The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
"...you persisting with..."
Let me ask you a very basic question @CaptainSwag. The following thread with the header "Marik" was started by @TWatcher at 9.50am about 8 hours before I commented - and you've been contributing to it since:
https://www.lse.co.uk/ShareChat.asp?ShareTicker=ODX&share=Omega-Dia&thread=1C902329-4803-451A-9A19-D837B4383EE3
Why are you and @TWatcher persisting?
"ha ha..."
It's not that funny. I'll explain why. Someone paid a twitter account to talk down a share and they admitted it and then deleted their account. Same twitter user was busy talking down the ODX share price.
ODX state very clearly that, ODX, advisors and shareholders should not take the leak as something positive or neutral. They state it was according to them; "highly damaging and completely against the common interests of Omega".
I hope that this clarifies the situation and also puts context to the comments below on rumours:
Just because the rumours were true doesn't mean that they had to be leaked via twitter trolls. Secondly as it now transpires, this leak was unlawful, insider information, highly damaging and completely against the common interests of Omega. ODX could well have done a placing at 15p-16p, but instead we ended up at 5p.
Real shame.
GL
-----
"For example an event might happen today, like a famous actor might die. Tomorrow there may be speculation/rumor about the death and then on Sunday there may be confirmation via a news article.
Just because everyone found out about it on Sunday does not mean that the rumors the previous day were not true, and the event actually happened on Friday. That is the fact, you cannot argue that the death did not happen on a Friday purely because you didn't find out about it until Sunday."
Here is something you will find interesting:
https://mobile.twitter.com/Joe_Hond/status/1494709387079860234
He was exceptionally negative about ODX's prospects in December and January. ODX talk about insider information:
"...we have asked finnCap to pursue this with the FCA on our behalf. We were as disappointed as our shareholders that this information was unlawfully disclosed to third parties outside of the Placing process ... this leak was highly damaging and completely against the common interests of Omega, our advisors and our shareholder base."
Unfortunately, that is the sad state of affairs.
GLA
As I've mentioned, before I am sitting on the fence at the moment. I've read that some have indicated a NO vote and it would therefore be worth reading the following (in case you are not familiar):
https://www.ft.com/content/7a950de2-765c-3745-ac96-645759e1f21e
https://www.fieldfisher.com/en/insights/forward-selling-of-placing-shares-leads-to-public-censure-and-fine
Hopefully you find it useful.
GL
"Marik- What if there is more to the sale of Alva?
What do you understand as to the sub-contract model?"
My understanding is that; it was an exercise to reduce costs. With pros and cons of reducing the burn rate substantially via reduced overheads. But even those not singing ODX praises agreed the ODX had sufficient cash in the bank to last till mid-2022 excl. claim from the DHSC. Perhaps prudent to ring fence, but very unlikely required to pay. Selling Alva and the streamlining of the directional change would certainly reduce overheads and move ODX towards profitability (by how much remains to be seen). Combined with the £5m fundraise and the sale of Alva, this would be sufficient to keep them going for a reasonably good period of time.
Following a sub-contract model comes with its own issues and dependencies which are not as simple as they appear (I'll explain another time - DM me if required). What we know is that ODX were correct to RNS the CE-mark for self-use as we now know that it clearly moved the share price sig. (up ~15% on 03/02/22). They also submitted the CTDA on time and stated "Omega has now submitted all available data ahead of the deadline of 10 February 2022". The FDA approval for professional use is in the pipeline. They had their own production facility and potential new agreements lined up for the LFT's. Viral evolution, especially the rise of Covid-19 mutations over the last two years, make it evident that we will be living with the virus for a long time. Be that as a pandemic and localised transmission, it won't go away soon. So the idea that LFT's will be done away with etc. is not true. But, the sentiment for LFT's will ebb and flow as new Variants of Concern are identified. Furthermore, contrary to some comments, ODX did manage to get new Institutional Investors onboard, that's more than one. Yet, even with CK "resigned", the placing price is not above 5p?! Why? A good question.
Why the sell-off of Alva? Another very good question. Was it a stipulation of the fundraise by the new and existing II's that ODX focus away from Covid-19 testing? If it was, then I believe it was a mistake, that's my opinion. I know from reading some of the previous posts on this board, that quite a few are sceptical on both the virulence of Covid-19 and the effectiveness of the vaccination program. What is crucial is the preparedness for future pandemics and VoC.
I remain on the fence on ODX and I believe the management should explain to retail investors what took place, especially decisions taken within and outside their control within a timeline going back to last November. If they can do that, then there might be a possibility to gain back some of the RI confidence.
Here is a very strange tweet which might be interesting for some of you to look at:
https://twitter.com/Rockyneverquits/status/1494717968827269124
GL
@calderkate - have you seen this?
https://twitter.com/Rockyneverquits/status/1494717968827269124
@calderkate, from what I've understood it was an exercise to reduce costs. I can see the pros and cons. It would reduce the burn rate substantially by reducing the overheads. But even by those who were calling out ODX, the company had sufficient cash in the bank to last till mid-2022. ODX were already in the process of reducing the burn rate substantially. A £5m fundraise would be sufficient to keep them going for a while unless selling Alva was part of the fundraise? I am not a big fan of the idea.
@CaptainSwag, you may not have noticed that there are very unhappy investors. Reason being is that ODX kept repeating that there was no certainty that a fundraise would proceed and there was plenty of money in the bank. You can deny that.
Even on the 10th, ODX states: "...there is no certainty at this time that any such fundraise will proceed.".
That means official news was stating up until the morning of the 11th that there was no certainty that the fundraise would go ahead. Although you state you had information through unofficial channels; "some of us were telling you it was most definitely on.", the rest of chose not to believe it because it wasn't official news. I can understand why you were so negative about ODX.
https://twitter.com/Rockyneverquits/status/1494717968827269124
@calderkate - I think the company have mentioned everything.
@CaptainSwag - The rumour wasn't laid to rest until ODX put the statement out on the 11th. I don't know why you are suggesting otherwise. I should be asking you the question, does this sound familiar to you?
https://twitter.com/Rockyneverquits/status/1494717968827269124
* No. This here is the RNS that confirms that it was a rumour. The date and time stamp on it is: Fri, 11th Feb 2022 07:01
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/ODX/fundraising-to-raise-gross-proceeds-of-up-to-1637m-olujp787snyrufr.html
"if you can read a dictionary why were you continually saying it was only a rumour when ODX had already confirmed they were in discussions on 31st jan ?"
No. This here is the RNS that confirms that it's not a rumour. The date and time stamp on it is: Fri, 11th Feb 2022 07:01
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/ODX/fundraising-to-raise-gross-proceeds-of-up-to-1637m-olujp787snyrufr.html
If you read the definition carefully: "a currently circulating story or report of uncertain or doubtful truth" and the emphasis is placed on *doubtful truth*.
Now up until the morning of 11th, there was doubtful truth, that is when the company removed the doubt.
The definition of immediate is occurring or done at once; instant. Not what you were claiming.
"it was funny as either you were clueless "
Yes, very funny that I didn't believe the market sensitive information circulating on twitter from dubious accounts. The same as many other investors. Have a look at Rocky's tweet and tell me what the agenda is?
https://twitter.com/Rockyneverquits/status/1494717968827269124
Is Rocky onto something here?
https://twitter.com/Rockyneverquits/status/1494717968827269124
"i don't know your definition of rumour (confirmed fact in RNS) , immediate (medium to long term) were pretty damn funny at the time..." and "more ability to read a dictionary".
I don't see them as funny, here are the actual dictionary definitions:
Rumour = a currently circulating story or report of uncertain or doubtful truth
Immediate = occurring or done at once; instant
Claiming *immediate* is not equal to 2 months later and therefore remains a *rumour* until uncertainty is removed.
"got nothing to do with market abuse"
I'm not the one who mentioned market abuse.
GL
@IlluminatiShare
"that was a direct personal allegation(defamation), yet it will get blown over?"
Indeed it will get blown over. It's a tell on the Kier Starmer philosophy - he could certainly take this further, but he hasn't. A strong character in that particular case.
@CaptainSwag
"Rumour confirm immediate" on price sensitive information "hashtag LMFAO"
Doesn't sound that funny when you place it context. It impacts the ability of companies to raise money and right now could have been sitting on a raise of 15p-20p/ share. Less dilution and potentially not had to sell Alva and less of a hit for many shareholders.
Whatever keeps you happy.
That is interesting. I would personally have said that both @RegulatorUK statements were true and co-exist.
-------------
"defamation is a little tomaatoe, tomatoe, always seems to be wriggle room.
but sure they are valid points.
In most cases, speech which relates to the company shares, performance and future prospects, particularly when exercised on the various online investment forums, would be considered protected speech if the statements convey the genuine opinion of the author. But even speech that is clearly designed to manipulate other shareholders, and to encourage them to either buy or sell shares in a company, this might still escape liability for defamation even if the defamatory statements are deliberate and even if the intention of the author was to smear. There are, however, situations where a line is crossed between protected free speech and defamation and this is where the defamatory statements contain personal allegations of corruption."
Do you think that @RegulatorUK is right in his two statements? Or are you of the opinion that one statement is false?
"The laws of defamation apply to posts on social media - including those made on this forum."
"...if anyone actually has any evidence of wrongdoing they should raise it with the relevant regulator"
Terrible weather, I have also seen a trampoline fly past.
Hi IlluminateiShare, how are you?