Member Info for JBongo

I just wish I could understand what all the legal talk actually means.

Shame to hear about Anderson. He always seems very wise when I watch his interviews. Tom Slater also seems like a good manager though, so fingers crossed the trust will be ok.

No sign of that 'news' anywhere. I think not.

Hope that's overall and not per share cadellin :D

It's just another day in the AIM. Wake me up when it hits -80%

A (probably deliberate) misrepresentation of the facts by a conspiracy peddling website...

The snippet they share from the government's website is only talking about people who have had the virus in the last 90 days, yet they make it sound like any test can throw up false positives.

In any case, the testing is approved by the government and that's not going to change anytime soon, so this doesn't affect MHC either way.

Bit disappointed this swung back this afternoon. I was hoping to buy some more at sub £10.

Just looked at the presentation again. On page 12 it says "Mar 21". Is this where the 21st of march thing is coming from? If so, it obviously means Mar 2021, not 21st March...

Yes I'm not aware of any rapid test that MHC are involved with. There is the possibility that they could have developed one though, in order to fight for these contracts...

Abba, there is also the difference in structure between funds like Woodfords and investment trusts like SMT.

SMT is closed ended, so big holders can't "pull money out", all they can do is sell their shares to someone else. SMT would not have to sell any underlying investments if this happened. The share price would fall, but it wouldn't be a run on the exit and big liquidity problems like in Woodfords case.

In open ended funds, like woodfords income fund, he had to sell underlying holdings to give people their money back. When these companies are unlisted or small cap, it can be hard to find a buyer, so he had to sell at a big loss.

Woodford also had an Investment trust that went belly up, but i think this was mainly due to association, rather than him having to sell investments held in that trust.

Hopefully Grdian. But i won't hold my breath waiting for the EU to finally stop the exemption!

As for timing in that intel case, it looks like they brought the case in Oct 2019. So about 1.5 years to conclude the case.

Definitely some parallels there. Good find! Here's to our 2 billion.

It's not lowly Nano beating Samsung though. It's Nano plus Mintz plus big third party backers. More David and his dad (who used to be a boxer) v Goliath...

Plus I would hope that the judge would base the case on facts, rather than just assuming a big company would do no wrong...

*are valid.

My earlier post should say of course.

Surely if samsung had other defences, they would have had to declare them in their original defence. As far as i'm aware (not too far) their defence was that the Nano patents weren't valid. I wouldn't have thought they could then come up with new defences if the marksman decides the patents arent valid.

The luck o' the Irish to them!

You can't currently use the lateral flow/rapid tests to cut your quarantine in half. They're not accurate enough. All the tests on the government's approved list are PCR tests.

Most of the tests I've looked at from other companies are ~£100.

Just watched through the presentation. Sounds like it'll be an exciting year, with new products entering the portfolio of tests offered each quarter.

Remains to be seen whether we will be different enough from some big players already out there offering similar things such as 23&me and thriva. But as Penny says, even if we only capture a couple of %of the market, it would generate a lot of revenue.

Been in the share for years. Been 50% down for most of that time. Gone from being in the red to 50% up in the last few days. Hope the buys are based on the fundamentals and not just pump and dumpers!