Listen to our latest Investing Matters Podcast episode 'Uncovering opportunities with investment trusts' with The AIC's Richard Stone here.
Hi EXMEX, where do you get the trigger date for phase 2 of 23/11 from? I can see that current contract ends on 28 January and gov must give one month's notice (i.e. by 28 Dec) if they want to extend past this date for full 6 months. The first 14 weeks I think is up on 4 Jan. I would expect a RNS to say the contract is being extended past 28 January as otherwise the market must assume that it is not and the sp would be impacted. That said you could say the RNS the other day was possibly an indication that phase 1 is going well and so no need to tell the market re phase 1 being extended.
The above dates still only take into account phase 1, I can't see anything re phase 2 being triggered and it looks as though a separate award would be given. The commercial framework is in place and I imagine it would be much easier to get sign off for phase 2 than it probably was for phase 1.
Also I think phase 2 would definitely have to be announced to the market as it would have a huge impact on sp (broker notes would be updated).
Not ramping but... "We on the cusp of major re-rate here." "Don't miss out the obvious rally incoming here." "In my books UFO is a must own stock going into 2021." I'd like to see what a real ramp looks like, maybe a boom thrown in? That being said, US stimulus announced by Friday and I'm inclined to agree...
I reckon you check it more though Max
El Capitan. I don't think there is a need to rehash the merits of the article. See this BB chat on the day it was released for more details. Do you have any other arguments / suggestions as to why Ph 1 might not be extended?
It looks to me as though the gov has until 28 Dec to extend the term of the contract past 28 Jan 21. I think they will have to do that if they want to extend phase 1 past the fixed 14 weeks because the 14 weeks is up 4 January. One would assume that we will hear from the company that phase 1 has hopefully been extended by 10 weeks by 28 Dec or by 4 Jan at the latest.
As there has been nothing to suggest to the contrary (apart from the bogus Independent article) I think this first extension is close to being a shoe in.
I'm not sure when we might then hear about phase 2 but it looks as though by the end of Feb / early March. v happy to be corrected as its not 100% clear to me...
1. People ought not to raise their hopes on any "re-rate announcements". 2. Said re-rate does not always happen when you expect it / immediately (see GGP's last drilling results for example).
I highly recommend a listen of this week's episode. In short from what I understand: 1. The vaccine does not stop transmission, it just relieves symptoms so the virus still spreads. 2. The vulnerable have not been included in the trials, they are likely to have much lower efficacy rates 3. No evidence how long vaccine will last, only tested for 2 months, 4. Major issues with AZN vaccine, might not get approved.
Testing will be needed for a long time still.
The guy from Zephyr is more rampy than Max (sorry Max, I for one do appreciate your work)
I think the bigger, and dare I say more positive for novacyt, vaccine news is that the AZN vaccine trial results aren't now expected until end of Jan. They should have kept to their original timescales and not released results prematurely.
It's happening!
The visiting care homes guidance clearly states that LFTs are being used. The only small plus for us is that much like with the Liverpool testing a visitor who tests positive must complete a confirmatory PCR test which should be provided to them by the care home. Still makes no sense, why have we spent months conducting a trial only for LFTs to be used? Are the LFTs just a Christmas stop gap whilst our machines are installed ready for the new year? What happened to protecting the most vulnerable!?
It was done under the emergency procedure, mainly because if gov had waited for a full tender, we would have sold capacity elsewhere (see the contract justification note that was circulated earlier today)
On an initial review of the contract it looks like DHSC had 5 weeks to do a clinical assessment on the goods i.e. this should have already taken place. If the goods had failed then we ought to have known as there would have needed to be an RNS (and GM et Al would not have bought in). Slightly more concerning re phase 2 but you would expect issues in any contract and as others have said we seem to be doing everything to address these.