We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Mr Sky - it has but the SP has been very volatile in the last few months and I really don’t think you can read too much into todays move in recent context. If the FTSE was flying it might look conspicuous but it’s not - I hold several big names down 2-3% today on no news.
He worked in the downstream business (fuels, refining, forecourts etc) and to suggest that he had anything remotely to do with Deephorizon is ridiculous. But then it’s the kind of shouty BS that I have come to expect from you.
The ‘market’ likes uncertainty less than they do this new appointment so whilst it may be a factor in todays drop I suspect it will be forgotten very quickly.
I’m not familiar with the new chap but I’ve just read 5 versions of the news on Reuters, FT etc and the general assessment is that his tenure at BP was very successful and that he gets results - didn’t get the nod for the top job a couple of years ago so left and has probably been waiting for something like this ever since.
I think the idea that American investors will hold his BP history against him is silly - they will judge him on results.
As always - time will tell.
Carrie - I didn’t fully answer your question - the holders I quoted, including chelverton, are all over 3% and disclosed on the Angle website.
Shareholders under 3% do not have to do Tr1s and are thus not disclosed on the website but if they are publicly marketed Funds they will publish monthly factsheets and annual accounts which will detail their holdings and often add commentary on holdings they add or sell.
I suspect it’s the published fund holdings data where Simply Wall Street get their long list of holders, including under 3%, from. I did once try and verify the validity of this list and found it to be unreliable. However, there were funds listed that I did manage to verify were current holders by cross checking to the Fund’s factsheets.
A tedious exercise but left me with 2 useful conclusions:
1. Angle have institutional shareholders below the 3% threshold, in addition to the publicly disclosed >3%.
2. SWS data is unreliable.
Bojo - how do you mean ? Did they take up more shares in the placing ? I’m not sure it woukd result in a tr1 either way - if they took it pro-rata they would remain on the same %.
If they took more or less or none it still might not move them through a 1% threshold.
Carrie, if you are interested in knowing who else is invested, first stop is the company website and generally: investors/aimrule26/significant shareholders.
If you don’t ever do this then I’m inclined to agree with phantom’s rather rude but fair assessment.
As for those below the 3% threshold it’s not so easy to access - simply wall street show a long list - maybe culled from online holdings - no idea how reliable it is and I wouldn’t rely on it. Otherwise I do know Amati Aim VCT were holders because I saw a video on their website where they included an interview with AN. There are others but I can’t remember off the top of my head.
I can’t follow the link to the Simply Wall Street prediction - would you mind summarising here ?
Not that I give it much credence - I’ve signed up in the past and looked at what they offer and I found it to be crammed full of data - presumably trawled by bots off the internet - some of which was out of date, incomplete or inaccurate. The ratings and predictions made no sense to me at the time for the shares I selected for my free trial. Might work better for big cap shares in mainstream markets.
Fevertreeman - I don’t believe for a second that you currently have any Angle shares - your ‘voice’ is not one of concern or constructive criticism that you might expect from a long suffering holder with doubts.
Back to your latest post - you are clearly seeking to downplay the significance of BG buying into the placing. BG’s AUM has decreased along with virtually every asset manager in the business - surprised it wasn’t more given current environment. Yes their previously great performance has not been so good recently - again quite typical.
I think it’s hard to argue that BG buying is not good news for Angle.
For me it’s comforting to know the professionals are still persuaded by AN.
Even if you question the judgement of BG (which it appears you do) they are not flippers which means those shares are not going to get fed straight back into the market.
A broken clock is right twice a day. Assumption is it’s a normal 12hour clock with no am/pm indicator.
Everybody knows what it means.
Only you take the time to twist it into an opportunity to insult someone…
Carrie - AN was never a Boffin - background in finance and capital markets. He has made himself fluent in the science but he is commercial, always has been and has a track record of successful exits from investments.
As Mr shorts suggests they are primarily trying to sell into the US Corporate Healthcare market - pharma services to big pharma, collaborations with med tech to develop tests etc.
Just listen to a couple of the more recent interviews and you’ll have a better understanding. If you still think AN won’t make it then you are at odds with some big name investors who think he can.
Good point Mr shorts.
To reiterate: Baille Gifford, the biggest shareholder of Illumina took a big chunk of the placing. They now have 5.7% from a zero previous notification although they could have been under the threshold.
They know what they are doing and clearly know the industry inside out.
This is very reassuring.
Carrie - in the interests of giving you the opportunity to support your argument:
Where do you see all the P&L investment being required ?
There will be new hires, I think we’re all agreed but:
As far as I can see the machine is ready and contract manufactured by a 3rd party as are the cassettes so no significant costs there.
The pharma services labs are up and running and already profitable. Expect more contracts in the near to mid-term.
Collaborations with med-tech to develop their own tests using Parsortix derived samples will likely be funded by the partners and in fact should be positive cash flow wise. Many existing assays etc that use surgical biopsy derived samples will be fairly easily adapted to use live ctcs derived from Parsortix.
Adoption in the clinical setting is a slow burner which will take a back seat for the moment but I suspect will be driven by pharma as an essential companion to personalised cancer treatment. eg prescribe drug A and monitor at intervals using Parsortix derived sample (simple blood draw), based on results continue with (successful) drug A OR stop drug A (unsuccessful) and try Drug B.
This kind of responsive drug selection is simply not possible at the moment and the sooner it is the better given that we know that most chemotherapy drugs do more harm than good in the majority of patients. This last fact is a tragedy but hopefully it will be history soon.
Carrie - I’m afraid that’s just a very superficial analysis.
Pharma services is already generating income and they have already built capacity for much more in the two labs - although they will need to staff up to meet demand. This was never reliant on FDA clearance anyway. Although it should now be a catalyst.
CLIA accreditation for the labs is an alternative route to market for the LDTs
AN has been astute in making sure that the business did not rely 100% on the FDA.
Collaborations will not be a significant cash draw..
On the contrary I’m impressed by the actions already taken by the business to capitalise on FDA clearance but also, importantly, to generate revenues independently of that.
But what’s your interest anyway ? Just casually passing by ?
There’s always a risk of a t/o when a business is vulnerable but AGL is not currently vulnerable nor likely to be ‘any time soon’ - which were the words I used.
And my reasons are:
1. Cash in the bank for 12 months++ AN is on record as wanting to leverage collaborations to fund development of new applications of the Parsortix technology. As opposed to self funding so maybe the cash lasts longer.
2. The labs are beginning to generate revenue and that part of the business is profitable already ie will contribute cash rather than be a draw. I expect more announcements on new contracts within the next 6 months.
3. The ‘laboratory developed tests’ (LDT) should start contributing at some point.
4. Collaborations will be revenue generating before the end results - med tech etc will be expected to pay for the technology during development.
5. Clinical adoption will take much longer but it has the potential to revolutionise cancer treatment - this isn’t an exaggeration. Personalised treatment is overwhelmingly the direction of travel in cancer treatment and Parsortix can facilitate this in a way that no other FDA approved device/process can at the moment.