That's certainly an understandable position - Yates is well aware shareholders are frustrated by the lack of transparency yet seems to do little to address it. But personally I will be adding more when funds allow because this does seem to me to be a tanker that is turning and now moving in the right direction, with far more positives than negatives as far as I can see.
New survey published a couple of days ago
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20240213/UK-patients-want-better-access-to-early-and-accurate-diagnostic-tests-survey-shows.aspx
Https://www.med-technews.com/news/medical-device-news/government-announces-%C2%A310m-to-help-eight-companies-bring-inno/
Confirms the ten companies given money by the NHS. It includes Upfront, as per my previous posts, but also 52 North which we are helping with their Neutropenia test.
It seems to me that there is an imbalance between test developers and CDMO's like us, which the developers need to advance their tests through to commercialisation, which means we get to pick and choose those we want to work with. The fact that 2 of our partners are just a select few receiving govt funding suggests we are choosing well.
Https://www.linkedin.com/posts/gonzalo-ladreda-06a903b8_healthcareinnovation-publicfunding-bbclookeast-activity-7163814784075829248-PWbg?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop
High hopes for this one....
For anyone interested
https://www.selanoil.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Regulation-30-Announcement.pdf
Agree - good post.
An ignorant question I know, but is there much involved in getting GOI approval/consent, and will it help at all that Selan got GOI approval iro what looks to me to be a similar transaction just 2 months ago?
https://www.selanoil.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Disclosure-under-Regulation-30.pdf
well i got caught a little too because i use advfn l2 and they posted the wrong rns (it was a previous update rns) so i top sliced only to wonder why the price then rocketed! as it’s panned out i needn’t have been worried, but i was ****ed at the time!
I guess some have it in their head that a placing is coming tomorrow.
That seems daft to me.
If a raise was a condition of the deal, they wouldn’t have completed on it until at least after headroom had been given and most likely after a raise had been done.
Placings are always viewed negatively it seems.
But look at HE1. Raise undertaken at a massive discount to drill a well which then yielded fantastic results and a super uplift to the SP just a few weeks later.
I don’t think there will be an imminent raise here, but if there were and it was necessary to secure/progress a great JV resulting in an SP rise, then where’s the issue?
Placings to keep the lights on are one thing, but placings to significantly progress the business are quite another.
Just to be clear, I think the headroom resolution has been requested by the potential farminee so that it has comfort we have the ability to raise should that be necessary. I don’t think it means we will be raising imminently.
It is perfectly normal and routine for any company to ensure it has headroom, and indeed putting it in place each year is often a standing agenda item at AGM’s.
But that’s just my view!
“ partly through debt and partly through equity to be issued at a higher price than the current share price.”
Well I should blooming hope it would be above “current” share price because by then the consolidation will have been effected!
Last ditch efforts here by the company.
For anyone taking comfort from the various reassurances in the Chairman’s letter, be reminded that every reassurance he gave in his letter seeking a headroom raise last year proved false.
Just one other observation/clarification to add into the mix, which is that the incorporation docs were actually filed electronically with companies house on 19/1/24. So IF it has anything to do with us that would fit in time like this;
Monday 15/1 - notice of GM without the headroom request.
Friday 19/1 - Synergia Energy Limited incorporated in U.K.
Monday 22/1 - RNS update confirming meetings held the previous week
Thursday 25/1 - GM amendment to include headroom request.
Agree - often the case that a new entity is set up for a JV. But I’m not wholly convinced this has anything to do with us at all and certainly don’t want to be accused of intentionally initiating a P&D!
I still think the JV agreements will be executed shortly. I do think the headroom authority is linked to the JV, but I don’t think there will be an immediate raise.
I posted details of the new company because its name, the timing of incorporation, the Director residency, and its activities tweaked my interest, but to be honest I think the the evidence we’re seeing of a link between us and them is a little thin.
First, we don’t know that the F Koh in the LI profile is the same person as the Director of the new company. That said, there are indications. 1) They’re both in Singapore. 2). The Director was born in 1976, and the LI profile say they started O level studies in 1989, which would tie in.
Second, we don’t know they’re involved with us, but again there are indications. 1) what they do for a living, and the region they work in might support the theory. 2) if the person in the LI profile is the same as the Director, then the fact they incorporated the new U.K. entity, calling it Synergia Energy Ltd, slap bang in the final stages of our ZJV negotiations, would strongly suggest a link.
If they are involved then it bodes well for JV completion
But there are a lot of ifs, buts and maybes in the theory as it stands!