They have to buy and sell shares even when nobody else is and when they don't know if the price is on its way up or down. They have different advantages from investors, but different disadvantages too.
Oakleaf72 - "NDn is working this board like many others are, trying to sow doubt and mis-lead genuine investors so that they will give up their shares."
Over £3m worth ofSNG shares are traded every day. Do you really think the comments on this board affect even 1% of that? Judging by the votes that comment got a lot of people do, which is worrying really.
I've read that analysts check boards like this as part of their due diligence before their employers invest, and (I think) I've seen evidence that PR firms monitor them. But nobody's basing their trading decisions on some poster's opinion or their unverified 'facts'. The conspiracy theories on here don't really stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.
You always do. That's why it doesn't matter any more. These are things anyone can check for themself.
1) Even though the share price is lower than five years ago, the company's market cap is 50% to 100% higher. 2) Everybody knows that a company's share price five years ago is no reflection on how today's price will compare to next month's, next year's etc.
Aside from the details given in the RNS, are the terms of the grant of options made public?
I'm wondering if they are required to hold onto them for a certain amount of time, or whether they've effectively just made the decision to keep £200k worth of shares each rather than immediately cash them in.
I'd guess some people were happy to make 20-40% in a few weeks and have moved on, while others are currently unsure when/if to jump in. The three highest risers on AIM are currently up 43%, 36% and 19% just since this morning. So people have plenty of choices if they're just moving money around looking for quick gains.
If it stays near this level I think we're in a good position for it to start climbing again next week. I could be completely wrong though. We'll see.
Purple1 - "Why are you so confident that it wont lead to EUA? "
- There's not enough supply of the drug to warrant approving a 'still' unproven drug. - I believe it's unheard of to give emergency approval with the small amount of data we currently have. - With trials ongoing, some of it is already getting to patients anyway. - In a recent presentation (within the past few weeks) Richard Marsden said SPRINTER results will trigger EUA application, which implies this won't.
So it's really just my opinion based on what I know about the circumstances. I had the same discussion on here this time last year. I said it wouldn't and most people disagreed.
RE: Activ-2 Route to commercialisation?20 Oct 2021 09:00
I'm no expert but government policy (UK, US and probably all others) seems to have been made up as they went along. For example, there were arguments early last year between Trump and his cabinet over whether PPE should be ordered at state or federal level (i.e. should the 'market' control it or should the federal government?).
Governments don't normally buy drugs. They maintain authorities that regulate them, but it's then up to pharmacies or the NHS to decide to buy them, bid for supplies etc. Another way to put it is that the governments react to the individual circumstances, which could include different arrangements for one drug than for another. So ultimately, nobody can be sure what deals will be/have been made with any governments.
The one thing I can say with a lot of confidence is that EUA will not be given or even applied for as a result of today's news.
MrCosts - "Why do people think the NIH made that tweet about [injected] interferon..."
They just got the results and wanted to make it clear to doctors across the world they shouldn't be treating covid patients with it. Especially those who heard about Synairgen's trial and erroneously concluded that subcutaneous interferon could be worth trying.
It's the most logical explanation and does away with all the conspiracy theories too.