Member Info for erratum

Given we should be meaningfully profitable next year and we are likely on a low double digit P/E at these prices there is good buying indeed here right now. That said buying in size is hard unless you are prepared to spike the shareprice.

On the UBS TR1s we are seeing. It seems to me it relates to margin calls, given how they (UBS) are bouncing around it appears to be that someone large has this on margin. They are getting a margin call, UBS takes the collateral and starts to sell positions (probably across the portfolio with less impact here given the liquidity) the call is meet and the collateral is released. Given the volatility in the markets mirrors the UBS filings this is my best guess. I think this is borne out by the fact that each time UBS reports crossing 5% it is with less shares so the position has been trimmed down from the previous time they took the collateral.

A bit of forced selling and very few buyers is a good time to add a few as Trek is wisely doing.

@CaneToad, as HumpyDumpy said well done for concluding this is not the right stock for you and moving on. Given how wobbly you have been on this one for a while now, I am sure you will gain equanimity from the decision.

@canetoad - Forgive me for the bluntness but it clear you know very little about the legal profession and specifically Ince and its key practice areas, it is also clear that you did not do very much research before investing. I am more than a bit curious on what basis you underwrote your purchase of Ince shares ?

@Contrarian123 - You are most welcome to your opinions/speculations, they are of course wrong but you are most welcome to them.

I am not following your thought thread here.

If it was the board had not consider the possibility of the loss of Nomad status prior to April 6th, clearly that is not the case as among other things it was a condition precedent for closing and it was also a risk factor in the scheme document. If it is something else you are going to need to be a bit more explicit to help me understand the change you are seeing.

It should be asking you if you are in agreement that it addressed to Mr. Biles .... just 5 mins ago you were telling me it was not.

@tshaw2 .... would you like to tell me what took place and who did what and when as I don't know and clearly you do ?

Would you also like to refer to the follow up tweet from the owner where he says on reflection he overreacted and perhaps you might also like to acknowledge that Mr. Biles's retirement was announced before the newspaper coverage and that he did not resign over the "incident" as you appear to be suggesting.

sorry I thought I did not need to fill in all the details .... Try Mr Biles

try Mr.

@tshaw2 ..... are you certain this is what happened ?

A little fact checking would tell you that the emailed announcement of Mr J Biles retirement went out to staff before 9.30 am on the morning after the restaurant incident (is it possible it was a retirement party ?) and long before the tweet made it in to the newspapers. The letter which was tweeted out was addressed to Mr. J Biles and explicitly absolves him of the behaviour that was objected to. I do think people on this board need to be very careful about stating as fact things that they are guessing or supposing, especially when tied to named individuals.

Roll on Friday ..... lol, retracted tweets from Michael Fabricant of all people. Lots of hard facts there then.

@Canetoad .... a takeover could be blocked if either 25% (under a scheme of arrangement) or 10% (traditional takeover) of shareholders voted against the deal. Given the fractured nature of the shareholder register it would be very difficult for a management led buy out to pick the company up cheaply. In terms of the highest price in the previous 12 months this would only apply if the Biles concert party had bought shares and were involved in any takeover. That said I do not recall any of them having purchased shares in the last 12 months.

Cardiff is principally a back office location for the group and a very limited amount of legal work is done from there. Final point John Biles did not resign he retired, he is 83 years old.

@contraian123 .... you are incorrect in your belief about who I am and I am not sure I have ever asked you or anyone to believe what I say but you opinion is well noted.

Spot on the difference is the deferred consideration and most of that will roll of in the second half of this financial year. In effect this is a conditional liability that will only become payable in the event that certain levels of revenue are billed and collected by the pre merger Ince partners.

Well said JmcJ you are right it is Cheap as chips ..... for all the puerile negative sentiment on the board no one is selling. I have a bid in the market and I am not getting filled which is a bit frustrating.

@Salmon33, it seems to me that the word "significant" and now from your latest the derivative "insignificant" does not mean what you think it means. Why not pick up the phone to CEO or one of the NEDs and find out what is really going on rather than guess here on the LSE board ?

In your latest you say "whatever the rights and wrongs", one would think that the rights and wrongs of the matter are crucially important in this issue. As it stands today this is not even a case of "he said, she said" .... it is currently only a case of "he said". In the modern world of trail by twitter the Ince board is doing exactly the right thing.

Once we get an update from the company on how they are doing, which is now long overdue, we will be discussing how good or how bad their results and as you well know, ultimately, that is all that matters. In the big picture this is an utter irrelevance and if you believed it were not you would have sold or be in the process of selling your shares. Current trading volumes would suggest that is not the case.

@damofarl, well noted that you will not take on any of the specific comments. Here are a couple more based on your latest, that you might wish to consider when you move on from analysing Daily Mirror headlines.

1) There is no evidence it was a works do we only know that 2 Ince employees were in attendance and neither have been personally accused of the alleged behaviour.

2) It is entirely normal for the independent directors to launch an investigation when their company is linked to negative press. This is PR 101. Don't explain, don't complain, investigate.

3) Once again you have no evidence that anyone from Ince acted with anything other than the highest social standards.

4) It is asinine that you think this will have any impact on the the level of business done by Ince (whatever that level maybe). The whole incident is already in the dustbin of history having been used to wrap last weeks fish dinner.

The usual lazy, twitter deep analysis and utter banality, that one expects from certain posters on this board. Lets take the some of the issues one by one

1) We only know that SOME Ince employees were in attendance. There is no evidence that anyone from Ince was involved in the alleged behaviour, in fact the letter to John Biles makes it quite clear that he was not the culprit, thus removing one from the equation.
2) Whatever occurred there was no police involvement and no suggestion that anything that required police involvement had occurred.
3) As you say you are GUESSING who picked up the bill. But don't let that stop you making unsubstantiated superposition.
4) I would bet most of you have been at a table where one (and it was identified as only one guest) has be less polite/respectful than you or others at the table would be, I know I have. I certainly would not be happy to be judged by the behaviour of the worst people I have ever socialised with.
5) The restaurant in question has only 12 covers and was opened on the back of a crowd funding campaign in January this year. This campaign raised GBP 35,000 and the restaurant only opens 4 days a week. This was never going to be an economic preposition unless it operated at full capacity all of the time. Which based on its booking records it was not. It would seem that the publicity has been very good for their bookings over the next 3 months. Make of that what you will.

The fake moral outrage here is laughable.

One may wonder but if they looked at the numbers they would wonder no longer ...... growing profitability , net cash, growing revenue and stable R&D spend.

Revenue R&D New Orders Order Backlog
2017 6.73 m 1.13m
2018 6.13m 1.41m
2019 5.00m 1.75m 4.90m 5.70m
2020 6.70m 1.45m 12.7m 11.2m
2021 10.10m 1.70m 15.7m 17.00m

Agreed a very strong presentation and a very clear and strong short, medium and long term outlook.

I could, however, do without the woke nonsense at the end, thankfully it was only time and I hope it is not a trend. While I am happy that good staff are well rewarded to then say that most staff only come to work for the knowledge that they play a small part in helping bring life saving therapeutics to market, rather suggests that management should not be paying them inflation busting wage increases and telling them to work longer hours in order to maximise their own utility.