer to survive a 12-month construction build.

The market is pinning the price at ~7.40p because it is pricing in the 2026 capital requirements, not the sentiment.

Disclaimer: These are personal thoughts & opinions based on publicly available info. Not financial advice. Always do your own DD and consult a professional.

MgBRG96

Audited Reality vs. 'Boring' Data

"The £450k figure isn't 'insistence'; it is the average monthly cash demand (Loss + Capitalised Spend) directly derived from the 30 January 2026 Audited Annual Report [1].

1. The Audited Math: The 2025 report confirms a £1.41M total comprehensive loss and £3.93M in capitalised exploration costs. This £5.3M+ total requirement for the year equals a ~£445k monthly cash outflow.

2. 2026 Realities: While active drilling pauses, transitioning to Technical FEED, senior metallurgy recruitment, and DFC compliance arguably maintains this burn level as the project scales toward construction.

3. Lender Logic: Lenders like the DFC require a liquidity buffer based on historical audited outflows and fixed overheads, not optimistic future projections. If the cash buffer is insufficient, the dilution risk remains the only mechanical bridge.

The 2026 balance sheet doesn't change based on sentiment.

Disclaimer: These are personal thoughts & opinions based on publicly available info. Not financial advice. Always do your own DD and consult a professional.

MgBRG96

Appreciate the balanced reply. We agree on the fundamentals: Orom-Cross is a world-class asset with a completed DFS and verified 99.99% purity. However, the disagreement isn't about the asset quality, it's about the capital structure required to reach production in the current market.

1. The 'Leverage' Trap: While a Q1 JORC upgrade is great for Life-of-Mine (LOM) value, it doesn't solve the immediate cash outflow reported in the Jan 30 Audited Results. Leverage arguably only exists if you have the cash to wait; with a £450k monthly burn, the clock works against the company, not for it.

2. Flexible Finance Cost: You mention 'blended structures.' Historically, for junior miners, these 'blends' (convertible notes or streaming) are often more dilutive than a standard placement. Even with an LOI, the DFC typically requires that 30% hard equity match—which is the £10m–£15m gap we are discussing.

3. Base Case vs. Extreme Case: I’m not presenting the 750m count as a 'scare' tactic, but as the structural reality of raising £10m+ at current valuations. If the warrant overhang stays 'underwater' or fails to provide the full capital required, where does the bank-match equity come from without a major reset?

Optionality is a luxury of the well-funded. Until the funding gap is closed, the '750m risk' remains the primary anchor on the SP.

Disclaimer: These are personal thoughts & opinions based on publicly available info. Not financial advice. Always do your own DD and consult a professional.

You make a fair point about the typical 'NHS Adoption Gap,' but your analysis overlooks the specific Financial Safety Valves that protect shareholders from the dilution path you're suggesting:

1. The Partial Collateral Valve: Creo retains a 49% stake in its European business—a division valued at over £60m (€72m). As a safety valve, the company has the option to partially secure debt against a percentage of this asset. This 'Surgical Financing' provides a non-dilutive bridge to breakeven while the asset continues to grow in value and generate profit shares.

2. The 'Drain' is Narrowing Fast: The January 2026 trading update confirmed the strategy is working. Management has slashed underlying operating losses by over 40% to £13.3m, with revenue up 50%. With £12.4m cash already in the bank and operating costs falling by 20%, the march to cash-flow breakeven is now a visible commercial reality.

3. Systemic Mandate (Streeting Reforms): Health Secretary Wes Streeting’s new reforms—including NHS League Tables and tying Trust funding to productivity—are designed specifically to force the adoption of cost-saving tech like Speedboat™ Inject. The delay isn't a lack of data; it’s a systemic lag that the government is now mandating to be cleared.

4. Market Momentum: The share price has already climbed from 14p to 17.75p in just the last week (a 24.5% rise). The market is starting to see that 14p was a survival-mode valuation, but the reality of 2026 is a company with a protected balance sheet and massive strategic value.

Management has the non-dilutive levers to reach the finish line.

Disclaimer: These are personal thoughts & opinions based on publicly available info. Not financial advice. Always do your own DD and consult a professional.

While many focus on the Life of Mine (LOM) Revenue stretching into the billions or the latest broker target of 33.7p, serious investors must look at the potential 'Deep Bear' scenario for the next 6 months. To be fair, BRES has a Tier-1 asset, but if it cannot satisfy the DFC lending criteria today, the share price faces a structural reality check.

1. The Monthly Bill: Audited 2025 results show a total cash outflow of £5.43m, averaging a £450k monthly burn. While active drilling has paused, the meter is now running on technical recruitment, LSE overheads, and lab fees. Every month we wait for the loan, another half-million pounds of our equity potentially vanishes.

2. The Bank’s Rules: To unlock the £30m U.S. loan, the DFC typically requires a ~30% equity cushion. Even if we credit the current £4m cash, the ongoing burn and 'dead' 8p warrants still leave a potential £10m+ shortfall that must be bridged before the bank signs.

3. The 'Family Silver' Trap (Scenario A): If a partner takes 25% of the mine in Uganda to fill the construction gap, BRES holders lose 25% of the project's NPV. Even if the 64.1m warrants are eventually exercised for cash, the London parent potentially still needs a strategic placement to replenish its liquidity buffer for the DFC. Fully diluted count potentially moves toward ~615m shares (based on 465.3m issued + 64.1m warrants + a ~85m corporate raise).

4. The Nuclear Placement (Scenario B): If the 8p warrants stay 'dead' and provide £0 cash, BRES must raise the full gap in London. Bridging £10m+ at a conservative 6p would require ~150m new shares plus 'sweetener' warrants. This represents a potential massive 45% dilution of current holdings. Fully diluted count: ~750m shares.

5. The 'Warrant Wash' Myth: The Jan 13 block listing confirms 64.1 million warrants are a massive wall of supply. If they don't clear, the company's leverage to negotiate a 'premium' deal is weakened, making a potential 5p reset more likely to attract the necessary big money.

The market more than likely is pinning the price at ~7.60p because it sees the math: Whether you dilute the shares (Scenario B) or dilute the asset (Scenario A), the 'slice of the pie' for retail shrinks. At a 750m diluted count, even the broker's 33.7p target requires a £253m company valuation—a 7x jump the market is currently signaling is high-risk. A potential 5p reset is arguably the only level that provides the valuation 'buffer' needed to attract the institutional capital to bridge this gap. Reporting data-driven analysis to moderators won't fix a balance sheet.

Disclaimer: These are personal thoughts & opinions based on publicly available info. Not financial advice. Always do your own DD and consult a professional.

Appreciate the thoughtful replies. It is a fair point to raise that cornerstone investors could take a position at the current price, and that the project’s NPV and quick payback period are highly attractive. However, to settle the discussion for the weekend, we have to look at the 'Credit Reality' of project finance in 2026:

1. The Lending Trap: While the payback period is 'exceptionally quick,' no lender—including the DFC—provides 100% of the funds. Under the DFC’s standard 70/30 Debt-to-Equity ratios, a £30m loan potentially requires a £10m–£15m equity buffer (ratio + 2026 burn). The bank's comfort is based on the company's 'Skin in the Game' today, not just the cash flow tomorrow.

2. The Valuation Tug-of-War: While a deal can be done at the current price, sophisticated investors often seek the most advantageous entry. If the 8p warrants remain 'out of the money' and provide £0 cash, an investor could potentially use that funding gap as leverage to negotiate a lower entry. This is why a potential reset toward 5p remains a structural risk.

3. Scaling & The 'Family Silver': A larger project or a project-level farm-in in Uganda could potentially widen the capital gap or dilute our ownership of the asset directly. Selling a percentage of the mine to pay for construction is just dilution at the asset level.

4. The Time/Burn Factor: Audited 2025 results show a ~£450k/month burn. Even with drilling finished, the meter runs on 'Assay Wait' and recruitment. That burn potentially eats into the cash cushion the DFC requires before signing.

I prefer logic-checks over 'IMHO' hope. It’s important to look at all permutations, including the risk that the 40p dream could potentially face a 5p reset if the funding gap isn't bridged cleanly.

DYOR and have a good weekend all.

Disclaimer: These are personal thoughts & opinions based on publicly available info. Not financial advice. Always do your own DD and consult a professional.

Appreciate the debate. It’s telling that when the £15m funding gap math is laid out, the response is to talk about 'agendas,' call it 'waffle,' or claim the 7.6p price is a permanent floor. Let’s look at the financial reality of why the 'waiting game' is high-risk:

1. The 'Stability' Fallacy: One poster claims the 7.5p–8p range is solid. But 'past performance is not indicative of future results,' especially when you are burning £450k a month. A share price can stay flat for months while the cash drains away, but the moment the market realizes the 8p warrants are 'dead' and can't fill the equity gap, that floor can vanish. To ignore a 5p reset risk because 'it hasn't happened yet' is dangerous.

2. The 'Agenda' is the Math: If pointing out the Audited 2025 results and the RNS 6994I (the 6p options) makes me a 'troll,' then the balance sheet is trolling you too. Logic-check: Shouting at the sky doesn't fix a funding gap, and a spreadsheet 114p NPV doesn't pay for a mine.

3. The 114p 'Paper Value' Trap: You can claim a 114p project value, but if BRES can't meet the DFI's 30% equity-match without a massive placement, the market won't care about the NPV. It cares about the dilution needed to stay alive. Trading at 7.6p while claiming it's worth 114p tells you exactly what the 'Someone' thinks of the current risk profile.

4. The 'Project-Level' Trap: Some suggest equity will be at the project level. If a partner buys 25% of the mine to fill the £15m gap, BRES shareholders in London lose 25% of their future dividends. Selling the 'family silver' in Uganda is just dilution at the asset level. Either way, the 152p/share NPV is slashed.

5. The Leverage Argument: Why would the DFC or Alkeemia pay a premium to protect retail when they can wait for the 'assay wait' to drain the bank and then dictate terms at a 5p reset? Big players wait for the moment of maximum pain to secure the best terms for their capital.

I prefer balance sheet logic over sentiment or 'waffle' accusations. If the funding gap forces a nuclear placement, the 114p carrot won't stop the share price potentially from hitting the 5p stick first.

Disclaimer: These are personal thoughts & opinions based on publicly available info. Not financial advice. Always do your own DD and consult a professional.

Appreciate the debate. It’s clear some prefer sentiment, while the aggressive rudeness from others suggests a certain desperation to ignore the balance sheet. Shouting at the sky doesn't fix a funding gap. Let’s look at the 2026 financial reality:

1. The 'Inflection Point' Math: Some argue 'modest dilution' so far protects us. Logic-check: The £30M construction bill doesn't care about past efficiency. To unlock that loan, the bank typically requires a 30% equity cushion (~£11M-£15M). If the 8p warrants stay 'dead' and provide £0 cash, that 'modest' dilution record is about to be shattered by a massive funding gap.

2. The Alkeemia / 'Project-Level' Trap: It's suggested equity will be at the project level in Uganda via a partner like Alkeemia. Let’s be clear: if a partner buys 25% of the mine to fill the £10m–£15m gap, BRES shareholders in London just lost 25% of their future dividends and NPV. Selling the 'family silver' to pay for construction is just dilution at the asset level. Either way, the 152p/share NPV is slashed.

3. The DFC Equity Myth: While it’s confirmed the DFC now has an equity mandate, they are a bank, not a charity. They take equity to secure the U.S. supply chain, not to protect London retail. They will demand terms that protect their capital, likely forcing a reset toward 5p to absorb the risk of a Ugandan build-out.

4. The 'Boring' Phase & The Burn: Rome wasn't built in a day, but the builders were paid every day. Audited 2025 figures show a ~£450k monthly burn. Even with drilling finished, the meter runs on 'Assay Wait' and recruitment. That burn drains the very cash needed for the bank’s equity-match. 'Waiting' isn't free; it's actively shrinking our equity.

5. Fact-Checking the BoD 'Buys': To the 'AI slop' comment—the math is in the RNS. The Dec 2nd transactions were exercises of 6p options from 2020 (RNS 6994I) and the Dec 30th 'buys' were free performance shares. Neither required the Board to pay today’s 7.6p price. That silence since the Feb 4 Ministerial 'game-changer' is a valid red flag.

I prefer balance sheet logic over IMHO hope or desperation. If we can't bridge the equity gap without giving away the mine or doing a discounted placement, the 40p dream likely resets toward a 5p reality first.

Disclaimer: These are personal thoughts & opinions based on publicly available info. Not financial advice. Always do your own DD and consult a professional.

“Lincolnshire & the rest of the forum”

Appreciate the debate—it’s good to see this forum digging into the numbers. But "simples" doesn't pay for a mine and "relaxing" while the price drifts toward 5p isn't a strategy.

1. The 'Boring' Phase vs. The £15m Equity Gap

You mentioned we should "revisit mid-year." In layman's terms, that wait is incredibly expensive. Audited results show BRES burns ~£450k/month on overheads and lab fees. To unlock a £30m U.S. DFC loan, a ~30% equity cushion is standard. If construction inflation has pushed the mine cost toward $50m, and the 8p warrants remain "dead," BRES faces a £10m–£15m funding gap. If this results in a nuclear placement, we are looking at a reset toward 5p rather than 40p.

2. Sentiment vs. Skin in the Game (The Mike Factor)

You say "Mike is amazing." I’m sure he is, but "amazing" is a sentiment; "Buying at the current market price" is a lead. If the March loan is a "done deal" after the DC Ministerial (Feb 4), why aren't the insiders adding in the open market at 7.6p right now? "If you don't like it, sell" doesn't explain why insiders aren't buying the "bargain" they’ve created.

3. Fact-Checking the BoD 'Buys' (The 2020 Options)

Let’s be clear: the Dec '25 "buys" were actually exercises of 6p options from 2020 (RNS 6994I). They used old "coupons," not today's 7.6p price. The Dec 30th "buys" were free performance shares. Neither required the Board to pay full market price. That silence since Feb 4 is a valid red flag.

4. Tonnage vs. The Balance Sheet

It's suggested more drilling "adds tonnage." But Orom-Cross already has enough graphite for 50 years. Finding more doesn't pay the construction bill; it burns the cash needed for the bank's equity-match. In 2026, cash is king, not extra dirt.

5. Response to Merchantbanker: The 'Project-Level' Trap

Merchantbanker suggests equity will be at the project level. If a partner buys 25% of the mine directly to fill the funding gap, BRES shareholders in London just lost 25% of their upside. Selling the "family silver" in Uganda to pay for construction is just another form of dilution—it just happens at the asset level. Either way, the 152p/share NPV is slashed.

6. The Warrant 'Glass Ceiling'

64.1m warrants are a mechanical reality. If you think 9p is "fair value," you’re admitting the warrants have capped us. 40p requires a clean share register, not one pinned by a massive overhang.

I prefer logic over emotion. "Waiting" until mid-year is just hoping the terms don't dilute us toward 5p. If you have a counter-argument to the £15m equity gap math, I’d love to hear it.

Disclaimer: These are personal thoughts & opinions based on publicly available info. Not financial advice. Always do your own DD and consult a professional.

While the Bull Case for Blencowe (BRES) is widely discussed, we must address why we are sitting at 7.7p and not 70p. If the £805m NPV were a "guaranteed" outcome, we wouldn't be here. Here is the "Bear Case" and the structural risks that loom in 2026.

1. The "Paper vs. Reality" Gap

A billion-dollar NPV in a DFS is common in junior mining, but few reach that value. The market applies a 95% discount because the "Value Gap" is filled with execution risks. Even with the "Triple-Check" 530m share count, a mere 12-month delay would slash the "Present Value" as inflation and holding costs eat into future profits.

2. The Warrant "Glass Ceiling"

The ~64.1m outstanding warrants are a persistent wall of supply. Triple-checking the math confirms a total potential of ~529.4m shares. Many holders are "flippers" who exercise at 5p or 6p to dump at 8p. This creates a mechanical cap; every time BRES tries to break 10p, these warrants are tapped, forcing the stock to "swim through treacle."

3. The Placement Threat: The Equity Gap

The market assumes the £30m ($40M) DFC loan covers everything, but Tier-1 lenders usually require a 70/30 Debt-to-Equity ratio. To unlock that £30m, BRES likely needs £10m–£12m in cash. Cold math: even if all 64m warrants are exercised at 7p, it only raises £4.5m. This leaves a funding gap of £2m to £6m. If the share price stays stuck, the Board may be forced into a discounted placing at 6p or 7p to bridge that gap and satisfy DFC rules.

4. The "Inside Information" Silence

Bulls call the Feb 4 Ministerial a game-changer, but where are the Director Buys? If the Board knows the £30m loan is a "certainty" for March, you would expect them to load up at 7.7p. The lack of recent, significant open-market purchases by insiders suggests they are as cautious as the market. Until Directors show conviction with their own wallets, why should retail assume the "payday" is guaranteed?

5. Operational & Infrastructure Hurdles

Relying on a 1,000km road corridor to Mombasa and the Ugandan power grid creates a fragile supply chain. Any regional instability or shift in Ugandan mining royalties could vaporize the NPV. Furthermore, lab-proven 99.99% purity is not the same as commercial-scale consistency. If the first batches miss "specs," BRES will be left with a world-class mine and zero customers.

Bottom Line

The 7.7p price reflects Risk. We are a junior miner in a high-risk jurisdiction, facing an equity gap warrants alone cannot fill, and waiting for a government bank that moves at its own pace. Without a loan signature or Director buying, the "No-Brainer" could easily become a "No-Starter."

Disclaimer: These are personal thoughts & opinions based on publicly available info. Not financial advice. Always do your own DD and consult a professional.

Hi Senator1

Before I give you a reply on the valid points you raised please will you expand on why not the CFO, Rees and your thoughts on CEO Guilford?

Thanks

Part 2 of 2

5. The "Hybrid" Victory: Ion + da Vinci

Creo is uniquely positioned as the first and only partner to provide a dual-energy (RF/Microwave) platform for both of Intuitive’s flagship robots: Internal Ablation (Ion) via MicroBlate Flex and External Resection (da Vinci) via SpydrBlade Flex. Integrated into the da Vinci platform (10,000+ units globally), Creo is becoming a universal surgical energy standard.

6. Strategic Certainty and the Inevitable Exit

At a share price of ~14p and a market cap of roughly £50m, the valuation disconnect is profound. Considering Creo received ~£25m in cash for its European stake, the market effectively values the global IP and robotic partnerships at zero. As robotic and non-invasive surgery becomes the global default, a total buyout by a MedTech giant becomes a strategic certainty. Entities with the cash and the need include:

• Intuitive Surgical: Seeking a "closed-loop" system to capture high-margin consumable revenue.

• Johnson & Johnson (J&J MedTech): Needing an energy suite for their Ottava™ platform.

• Medtronic: Looking to replace aging ablation tech with Creo’s precision range.

• Olympus Corporation: Transitioning from a "camera company" into a "robotic treatment company."

The technology is on a superb global flight path for both patients and shareholders. For those who see past the noise, Creo represents a foundational opportunity at the start of a global surgical revolution.

Disclaimer: These are personal thoughts & opinions based on publicly available info. Not financial advice. Always do your own DD and consult a professional. I hold 1,500,000 CREO shares.

Part 1 of 2

The Global Robotic Infrastructure: Why the £1.25bn Lung Pillar is Just the Foundation of Creo’s Value Realisation

1. The Macro Catalyst: Wes Streeting, Prof. Shah, and the NICE Pipeline

On January 20, 2026, Health Secretary Wes Streeting visited Royal Brompton Hospital, hosted by Professor Pallav Shah and NHS England CEO Amanda Pritchard. Streeting hailed the robotic "one-stop-shop" lung procedure as "the future of the NHS." This momentum is backed by a critical regulatory driver: Speedboat™ Inject is under formal NICE assessment, with guidance expected by November 2026. By February 2026, NHS Trusts are preparing business cases to trigger the MedTech Funding Mandate; once NICE approves a cost-saving device, the NHS is legally obliged to fund and adopt it, clearing the path for a rapid revenue surge across the UK’s 350+ hospitals.

2. From Keyhole to Non-Invasive (The Endoluminal Revolution)

While the market focus is on robotic "keyhole" surgery, Creo’s technology is enabling a shift toward totally non-invasive, incisionless treatment. By using the body’s natural pathways—the airways for lungs and the GI tract for bowel/stomach cancers—Creo allows clinicians to biopsy and ablate tumors without a single external cut. This endoluminal approach reduces recovery times from weeks to hours and is the primary reason clinicians like Professor Pallav Shah describe this as a generational breakthrough.

3. Regulatory Dominance vs. Clinical Adoption (The Data Moat)

The core suite—Speedboat, MicroBlate, SlypSeal, and SpydrBlade—already holds CE Mark and FDA Clearance. Ongoing trials are building the Economic Evidence Base, proving Creo’s tech is safer and cheaper than traditional surgery. Real-world NHS data showing that Speedboat™ Inject saves approximately £5,000 per procedure (equating to £687k per Trust) is foundational to the NICE review. This "Data Moat" creates a massive barrier to entry that competitors would require years of clinical data to replicate.

4. The "Ion" Maths: A £1.25bn Revenue Pillar (MicroBlate Flex Alone)

Lung cancer accounts for 2.2 million new cases annually. The potential for MicroBlate Flex (at ~£5,700 per disposable) represents a massive untapped upside:

• Approved Base Case (US, EU, UK, Ex-China APAC): ~1.14m new cases p.a. A 10% adoption rate represents a £650 million annual recurring revenue path.

• China Multiplier: Adding China’s ~1.06m cases via the Micro-Tech partnership jumps the potential to £1.25 billion annually.

Continued.....

Disclaimer: These are personal thoughts & opinions based on publicly available info. Not financial advice. Always do your own DD and consult a professional. I hold 1,500,000 CREO shares.

i think we need to talk about the human element of the recent presentations. when you watch the videos, there is a stark contrast in 'connection.' kevin crofton connects with a level of compassionate authority; he acknowledges the weight of the task. in contrast, gulliford and rees often come across with a blasé attitude—the vibe of two men very comfortable with their own pay and benefits, regardless of the carnage in the share price.

to be clear: this isn’t a call for an immediate sacking. gulliford has the technical vision. but both of them need to look in the mirror and realize that their current presentation style feels like a slap in the face to long-term investors who sat through 180p down to the teens. they need to find the words to actually say sorry and reset the button. they must acknowledge that the previous 'wales-only' manufacturing strategy and the unrealistic sales curves were expensive mistakes made with our money.

i hope management, the employees, and the chairman are reading these forums. to ignore the sentiment of the people who have funded this journey would be a further slap in the face.

regardless of any prior working relationships kevin crofton may have with rees or other executives, he cannot afford to lose the respect he has built in the industry. his duty is to protect the company and its shareholders, not gulliford or rees. it might sound unfair, but that is exactly why these executives are paid the salaries they are—to not make the same mistake ten times over. gulliford and rees should view this new era under crofton as their absolute last chance.

however, regardless of who holds the official titles, the reality is that the technology and instruments are now leading the way. this company is on a superb flight path for both shareholders and patients. the kamaptive platform is a game-changer, the speedboat inject is saving lives, and the 20% reduction in costs shows the engine is finally being tuned correctly.

like i said, the ghosts are in the past. this company is going to be a success with or without the current leadership—it’s time they stepped up and proved they deserve to be in the ****pit for the rest of this journey.

Looking back at previous RNS statements, there was a period of over-expansion where spending didn't reflect 'owner-operator' discipline. It felt like money was being spent as if it weren't theirs. While management salaries and benefits have increased over the years, shareholder returns have gone the other way, and those losses are a bitter pill to swallow.

Gulliford and Rees now need to deliver for the shareholders. I hope they are reflecting on those past decisions because the grace period for 'potential' is over—it is now about execution.

However, I believe the arrival of Kevin Crofton marked the end of that era. We are finally seeing results: operating costs were slashed by 20% to £18.4 million in the FY2025 results. Two things now signal a fundamental change in tide:

Alignment: The decision to revise management’s option strike prices from 13.125p up to 24p was right. It ensures they don’t profit from the 'bottom'—they only win if they drive the price back up for us.

The Safety Valve: A debt drawdown facility (secured against the 49% stake or other means) is our insurance policy. It doesn't have to be used, but it tells the market we are funded without being forced into an immediate further stake sale or a dilutive equity raise.

Disclaimer: These are personal thoughts & opinions based on publicly available info. Not financial advice. Always do your own DD and consult a professional. I hold 1,485,000 CREO shares.

To clarify my previous point—the real value in this strategy is that it removes the immediate pressure. It sends a clear message to the market that the risk of further dilution is off the table and that Creo is now fully funded to operate without being forced into an immediate further stake sale or an equity raise. This allows us to scale the core tech from a position of control rather than necessity.

Senator1

I hear your point on the dividend payout ratio, but the strategy here isn't just about the annual yield—it’s about non-dilutive strengthening of the balance sheet.

Securing a debt facility against the 49% stake, or by other means, acts as a critical safety valve. It sends a clear message to the market that the risk of further dilution is effectively off the table and that Creo is fully funded to act without being forced into an equity raise.

Given the growth trajectory and the massive inherent value of the Kamaptive technology, lenders are looking at the 'Tech value' and buyout potential, which provides a much more significant cushion than a simple cash-flow analysis of the European arm.

Ultimately, as the core business scales and we hit our stride globally, that 49% stake will eventually look like 'chicken feed' compared to the value of the main enterprise. We are holding it now for leverage and strategic optionality, ensuring that any future moves are made from a position of absolute strength.