Member Info for Krustysmegma

I always enjoy reading your posts potnak, I always find it useful to see all sides of a debate whether I agree or otherwise.

"I'd imagine if you bought at 45p a couple of week ago, you would be getting but worried right now."

Fair enough, but everyone investing in an AIM minnow should surely do enough research to understand what they're getting into? There's no guarantee of instant success with SAR (as you & I well know...) and there never has been. Cards on the table, I think the recent rise from the 10p placing to over 40p at one stage is based on an expectation that the safety data must be positive, and therefore I see an initial sp bounce on results but I don't expect it to hold above 50p. The compound has to demonstrate efficacy in the treatment of psoriasis before the next big breakout, and that's still a long way off IMHO.

Re the comms, I thought the board had been very clear. Based on the information provided to them, there's an expectation that results will be available in the first half, no more or less that that. No nail-biting "deadline" or "commitment". I completely agree with you & Aber (& plenty of others) that the board has lots to answer for, but I don't feel misled in any sense re the trial data timescale.

Aber, JR did participate in the placing. See RNS of 4th April.

Wow, more claptrap on here this morning. Read The Oracle's post (I posted something similar last week) or, better still, read the RNS. There IS no deadline, there is an expectation of results by end of June and that's all it is. How can the SAR board have any control, or even input, into when the Australian authorities will release the data? As everyone knows, any bad news in terms of safety would have to have been released by now, so we all pretty much know what the outcome is going to be anyway. It's just utter nonsense, and should be ignored IMHO. Nobody likes waiting for news, but It'll all be forgotten once data is released.

500-odd in February, over 750 now. Question is, cash out & take a profit or double-down in the hope that this is just the start? I don't have a large investment here so tempted to add, yield still expected to be over 7% which is looking handy right now.

Much as expected, only positive seems to be the performance of Ensham which is encouraging at least.

I think in all my years of reading posts on this board, this one might be the most ill-informed, badly thought through I've ever read. This has been posted by someone who clearly doesn't have a clue about SAR, or done the most basic research, and who has a strategy that is guaranteed to fail. Anyway, good luck, hope it works out for you after all your hard work.

Think the meeting is on 20th June rylidan. Hoping for a positive outcome.

404x: "Probably too big for the rest to absorb."

Except TW. I'm not saying TW will be in for CALA, they've already got a decent landbank pipeline, but TW are big enough to absorb CALA.

A) or b) JD, could go either way for me. The other option is that SAR continue to go it alone but that's highly unlikely if we have anything commercial on the books.

Let's hope so, as colbalt keeps saying the SP needs to get to a much, much higher base before any discussion of takeover begins.

OK, so here's what it actually says:

"The MAD study is nearing completion and topline data from the Phase 1a clinical trial are expected to be available during Q2 of 2024. If the results are satisfactory, the Company plans to assess funding and licensing options to further the development of SDC-1801 through a Phase 2a trial."

Note "expected to be available". Start your countdown by all means, but as I've explained before, this is in the hands of the Aussies now and it's down to their efficiency, not SAR's. Note also the requirement for further funding & licensing options if successful.

Yes, all in all I guess it's not a bad outcome for holders. At least with a bit more certainty over future dividend payouts, the focus for now returns to recovering as much of the NAV as they can for holders. Discount currently standing at over 47% according to HL, which seems pretty outrageous.

Following their "Buy" recommendation in February this year, Shares Magazine reports that "ME Group remains attractively valued". It's behind a paywall or I'd post the link.

The article concludes: "The long-term investment case remains intact, while the business looks in good shape to deliver another record year of profitability in 2024 which implies a pre-tax profit of £73.6 million based on consensus forecasts.

With a dividend yield close to 5% and high single-digit profit growth, the shares remain attractively valued relative to the growth potential and quality of the business."

I couldn't agree more. Having only held BLV I wasn't sure if I'd keep the TPFG shares post-merger but the more I think about it, the more sense it makes to hold or add if possible. Decent dividend, & still opportunities to grow further as the latest acquisition shows.

I wouldn't take the "second half" prediction too literally. SAR has very little (if any) control over the processes required to get this over the line, what matters is that the results are positive once released, whether that's this month, next month or in 3 months time.

Embarrassing!

Last year's first quarter dividend announcement came on 26th June so on that basis we're not due an update for a couple more weeks yet.

II's still dumping chunky amounts on the market, even if PI's could buy they wouldn't be able to keep up with those numbers. The downward spiral continues.

Re the large discount, depends if it's a discount to NAV (which is to be expected in the circumstances) or discount to current sp (which would be disastrous for holders).

Certainly looks like the majority of trades today have been PI buys.

NEILROY, I must admit that was my initial reaction too. Louise George was a very high-calibre CFO and always appeared alongside Dorien Gonsalves for investor presentations etc. TPFG and BLV had very similar trajectories, both in terms of growth & profitability over many years, so I would say Louise would be the ideal candidate. Whether she would be interested, or has any particular career aspirations beyond the one-year commitment as part of the merger I wouldn't know. My thoughts are, if Louise had aspirations to lead the Group and David was intending to retire, why did they not appoint Louise to the role at merger, supported by David until his retirement?