Member Info for mythyaar

I'm a LTH and disappointed with the latest developments. I think the stores need to be revamped and the model imitate better its competition. Some observations:

1. My local store always looks busy… but being busy isn’t the same as being a good shopping experience.

2. Queues of 5+ minutes down narrow, congested aisles with only 3 tills open is just poor retail. Meanwhile, Aldi and Lidl run up to 7 tills with flexible staff jumping in when it’s busy. That’s how you respect your customers’ time.

3. No one should be waiting more than 5 minutes to be served. If B&M made that a priority, it’d improve the experience considerably. It needs to be made a priority in all stores.

4. No loyalty programme - correct me if I'm wrong, but why not? All the large supermarkets have one.

5. stripped-back DIY and hardware ranges - alienating some previously very loyal customers.

6. dated stores (ours is anyway) that feel like they haven’t been updated in years

Busy or not — this is a business model that badly needs an overhaul to survive and hopefully thrive going forward.

Not a bad presentation. The streamlining now in place needs to start showing results this year and beyond, including recovering lost market share.

Noted assumption made that increased lease cost more than offset by efficiency savings. This needs to be clearly demonstrated in the years to come.

At current sp one for the patient investor. Unlikely to start hitting profits until 2027. But seem like a sensible management team.

The investor presentation wasn't the best. There was clearly some underlying frustration / tension between the outgoing CFO and the CEO. The CEO didnt even have the decency to thank him for his service on the call for example.

There also did not seem to be any clear strategy put in place for how DOTD envisaged the future. They seemed more than content to occupy the market space that they currently reside in. This may be perceived as lacking ambition or direction.

This was hinted at, for me at least, by the CFO who was clearly advocating that the purse strings be opened to allow more R&D which in turn would potentially open up more growth. This may also have extended to M&As where you could could detect a real unwillingness on the CEO's part to not acquire at what he consideed to be inflated valuations.

My take was that the CEO came out of the call a little bit too controlling, and lacking direction. He is happy to tick along with decent profits, no debts etc which is all very admirable. But he also presented as extremely risk averse and shareholders looking for signs of ambition from this call would possibltly have had their hopes dashed and decided to look elsewhere.

600p looks a decent entry point for me.

Clearly there are issues at play here. The Southern region 100% will not be rogue in the way it reported. That is far too simplistic. There will be some fundamental reporting issues throughout the business that an external forensic commercial team will pick up. It will be being undertaken right now, and the results will not be particularly palatable internally or to the city. However, the remit will (should) be to kitchen sink it this time. Expose every single hidden liability, remove every single sniff of what is known in the construction industry as bad wip (work in progress) - or to the layman, jam tomorrow, and take a far less positive and more proactive approach on how reporting is done going forward.

Most companies in construction worth their salt will have incorporated significant inflationary protection measures with their major clients. It remains to be seen whether such measures are in place throughout the business, and how strong they are , particularly on long term contracts and arrangements.

Greg Fitzgerald has long been known within the industry as a particularly persuasive individual. He can charm both the staff and clients alike, and that's a good thing. However, such a trait is often accompanied by narcissism and a failure to recognise one's shortcomings. Fitzgerald needs to radically assess the way that he does business and conducts himself going forward, and realise his own shortcomings. He needs to empower some of the staff that have remained so loyal to him over the years, and start to step back from trying to control everything, which he clearly can't do, based on the increasingly mounting evidence!

The above comments being largely negative, Vistry will despite being kitchen sinked remain profitable, and it's a market leader in what it does. It will recover and thrive again long term, with or without Fitzgerald, once the truth and reconciliation exercise is complete. So, for me 600p has far more upside to it, than it does downside, particularly as I intend to be a LTH.

GLA!

Yes, I m on the same page. Been a good share in my portfolio for a good while now. But my patience is now up with the board, with whom I have no confidence. Reluctantly selling up.

As an LTH, with a relatively positive disposition, I'm reviewing the current situation with INDV. My thoughts are as follows.

Market cap is now under $1 billion. Several negative headwinds are in play. Some of them valid some probably not.

The discontinuation of perseris was a negative. INDV is effectively a one drug company and almost wholly reliant on sublocade . This makes it vulnerable to the competition. However, I believe, it will probably maintain its market share on or around $1 billion rev and $100 mill profit. Addiction isn't reducing. It will keep growing - as should the market.

Sublocade first patent expires in 2032 so just over 7 years time. It has some bolt ons that will extend to 2035 and for treatment until 2037, so let's say that the billion rev and $100 mill profit should be okay for the next 10 years. But what after that? It needs to develop new drugs and/or make significant acquisitions to survive long term. Opvee looks promising - more of the same is required - a lot more.

Litigation - most of the suboxene claims are behind them - that's not to say that there won't be more. But most of this is legacy news.

The shareholder class action - although I think it's a significant stretch for it to be proven that the directors have been acting in bad faith, there will still be questions about the strategy and timing of some of their decisions:

1. What an unhappy coincidence that the big board directors all sold en block less than a year ago at the peak of the market £16, more than double the current SP.

2. The reassurance to the shareholders that everything was fine less than 2 months before the profit warning and discontinuation of perseris. This could be construed as basic incompetence - though I doubt very much it's anything more sinister than that.

3. The decision to move to US listing predominantly - has this been a benefit or a hindrance?

4. What purpose has the continued share buyback had to benefit the shareholder, other than potentially artificially inflating the SP? Could that capital not better be employed with further R&D, acquisitions and dare I say it, the dirty word for US stocks - dividends!!

Shorting and insider/ leaked information - current shorts taken out even at the depressed SP - a real cause for concern. Are these being taken out based on leaked information that the average shareholder is not privy to? Or is it in plain sight - restocking is more than an issue that INDV care to admit? Competition is being downplayed? Another potential profit warning pending - this time based on sublocade sales? INDV is seldom shorted (not in my experience over the last 8 years or so anyway) so the recent shorting is of concern. But maybe it's linked to the class action by the shareholders, which I very much doubt will have any merit.

I am going to remain in, and hope that the board will continue to act in good faith and that there are no further skeletons in the cupboard that we are not ye

The class action re falling share price will have virtually no chance of succeeding imho. Only caveat is that there is a smoking gun somewhere showing deliberate malpractice. Otherwise, the bar for success is very high.

V disappointing news for all. But providing sublocade keeps the company buoyant in the years to come, reaction to sp could be an over reaction. For example, the market cap is currently only around 5 years of profit.

It appears that Societe Generale were also tempted back in yesterday too- good to see them adding to their holding yesterday - now above the 5% voting rights (from 4.77%) GLA - particularly us LTHs!!

Time for a top up. Brave or foolish? Only time will tell!

At the current market cap, surely Headlam are susceptible and Victoria in particular would be considering a bid? They have 90 mill reserves and raise another 90 mill, would get them Headlam?

I wasn't as energised as I usually am by the presentation. Looks like they're flatlining somewhat. Mitigating factor I guess being the cyber attack which impacted recent revenues. Let's hope that is the reason.

Positives: sublocade still growing and only a small proportion of the market. Sales team fully recruited and resourced so no additional expenses there. They ve got a real foothold now in US market, no doubting that. Dental claim not that big of a deal, reading between the lines. And full steam ahead for shareholder vote next month with view to main US listing in June.

Institutional investors should of course read "private investors"!!

By Balyasny Asset Management of 0.62%. So we now have 1.15% of Indivior's stock in the hands of shorters.

So, that's two very well funded, very experienced investment firms betting against Indivior.

And in Balyasny's case, they're prepared to short it at the current SP - so they clearly think there's significant leeway (decline) to come yet, for them to make a killing.

Let's not kid ourselves as institutional investors that we know anything significant about this stock. And let's not be naive to think that the research and intel that the current shorters have on Indivior are anything but a factor of 100 times greater than what we know.

I really hope I'm wrong, but when the pros are wading in and shorting at the current price, the canary in the coal mine has long since expired.

Will be interesting to see how Brixadi continues to perform in the US now that it has been launched. Camurus's shares have almost trebled since March, so clearly the new darling of this market space - much as Indv was the previous couple of years.

What is also important are the respective pricing points for both - if Brixadi has been pitched as a significant discount to Sublocade and is equally effective, then Sublocade's sales will take a hit medium to long term. Time will tell what the patients feel is the better of the two.

The market sentiment appears to be that Indv is too reliant on Sublocade to drive growth. Will be interesting to see how it is doing with Opvee now its rolled out and if there is any better news wrt Perseris which has been flatlining last few quarters.

Year end results/ investors call need to address all of the primary concern that it is not just a one trick pony highly susceptible to new or emerging competition.

Another take on this is that the share price was 50% higher than it is now before they listed on the Nasdaq less than 5 months ago!!

Dipping my toes into these. Appreciate market sentiment v negative including some poor consumer numbers coming out of China in the coming days. But with a P/E of less than 5 and a yield of nearly 10%, it's a chance to acquire and LTH. I'll go in again if and when it continues to fall.

By GLG Partners about 3 weeks ago. Great timing for them : 0.53% position taken out. That's the first short position taken out on Indivior in 2 years.

They've already made serious money with this position, so it will be interesting to see if they close the position out pre xmas, as is often the trend, or let it roll. Worth keeping an eye out - canaries in the coal mine and all that.

I'm struggling to see the link between the Wirral Council judgement and the subsequent trashing of the share price.

The judgment was very favourable in that representative proceedings were dismissed, which would have been a free for all class action, with many jumping on the bandwagon and having a free ride.

The way remains for individual claimant to pursue their case via "multi-party" proceedings. It remains to be seen whether Wirral, or any other claimants will want to continue to expend time and money in isolation.

The claims as far as I can see relate to a loss of income due to the share price falling, due to accusations of trying to extend the suboxone commercial advantage by converting to film from tablets. This matter is settled in the US. The claimants from abroad would have to demonstrate that they suffered financial loss as a result of irregular behaviour by the company at the time, and that the accusations were true - as far as I know the matter was settled without admission of liability.

I guess the issue is that we are re hashing old issues that we were hoping were/ are put to bed. And this is scaring investors, in the "when will it ever end" scenario.

It would be useful if Indivior could address Shareholder concerns sooner rather than later - that this matter is not life threatening and that they have robust defences on any and all future multi disciplinary actions in respect of the suboxone film situation. Otherwise we will continue to be mired in this contagion of fear, and the downward trajectory of the SP will continue.

This time from Wirral Borough Council, against both Reckitt and Indivior. Possibly a reason for the recent SP collapse:

Reckitt Benckiser, Indivior, ask London court to throw out Suboxone lawsuit

November 20, 2023 at 03:18 pm

LONDON (Reuters) - Consumer goods giant Reckitt Benckiser and Indivior on Monday urged London's High Court to throw out a representative lawsuit over allegedly false marketing of opioid addiction treatment Suboxone.

London-listed drugmaker Indivior and Reckitt Benckiser, its parent until Indivior was spun off in 2014, are facing a claim brought on behalf of hundreds of investors potentially worth hundreds of millions of pounds.

Wirral Council in north-west England wants to bring a representative claim based on an alleged scheme to switch the market for Suboxone from tablets, which were about to lose patent protection in the U.S., to a sublingual film.

But Reckitt Benckiser and Indivior, which deny the allegations, want the representative case dismissed.

Wirral Council says that when Indivior was indicted in the U.S. in 2019, in one of the few corporate prosecutions related to the U.S. opioid addiction epidemic, the news wiped out over 550 million pounds ($685.9 million) of its market value.

It is seeking a declaration that Reckitt Benckiser and Indivior published false, misleading or incomplete information to the markets about the alleged scheme.

Investors could then bring their own "follow-on" damages lawsuits based on the court's findings, which the council says would be cheaper, less complicated and promote "shareholder redress and access to justice".

But Reckitt Benckiser and Indivior argue a representative lawsuit would just give claimants other than Wirral Council a "free ride" until liability is decided.

They also say Wirral Council and others have brought a separate lawsuit which would continue if the representative case is dismissed.

Indivior has agreed to pay out over $500 million this year alone to settle civil lawsuits brought by drug wholesalers, dozens of U.S. states and health plans in relation to Suboxone.

In 2020, the company also agreed to pay $600 million to resolve U.S. government allegations that it fraudulently promoted Suboxone.

Reckitt Benckiser had agreed to pay out $1.4 billion to resolve any potential criminal or civil liability in 2019.

Reckitt Benckiser's lawyers said on Monday that the settlement was reached without any admission of liability.