Member Info for Jace86

No, he means MURF on Nasdaq

COVID was a scam, Joe.

Did you really not think that one through?

You do, no rush.

I expect sells today we're mugs chasing a fox down a hole... Steer clear of the pump and dumps.

Was just about to answer with something similar in that if he holds via a nominee account he'll be lumped in with that to prevent a double counting of holdings.

I think a lot of the regulars here will be...

I'm over that...

Don't trade it. Research it. You should do that with every stock...

It's a solid LTH for me.

I think the lab test is one which is to be used in a clinical setting still as a companion diagnostic. So if a patient presents in an A+E or scheduled appointment, a professional can still use it locally. Not that it has to be sent off somewhere risking all kinds of contamination in the process.

This to me still makes it incredibly valuable.

But yes, two projects. I have pointed this out in the past.

Imagine heading for an appointment for a regular health check up and this forms part of your screening...

I do wonder if Stan is someone's second account...

Mike hasn't done his sums... Oh dear...

Mike also hasn't looked at other firms in this field or M&A activity... Low market penetration this sees many billions as an mcap just off US and China. Not including EU and UK.

Think of where some forms end up off retained profits alone, let alone revs. There are firms that only see a few mil profit and have mcaps over a billion.

Just a patient waiting game. If you know what's coming it should be worth the wait and news and price increases should snowball from there.

Gladly there's no nonsense of leaks etc. Everything seems to be nice and tight.

This is for the 'bit on the side' firefly.

We are taking some of the stock as opposed to royalty payment.

Important to note it's not associated with the progression of the lung testing.

Circa 40%. It's awful

It's too long to post here.

It's based off China, US and low end targets for routine testing and the royalties form both. I emphasize the LOW END. From smokers.

It's not based off mcap = annual revs as some seem to have done before. Big pharma simply doesn't do that in valuations so why should we. M&A activity is based off long term sustainable income generation and lead generation for other treatments off a diagnosis - have a think who is doing this currently...

Mixed in you could also add assumptions for markets we are not yet targeting. EU, UK.

I'm not factoring in assumptions for breast cancer or distantly in the future monoclonal antibody if this should ever go that way.

I've sent rather long posts to others privately on this.

I have my targets. I appreciate it's well north of most. Everyone should have their own targets and take when they hit it...

6 billion minimum... As said, should it do what it says on the tin.

Correct Milly.

Absolutely correct CC. To trade these for 15% would be bonkers when those that research what they are buying and not buying off mere trading technicals are accumulating for a much more significant and greater return.

I'm sat firmly on my hands.

I've seen the same people complaining of director holdings and alignment with shareholders also complaining now.

Maybe they can't buy open market...

This enables alignment with us...

Price isn't great but it is done as an average over a month. Neither party can help that.

Look at the numbers. They have to put up some serious cash to buy them.

Fair play KingAlfred.

I'll continue holding. As hard as it will be when looking at the gains on the PF

Yes Pike, it's been a long time since that day...

Mazik, it isn't 75%.

Much of the 'institutions' are nominee accounts. These are PI.

About 30% isn't in public hands.

And don't sell yourself short for £5.

Do some back of the envelope calcs and understand pharma looks for long term... Not annual revs plus a bit more.

I'll bang the drum on £15 again...

Have a great weekend all.