I'm "hoping" for it tomorrow or Thurs, like you say HD2U - would seem reasonable given the presentation on 11/1, but not guaranteed.
If I were an investor I'd want to know what the current situation is, as well as prospects, so perhaps we might get a little more detail about the pipeline? Who knows!
Just to clarify, it’s the Yates presentation to the investment community that’s happening on 11/1.
We don’t know when the TU will be issued, other than it will be in Jan.
Nevertheless, for me it’s not unreasonable to think the TU will be before or on 11/1. After all, why present to investors if you have nothing positive to say, and telling potential investors before us would be wrong I think.
I don't think it will be tomorrow Bill, just because its a Friday.
This was the bit that caught my attention in the AGM statement
"At that time (October), I said that I believed Abingdon was well positioned to meet the growing demand of the lateral flow market, through both our CRO/CDMO offering, and through our complementary direct sales and distribution platform. This is proving to be the case as evidenced both by the number of customers and projects we are working with, and our continued revenue growth"
So, Yates has already told us that revenue has continued to grow since October, which should I hope mean that the update reveals H1 24 revenue in excess of the £2.9 H2 23 revenue. If that proves to be the case and costs remain controlled (no indication they aren't) then we will be well on our way to FY24 target of being cash flow positive.
Alternatively, if the revenue growth and cost controls continue as indicated in the finals then management will need to be given real credit for making difficult decisions and turning the tanker round after being royally shafted by the DHSC.
I think everyone fully expected the H1 23/24 revenues to be significantly higher than the poor £1.1m H1 22/23 revenue, and so it’s not really a surprise that Yates has already confirmed as much.
The interesting things for me will be to see how H1 23/24 compares to the £2.9m H2 22/23 revenue, whether or not our cash burn continues to reduce (and so what our cash position is compared to the £3.2m at 30/6/23), and hopefully some indication of current and pipeline work.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see the trading update turn up very quickly in the new year.
HNY all.
Good to have you here Karl.
Also nice to see the last two trading sessions being positive. Worth noting again that Yates had said he’s going to release a trading update in Jan, and is presenting to potential investors on 11/1.
Now, if I were Yates I’d only be presenting if I intended to release the update beforehand, and only if that data was good.
Might explain the positivity; either that or it’s Karl’s entry into the fray!
So it would appear impossible to post concerns or issues for discussion on this discussion board without being labelled a deramping troll!
Not much of a discussion board then really, is it.
Any post, positive or negative, has value if it’s based on fact. Posts not based on fact or, worse, on lies, whether ramping or deramping, are equally dangerous.
For info - Loop posted this today. Senior ABDX staff have liked it, including Yates
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/loopdx_iso13485-qualitymatters-teamsuccess-activity-7143265299184734208-iv1r?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop
And what the RNS actually said was “ I am pleased to note that our revenue for H1 FY23/24 will be significantly higher than revenue for H1 FY22/23.”
So not profit.
Our revenue for H1 22/23 was only £1.1m. We now know it’s higher, but as Apre says, we need to wait until Jan to learn how much higher and to see how far we are on track towards full year 24 profitability.
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.
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.
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.