Member Info for Mumbo_Jumbo

Andy - nrxp has a bigger target market. They also have an intravenous and inhaled version. I am invested with a small punt, it’s not for feint hearted for the reason I outlined in earlier post. Their main attraction is the possibility of helping patients with respiratory diseases. I would ignore the other pipeline. The EUA could be granted In Q1. I believe the recruitment numbers on the NIH sponsored P3 trial are far ahead of SNG.

NRX
Good - The FDA wants to see data from more patients and rejected EUA on that basis. They have changed tack and now asked for EUA for patients where everything else hasn’t worked. It’s actually done very well in patients with no hope… It is also for ARDS, and not just dependent on covid.

Bad - embodied in an ugly legal dispute with collaboration partner who owns the actual patent for one version of the drug.

Ford - the man child CEO seems a bit clueless under scrutiny doesn't he. If he does blame everyone else then frankly he's not fit to lead the company.

So now its about Nickel is it!!....

What happened to Platinum group or for the matter the sale?

robins - you can only do buy backs if you are profitable company or have sold an asset. None of this applies to 4D.

Surely they have to announce to market if MRE2 is imminent.

calamari - could be several reasons for market reaction. One could be ART himself, the other low recovery, low well pressure and most importantly well drop off rate. You can have all the oil in place but if you are constantly drilling nodding donkeys to keep up with production rate then the economics are not the same.

that drop didn't last long!!

are you still holding?

It depends on what they agree with. You would have thought that’s the case, imagine how awkward the relationship would be for those 2 on JV committee if they wildly disagree on valuation.

My other thought is that why screw the smaller partner as you already have 70% of the asset and it doesn’t set a good image of NCM.

Interesting Bojo. If I do invest then it will be somewhere closer to 20 times your amount, just so that 10-20% increase is worthwhile.

How much you reckon will be offered and what GGP will agree to for the 5%? If the price differential is greater than 10% then the independent adjudicator will decide and GGP will have to accept that. There are 2 from GGP on the JV committee, so they are working closely.

My ideal entry would be between 12-13p, just so that the mcap is low enough for the low ball offer.

You think it’s an insider job? They will orchestrate a low ball offer and accept. Curiously he hasn’t got much of shareholding in GGP has he? All my assumptions are based on that he will fight GGP corner very hard and get the resource estimate updated. But again, maybe I am trying to convince myself to follow my bias.

also I should have added for the bull case and why I am tempted is that if the updated resource figure comes out to be quite high and is used for the valuation then we should see the SP at least 50% higher than it is now.

Whats your thinking Bojo. I am pretty hopeless with miners and so I tend to stay away. Saying that I am tempted with GGP. The only thing stopping me right now is that low ball offer for 5%, which would then set the valuation for their 25% interest as it stands.

Right now they have 4 million ounces in their resource, the question is that whether they will use this or will they update the resource estimate and use that for valuation. There has been no guidance from Company way or another, so its hard to say. Secondly the speculation is what $ per ounce will they pay, it could range from $90-$300 or more, someone more versed in mining share can perhaps comment on this. All I know is that with current mcap of around $800 million I make it that they need at least $160 million for the 5% to justify the current mcap and anything less then you might see the SP drop.

Agree Ephemeral. MM cannot operate the way he did when it was a private business.

Matterhorn - and maybe to fill numbers as vaccinations had been rolled out pretty quickly. I can imagine it would have been a challenge to find unvaccinated that met the criteria.

Ndn71 - Precisely what Atea had to do. The It was the only saving grace for them

Axe-Capital - Fully cognisant that this is aimed to high risk, but you can be on oxygen and not proceed to ventilator. Infact it has happened to couple of people in my own circle in the last 4 or 5 months. The vaccines may be the reason for that. This can impact the overall efficacy. Ultimately what we want to see is whether it will be statistically significant in helping you stay alive and help you get out of hospital quicker.

Its a pattern Ed. Up for few sessions followed by continuing the down trend to find new low. IMO of course.

I am not sure this has been discussed here before but it is an issue that brought down Atea and Roche's antiviral last year. They had allowed vaccinated people to go onto their trial whereas Merck and Pfizer did not. Now Atea are amending their protocol to include only vaccinated people, but it is little too late.

Coming to SNG, are they allowing vaccinated people onto their trial? The vaccinations may (almost certainly will) impact the mortality rate and the length of stay in hospital in the placebo group. As in you are less likely to die and more likely to recover quickly in placebo group compared to if you were not vaccinated. This single factor could turn out to be the difference between success and failure.

The CEO has conveniently created a smokescreen to hide behind when infact it is he who has created this mess in the first place. When it was a private entity, he could run it the way he wants without much scrutiny with a crowd of young graduates lauding him for every step.

Now that the business has been floated, you are in the grown up world and there are rules of the game. Your every decision past and present will be scrutinised and people will base opinions on that. Infact it is some people's job to do that precisely so that their clients have understanding of your company and how likely it is for them to see good returns. When they see red flags they will be vocal. As for shorters, they are part and parcel of the market, he wasn't complaining when the SP was at all time high when everyone had bought into the hype. Generally, the shorter will come in when they are confident that there is something not quite right here and 4-5% of stock being shorted is not exactly massive to account for the SP fall thus far. I think he's exaggerating this issue to take the heat off himself.

He needs to be held account for having questionable governance especially with regards to the golden share option, disastrous markets day and then GQ interview where he sow the seeds for going private or breaking up the group. The onus is on him to stop creating red flags and getting his house in order and most importantly of all stop behaving like a man baby because the big bad Mr market is not letting you have your way. This behaviour creates even more uncertainty and perpetuates the feeling that there there is something not quite right about this company.

No it didn’t. They actually said it’s it’s not Enron, merely pointed out companies who have complained about short attacks, ultimately proved that the shorters were correct. Examples given were HBOS, ENRON and Wire card.

what is delaying announcing next steps with Blautix?