Member Info for Mikemine

Thank you Scoobydoo321, and Claude of course.

Did anybody understand that?

Should read 100% of the risk and the Government takes up to 45% of any profit.

Better get the bid in before Streeting gets in. He wants higher tax payers to pay the same level of CGT as they would pay as income tax. Seems fair to me. We put the money up front, take 100% if the risk and the Government takes up to 45%. Investors should be falling over themselves signing up to that deal.

DB, yes it's scary stuff for workers but AI is scary all round. We have been warned of massive unemployment and it looks like it's beginning to happen. Someone needs to come up with an alternative plan to unemployment. We can't have millions of humans with talents and knowledge just idling. The trouble is AI is going to make the minority super rich and the majority poor, homeless, jobless and angry. Not a great future for society so we must find a way to mitigate this and we better be thinking how now.

Thanks Fleecy for putting all that together. Cash might be king here and LGEN generates plenty of it. I came on board for the yield but it might be that it is dwarfed by the increase in valuation. Nice to getting over 8% and not worrying about valuations.

Just read this about AI related job cuts of up to 15% of background staff at Standard Charter. I know LGEN is not a bank but there must be similarities among the background staff jobs. If similar cuts are made that would be enormous savings. It's very scary for workers but, if the rumours are true about an American takeover, maybe they are ahead of the game and can see potential for cost savings, and therefore extra profits, before the Market. Just speculation but it's worth thing about.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/05/19/standard-chartered-blames-ai-as-it-cuts-thousands-of-jobs/

Is this what Thermo Fisher have been waiting for? Certainly clinicians have. I'd find it very hard not to see the potential of the 2 tests now.

Just had a quote to buy £100 and it showed 0.415p

This practice is not restricted to VRCI as far as I can see.

After investigating, these sites guess whether the trade is a sell or buy. The use an algorithm that is naturally biased towards sells. The sites don't receive notifications from the London Stock Market as to whether a trade is sell or buy. It's quite shocking that there is no warning from LSE and others that their guesses are just that. Try a dummy buy to see what price you are quoted and you will most likely be quoted aa price very near some of "sells' listed here.

I always thought Trellus was non starter. Nice idea but not a business. The other 2 are commercial and should have a future.

23 out of 24 reported trades are of 2 share trades clearly trying to manipulate the share price. Surely this is a matter for the FSC.

I think it will be sold before then. Just an opinion.

Just had a quote of 1.73p to buy.

Someone is really trying to get the SP down with all these 2 share trades.

Had a communication from the Stock Exchange saying they do not attach Buy/Sell labels when they report trades so basically LSE are guessing when they attach a label. I bet most investors don't know this and take the information as Gospel. It is giving a negative bias to the data as it's not a question of swings and roundabouts.

Just had a quote to buy of 0.4538p and a quote to sell of 0.4503p A pretty tight spread and way different to what is being quoted by LSE.

Regarding UBS, RENX was plagued by UBS holdings RNSs and one of the poster found out that it was UBS shuffling shares between its different internal funds. I don't know if thats true but, in view of the lack of effect on the SP, it does seem plausible. I reckon we should just ignore UBS and focus on the progress VRCI has made.

32% increase in sales quarter on quarter is no mean feat but I don't expect the same of the next quarter as you are then trying to beat a much bigger target. As for the fund raise, Barrington has said she intends to increase the sales force and she will obviously need extra cash to do so otherwise she would have already done so. Personally I'm not fearful of another fund raise because it will be for a meaningful expansion and not just to keep the lights on. Any dilution will be fully compensated by a dramatically increase sales, and therefore revenue, figures. Onwards to break even with the sales push and then see what that would do to the SP. Fear of dilution in that scenario is emotionally unsound IMHO

I've surprisingly had a very quick response from LSE and I'll post it below.

"Thank you for your email. As we're not told by the Stock Exchange what is a buy or sell, we're forced to use an algorithm to work it out.

We calculate the trade type based on the trade price being higher or lower than the mid price at the time of the transaction. Sometimes this calculation does not work, or the price is the opposite side of the mid price. This means we are either unable to calculate what type of trade this is at all, or the calculation shows it as the wrong type of trade (a buy instead of a sell for example).

Unfortunately, it's a long standing issue as the Stock Exchange doesn't provide the correct information for trades, so any website like ours has to use an algorithm to determine what type of trade we're being sent. "

So, basically they know there is a problem but can't or won't do anything about it. A prominent disclaimer might help or stop classifying trades as buys or sells at all. Better still would be the correct information being transferred from the stock exchange.