RE: IMHO anyone who has a short position on AGL (if that was2 Feb 2025 10:10
EC
Very much doubt there are shorters involved with Agl - not liquid enough, too small, too volatile etc. More likely that there are lots of holders who bought into Newland’s vision over last 5/6 years and feel distinctly aggrieved by his consistent hype, bluster, evasion, & utter failure to meet revenue & deal expectations that he himself has set. A perfect example is the expectation set by him that YE 24 revs would triple to c£6m, only for 6mnths later that to be halved to range of £3-3.6m, only for him to then in the other week’s TU announce it would be £2.9m ( and try & spin it as success!). Others have come to his defence pointing out the difficultly of revenue forecasting, which to my mind is utter tripe. Having been on the management team of a Nasadaq listed biotech growth stock, I know Newland should have been able to anticipate how revenues would develop. Instead what has consistently happened is that he appears to have basically made it up as he went along - taking the most optimistic f’cast and making that his base case, and then hoping that it comes to pass, blaming market conditions if it doesn’t, and trusting naive investors don’t keep tabs on what the Co has said and join the dots. Back when he raised at 80p the hype was extensive, and months later he completely shafted investors with a big revenue miss. That is the history here….
S/o else has pointed to the fact that the RNS over Illumina was not a joint release ( i.e. Illumina felt it was so material that it must be released to its investor base). No, this was all Newland’s doing- trying to generate hype around an industry research presentation by deliberately trying to equate the news to having huge commercial impact potential on Agl. That Illumina has not signed off on the RNS is telling. This sort of behaviour has consistently undermined Newland’’ s credibility with serious institutional investors ( several bailed heavily after being stiffed by the revs warning months after the 80p raise).
So the latest run-up has all the hallmarks of Newland running potential news up the flagpole, ahead of another cash raise. This has consistently been what has happened, and much as we want to look forward to a proper concerted change in the investment thesis, these are the facts. What would reduce my cynicism & partially change the risk-reward calculus is if Newland was actually to announce RNS that AZ & Eisei were taking forward the P1 clinical trials into P2 , with revenues attached & optimism about P3 OR that new deals had been inked. Swansinger & Karen Miller do appear to be making a difference to the management team and professionalising things but Newland still calls the shots and so that ‘ management’ discount will remain as and until Newland can demonstrate actual revenue progress rather than endlessly hype the future. I remain a shareholder as I have been for 5+ years
Sign In
Follow the stocks
