The latest Investing Matters Podcast with Jean Roche, Co-Manager of Schroder UK Mid Cap Investment Trust has just been released. Listen here.
Are you mentally deficient or something ? Where do you get the idea I was born in 1983 ? Actually I'm 72 years old.
I took a PCR Covid test on December 31st and 'enrolled' (applied) to the SNG Home Trial that day. I was phoned later the same day by a doctor who came across as a complete 'nosepicker' in the first couple of sentences he uttered. The relevant facts he told me that astonished me were that SNG had only recruited about half the required number of people & was only 'halfway through' the Home Trial recruitment and that the phase three trial 'parameters' had been taking a long time to determine and so the phase three trial had not yet started.
He further stated that 'the hospital pharmacy is closed now for the new year holiday & so we cannot commence new SNG treatments during this time'.
Those are the facts. Further conversation with him indicated he was ignorant & had no idea whatsoever how to manage or organise anything and seemed to think it was perfectly normal to take about five months to find a few hundred people tested positive for the Covid virus to take part in the SNG Home Trial when hundreds of thousands, rapidly rising into millions, of people were being tested as positive for being infected with Covid during this period of time.
He spent time droning on about how it would be 'illegal' for him to accept me onto the trial & how 'important it was to obey the law' because I had not yet had the result of my test, and anyway because of delay in access to the SNG drug from the hospital pharmacy, it would be too late as SNG need to commence treatment within seven days of onset of Covid symptoms.
Of course I did not expect to be finally signed up for treatment until I had a positive test result returned to me, but I pointed out to this braindead dipstick that it was certain I was positive, having fallen ill with all the Covid symptoms soon after me being notified by other family members who I had been with just one day before they were all tested as positive for Covid.
So, I pointed out once I had received a positive test result I could then join the SNG Home Trial as I fulfilled all the relevant parameters of the trial such as age etc. And the closure of the pharmacy until January 2nd wouldn't matter as I would still be able to start treatment within seven days of testing positive because it would not be until January 6th that seven days would have passed since onset of symptoms.
I finally received my Positive Covid test result on January 4th, well within the seven day window of onset of symptoms, despite the utter incompetence of the test & trace system taking five days to provide me with the result of the test.
The sheer ignorance of the people running the test & trace system just takes your breath away as does the mentally challenged nosepicker who wilfully failed to use a useful recruit to the SNG home trial - indicating the reason it has taken so long is the sheer incompetence of the those people organising the SNG Home Trial.
The bottom, line is that I was NOT taken on as a recruit.
The thing preventing publicity is the regulatory bureaucracy saying it is forbidden to advertise, market or publicise any medical product that has not completed the regulatory process and been approved.
So this makes everyone in Synairgen terrified of saying anything or speaking to journalists and the media themselves are also terrified of the pure horror that is the regulatory bureaucracy as they are all idiot jobsworths with zero imagination. Consequently the media have a delusion they might be breaking the law by merely talking about a drug that has not completed the regulatory process.
People in this country just fail to realise how rotted with bureaucracy their brains have become and how the greater part of the entire population are pathetic jobsworths entirely devoid of any initiative at all.
The thing that is preventing publicity is the
It was announced over the weekend that Pharmaceutical giant Astra Zeneca had paid about £28 billion for a USA Pharma business with sales for the past year of £5 billion. Profit on those sales is less than £5 billion, I would guess profit after costs of sales at no more than £2 billion. Just a rather woolly, inaccurate guess, but an adequate enough approximation to illustrate my point.
£2 billion might reasonably be expected as Eurasia annual profit after mining costs over at least a thirty year life of the mine.
All businesses are the same at their most basic level. They all sell a product for profit & so all businesses are exactly the same at the most basic level of their 'figures' - whether mines, medicine or making ladies knickers - they are all the same. They are just devices to create cash flow to produce a profit margin no matter what type of business they are.
So, here we have two companies producing about the same profit each year who have employed the best & most expensive banking experts and lawyers to determined exactly the right price needed for Astra to pay to buy the USA Pharma business earning just £5 billion in sales with my estimate of only £2 billion annual profit.
Eurasia is just selling it's estimated future profits. It doesn't much matter it's a different type of business. Figures are the same thing wherever they are.
So you might imagine we would also be sold for about £28 billion. Why would it be less ? Astra have set a benchmark of possibility. But this figure clearly indicates that any lesser figure looks like a bit of a rip off
But, hey ho, half that might do at £14 billion which makes a sale price of about £5.60p per share.
What do all you folks think ?
is to consider that after paying for the costs of mining the stuff out of the ground we have something like at least a minimum of about £60 billion net profit (probably much more) we aim to dig up over approximately a 20 year life of the mine.
That is an average of about £3 billion of net profit after costs dug out of the ground each year of the mine's life.
With only 2.76 billion shares in issue that is slightly over £1 (one pound) profit per share for each year of the mine's life.
So, just for example, only four years of average net profit/potential dividend for each share would be equivalent to only about four pounds per share or a total buyout price of £12 billion.
Thinking about this objectively tells me I would consider myself bonkers to sell for even this figure, let alone anything less. Personally, my decision would be not to sell at all but hang on in there & develop the mining myself because that way I would have far, far more money after three or four years as the share price just carried on going up as development progressed.
But maybe there could be that large lump of cash to lure me into a part sale PLUS continued profit share through a joint venture of some kind. One thing is for sure, I wouldn't just give it away for a mere pound or two per share unless I was very stupid.
And Richard Marsden is a sterling bloke. BUT UNFORTUNATELY he is a clueless businessman in that he fails to understand the cuthroat pressures Synairgen faces from elsewhere. If he was more clued up he would realise these things and therefore do a lot more to publicise this fantastic product right now and bring it to market much earlier by taking advantage of various publicity opportunities prior to official approvals. Thus creating public understanding of the nature of the product and also creating demand for advance ordering and vastly improved share price due to better public understanding of what is a revolutionary drug already known to be both effective AND SAFE !!!! Richard needs to appoint a clued up marketing director. ( Like me Lol !!)
It is truly appalling software and is so lousy I find it un-useable
50 pence a share for the takeover would be a derisory amount as the value of the pgm metals in the ground (about £70 billion) is about 46 times that figure or about 33 times the net value (about £50 billion) of the metals after mining costs to get it out of the ground.
What kind of nutcase gives away £50 billion net profit for about one and a half billion pounds cash up front. Only a total idiot would do that, I would have thought.
I do not understand that if AVACTA have all the knowledge of how they have employed their engineered Affamer molecule to design a Lateral Flow test that works, how on earth can it take weeks and months to liaise and co-operate with a manufacturer to give them all the information needed to manufacture on a large scale what AVACTA must have already made on a one off, bespoke, made by hand basis ? It seems like bureaucracy gone insane.
Can anyone explain in simple, plain English, instead of bureaucratic garbage-speak why and how something already made 'by hand' can take so long for an experienced large scale manufacturer already producing similar products to work out how to make & just then get on with it.
Why do marketmakers repeatedly buy or sell very small numbers of shares like 7 shares worth less than two pounds
What's happened to the open offer ? No information anywhere just seems completely incompetent. I presume it's the broker who is responsible for this incompetence.
With an asset of metals in the ground worth perhaps approximately £80 billion & allowing costs of digging it up & selling it of £20 billion there is £60 billion profit over an estimated mine life of perhaps 30 years. This averages net profit averaging £2 billion per year. On the basis of these figures it would seem insane to even think of selling out now for less that £10 billion.
Personally I would hang onto it if I owned it & organise the finance to develop it myself . That is why an analyst estimated EUA could be worth £8 per share in five years if the company itself developed the mine.
Why give away £60 billion in exchange for £10 billion or less ?
Lunacy !
Just trying to put this into a proper perspective.
Instead of the endless drivel posted here you might think some investors here would know enough about pricing mine buyouts to have informed guesses of the possible buyout price; but no, I don't see any, why not ?
How is a sale price of a mining company which owns at least £60 billion of net assets in the ground calculated ? How could a mere pound or two per share be considered an adequate price for a takeover of EUA ? At one pound per share that values those assets at about three billion or so pounds, at only two pounds per share it is only six billion.
How could we possibly give away our 60 billion pound plus net asset for only six billion pounds.
If EUA did not allow itself to be bought out but simply issued some loan notes or something to raise sufficient funds to kickstart major mine expansion, the EUA share price has already been forecast by analysts to be potentially worth £8 within five years if they just got on with the mining themselves.. That is a vastly better deal than selling out now for a pound or two per share.
I don't see many people trying to guess at what sort of realistic value EUA might have for buyer and I haven't a clue how to value a sale really . But, if I imagine that I owned EUA all myself and there are about 40 million ounces of palladium sitting in the ground waiting for me to dig it out & flog it, with today's palladium price at £1779 that is £1779 x 40 = £71,160, 000,000 of value sitting in the ground that I own. That's seventy one , one hundred & sixty thousand MILLION POUNDS or - £71,160 BILLION !
If we just guess at that being worth just about 60 billion after allowing for the costs of digging it up, then as I own all that, the question is, how much would I flog it for right now to get as much money up front as possible without all the bother of waiting to mine it myself ?
Ten per cent of the total value of £60 billion i.e £6 billion cash up front for outright sale now ? Naaaah.
Twenty percent of value up front ? That's still only £12 billion though. Doesn't sound right. I give you £60 billion in return for you giving me just £12 billion. Naaaaaaaaaah; doesn't sound fair; I want more than that. I found the stuff in the first place & it's all mine right now, and I don't see why I should allow myself to be ripped off just 'cos your bigger than me.
What do you reckon ?
HELP ! can anyone explain how to get into this idiot software to attend the webina .I'm on the right page and a button eventually appeared but then there was another page asking me if I was a shareholder and asking me to 'submit' the answer but it would not let me say yes or no to being a shareholder and therefore would not allow me to submit the info and so I can't get into the webinar.
And you wouldn't believe this, but I had a conversation with the chief executive of this software company an hour ago about this very software & how inpenatratively stupid it is. He agreed with me !!!!!!
page three
The fact AVACTA CEO Alistair Smith has planned an analyst’s meeting on Monday 28th September immediately followed by an investors meeting with an invitation to answer investor’s questions, indicates the very real probability the completion of the clinical trials are also now complete and will be announced that day too.
It would appear to me slightly bizarre if not.
page two
“Under the terms of the collaboration, LSTM will carry out the clinical validation of the Avacta COVID-19 antigen rapid saliva test in their category 3 laboratories on patient samples. In addition to working with the UK government's CONDOR programme to provide Avacta with access to patient samples in the UK, the partnership with LSTM also provides the opportunity to access patient samples in Africa and South America. The higher prevalence of the disease in those regions means that samples for prospective clinical validation studies are more readily available which, if necessary, could be used to speed up the validation process.
Clinical validation is the process of evaluating the performance of a diagnostic test using real patient samples. Clinical validation generates the sensitivity and specificity performance parameters which are most often used to define the performance of a diagnostic test”.
.
Only three weeks ago on 2nd September AVACTA RNS announced it had “ entered into an agreement with Abingdon Health for the manufacture of Avacta's saliva-based rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen test as part of its ongoing expansion of manufacturing capacity”.
The 2nd September RNS announced "Avacta, Cytiva and BBI are in the process of technology transfer of the prototype and related manufacturing procedures for the test. Avacta aims to begin clinical validation of the test as soon as possible using the first pilot batches".
"Technology transfer to Abingdon Health will begin immediately with the aim of manufacturing an equivalent rapid antigen test product which therefore does not require additional clinical validation/regulatory approvals. The agreement with Abingdon Health will provide additional manufacturing capacity that could increase to several millions of tests per month".
Dr. Alastair Smith, Chief Executive of Avacta said "The Affimer reagents that we have generated are very specific to SARS-CoV-2 antigen and we are confident of meeting and exceeding the clinical performance requirements for identifying the most infectious people”.
This timeline of the AVACTA Lateral Flow test clearly shows the final hurdle is the clinical validation of the product which has already been proved to work and is already designed ready for large scale manufacturing by the tens of millions.
This clinical validation is simply the process of using the Lateral Flow Test on a large number of real life patients to be able to document consistently successful results in the real life settings.
Once that is complete the final regulatory approval can be given to then allow AVACTA to then sell the Lateral Flow Antigen Test to anyone. This clinical validation takes about eight weeks and AVACTA have been working on this night and day since the 6th August RNS announcing the beginning of actual manufacturing. By Monday September it will be just over seven weeks since the 6th of August.
The fact AVACTA CEO Alistair Smith has planned an analyst’s meetin
page one
The AVACTA Lateral Flow Test science (the patented Afimers) has been proved by AVACTA to work & passed all initial testing. The 11th May RNS explained Avacta had provided Cytiva with these Afimers in order for Cytiva to do the donkey work of developing & designing a suitable, easy to use LFT diagnostic device which uses these Afimers.It was estimated it would 'take a few weeks' to design a prototype LFT device.
The RNS said “The Affimer reagents have now been manufactured by Avacta in the quantities required for test development and are being sent to Cytiva today. Cytiva and Avacta will now work to develop rapid test strips for the detached spike protein and for the intact virus particle, aiming to have prototype devices in a few weeks”.
On June 24th an AVACTA RNS announced “the first Affimer-based rapid test strips to detect SARS-COV-2 spike protein have been developed and evaluated by Avacta's partners at Cytiva (formerly GE Healthcare Life Sciences) and show positive initial performance data”
“Following the optimisation of the lateral flow test by Cytiva the design will then be transferred to manufacturing partners in the UK that are currently being put in place by Avacta. The Company is working with these manufacturers to compress the normal manufacturing, clinical validation and regulatory timelines in order to bring a product to market as quickly as possible”.
On 6th August an AVACTA RNS announced an agreement for BBI to manufacture the LFT diagnostic device. "Cytiva and BBI are in the process of the technology transfer of the prototype and related manufacturing procedures for the saliva-based rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen test from Cytiva to BBI", said the RNS. That is only about seven weeks ago.
AVACTA also said in the 6th August RNS that "Avacta aims to begin clinical validation of the test as soon as possible by using the first pilot batches generated as part of the technology transfer process for these studies. In parallel with these clinical validation studies, which will be run within the UK government's CONDOR programme and potentially with other collaborators globally, BBI will work with Avacta and Cytiva to produce the additional technical documentation that is required for CE marking of the final product.
On August 7th an RNS announced “Avacta and Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine collaborate to clinically validate saliva-based rapid coronavirus test being developed with Cytiva”.
“Under the terms of the collaboration, LSTM will carry out the clinical validation of the Avacta COVID-19 antigen rapid saliva test in their category 3 laboratories on patient samples. In addition to working with the UK government's CONDOR programme to provide Avacta with access to patient samples in the UK, the partnership with LSTM also provides the opportunity to access patient samples in Africa and South America. The higher prevalence of the disease in those regions means that samples for