The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring financial educator and author Jared Dillian has been released. Listen here.
Zulu,
The solution is remarkably simple, for me at least.
I don't spend time on boards that I don't believe in/am not invested in.
I suggest giving it a try to save you from all the angst you are currently feeling :)
Just to let you guys know these have both been taken down :).
I should add the reasons above are why I'm long on this one.
I'm of the opinion that once a JV milestone, or possibly more than one is reached, I will be able to stash this away and pay it fairly little attention.
It's nice to have a few longer term things in the fire.
I believe the only reason the Mcap is not higher is due to the previous (mis) management.
Its one of the reasons I picked this out of the many other biotechs, it seemed very "unloved" considering the potentual.
My Reasons for Investing in VAL:-
New and very capable management that were delivering as promised and on time.
Low mkt cap.
Current and future potential, quality of products.
Good amount of running costs in bank, 2 years.
Products at various stages of realisable potential, JVs etc.
Future business direction is good, using extensive experience to nurture growing biotechs, via SPVs, going fwd.
Now apart from a past, tarnished, reputation, due to the previous mismanagement I couldn't find anything not to like.
"This Company, to me, oozes competence, professionalism, and a genuine high regard for the LTHs. Not to even mention the IP.
That's why I'm in."
These are the same reasons I got in early September and have stayed in here.
Its also pretty much the largest value in my PF and I didn't cash in the last time for good reasons.
I view this as a true LTH, there is nothing I have been able to find wrong with it and I believe the products are excellent and the future business direction is a great concept.
It actually aligns with what big pharma want as a strategy going fwd, to save on costly R and D both in the terms of time and money.
Agreed Wolf.
They are going to be looking at hooking into large scale CRM systems such as Salesforce, SAP etc. to enable an end to end solution from a technical and regulatory perspective.
Youtalkingtome.
Great user name.
Lol.
Chelsea,
For sure, nothing in life is a forgone conclusion.
Given the visibly great improvements so far all round here, I will be extremely surprised if we don't get an update by the end of the year.
As I said earlier since the new BOD took over I see nothing negative with VAL.
If Suzy felt she wasn't going to deliver the update we would have had an RNS stating that fact already.
All IMO.
Suzy has told us before the end of the year. She seems very delivery focussed, so I believe she will stick to this, imo.
Funny, was reading the RMS forum earlier and found a new account that did remind me of him a little, lol.
Claims to also be invested in SYME.
https://www.lse.co.uk/profiles/darkvader/
Nice one Bob, good to see one of our other common ones has sparked into life also :)
Sorry hit the wrong key...
Bugs can be addressed more easily as, in this instance, SIA will be dealing with them centrally.
Other organisations that you may want to link with from a technology perspective may also be using SIA so easier to interface with in the future.
Many other advantages I haven't even thought of.
I must admit I'm no blockchain expert, but those are ones I can think of from the top of my head.
Wolf,
SIA provides the engine that symes software sits on top of.
You should look at this in a similar way that software uses existing frameworks/ libraries that are licensed/owned by third parties.
Point being noone reinvents the wheel when it comes to development of a software product.
The use of third party frameworks/libraries have obvious advantages from a technical perspective, for example:-
They can communicate with each others with other technologies.
They tend to be more secure.
They allow you to recruit people to work on them who have prior knowledge of that framework,even if they have never worked on your application.
Chuck,
As I said, above, this was a part sales pitch.
"I suggest you have a look at the presentation and slide yourself and see if it states that SH is confirmed for 1bn or if it states that that is their total funding potential ability..."
Of course it doesn't state this categorically, for that you would need an RNS prior?
You know this as well as I do.
The RNS will come when Storm Harbour is signed off, detailing both that and the increase in funding.
Critical thinking doesn't come into it, common sense does.
Why would we want an RNS saying there is potential increase in funding, but we haven't officially signed off yet?
Surely you can do better than that?
Chuck,
For one minute I thought I had signed up to the TA, I'm still standing to attention as I type this.
Of course this can be considered as part of a sales pitch.
However, if you are actually invested in a positive way here, rather than a short position, I struggle to see why the increase in potential funding wouldn't be a positive point.
Building slowly.
Potential for both imo.
Tommy,
"surely they will be interested with the headline results released of ORR 54.5%?"
I believe they are already very interested, check Suzys linked in.
They will want to look at the detailed results and study them in detail before they actually commit to anything, however.
Nice Post Adam,
Keep them coming.
My view is also that we won't see major SP movement until we have a JV or funding arrangement.
This will both back up and prove, end to end, the new business model of bringing small bios products to market.
The agreement last week was the start of proving the concept and the funding of one, or more of VALs current products will complete that process.
That pros and cons list actually appeared on here first, lol.
Pigster,
My initial thoughts when I heard about the Pfeiza vaccine was that it was a bit of a duck.
Two of the board selling shares, directly after the announcement, seemed to confirm that to me.
Tests, currently being used, seem to suffer from reliability problems. If you are testing more people you will find more cases, it's as simple as that, even given the unreliability problems.
Both the reliability of the Pfeiza vaccine and the tests suffer from the lack of "true" data, that is the issue to me.