Member Info for marik

@CaptainSwag you quoted from this article, could you share a copy?

£2.5m?

I've said this many times before, but gov contacts rarely bare fruit and ODX are better off going it alone. The US and EU market are big enough for many test producers.

Specifically the sharing of this rumour/insider info has harmed the shareholders - it was left to ODX to put these wreckeless rumours in context by which time it was too late.

You can disagree, but having rumour/ insider info by the 10th/11th of Jan doesn't bode well if speculation is without context. That has caused more harm to private investors.

@Marcus-Antonius the link makes a lot of sense. I said this yesterday the Board has been very clear about the direction they want to take. They have plenty of money but wanted to find out if the current market was favourable, if it is, they might take that option now rather than not, but they are not desperate.

Unfortunately the rumours (/insider info) that was started last month regarding a fund raise lacked context and the damage done by it are clear to see. This has done more harm to private investors than anything else.

"Still a market ,and a future here for lft's.Current anti-covid sentiment will turn when reality of an open society with little or no restrictions kicks in."

Testing may well stay for a long time. Consider the mutations of Covid and new Variants of Concern .

"marik - they know about it - it is the reason they issued the RNS today. the FCA will do sweet FA."

I'll send it off to ODX and cc FCA in. You say they don't do anything, they say PIs and companies don't contact them enough.

@CaptainSwag, you should forward this article to ODX.

I've just found out, you guys don't need to respond.

Thanks.

"The TW article stated they were asking for £5m at 5p"

Can anyone point me in the right direction? Where is this £5m at 5p from?

Contact me on https://twitter.com/marik_investor, I'll have a look.

"The TW article stated they were asking for £5m at 5p"

I have no idea where you are getting this from?

Which TW article?

@Thinkin, you've made numerous comments about the board of directors. I've suggested before in a different thread, get in touch with the company directly. Alternatively, if you are inclined not to get in touch with them, I'll get in touch with them for you. Do you have a preference?

For those calling the company corrupt/liars or any other comments of that nature, one thing I can suggest you do, is to contact the company directly via email and express those comments to them directly. Alternatively, I can take some snap shots of this board and forward them. Does anyone have a preference?

@CaptainSwag, they have not lied. Going by the 19/01 RNS it state:

"Thus, there is no short term need to raise additional capital. Like all growth companies, Omega will look to raise funds to drive growth as and when appropriate."

The key phrase being "there is no short term need". With that I can agree. Secondly, they stated that they "will look to raise funds to drive growth as and when appropriate" again which categorically states that they will be raising at some point.

Compare that statement to todays RNS:

ODX are "...in discussions with certain investors and shareholders regarding a potential equity fundraising." and add "Accordingly, there is no immediate need to raise additional capital and the Company may choose not to proceed with a fundraising until such time as conditions are more favourable."

As there was no "need" to raise capital, I can see what they are doing especially with a reasonable run way. They are checking the market to see appetite of investors. If they terms are not favourable, they can "choose not to proceed".

The issue here is that burn rate is measured by PI's by comparing growth and non-growth phases of a company. Examining those figures will not give you a current burn rate. ODX state that; "...the Company has significant cash resources. Accordingly, there is no immediate need to raise additional capital...". This gives me a better understanding of the burn rate and is in line with what the standard practice for accounting.

A lot of the comments and sentiment seems to suggest that the company is in dire straits, but I am unable to arrive at that conclusion (yet). For some reason there is this certainty by some that the directors/board are liars, the company accounts are faulty and that the company can't be trusted. I came across similar comments on a number of other boards including SYME. I'll assume these similarities are coincidental.

However, I will add that what seems to be happening is an expectation of ODX and pressures of a fully fledged main market company which it never claimed to be. This is a growth company that will need to fund raise.

GL

It won't be possible to compare between previous accounting periods, in part due to expansion phase (manufac. scale up etc) and conversely the Gov 2m. Right now the revenue and cash outflow will look very different. If someone can provide further information on the overdraft inclusion in the 30/09 update, then it is feasible to get a reasonable burn rate. Until then, i'm going with the comments made by the company in todays RNS.

GL

" I look forward to the clarification via yourself"

That's all that is needed to clarify what I think is a misunderstanding by PI's.

Appreciate the response, but it's very convoluted method of working out cash burn. For the burn rate we need to know if the overdraft was included (as per standard practice). We know the cash and cash equivalent value and we know that the current value is sitting at £4.5m and previously £4.7m.

Once that is clarified we can come up with a figure, which is closer to £57k than the suggested £650k being posted.