Member Info for mugginsthedog

Vulcan that is very true as MW must be almost bust again based on their cash outflow over first half year. Shambolic.

I hope that they do not bring down SKIN to.

Truely shockingly awful.

Collapse in sales and used most of their cash (£1m in 6 months) with only £800k left at half year.

I didn't say I didn't like it I am just sharing an experts view. Judging by your comments I am sure that you are much cleverer than them.

The article states
'Is there any measure more pointless than a share consolidation, or more likely to suggest that management have no real ideas for sorting out their mess and are resorting to this cheapest of conjuring tricks to give the illusion of progress?'

I am sure that we are all looking forward to some RNSs demonstrating some real and tangible progress.

There has been quite a bit of discussion about the proposed 10 for 1 share consolidation. If nothing else it has caused confusion. Below is an extract from a Times article today about a similar exercise at Saga;

'Nobody’s fooled
Bruised shareholders in Saga have two weeks before they need to make a decision on the insurance-to-cruises group’s emergency capital-raising. One silly distraction announced yesterday will do nothing to reassure them. This is the decision to consolidate the shares. Investors, whatever they decide, will get one new share in place of every existing fifteen they hold currently.

Is there any measure more pointless than a share consolidation, or more likely to suggest that management have no real ideas for sorting out their mess and are resorting to this cheapest of conjuring tricks to give the illusion of progress?

James Quin, the finance director, at least had the decency to sound a bit shamefaced as he tried to explain why time and money was being wasted on this. Apparently, penny shares are more volatile and present a “psychological hurdle” to some people, he said. Royal Bank of Scotland, which now goes by the name of Natwest, went for this ruse a few years ago, conducting a one-for-ten consolidation. Long-term shareholders, who bought into the company before the banking crisis at £5 or so, know perfectly well that the shares today are, in old money, an embarrassing 10.4p, not the 104p on the screen.'

There has been quite a bit of discussion about the proposed 10 for 1 share consolidation. If nothing else it has caused confusion. Below is an extract from a Times article today about a similar exercise at Saga;

'Nobody’s fooled
Bruised shareholders in Saga have two weeks before they need to make a decision on the insurance-to-cruises group’s emergency capital-raising. One silly distraction announced yesterday will do nothing to reassure them. This is the decision to consolidate the shares. Investors, whatever they decide, will get one new share in place of every existing fifteen they hold currently.

Is there any measure more pointless than a share consolidation, or more likely to suggest that management have no real ideas for sorting out their mess and are resorting to this cheapest of conjuring tricks to give the illusion of progress?

James Quin, the finance director, at least had the decency to sound a bit shamefaced as he tried to explain why time and money was being wasted on this. Apparently, penny shares are more volatile and present a “psychological hurdle” to some people, he said. Royal Bank of Scotland, which now goes by the name of Natwest, went for this ruse a few years ago, conducting a one-for-ten consolidation. Long-term shareholders, who bought into the company before the banking crisis at £5 or so, know perfectly well that the shares today are, in old money, an embarrassing 10.4p, not the 104p on the screen.'

I agree that he should either provide evidence or withdraw the comments. Normally I would simply dismiss this kind of thing but he does seem to have some detailed knowledge - I recall that he sent another poster detailed information and the recipient confirmed that he did indeed have a lot of information but had a perceived bias.

He was right about the sales team leaving in the US so cannot be entirely discounted. Even so I think that these are quite serious allegations and to be taken seriously will require corroborating evidence.

Not baffling at all. There is plenty of evidence about the desperately poor quality of the MW management team;
• The constant flip-flopping on strategy
• The long term collapse in sales
• The failure to land the Gibraltar project
• The failure to capitalise on great technology
• The failure to develop a myriad of global partnership
• The departure of most of the sales team
• The collapse in the share price from 119p to 0.5p
• The two main subsidiaries going bust (and the failure to pay those staff in the subsidiaries) with the main company on the verge of bankruptcy
• Failure to pay staff
• Failure to sell testing
• Shareholder dilution
• Spending over £50m with most of it having to be written off

How anyone can seriously believe that this has been anything other than a shambolically managed company is beyond me. GB has been a refreshing NXD and clearly having the management of SKIN take-over is IMHO one of the greatest benefits of the merger.

IMHO accepting the offer is a no brainer for MW shareholders. We are ditching a poor management team for something much capable. I think that we are very fortunate to be in such a position given where the company was in February this year.

Modern Waters largest sales market by some margin is North America. It seems that the entire sales and management team in N America upped and left and set up on their own in Feb 2020.

https://aqua-sci.com/about-us/

All staff are ex-MW (confirmed on LinkedIn). With the loss of the entire team one wonders how bad the impact will be on MW sales which, in any event, have been in decline for a number of years. This departure seems quite material and I am surprised that this has not been mentioned either by MW announcement or in merger documents.

With the half year now gone I would expect that SKIN shareholders might reasonably expect to see what the MW half year sales figures are before being asked to approve the merger.

If you do even the slightest bit of research you will see the technology is exactly the same as MW. In some cases they are even working with the same partners.
Does it matter that the largest part of the sales team have left then obviously yes it does.
Will it effect the merger. I hope not because the merger is highly beneficial to MW shareholders. However, if I was a SKIN shareholder I might want more information.

Yes - all checked on LinkedIn and ALL ex MW

All information is from MWs financial statements and the new companies website. Not sure how it cannot be the truth.

Perhaps some people do not like the truth and are all too interested in covering their ears to anything that they do not like to hear?

Anyway, the half year results would have made interesting reading - I wonder if we would have had the 46% growth we were promised or something rather less spectacular. I would expect SKIN shareholders to be interested and there is nothing in any of the documents I have seen which gives any indication.

I would be interested in MW managements actions when the sales team of its most successful unit set up in direct competition. Litigation?

MWs largest sales market is North America. It seems that the entire sales and management team in N America upped and left and set up on their own in Feb 2020.

https://aqua-sci.com/about-us/

All staff are ex-MW. With the loss of the entire team one wonders how bad the impact will be on sales which, as we know, are already in decline. This departure seems quite material and I am surprised that this has not been mentioned. Given the prospects for sales it looks that we had a lucky exit with the merger. I am not sure that all SKIN shareholders will see it that way.

It is a bit harsh when someone who is trying to help and give some background gets banned. Anyway, what was the info?

As I have already said I am delighted to reconfirm I have made here and I will make more if merger goes through. SKIN shareholders need to be aware what they are buying.

Probably inevitable with cross shareholding, management and collaboration. Good news as MW does not have the management team to commericalise its existing technologies far less a potentially world beating real time covid test in waste water. I assume that SKIN have that badly needed sales expertise?

The company are past masters at waffle and they still seem rather good at it. However, the hard numbers show a rather different story. Sales continue to decline and the company itself states that this will not change significantly. With a covid prototype not expected until the end of September it would seem, at best, highly unlikely that there will be any covid related sales before the end of the year - who knows about 2021? With out further sales this company may run out of cash, given the ongoing operating cash outflow, funding for the covid detector, repayment of bank loansand ongoing capex and interest before covid detection becomes a commercial reality. The problem is that there is so little data it is impossible to tell. What data there is seems remarkably confused (there are 4 different figures in the financials for operating cash outflow).

I am afraid to say that there is news. I think that we were all expecting a significant increase in sales. However the company has stated in its financial statements (Section 2.1.1) that in 2020 it only expects a ' Small increase in revenue in Monitoring Division'. These are not my words they are the companies. A lack of sales are the fundamental problem with company and this does not look to be changing.