Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. Watch the video here.
Joe_Bloggs
Have you raised your concerns with the BOD?
Did you ask them anything at the AGM this morning?
No, i did'nt think so. Stop being a coward and ask them straight.
Widglide, yes, SP is down, and while it is not up to me to justify it to you, or anyone else, am i disappointed? A bit. But as i have said numerous times, i am not interested in the day to day price. I am invested in what this will become.
Neil
Widglide-
Tell us about your understanding of the role AI learning algorithms will have in conjunction with our test? Or the relevance of Bioluminescence detection?
Or the possibility of partnering with a drug company with nanobot technology in order to deliver targeted treatment to the cancer cells?
Anybody can sit there saying this company is shlt. Lets have something positive.
formerlyeasyp-
Yes i know about first mover advantage, but the 18 year old report kind of answered your own question there.
For example how come Betamax was marketed 2 years before VHS, (showing my age now!) had 100% of the market, was a far superior product, yet got wiped out by VHS?
Joe-Bloggs-
Because we are waiting for you to sell up!
Neil
I really don't get this fixation about "not being first" or "too late to the party" or "missed the boat"
Do people really think that the market isn't big enough for more than one player?
Name me another sector in which one company controls the entire 100% of the market.
An extension of that thinking is that we should all be driving Fords, since Henry Ford was first to the mass market ( i know....Benz patented the first automobile before anyone says it).
Neil
I do not put "a different spin on it everytime"
I post my HONEST opinion at the time based on what information i have from wherever i get it.
That said, why don't some of you try putting your hands in your pockets and paying subscriptions to find out information?
Or picking the phone up and speaking to the BOD or IFC?
Or emailing the company?
How many of you have actually spoken with health professionals in the NHS?
Have any of you spoken with any Professors of Oncology ?
No thought not.
I don't NEED or HAVE to do any of this, i am only trying to help people understand their investment.
Right, now i have got that off my chest, a few responses:
1. It was acknowledged that yes, the RNS could have said more.
2. One of the questions i did ask, was about the issue of the "fully funded" comment as that did concern me. However, the "fully funded until 2024" was based on the current work in progress to develop the test. It was not including future work, which is what the POC test is. You can shoot me down, but i believe that this work wasn't even expected to commence in 2024, but later, but we have got to the stage where it is now ready for development, hence the call for the funding.
3. Do i consider that there is an issue with the test that had forced a change of priority? Absolutely not, as that would make no sense whatsoever. If we have an issue with the test, then the logical thing to do would be sort out that issue before bowling straight into another unknown.
Where do i believe we are?.....
In my opinion (and that's all it is) we have been told that excellent progress has been made, and the kit has been honed and tuned ready to get it out. My take on that, is that the next steps are out of our control and it is now Corepath/Behnke that are in the driving seat. This period of perceived inactivity is therefore the ideal time to bring forward future projects.
Take it as you wish, but as i say, i am not here to deceive, or give false information. Just an honest opinion as i see it.
Neil
Hi Vincentvega
They did respond to my email this morning.
Some of my questions were too specific, and further updates will need to be covered by formal announcements.
However, one of the questions did illicit the following response which i have persmission to post:
"The proceeds of the fund raise are to ACCELERATE the company’s plans and this raise does not conflict with what Allan has previously stated. The shares issued only account for 4.58% of the share capital, far less than the typical spread on the shares, so I would hope that investors would recognise this very modest level of dilution is appropriate to help the company achieve its goals FASTER."
I pointed out in my post yesterday, what i thought was the key sentence of that RNS -
"Commence development of its Point Of Care rapid test for use doctors offices and pharmacies....."
There is your answer. Things are going so well that we have moved on, and now developing this next test. Lets be honest, i don't think anyone expected to be at that stage for a long time yet?
So it looks like there is lots of significant news to come, but they won't just tell me, it will need to be officially released.
Neil
Am i wrong though Widglide?
Who approached who for the additional funding?
Why were the new and existing funders that were happy to pay more for their shares than they did last time, and why?
One standout sentence....."Commence development of its Point Of Care rapid test for use doctors offices and pharmacies....."
Someone must be very confident in the test if they are embarking on the next phase of developing that route to market. Think you will find that little nugget was aimed specifically at USA
PS for what it is worth, no i was not happy to see the RNS, and have fired off an email.
Neil
Evening VincentVega / Fastfood
re the issue of holdings / TR1's etc -
The onus is on the holder to inform the market if thresholds are crossed. 99% of them abide by the rules, but there will always be the odd one that doesn't.
In the case of nominee accounts, it is extremely difficult for them to monitor daily changes to their holdings due to the variation of daily traded volume, which is why they only update occasionally, when thresholds are crossed.
The company can only update the significant holders if they are informed and 100% certain, to avoid double counting.
You may find a post i made on 25/19/22 helpful in explaining. It also gives an example of why you won't see TR1's when you expect them.
The reason they buys / sells are not accurate is London Stock Exchange does not register buys or sells. They simply register trades.
The buys and sells you see on here are the result of an algorithm that looks at the median price of the ask and the bid, and "guesses" that anything below is a sell, and anything above is a buy. Which we all know is rubbish, as we have all seen "sells" when someone has actually bought.
Neil
Nothing new in this latest report - apart from their results appear to be getting worse not better. Look at 2 posts in particular i made regarding this 15/02/23@ 00:49 & 18/03/23 @09:19
- not accurate enough to rule in or rule out cancer -
A number of medical professionals have indicated their concerns over the claims being made over their headline grabbing accuracy
Also the continuing legal case of the order to unwind Grail from Illumina latest is that the FTC have overturned a decision that went Galleri's way, and they are now in all sorts of trouble.
To add to their woes, activist investors are demanding resignations of certain board members, and putting their own members in, following disastrous financial accounts/share price drop
Neil
There was nothing in that RNS that could be construed as a pump.
All the contents were previously communicated, and the purpose of the RNS was simply an acknowledgement of the SEC filing.
The suggestion that it was pumped to 4.8 is not right in my opinion. That was a rise purely on speculation following Martin Lang 's holding notification. - well before that date.
Yes people are disappointed with the share price as it stands, and i will agree with that - so am i ! i would love nothing more than to see it rise to where it should be. Even Allan himself has said he is disappointed with the share price, and if anyone should know where the true value should be, it will be him.
Yes things have taken a long time, but this is phama - things don't happen quickly, and i would imagine we would have been in a much better position if it wasn't for the effect the Covid pandemic had on the world. Especially China with a near zero tolerance policy for a year. That alone put us back from the start.
I have asked a further question, but it was a bit too specific, so not sure they will be able to answer specifically, but i would personally expect news before too much longer.
Neil
Widglide, the company RTO'd May 13th 2021 , so 2 years and 3 weeks, not 3.5 years.
Joe_Bloggs_ , times your loss by something like 160 and you would be somewhere near where i am, but i am not bemoaning that fact.
Look at the accounts to Dec 31 and see if you can work out what was spent, where it was spent, and why.
Look at the trades recently. Do you believe them? Do you know who's hands they are going to?
Stop hanging on every little tick up or down. It will come when it it is ready. The BOD don't sit on information because it suits them, conversely, they don't issue RNS's because a small number of PI's have p***ed their pants because the share price is down that day.
News will come when news is available.
Neil
LB - good evening if you are looking in.
Your earlier post re the Nasdaq Global - i don't think that is the segment that the new listing will list on. I think it will be Capital Markets, as that segment is more specifically targeted at "blank cheque " SPAC's , which is what Conduit / Murphy is.
I also completely agree with OAPK20's post earlier in that there is NO shortfall on the MCAP requirement.
From the comments i have read from other posters, i think they have focused on the initial $136m, aand the subsequent redemptions, and appear to have overlooked the "PIPE investment" of $27m, so not an issue in my opinion.
Well done OAPK20 for noting this.
Neil
Joe_Bloggs_
the shares i was referring to are the first ÂŁ500,000 funding tranche. Re Jace's TR1 point, we may never see one, as there wasn't one in the first place when the shares were issued. This points to the reason being, that although the funding was provided by a single entity, it consisted of individual investors, who would not need to inform TR1 threshold status if below 3% each. Guess we will know by Tuesday /wednesday to see if a TR1 does appear.
The conduit / murphy deal is a side issue, as that was always an add on revenue stream to our core business.
For what it is worth, i have asked the BOD a number of queries on timescales, finance, holdings, and agreements, amongst others, but the answer was that if they revealed such information, i would be classed as an insider so they can't say anything.
Announcements will be made via RNS when able to do so.
Neil
........Obviously those selling don’t believe in the product delivering…
So you haven't considered the possibility that the holders of the subscription shares under the funding @1.5p may be realising their asset? Even at 2.4 - 2.6p that's still a heathy return on an investment so short a timescale?
Let's see what happens
Neil
Hi again Fastfood
The 3 "stages" are the development of the ELISA.
It's hard to say at what stage we are in the process, as the 3 stages are not clearly defined with specific fixed boundaries.
i.e. some aspects of optimisation are also in the process of 'validation', and some aspects of both are in the stage of standardisation.
Add into this equation the fact that aspects of all 3 stages can include retrospective data (which we have a lot of) then we may have a good proportion of the requirements of each stage already.
So it is perfectly reasonable to assume that we could be well into stage 2, or even stage 3 at this point.
This retospective dat is of great importance to us, as , along with the test being developed as a LDT, reliance can be made of this data in an application for UKCA/CE marking and FDA clearance under 510(k)
Neil
Hi Bearsandbulls
NHS hands are tied at the minute, as we don't have the test available yet to get them into use.
However, i can ASSURE you that they are well aware of Cizzle Biotechnology, and it's test.
Moreover, we are moving towards market launch and preparation for a clinical trial to support the NHS.
Neil
Hi Fastfood
It' a slightly better deal than that.
For China, you are correct, the royalty is 10% . However, it's not just 10% on the kits. We will also be paid for the supply of the reagents and antibodies for use in those kits.
The figure of $100 is just a figure suggested previously by Allan, and could be more - could be less. $100 is still very cheap (Grail test ha,ha is being charged at $949 so you can see how far we can position our test at)
China test will not (in my opinion) be sold in the NHS, as the complexities of sorting out the royalty payments between them supplying to their own country, and then back into UK would be difficult to manage. Far easier to let China supply their kit in China, and UK to sell in UK. This would also be impacted by the different regulatory arrangements for approval / acceptance required regarding UK/CE/FDA
We will be free to supply into UK and EU market (subject to the approvals) at whatever price point is decided.
Us deal is 15% royalty as bearsandbulls says, but... the good thing about this deal is that it will be marketed by Benhke who will only be paid on results. So the emphasis on getting it in front of clinicians is on them, to perform.
Personally, i do not think there is any question of whether the optimisation "is successful". I believe it already has been, and has been proven to work in previous studies and reported papers.
LB, i could not get an order for my shares to go through at the quantity i required, so i had to split it into seperate trades too.
Neil
Or maybe some people read the account to 31st December 2022 submitted to Companies House on Tuesday.
I particularly like the paragraph ....
"Decision: to build a portfolio of early cancer detection tests, companion diagnostics and royalty bearing stakes in significant drug assets whilst also creating an option to realise these investments in the short term"
I have added yet more to my holding over the last few days.
Neil
Hi Fastfood
I noticed this a while back and asked the company to confirm, along with a number of other queries i had.
The answer is:
The significant shareholder page on the website reflects the shareholder register, i.e. the legal owners of the shares, including nominees. TR1s are different in that they reflect beneficial ownership or more accurately control of voting rights. We can only go on the register itself in listing the significant shareholders, unless we are 100% sure of the relevant nominee position. To do anything different would include double counting. For example with Mr Miller we don’t know which different nominees he holds his shares in.
Best regards
Neil