Member Info for Graffiti

I didn't see any negative surprises in the update. Effectively the entirety of the loss was driven by the fall in the value of Oxford Nanopore (ONT) shares. Maybe management could have sold some of those shares at £7.00, but then we'd all have been screaming if they'd hit £10.00! I think ONT remains a company with very exciting potential, so I'm happy that IPO remains a holder. It was also good to see that IPO still has £241.5M in cash to fund existing and new companies.
Below the surface, I think there were also some exciting updates on other holdings like First Light Fusion and Istesso.
Most importantly I see that the NAV is stated at 132.9 pence per share as at 31/12/22. So, this continues to trade at a huge discount. There are undoubtedly some gems within the portfolio and with such a wide margin between NAV and share price I'm certainly not going to be selling up any time soon - the only question is whether to top up whilst there is such a big gap!

The market has certainly been under-awed by what seems to be a great set of results. The only reason I can find, is that a chunk of the increase in profits has come from releases due to changes in mortality assumptions - so not due to improvements in trading over the last 12 months. LGIM has also reduced its profits, but that is hardly a surprise based on equity markets over the last 12 months. A more positive factor is that LGEN has won £9.5Bn of new bulk annuity transfer business at, what management describes as, "attractive" margins. If these wins are at good margins, then this should feed through into decent long-term profits as they run through. I have no reason to doubt this, so I remain positive about the long-term value creation that continues to be built and delivered at LGEN. As I said in a previous post, LGEN has continued to grow EPS and dividends every year since 2009 when I first bought in. On face value, I believe these shares are worth north of £3.00, so I will continue to hold and enjoy receiving that receiving that ever growing divi in the meantime!

New accounting standards withstanding, I think this is going to be a "steady as she goes" set of results. I've held these shares since 2009 and they've pretty much grown EPS and divis every year since then. The only thing keeping the SP below £3.00, IMO, is the general atmosphere of fear in the market. I don't think they are heavily exposed in any one area (bonds, property, equity, long-term infrastructure, fund management), so with a yield of over 9% I'm very happy sitting holding.
I will be interested to hear about their plans for replacing Nigel Wilson, who I think has been an excellent CEO, and also progress with building their bulk annuity transfer book.

Interesting what one relatively small share purchase from a Board member will do to the share price! Makes you wonder what would happen if there was some definitively good news...

Agree with NakedTraitor. The SP clearly got a little ahead of itself over the last few weeks, so today's fall is probably not a surprise. Nevertheless, I think the underlying story of technical strength in a growing market combined with a more commercially savvy CEO remains and, for that reason, I remain long-term invested in this. it's always exciting when you time the market, but I prefer to shut out the noise of short-term SP fluctuations and hold out for long-term growth. It's frustrating that this is taking such a long time to realise, but I still think it will come.

Good to see First Light getting good press coverage on the BBC here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63130593

The SP atm is clearly assuming that the company will burn through the remaining cash over the next 12 months, at which point Administrators will be called in and there will be a fire sale of assets that might yield a few pence per share. All the IP, potential licencing deals and the cell-manufacturing capabilities are clearly worth way more than that. So, the big question, is whether there the BOD have the nous to get some deals home whilst the clock, and the money, ticks down. In that respect, I think the Board is better equipped than a year ago. They may not be playing with a very strong hand of cards, but I would still like to think that the quality of science in their possession and the range of partners that they have been working with over the last few years will mean something will come up. After all, as many have said on this board, the values we are talking about are small-change for a big-pharma when you think of the boost that the exosome technology could give to their drug-delivery projects. I think that almost anything could happen from here, but it feels like we're moving toward the end-game and I'm not about to throw my chips in after being with this company for such a long time. GLA!

Not surprising that they weren't able to get an equity funding underway in the current market. The surprise really is that they tried, particularly having publicly stated that they weren't going down that route in the short term. I'd, maybe naively, hoped that there were deals in the offing that, combined with the £10M+ in cash and reduced capital spending requirements, would negate the need for dilutive equity raisings.
That's my big disappointment here: that the rather desperate attempt to raise cash suggests a real lack of confidence in their ability to do deals in the short term. So, I'm pleased that they haven't announced a dilutive funding round, but a little less confident than I was yesterday in the prospect of upcoming deals. I suspect that we're all so far down on our investments here, that we have no choice but to hope that they pull a rabbit from the hat: I think we probably all share optimism about the underlying technology, so let's hope that this is enough and that we get some good news here soon. GLA.

sajy - you have some cahoonas that's for sure!!! I agree that the risk reward on RENE as an investment is very exciting (and I have been along term investor here), but I still view this as part of my risk capital - i.e. I only invest in it what I can afford to lose. If it all goes the way many think it could, then there'll be some nice profit and, let's not lose sight of this, many, many lives improved/saved. GLA

As a set of results, it seems like a bit of a damp squib. The picture saved a bit by the better than expected sales of Covid antibody drugs, but there doesn't seem to be much momentum. I think the market will continue to hold its breath awaiting more detail on the Split, but it will be interesting to see if the BOD can inspire at the Markets Day on 28/02. I suspect not. What I would really like to see is Emma Walmsley taking on the role of CEO for Consumer Health, which would seem to play to her strengths and background and bring in a new Pharma CEO. Again, not likely to happen I think. As a long term shareholder this is now a weak hold and looking to sell on any rise, but the 23p divi will be welcome.

I think the movement today is just part of the volatility post the announcement last week, combined with an extension of general market sentiment. I'm not reading too much into it. Will be interesting to see where it settles, in the absence of more news flow.

I like the bereavement analogy Surprised 2, but I think there is genuinely still a pulse in this dog. It would seem to me that there are two main business models that RENE could follow from here (with, of course, many hybrids in between):
1. Go for multiple out-licencing deals using their technology. It's a beauty of their platform technology that there are so many potential applications, so it could be sliced and diced across multiple applications and multiple territories. This could provide up-front payments, possibly with fee-for-service revenues, followed by potential long-term royalties. This could be used to fund a therapeutic that they would develop in-house, but I'm not sure what that would be right now after hRPC has been put into dormancy.
2. Sell the whole business with all its attendant IP and scientific know-how.
Of course, with each licencing deal they strike, the value of the whole business as a take-over target reduces. If RENE is going to be taken over by a big pharma, they will want the IP position to be as clear as possible. It seems to me that 2. is the most likely route and it may be that this is why RENE has been slow to announce partnership deals on exosomes. It would be fascinating to know where the BOD discussions have gone in their internal discussions on this. There are some experienced heads on the BOD now, who have been around the biotech block a few times and I would think that they will have a clear-headed approach to this.
The next few months will be crucial for the future strategic direction of the company, but IMO this is not the time to give up on this, as there is still significant value embedded if it is managed well and with a fair-wind behind. GLA!

The short-term pattern seems clear that the price rises by 10-20% on good scientific news and then gradually sinks back to around 1.00 a share. I agree with a lot of people on this board that we won't see a sustained rise until investors see the evidence that this can be monetised. As with a lot of biotechs, investors also fear the prospect of a dilutive fundraising somewhere down the track.
I've just bought some more today on the dip, which breaks one of my golden rules, of capping my investment in AIM shares. My reasoning is that Rene now have a true platform technology with established efficacy in a number of areas. I think that recent results from their exosome technology and now from UCL on their pluripotent stem cell applications, make it a slam-dunk that research collaborations will be forthcoming (?maybe something to be announced in their results next week?). These can demonstrate:
1. That they have the ability to monetise their technology;
2. That they won't need further equity funding in the short to medium term and can self-finance their ongoing retinitis trials.
All of this, IMO, means that the potential value in this company is now hugely tilted to the upside, with virtually no value attributed to their IP.
GLA and DYOR!

Wow - there's a lot of confusion here. I think we have to go back to basics here. A share price has two basic components: its Net Asset Value and its ability to make profit/generate cash. In the case of First Group it has sold a chunk of its assets in the US. It did moderately well with the deal versus the embedded value of those assets. It then made the decision that the best use of the funds generated by the sales was largely to return them to shareholders (after reducing debt etc). Once those funds are returned, then the NAV of the business will by definition reduce. Whether it achieves that through a Special Divi, or share buybacks is not hugely significant: if it returns 41p per share, then the NAV per share will immediately reduce by the same amount and, all else being equal, the share price with it!
The key long term decision for everybody, should therefore be what will the future cash/profit generating capabilities of the new-streamlined FGP be? Personally I think there will be some short term selling pressures post the Tender, but that the medium-term looks pretty good. This is a very murky crystal ball right now though!

I've held these shares for 10+ years and I have to say for the first time, I'm REALLY excited about the potential. I've always viewed it as a share that will either fail or go big, with nothing much in-between. Now, I think the potential rewards massively outweigh the risk. Of course, there's still the possibility that this exosome tech will fail when it goes into humans, but I'd be surprised if we don't see some pretty decent partnerships/licencing deals announced in the next few months. That will mean potential cash-flows that can pay for the next stage of Retinitis trials to be self-funded without the need for capital raising in the near term. If there's a fly in the ointment, it's that neurological disease research is not as in-vogue as it was 5-10 years, with much more money now being spent in oncology and other fields, but then there's nobody else doing what RENE are doing in this space. In any case there's a very clear business model / runway to growth now emerging, which is very pleasing particularly when compared to the mixed messaging we seem to have got over the years.
I've not quite got the courage to significantly increase my investment (as I view it as risk capital and I strictly limit the % of my assets that I put into it), but I'm upping my price target to £5.00 a share and I won't think of selling this unless it gets close to that.
GLA - there's some patient investors on this page and I'm sure a lot that will be really proud to have been with this for the journey.

Thanks Jatw, that's an interesting take. I must say, I didn't look at the Athene deal very closely last year. Selling a 10% stake for $500M implies nearly twice the current valuation, though of course the terms of the reinsurance deal may have altered this up or down somewhat. Underwriting annuities is a capital intensive business, so PRU obviously had the alternatives of investing more money, or doing a reinsurance deal/selling equity. I don't have a strong view on whether that was desperate or not, or indeed who got the better end of that deal, but once PRU announced they were of-loading JXN in one way or another, that type of deal was probably inevitable.
I get your sentiments on why PRU couldn't find a trade deal. I suspect they may have tried, but couldn't get a decent valuation, so decided to pass the buck onto shareholders. On balance that's probably not unreasonable in the circumstances. I'd have been howling if JXN had been sold for half of what it was valued at in the balance sheet last year. At least now we have a choice.
My view at the moment, as a long term investor, is that (if well managed) the US annuity market is a reasonable place to be. With such an attractive valuation I'm going to look to build a stake if the share price stays <$30. I'll probably also hold onto PRU up to c£16.00 as well. They certainly look like very different propositions!

Like a lot of people, I've been confused by the behaviour of the share prices in PRU and JXN this week, so I've been doing some digging.
At the 30/06 PRU R&A, the value of Jackson Life was written down from $7.6Bn to $2.2Bn for a variety of reasons. I see that JXN expected to have 93.1M shares in circulation. At a share price of $30, that would give an enterprise valuation of $2.8Bn.
Like a lot of people on this board, I would expect to see sale pressure keep the JXN share price suppressed for some time. Not least of this, is the overhang from PRU retaining a 19.9% holding in JXN at the time of the demerger (?did this mitigate the expected fall in the PRU share price as it went 'ex rights'?), which they plan to sell off in the medium term (interesting that they are holding this, whilst potentially raising money in the markets to fund its own Asian expansion).
I've also looked at the Information Statement provided by Jackson Life as part of the demerger process (dated 6th Aug 21). I'm not an expert in R&A forensics (DYOR!), but a few things jumped out at me:
- Stockholder Equity is stated at c$10Bn (Adjusted Book Value @ $8.8Bn)
- A Net Loss of $1.6Bn was posted for 2020, which had swung back to a Net Profit of $2.9Bn for Q1 2021
It was also notable that they state their dividend policy on p97, quote:
"We expect to be in a position to distribute capital of between $325 million and $425 million to our stockholders in the first 12 months following the completion of the Demerger, through cash dividends and/or stock repurchases"
According to my calculations that would mean (at mid point of their estimate) $4.00 per share or a yield of c13% on a $30 share price. If they can sustain that, it would be hard to imagine anything other than a rising share price once the dust settles.
If anyone out there knows there way round a balance sheet, I'd be interested in their opinion, but from my 'Back of a fag packet' calcs, it seems to me that these JXN shares are exceptional value @<$30 each.

Interesting news today re the acquisitions of portfolio companies Kuur and Inviata (by Athenex and NeoGenomia respectively). Reading the press release, it seems that the price of the sales are £54M in excess of the value shown in the last R&A. Not sure how they've calculated this bearing in mind two thirds of the Kuur sale price is in potential future milestone payments, but nevertheless on face value this would seem to be good news - leading to a 4% increase in total NAV versus that stated in the 2020 FYR&A.
Maybe more importantly it shows some of the potential value hidden in some of the less heralded IPO investments. It's easy to focus on Oxford Nanopore right now, but maybe there's equal excitement down the road in some of the portfolio companies that aren't being talked about?!

There's a lot of talk here about short term buy&sell strategies for LGEN. IMO this is a stock that benefits particularly from a long term buy and hold strategy. That ties in nicely with LGEN's own business strategy of course. I bought some LGEN, for the SIPP I'd just set up, in 2009 at 32p and it's the one share I haven't touched since then. With the benefit of compounding I've been rewarded with a 14 fold increase in the value of my holding. If the rest of my portfolio had followed that, I'd be sipping ****tails on my Caribbean beach-from right now :-) So, my advice is don't worry about ex-div dates and short-term price fluctuations. Save that for those volatile AIM type stocks and let this one ride!

Results beat expectations on revenue and earnings. The share price drop is clearly down to 2 simple facts:
1. Expected drop in adjusted earnings for 2021 of 'mid to high single digits'.
2. Expected reduction in dividends from 2022
Markets aren't liking that in the short term, but I'm more interested in the longer term. The Markets Day outlining their pharma pipeline is imo critical, because 1 and 2 above will be happening because of their intention to invest in this. Personally, I'm as positive as I've been for a while on this pipeline and this is backed by good cash flow in other areas. If GSK can persuade the markets on the quality of their pipeline, then the price will soar, if not it will continue languishing in the swamp!
For me the jury is still out on the split. I like the fact that GSKs consumer health division provides the cashflow for developing the pharma pipeline, but prepared to be proven wrong.