Member Info for meldrew44

In 2016, AVO said they were on track to treat the first patient in Harley Street by the end of 2017, they had just been awarded about 7 Chinese contracts signed at a big public ceremo

It seems to be a completely new start up

I got out at 57.5p and was very glad I did.

In the meantime I've dipped my toe back in to get the benefit of any sudden surge but don't lose too much if it falls apart through lack of finance. I'm keeping cash available to buy if the picture improves. I'm also invested in IQE which appears to have a promising future. Some people think it could be the next ARM. It has certainly done me well so far. I just hope that both AVO and IQE fulfil their promises.

A great deal more actually. Not all of it positive. The technology might be great but AVO isn't well run. The company is very vulnerable to take over. And for a song.

The confidence or the desperation of knowing that if it goes tits up he will have lost his fortune. As for the future, have you compared the 2014 investor presentation with this year's presentation. The 2014 presentation told us that AVO was three years from commercialisation and so does this one. Why is that? Both presentations contained much the same information about proton therapy, the size of the market and AVO's rivals and include mentions of London, Geneva and Syracuse as AVO operating bases with no mention of what Syracuse does. The main changes that have occurred over the last three years are that the sp has dropped from 400p to less than 20p, there are fewer contracts and no new ones since 2014, AVO is in a far worse financial state than it was then and the number of machines that Thales are due to build seems to have halved, if not quartered. I am keeping an eye on AVO and might buy back in if they start to show evidence of being a commercially viable business. Until then I am investing my money in better prospects.

People might like to reflect on what AVO originally promised us and why it is unwise to invest in AVO until it is very clear that they have met all targets. I have a copy of the original development schedule issued by AVO at their presentation on the 21st November 2014: I tried to copy and paste it on here for everyone to see but the lse website won't accept it. The schedule states that integration and testing of LIGHT would take place during the period August to December 2016 with the facility in Harley Street ready by the end of Q2 2017 and the first patient treated before the end of 2017 AVO were still insisting in January/ February 2017 that the development of LIGHT was on track before they finally admitted that it was far from the case. That delay in owning up to the truth, despite being asked for the facts many times by investors growing concerned by obvious delays, led to loss of investor confidence, contributed to the drop in the sp and cost many loyal, long term, investors a lot of money. I suggest that current investors bear that track record in mind before accepting AVO's current statements uncritically. I would also seek clarification about what LIGHT machine is going into Harley Street. It was originally going to be the development model but that changed to being the first production model coming out of Thales with the development model being retained in Geneva as a test bed for further research and development. It now seems that AVO has changed their minds and it is the original development machine that will go into Harley Street after all.and Thales will not commence commercial production until after the development machine has been installed at Harley Street. The analysis paper produced by Hardman&Co on the 15th March 2017 states that to be the case but without referring to the original intention. If I were still an AVO investor I would be tempted to ask AVO why they have changed their minds. Why isn't the first production model out of Thales going into Harley Street?

Not cheap money but there might be hope yet. I'll keep an eye on it.

I and other old AVO hands have had previous discussions down the years about the fact that AVO holds a licence from CERN to develop, manufacture and market LIGHT. We even discussed the possibility that CERN might come to AVO's rescue. It is not new information and is widely known except, it seems, to relative newbies. I felt it information worth repeating, especially as AVO is in such dire straits. What I have not investigated is CERN's legal position should AVO simply collapse and leave CERN with no one to complete the project. I hope that the licence makes provision for CERN to do something. It would be a pity if AVO's collapse meant the end of LIGHT.

I would agree that the LIGHT machine could be a wonderful success if it ever gets to market but I very much doubt if AVO will still own it or that any AVO shareholders will get any benefit. There are a few possibly scenarios and the most likely is that AVO will go into administration and its assets, including LIGHT, will be sold off. Whatever cash is raised will go to paying off some of AVO's debts, leaving the shareholders with nothing. It is possible that whoever gets their hands on LIGHT will might complete the development and bring it to market. Another possibility is that CERN will take back the licence and award it to some other company. There is still the possibility that AVO might survive long enough to complete the development. At that point there could well be a hostile takeover. That might return you some of your money. I am an ex shareholder and an eternal optimist. I am keeping an eye on AVO and I might buy back in when the sp drops to around 1p or less if it looks as if I might benefit from whatever comes next.

RMFatGB. Were any of those companies carrying as much debt and in such dire financial straits as AVO is? From my perspective, the problem is not the technology. It is AVO and the sheer lack of finance. I am not alone in my opinion. There are a substantial number of experienced investors who would not touch AVO except for its scrap value.

2208ham. My mistake. On reflection I realise that I should have chosen some other form of words to get the reality of Harley street across more clearly. I suggest you read this. It gives a clearer idea of what Howard de Walden think of Harley Street and what their plans are. It was a while since I read it.. http://www.hdwe.co.uk/about-us-strategy.aspx With respect, you seem to be assuming that I am some sort of naive newbie to investing who is guided by my emotions. You may fall into that category but I left all that behind me years ago. I retain an interest in AVO because I know so much about it and it is not dead yet. I am keeping an eye on it but I am not invested at this time because it is in such desperate straights and its future is so uncertain. I think that the sp could fall a lot further before it recovers and it might never. There is a very real danger that AVO might not be around to benefit from LIGHT if it ever comes to market. I might buy back in once it is out of the woods, if it ever is. If AVO survives and I do buy back in I hope to do so at a lot less than the present sp.

I beg to differ with you. You should read the planning application documents and AVO's description of how LIGHT is constructed and installed. Howard de Walden have a long term plan to develop Harley Street as a significant international centre of medical excellence. They wanted to adapt the building to house a clinic. Any major work could only be done via the Mews. Because of the nature of the Mews they needed a company like AVO to get any application approved. Even then, the opposition from the local residents of the Mews led by Dame Barbara Windsor and her high profile friends almost sunk it. In order to get planning permission, Howard de Walden had to give a number of undertakings that included that at the end of the lease the original rooms could be restored to their original state. AVO have made it clear that all aspects of LIGHT, including the shielding can be installed and removed by hand without interfering with the structure of the building. it is very common in London for deep construction work to be undertaken under all manner of buildings, especially listed buildings so Howard de Walden are doing nothing that is not generic, nor anything that could not be put to the use of another leaseholder if AVO folded. It would be amazing if it were otherwise, considering that the Howard de Walden Estate have owned most of the Harley Street area for centuries, are planning to own it for many centuries more and the AVO lease is for just 50 years.

Ian. The building work is not really about AVO. It is all about Howard de Walden and the investment they are putting into developing the site to increase its value for their own benefit. They couldn't do it without the planning permission that AVO got for them.There was to much opposition to it otherwise. Thanks to AVO Howard de Walden are going to end up with a vastly improve building that they will be able to let for loads more money than they could get before AVO came on the scene. If AVO survives then I am sure Howard de Walden will be happy but they will be equally happy if AVO fails.

The work will not go to waste because if AVO goes tits up the Howard de Walden Estate will merely rent the building out to some other company. It was always in the interests of the Howard de Walden Estate to redevelop the property but getting planning permission was a problem. The AVO lease solved it for them by enabling them to get planning permission for what they wanted to do anyway. If, of course, AVO somehow manages to survive the Howard de Walden Estate will be very happy to keep them on.

Only the BoD know that.

Ian1234. Of course they know far more than we do. That applies to the BoD of any company. It is why it is so important that they can be trusted. Warren Buffett is very clear that no serious investor should have anything to do with any company where there are doubts about the BoD.

2208ham Thank you for that. It is that potential that keeps me interested enough to keep an eye on AVO but I would never consider putting another penny into it until I can be sure it will succeed. In the meantime, I am using my money to make more money elsewhere.

Bimini. That is a very fair and accurate summing up of the reality of AVO. I feel sorry for those still clinging to their faith. They possibly feel that they have invested to much money into AVO to let go and save what money they have left.. Sadly, that denial of reality is a fairly common phenomenon. .

Ian1234 I know you have been following AVO for quite a while so you should know the history every bit as well as me. My take is that AVO has what should be a brilliant piece of kit with an unbeatable origin in CERN, a number of big names in science and medicine, with big reputations who have committed a lot of their own money to it and none of them have shown any sign of bailing out. On the other hand, they have demonstrated appalling management and financial skills by saddling the company with enormous debt and a death spiral loan that there is no visible way it can escape from. They were dishonest in telling us that the development of LIGHT was progressing in accordance with their published timetable when they knew that it was a long way behind. They only admitted it when they could no longer hide it. Their dishonesty cost a lot of loyal shareholders like me a lot of money. It is also a fact that they regularly diluted the potential value of ordinary shareholders' shares by awarding themselves very large performance bonuses in shares when there was no performance to reward themselves for. I am not saying that Tom Winnifrith is right in everything he says but he is right in pointing out that the company is badly run and is in danger of failing. imho the BoD is incompetent and does not deserve your trust.