Member Info for Muck165

Again, thanks. If I have any question about what you’ve said, it relates to the potential reticence of Alpha to pursue security enforcement in the Rom courts for fear of wading through treacle. Just strikes me that ease of enforcing security, alongside quality of that security, must both have been relevant factors for Alpha when deciding whether to accept it. But then I suppose the 20% might have swayed it!

I’m assuming of course that the Alpha security arrangements are subject to Rom law and not some other jurisdiction where appeals might not be so easy to come by. Do you know for sure at all?

Appreciate your posts on here - always helpful.

Thanks Sandy, and all sounds logical to me.

And it’s Alpha I worry more about. If I recall they lent over 12 months with all capital and interest repayable at the end of the term, at 20% p/a. Have to say that an interest rate like that perhaps indicates they’re more in the distressed lending market and so less cuddly than other lenders, particularly if they’ve not had any money back yet, beyond fees. They are of course secured on a shareholder real estate assets, not Vast assets - thanks again to Firwood for helping me understand who that is likely to be, and what asset it is.

As per the 4/12 RNS, “ The Company is currently in discussions with Alpha and Mercuria…… regarding arrangements that will allow…… a further extension to finalise the settlement of its historic claims outlined in previous announcements.”

So what does that mean? Well, for me it goes beyond “can we have an extension please”, to “what do we need to do to get an extension”, and will mean Vast having to give up something to get one. Could just be more fees, but I suppose it might involve part repayment now with some other/further revenue related repayment plan thereafter, or it might involve a raise, consolidation or some other debt restructure. But that’s all conjecture on my part, and could easily be rubbish. Whatever, the delay and radio silence does suggest, at least to me, that these current discussions aren’t as easy as previous ones.

Great minds inrhubarb! 👍

Further to my last (and a bit sooner than I expected!)

“ Spiking crackdown to see more funding for test kits”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67742999

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/spiking-to-be-targeted-in-raft-of-new-measures

Now, who knows if this will help us and let’s face it, do we want to get into bed with govt anyway, but ultimately tests like these should further normalise “self testing” which can I think only be helpful for us in the long run.

yep, it’s been a year spent rebuilding foundations, and i’m happy with that. and whilst we don’t get a flow of exciting news, we don’t have a flow of, or even an inkling of, concerning news either.

we did £2.9m revenue in h2 2023. if we can match that through the whole of 2024 then my back of a *** packet maths tells me we will have become cash positive. so the jan details will be interesting.

Overall I’d call the past year unexciting but solid for ABDX holders.

Salistick, at least so far, hasn’t lived up to the hope. It’s a great product and we did well to get into mainstream retailers, but market penetration off the back of a lacklustre marketing effort, and silence from the FDA has been disappointing.

Then we have a Loop, another product with huge commercial potential but which again seems stuck in the regulatory quagmire. Upfront, similar in commercial potential, but again I think some months away before hitting the market, and I have no idea what we are really doing with Senzo, AppDX, or Hormona at the moment. Folium don’t have the regulatory drag and seem certain to be rolling out SWIFTR early in the new year.

On the positive side, we do really seem to be on track to becoming cash positive largely off CDMO/CRO work (ie not related to manufacturing revenue), and there end to me to be quite an imbalance between developers and companies like ABDX such that we can pick who we want to work with rather than take what we can get. Reducing plastic is also high on agendas and I certainly see EcoFlo doing well - Jo Barnard at Morrama seems highly thought of in the field and it’s encouraging to see them with other high profile work (Wagamamas for example). There was a debate on drink spiking legislation in parliament a few days ago,with very strong indications that a long overdue report will be out before the end of the year - that could have some impact on our CYD offering. Then we still await, of course, news on Salistick (FDA), Loop (UKCA and commercialisation), Folium (launch details and figures), an Upfront trial results.

Apre said we need some oomph, and I agree. A shot in the arm would be nice. At the mo we just aren’t given enough info to get super excited about anything, but we can still be encouraged by solid (if boring) commercial performance.

More details are to come in Jan, and my guess for various reasons is that we will get that early. In Jan and before 11th.

Like I say, just some reflections. GLA

I agree dvh. The short term debt issue here is undoubtedly very serious but, if AP can somehow navigate it whilst remaining a going concern (I suspect without the diamonds), then prospects are very positive and certainly more I think than current SP.

R6 has better pencils.

Reckon so - I’d certainly like to know if it’s likely to be R6 or 7.

Thought as much so no worries Oofy. Seriously, I think we might find out which pencil they decide on shortly, which will I’m sure spike the SP. Then they can move on to thinking about an appropriate meeting room.

You’re ramping Oofy - stage 1 is deciding which pencil to use.

Put out a few mins ago for anyone interested

https://www.abingdonhealth.com/innovation-in-labels-driving-use-of-lateral-flow-technology/

Worth noting again, I think that Yates is presenting to an investor forum on 11/1, and so if he’s going to put something more comprehensive out in Jan then it would, I think, make sense for him to do it before then.

I’m not surprised by that Brighty given that revenue in the same period last year was just £1.1m. What I am pleased about though is the simple statement about “continued revenue growth” which indicates to me at least that we can expect annual revenue this year to be higher than last.

I’m also pleased Yates is looking to put out something more comprehensive in Jan - historically, he only moves so fast on things like this if he has something positive to say.

I accept there are likely to be a number of things to be done before any release can proceed. What I don’t get is is why AP can’t just tell us what they are. He’s said (I think) that’s he can’t talk about what’s going on because it’s politically sensitive, but what’s so sensitive about simply confirming the permits needed and how far along we are to getting them?

ASI - thanks for the self important and incredibly patronising reply.

We have been made aware of delays on the debt extension and the diamonds. So to answer your question directly, nothing.

But being “made aware” of the delays is not the problem.

The delays are the problem, and the longer they continue the more worrisome things become.

Perhaps you could answer my question - are you happy for delays to just continue ad infinitum because we’ve been told about them?

Ah, so are you happy just to carry on waiting ad infinitum re the debt position, without concern, because we’ve been told discussions are taking place?

The whole point of discussions is to reach a solution. The longer they take, the more troublesome the solution is likely to be, at least in my view. That is why I say delay smells of problems. Agree with me or not, that’s up to you.