Member Info for MrHumble

Im not even going to waste time ripping that apart on the text, never mind the numbers. Dont they realise the numbers even they quote are more cash raises?

[....Importantly, its scalable, low capital expenditure business model....]

Must have not seen what the cash raise was for. A shelf

'Scalable , low capital expenditure'. ....glad they didn't mention expenses rel to constant revs up, in most reports

No idea who that note was intended for. Not PI's anyway. Certainly not funds as they would be laughing at it, given it addresses nothing beought up by Croda with the fund calls and so on.

If you ask me, its just PR fodder to be 'translated' for idiots 'hidden clues'

GLA

[.... partnerships with reputable firms like Croda International Plc...]

I must have missed that. Which ones did they announce like Croda plc?

Not one mention of any risk types mentioned by Croda either. Awful report. And it's not like Ashman could have fed them forecasts etc from Croda really

Singer must have completely ignored Croda calls with funds

Probably surprise many to know that a lot of big funds had a general interest in what was to come out here in June. Obviously not due to sbtx interest directly per se. And you know what? They can hardly believe what has materialised over the period. Absolutely stunned, those used to different standards, like, any at all

Was bad optics all around, and it went a lot further this time than just into gerbil forums

I think the main thing to take away from the market abuse laws, is that there was simply nothing worth reporting (material)

And on that premise, im not surprised another deal 'suddenly ' got brought forward, for a cash raise. At least it was the closest you ever got yet, to the croda numbers anyway

GLA

In my view, you should have had numbers in March - but then it became June lol

Zero revenues i should say

The London Stock Exchange explicitly states that regulatory requirements take precedence over confidentiality agreements.

Market Abuse Risk - Deliberately withholding material information using NDAs as cover could constitute market abuse under UK regulations.

What Matters for March Recognition:

Have you delivered the goods/services that trigger the tiered payment?

Has the FTSE 100 partner achieved the milestones that create your entitlement?

Is the amount determinable and collection reasonably assured?

Accrual accounting based?

Ensure you have solid documentation from the FTSE 100 partner confirming what's been achieved and what's owed before recognizing any revenue.

.......................

Nov 2024

Based on management's baseline expectations for sales under the Croda agreement and new sources of revenue from recent acquisitions, Dermatonics and Bio-Tech Solutions, management expects to be cash flow positive from FY2025. Management therefore anticipates that no further raises for working capital will be required. Following the meetings with ***Croda, management can confirm that revenues will be received before year end.***

I can only assume zero sales given March report.

Re not understand my posts. I do get that. Different places have different people . Im just used to conversing with different people.

Well, whatever reasons are projected for my posting, I can assure 2 things. a) it's not my job and b) not make a penny because of it

4.1M for a shelf over 2 years. This on a complete failure in terms of financial stats and SP for investors

4.1M

I still dont know how they came up with that one, esp for soft launch.

I reckon money to be made alright lol

I dont know the deal with superdrug. No idea. But i will assume it's a pure shelf-lease job. That's all superdrug have interest in. Profit no matter what the sales.

If you were working in a purchasing department trying to source product on which sales mattered, you would have taken one look at axis since launch date. Constant FR losses and SP down circa 78% over a few years. Given it is or was the main product?

I would not need to look further.

Mol, it needs to be regulated like bigger stocks. Way i see it, if it's a great IPO to back, then the extra admin costs are not an issue in the backing for funds. Right now its just 'back a blag'. Awful

End of day, AIM is an RNS/IM/Podcast factory. That is the successful commercialisation lol

I would argue that many have potential ideas /research that never even reach a hint of a commercial product never mind a commercial success and go bust - some sooner than others

we at least have two organic commercial products...]

.......

I look back over AIM/OTC history, including this niche sector. And you really do have as many that got to commercialisation as did not. Same result for most.

OPTI had 80 or 90 deals? A good few products?

For me there is a vast difference between commercialisation in an RNS, and commercialisation that can succeed.

The "Turkey" Pattern: Many AIM biotech, pharma, and technology companies follow this exact pattern - exciting product launches that represent the peak of speculative interest rather than the beginning of commercial success.

In this instance, sell the rumour, buy the turkey?

https://x.com/YankTrain17909/status/1946975761748897817