Member Info for MrHumble

Have finals ever exceeded trading update estimates here? If not, what is the typical % shortfall?

I dunno

The spread on unaudited revenues is 6.7%

The spread on EBITDA is a whopping 100% if comes in at the lower end.

All material numbers. Such spread for a y/e unaudited.

What are the most common accounting or operational factors that could cause a small company to report such wide ranges in unaudited revenue (6.7%) and adjusted EBITDA loss (100%) at year-end? Could this signal issues with revenue recognition, internal controls, or the finalisation of non-recurring adjustments? Could it indicate unresolved internal reporting issues or uncertainties?

Given the impact of being in the lower half at finals (due to % materiality), couldn't they podcast the reasoning to put our minds at ease?

Is he trying to work out when to ringfence next salary or something?

Management expects to report unaudited revenues of between c.£4.5m-£4.8m

Management expects unaudited adjusted EBITDA loss of between c.£0.2m- £0.4m

Anyone notice anything there that goes deeper?

So how long more are we all going to pretend that AIM and Co is all about growth prospects and not fees (raises), that pay for a fixed SP blag?

Umm

I see a new breed out there, and they won't be any pretence about anything you know

Just saw a unique report knocked up by a German, on sbtx. No financials, no opinions. Nothing.

'Skinbiotherapeutics PLC: A communications channel history - RNS v Other'

Just lists an RNS - then transcripts of other sources. Then on to the next window. Same

Weird one

But what a read lol

Not that it should matter. Anywhere is possible to deal now although little caps in Asia require a bit of jigging to get in lol

AMCO was a pleasant pace. There were earlier prices but any i know that went in waited completion so low 60s

https://x.com/YankTrain17909/status/1959912952078671990

EU and US best for those though in terms of pace i think. UK ones would seem very slow to them by comparison.

'It is with certainty that .....] .. i can't see the rest of it. Il post it tonight somewhere.

Oh the yanks just told me the answer.

Reckon some would know the answer already as they specialise in numbers to figure these things out before occur - esp when shorting etc etc. But i don't know. You will have to figure it out yourselves.

This is a simple basic but very very common. With the raise done there should not be another one due - so - jam tomorrow updates are typical around this point, as there is no need to go lower for known pending raises like via bonds etc. I'd nearly guarantee a jam tomorrow update but in this instance, it's down to OPTI play timing.

Simple question. Would OPTI like one more dump-out here before they do a probable raise and blag run? If so, you should get a manufactured RNS/Maker set price - for distribution move. If not? Then its not for another year.

https://x.com/YankTrain17909/status/1959900125742133645

I hope nobody minds us all laughing at the irony of Bel being called disingenuous post Ashman's performance pre the June 30th RNS on Croda numbers and pre the cash raise

Oh well, see if get any empty jam jar soon with tinted glass.

Be back for a laugh if one comes.

It would be a weak argument, but that would suffice for AIM regs i guess haha

If SBTX (or a similar AIM company) has long hinted or positioned a partnership as royalty-generating, and Investors have entered the stock expecting cashflow from those royalties, then Even a small, delayed, or absent payment must be disclosed — not because of its size, but because of the market's expectation. Not disclosing the reality (e.g., small or no royalties) may mislead the market and risk regulatory non-compliance.

However note the forwarding of the superdrug shelf lease. Very clever? Could argue that Croda is now not a material and sole consideration for an investor, so no disclosure required?

Wide boys

As you can see, even if you NDA the name, you can never NDA material price sensitive financials.

What we have here is a classic case of 'F all' being put in a grey box.

AIM Rule 11 (Disclosure of Price Sensitive Information): requires companies to disclose information that may significantly affect the share price, which includes material revenue sources or contracts.

Investors want to know who your major customers or revenue sources are because reliance on a single or few sources can impact risk assessment.

If a single customer or contract represents 10% or more of your revenues, it is considered material and should be disclosed — including the identity of that customer or the nature of the revenue source.

Sometimes, if revealing the exact customer breaches confidentiality, companies use a description instead (e.g., "a major international pharmaceutical company") — but they still must disclose the nature and significance of the revenue source.

If the £600K excess cash is or will be funded by royalty payments from Croda, and those payments are material (≥10% revenue), then:

You should disclose the source of this cash, especially if it relates to material future royalty payments expected from the partner.

Even if the payments are expected after the reporting date, if you “know for sure” about them, they constitute a material post-balance sheet event that must be disclosed.

If you do not disclose this, investors might misunderstand the source of the cash or the company’s revenue profile, which risks misleading the market.

So in summary, the likelihood of a decent royalty cheque in that statement, on many counts , is practically zero

At best if i was you lot, my hope would be for a blag pre OPTI programme. Something like 'We can confirm we received a royalty cheque, but can't announce the total' lol. Then clarify it was for 20 pence next June

But the chances of that are not great hence the superdrug blag to keep you all ticking over, as opti go into hypersonic BS mode once again, post a probable raise there

Were they near at least an expected payment?

The accounting standards require disclosure of material post-balance sheet events in the notes to financial statements. AIM rules do not explicitly mandate each note disclosure but expect full, fair, and transparent reporting.

Knowing you will receive a significant royalty payment shortly after year-end is a material event and should be disclosed to comply with accounting standards and market transparency principles.

Failure to disclose could risk non-compliance with accounting standards and AIM transparency expectations, and possibly market abuse regulations. No NDA can block such a note (checked with the regulators)

'Management expects revenues between £4.5m and £4.8m for FY25, mainly from Dermatonics, Bio-Tech Solutions, and organic AxisBiotix growth.'

Define mainly? i reckon somewhere between 99.6and 99.9% at best. A pity it is not defined, as per norm. Speculate........