Member Info for Monkshood

I got approx 3.2 x my original allocation - I think this is slightly less than to the previous open offer (I got 3.5 x then)
I guess this means they will raise around 5-6m if this is applied equally, although they did say that they would bias it to smaller holders, so it may not be quite as much.

For anyone not attending the AGM here are a some of the points raised-
Acknowledged SDL has been lower margin and looking to improve this by cost control and other measures. Started cross selling between both companies base customers. They seem to be very impressed by SDL’s Helix platform, it is even better than were expecting. Confirmed that Electrocomponents is using SDL’s software.
The Iconic earnout agreement was changed due to the overlap with SDL’s offering in a similar space. I think that this way, they can roll out a more combined offering without issues over who has ‘ownership’. Pfizer is using the Iconic software and they are looking to role it out to more life science customers.
Probably the key issue, was that if Sunak changes the tax breaks on Aim holdings then they would move their listing to the premium main market. Currently 10-15% of their holders are funds that use the AIM listing as a tax break (not sure if this figure also included the CEO’s holding) which they would potentially lose. As they would go into the FSTE 250 I guess this would reverse some of the positions that changed when SDL holders had the issue of going on to AIM…
More details of how things are progressing, including reinstating guidance, due in April.

Overall I got the impression that they are very positive about the future.

Hi FK. This is one that I plan on sitting on for a few years unless something drastic occurs. PBT does look good and if they can get SDL's contribution to convert revenue to profit at a rate nearer to RWS's then there will be even more upside.

I am seeing the f/x effects on several shares I hold. I do not worry if they, like this, are for long term. From what I understand, the companies hold most of the monies in banks in the designated currency, they can then use this for acquisitions etc. So although it shows as lower revenues when converted back to £ for the accounts , in practice, over the longer term it has less impact on their growth than may first appear.
RWS was mainly hit in the auto and aero sectors last year. I would imagine that the latter still has not even started to recover so there should be plenty more upside there.

Thanks, ab8dct & rollyroll plus other for some useful information on this and the S/N thread.

It is a good point about N being more antigenic (I know someone working on an N RNA vaccine for this very reason) so it makes sense that it could be easier to raise antibodies to it. The comment about the relative differences for the two proteins between other coronaviruses was not something I had seen before also the point about localisation was interesting.
There is evidence from EM that the S1 trimers are not very stable so that may help release them more easily. However, N proteins must be released/solubilised fairly easily or other groups would not have done it this way, so it may come down to how efficiently this happens.
It would be interesting to know the rational behind why they chose S1 rather than N - may be we will find out from them one day.

It is rather sad that some to view this type of discussion as 'deramping' to be ignored, especially compared to some of the c*** that is posted on this bb....

Last time they mentioned about some of the net cash position rolling back 'we continue to expect that the £80m will unwind before year-end.' It is not clear how much of this is still to go.

I would have also liked a little more clarity on 'At this level of sales, we are making a modest weekly loss.'

Final whinge- why is the presentation only for analysts - there is no need for this with many other companies opening up their meetings to RI's.

As soon as they can get the stores open they should pick up very strongly again. With their strong cash position compared to last year they will be in a good position to expand. With so many shop closures they will be able to negotiate cheaper leases which will help future profits.
They are correct to flag the safety angle - compared to many shops they have handled things very well. Several friends that have used their stores have commented on this.

All looks very positive.
"The original RWS business has delivered excellent Q1 2021 results, with good revenue growth and a significant double-digit percentage increase in adjusted profit before tax. SDL in its two months in the Group produced results in line with its prior year'' ( SDL had a strong H2 with circa 194M revenue in the prior year )

I see it is ticking up again - is this you buying more luke...

Muck, on you other point, you do also get mutations in N , I think that there is one in the Kent variant. i am not sure if they occur at a faster or slower rate. Even with less selection pressure you still get genetic drift.

CO, good point, I was reading that as a reference to their CARD technology /detection reagent but may be there is more to it than that.
Muck, my question over why they have not targeted N, is because it is significantly more abundant than S1. To my knowledge it is the target of all other LFT's (including Mologic's) and most other ELISA based tests (including Roche). Technically there is no reason for other groups not to have targeted S1 over N if S1 was the best choice.
In practice, it may turn out to be that the S1 peptides are more easily released than N from virions and so the difference in absolute target numbers diminishes . It is going to be interesting to see the comparison between LFT's for N and S1 on samples rather than just purified proteins.
I had rather been hoping (even expecting) that the delays were due to Avacta producing an LFT with both S1 and N on it, with the same mirrored for the BAMS.

He has not long had the shares back, having lent them out as security against a loan.
It does lead to questions about his personal financial situation is at the moment.
How one then interprets this with regards Mano is hard to call.

Thanks, but that is just the rns that I had just read rather than the context which I was inquiring about.

Sorry I cannot help on that, I have only heard them say that the G464E mutation was unaffected. I have seen no reference from them to the more recent N501Y or E484K mutations. They have never said exactly where their Affimer pair binds to judge if they would be affected.

How does ABcam supplying Abingdon with affinity reagents fit into the jigsaw?

I have not followed, in detail, the intricacy's of the different companies interactions often discussed on the bb, but have often wondered why nobody seemed to mention ABcam. It seemed one of the most likely companies that the government would work with.
I have always also considered that they would be the most likely to takeover the diagnostic applications of Avacta as it makes the ideal fit.

That is not what is stated in yesterdays rns. They would not be talking about a S1/N LFT using Molgic antigen if this was the case.

I appreciate what Mologic can bring re the tech, but my comment was directed to the use of Mologic's own antigen rather than an Affimer for N-
' combining Avacta's spike antigen test with Mologic's nucleocapsid antigen'

I was just surprised that Avacta does not have Affimers to N ready to go and that they were not attempting something similar themselves already.

It is bound to be the best as I don't think that there is another LFT for the S1 protein...

No idea. I assumed that they had Affimers for N from what I had been said by Adeptrix (although they did not specifically say they were using Affimers). If you can get Affimers specific for S1 in a month then there is no reason why it should take much longer to get them for N.
There cannot be anything technically to difficult in disrupting the virions to release the nucleocapsid peptides as it is the target on all other LFT's
Perhaps it is away of both companies having their own input into the test reagents for financial reasons?

Whist a combined S1/N LFT is an obvious step (and has been mentioned on this BB before), you have to ask why, after all of this time, they have not developed Affimers for the N protein to use themselves.

The mutation rate is under three per S1 protein/p.a (and arguably, as it has has not long hopped species this may be higher than the future long term trend).
This should be manageable for both vaccine and test development to keep up with.

Not from the IPO, but I have had varying amounts since July 2019. I sold out bar a handful as a 'bookmark' around this time last year and only built back up after they launched Letsexplore, without this they would really be struggling now. It also offers much greater scalability than the fixed site offerings.
I don't think that it is at all too late to the party, but the ones I picked up for 2.16 are starting to look good value.....