Member Info for IntrepidInvestor

Meant for smokieUK.
Sorry.
Intrepid.

Hi smokie72

Re your comments on lockdown as the seemingly sole solution and what would O suggest:

The initial lockdown was needed because we did not really know what we were dealing with (death rates etc) and because very few were shielding and the wave was going to peak so high that the NHS would not cope. I fully understand that it was vital then. However, it went on to long IMO.

Moreover, after that initial wave, we now have the data; only the very old and a percentage of younger but unhealthy of the population are at serious risk (above 2% mortality rate).
So there is no need to lockdown the whole nation; there is only the need to shield (ok, ‘lockdown’) this vulnerable group.
All the money being wasted/lost on the National lockdowns & general/local restrictions could be directed to that group whilst the rest of us get on with life.

For example; let’s commandeer Ocado and Amazon UK to deliver only for this vulnerable group (no tax receipts lost there) so they get get food & goods safely.
Furthermore, create a Covid-safe list of theatres, cinemas, bingo halls, bars and restaurants where only this group of vulnerables can go, and then commandeer the coach companies (that the elderly are currently not using) and some taxi firms all sanitised & staffed by Covid-tested staff and ONLY used to ferry said vulnerables yo and from these social events. As all the vulnerables will be isolated from the rest of us, they won’t be in danger, but test them all before and after these outings each time (as well as the skeleton staff involved). Also connect them all up to fibre-to-the-house broadband & give them free subscriptions and training for the duration.
And anybody in the ‘vulnerable’ list who doesn’t want to shield doesn’t have to, but they are not allowed in this protected ‘mega-bubble’.
There you have it; a shielded, fed, entertained, protected.
Meanwhile, devise a proper ‘track & trace’ system that works (remove ‘Disaster-Dido’) and make it mandatory for everyone. And make it accessible centrally so that the authorities can see who has been where, whenever they like (they can do this already, they just won’t ever admit it).
Let everyone not elected to be on the vulnerable list then go about their daily business.
Finally, have extremely localised rapid responses to outbreaks where it is mandatory to stay indoors with heavy penalties; this ‘Rapid response’ approach is working in China according to the BBC China correspondent yesterday on Jeremy Vine.
There you have it; Simples really.
Just need the political will - hence my point about ‘anchoring’.
Cheers
Intrepid.

Hi Rookie72

Re you request as to anybody knowing when the 2020 results will be out. I do:

On 30th June if they are bad and something in the first week of January if they are good.

Hope that helps.

All the best
Intrepid.

Hi gggg21

I agree re ‘once we get numbers’ but think the ‘forward-trading statement’ will have even more impact.
Intrepid.

Hi Wilson63.
Understood. Was just keen to DM outside of LSE.
Intrepid

Hi wilson63.
How do I find you on Twitter?
Cheers
intrepid.

Hi sonicboomboy

I agree with your comments. However, let’s not forget the psychological phenomenon known as ‘anchoring’. Currently our government (and lots in the media and our scientific ‘experts’) are suffering from it.
They talk of not ‘wasting’ all we have done (via previous/current lockdowns/restrictions) by now changing approach.
Basically, they are saying “even though the data says lockdowns don’t work because all they do is delay the inevitable re-rise of the virus whilst killing the economy (which has to pay for everything), we can’t give up on that failed approach because it would mean the lockdowns were for nothing”.
Classic ‘anchoring’ which many of us suffer from. It prevents people from ‘cutting losses’ and moving onto other strategies in every walk of life. It’s the antithesis of the whole “I was wrong - let’s try something different” approach to problems.
I hope that come January 1st (and completion of Brexit) we get the much-needed alternative approach by HMG.
Otherwise, the tsunami of job losses, cancer deaths, suicides, mental health issues, violent protests and resultant political & economic unrest et al will knock this country firmly back into the 20th century. My businesses won’t survive much more of this and most of my peers are saying the same.
I fear that my only salvation will be holding this share. Which is really not what I want - I’d much rather they cease lockdowns and shield the vulnerable. But sad to say I now see NCYT (and two or three others) as my financial lifeboat.
Roll on 2023 (that’s not a typo).
Best regards to you all
Intrepid

Disappointing there is no guidance on what the contract is likely worth to SFOR. They usually state the expected annual budgets.
Or have I missed something?
Cheers
Intrepid.

Oh dear. This is not what was needed. At best, this RNS comes across as amateurish (which an AIM BoD can be forgiven for) - at worst it is clearly desperate;

The use of the word “significant” several times is the breadcrumb methinks. In my experience this word often gets used by cos when no actual numbers are ‘ready’. It’s a woolly word which can mean different things to different people. But what it does not give any insight into, in this instance, is what timescale are we looking at before ACVT have something to sell. The RNS is an attempt to quell growing nervousness but hasn’t achieved that. If anything, it’s added to that anxiety.

If you don’t agree with me, (and I know there are plenty of you), ask yourself this question; What did you really want that RNS to say? Did it say it?

No. I thought not.

Seems the breadcrumbs are leading in the wrong direction. Only an RNS which is time specific or materially defines “significant” will do now.

As for the comments they are working on various style tests; why? Get one to work first, otherwise they will suffer ‘mission creep’. Alternatively, it might be that they are having to work on others as the first ones aren’t going that well.

The RNS finishes off with a comment stating they will issue more RNS when they reach milestones. I kinda feel they should have done that with this one; held off from producing it until there was a “milestone” - which, presumably will be something material like ‘manufacturing process finalised’ or ‘sensitivity/specificity’ defined.

Maybe I might buy back some of those shares I offloaded on the back of the last breadcrumb if these dip low enough. But I suspect our CEO or other directors won’t. THAT is what is needed now; some PDMR purchases RNSs.

Good luck with this everyone. I think we are going to need it.
Intrepid.

Hi UpOmega,

I think I can answer your query as to why some recently ‘reduced’ their holdings:

I sold half of my ODX at 98p on the recent spike (it jumped to 120p momentarily the next morning and I was tempted to sell the other half but didn’t). Took out all my initial investment Plus decent profit (in at c 20p). The sole reason for my reduction was the comparative P/E and valuations of ODX vs NCYT. ODX was massively overvalued compared to NCYT. I then bought some NCYT at 635p. Also bought some hydrogen plays. The numbers simply spoke for themselves to make the trade (to reduce & roll into NCYT) obvious.

Hope this helps.
Intrepid.

Anyone know if our CEO will be moving into his new home in time for Christmas?

Oh, I forgot; Christmas came early for him with his significant sell just before all the vaccines were announced and his SP tanked.

I do love a good ‘Hansel & Gretel’ story. Where are those breadcrumbs leading us now?

Anyone?

All the best
Intrepid.

Hi Uwalty,
Sorry for delay. Been busy.
No. Not correct.
In your example, the co would receive £100 for the new 100 shares, which would be added to its balance sheet, so, all things being equal and in a perfect market, the marCap of the co increases by that £100. So it’s now £200 and there now being 200 shares, each one is still worth £1.
But there is no ‘perfect market’; there are principles and there is sentiment.
I suggest you read the following two books of you want to understand both aspects of investing (principles and sentiment); ‘the Intelligent Investor’ by Ben Graham (for in-depth understanding of principles) and ‘The hour between Dog and Wolf’ (John Coates I think) for insight into ‘sentiment’, particularly of the excessive type (bubbles & crashes).
Cheers
Intrepid.

Hi all.
What are the thoughts of everyone? I’ll be candid; I know little about micro gold mining stocks, having ‘inherited’ these from my stratmin investment a while back. I purchased some more at 1.2p recently, but still only small fry.
My opinion-assumption is that those figures are very good and probably enough to start the process of external interest in the project by bigger prospectors. Am looking forward to the fuller ‘data analysis’ they have referred to.
I have no idea how the SP will respond but I would like to see an uplift In SP with relatively strong ‘2 way volumes’. That would be the encouragement I need to buy more (assuming I can get them - I had an order in the market for a few days recently and nothing came of it, other than the ‘at size’ initial 100k).
All the best
Intrepid.

Hi Gonzalez5000.

I totally agree. This is the PA to the person in charge of the numbers. It may only be c £6000, but it represents a signal; for a start I can’t recall once reading an RNS stating someone at PA level to a PDMR - they may have occurred, of course, but how often? Not very, would be my guess, which makes this RNS as significant as the other PDMR-related RNSs.
All the best
Intrepid.

Hi Uwalty.

I am not invested here. Thought I’d check in to see posts following the PDMR sale. Always a red flag (95% of time).
Don’t know anything about RMS but I can answer your question re SP following issue of new shares:

There are 2 reasons why a co issues new shares (beyond ‘we need cash’). That is either a) cash required for growth reasons or b) cash required to plug a hole in the balance sheet following extended losses. Everything fits into those two primary reasons.
What is key to the ‘after RNS’ SP is whether the market thinks the reason will ‘work’. Are they investing the money wisely (if growth) or have they raised enough to stem the losses and push back into profit (if raising for cash flow/balance sheet issues).
In theory, an issue of shares at or near the current SP should not affect the SP but sentiments of the above reasons will.
Also, the co will attempt you raise the cash at the highest SP possible and their broker will figure that out through guidance from existing major shareholders, other brokers and their own in-tel.
If the market says a big discount is required, this will weigh on the current SP for the reasons you state (that new shareholders won’t be willing to pay the ild price, now the new price is lower. That’s a primary reason many fund-raises are via a closed ‘placing’ - that can remove the ‘new shareholder’ dynamic.
But I believe it all really boils down to sentiment for the future of the co. If it’s bullish, the SP will quickly recover and move higher. And visa-versa.
Take AML as an example. They were going bust earlier in the year and sentiment was bad. They raised lots of cash but no-one thought it was enough - until Lance Stroll bought in on the latest round. That lifted sentiment and the SP is recovering (slowly). I’m not saying AML is a ‘bit’ btw (it’s not -destined/set to now go bust and fall cheaply into the hands of LS, imho), but I use it as an example of how sentiment matters in fund raising re the SP. The economic theory of ‘perfect markets’ (SP Sstays static during a fund-raise) is b0ll0xs and this sort of thing aptly demonstrates that.
Cheers
Intrepid.

Hi Neutronic
As an ex market-maker, I can answer your question. MMs set their pricing however they like, but are open to basic principles of supply & demand; more buyers (demand) then higher prices, more sellers/supply them lower prices.
That said, they always re-rate their prices both according to news relevant to the individual stock but also the sector and the wider macro economic elements.
A ‘Gap’ is simply that re-rate in action; the reason its nearly always impossible to get prices to deal whilst the gap occurs is that MMs withdraw their quotes from the market whilst they are assessing where to put the new price levels.
In short; they shut up shop temporarily. Sometimes they may just reduce the market ‘size’ (the maximum number of shares they are willing to trade at a given price) or just quote ‘one way’ which is quite often not the way the market wants (will only offer when everyone wants to sell). But just as likely to occur is the MMs giving the market what it wants at the newly released-rated price because it’s an ‘over-extended’ price level (aka a ‘spike’). They will sell you everything you want at the new level because they know it’s way to high (Or low) and is only being traded by inexperienced people.
Avoid the beginning and end of trading sessions unless you know exactly what you are doing (which invariably means doing the opposite of what the market seems to be doing - sell into a spike, buy in a dip).
Cheers
Intrepid.

Hi ShaunP
Re your comment that you are sadder for mankind than you have ever been;

Cheer up, old bean.

From my experience, it’s never as bad as it looks and usually much better than general consensus.

We have been overdue a pandemic for a few decades and now we have a full blown one, it simply isn’t that deadly. It’s very contagious (due primarily to massively high percentage of asymptomatics Walking around) but not that bothersome to most of us, (as you will recall my whole household caught it back in March).

My real concern is humanity’s belief we can and should ‘fix everything’ that nature seems to get ‘wrong’. We are trying to outsmart the environment we exist in, when really, the art of survival is to blend in through adaption. Giving whole populations ‘vaccines’ will likely do severe harm over long periods by creating ‘dependability’ within our immune systems instead of allowing that same immune system to figure it out for itself through the process of ‘natural selection’.

I believe that is the real thing to worry about, but I then accept that I will be looooong gone before that prediction manifests itself into reality. So, in the meantime, I stay cheerful and positive.

Keep up the fab research work.

Kindest regards
Intrepid.

Spoke to a friend yesterday on this topic. They are the company secretary of one of our leading PLCs.
They said that the recent purchases don’t act as a complete bar to publishing trading updates et al, but that general practice is that PDMRs should only purchase ‘when the coast is clear’ in regards the need to issue scheduled or unscheduled guidance. It is often difficult to find such ‘windows’ they said if NCYT were their co, they wouldn’t allow dealing if there was any real anticipation of a trading update in the next three to four weeks.
I guess that means an update in time for Christmas is possible, but not before 2nd Dec and likelihood after 9th Dec.
Methinks an early Xmas present is on the cards. Or they make us sweat until the new year.
Cheers
Intrepid.

I didn’t catch her name but just watched a ‘SAGE’ member in the Andrew Marr show saying; the way to deal with the virus from here is to keep a close eye on it as it mutates - that means more testing of new strains as well as a way to differentiate between them. Sounds to me like “a job for MULTIPLEX!!” (Said in loud tones of the voiceover man from ‘Superman’ films).

It’s clear to me that diagnostics is front and back of this pandemic - as the searching tool to both quell and dispel this and future mutations/different new pandemics.
Intrepid

Hi wilson63.
I immediately sold a big chunk of my AVCT on the back of that CEO’s trade. You know my view on CEO share sales carried out before they deliver on profits (BIDS/Dramper!)
Have put some of that into NCYT on this dip (plus another I won’t mention but ShaunP knows it).
All the best
Intrepid.