Member Info for NotBot

Market cap is £18m at the current 64p/share (looking at LSE fundamentals tab) of which 63% is held by the MD (see recent RNS) so I guess to answer your question, maybe there isn't a large shareholder base to be on here commenting. This is a company I came across due to its featuring in Investor's Chronicle, their 2020 recommendations (also tipped there again recently). It's not a share price prone to sudden movements (except in response to a warehouse sale in summer 2019), more one to tuck away and admire it's progress over the longer term: I'm very comfortable to hold this share: As today's interims make clear: No debt, NAV 92.3p, successful internal reorganisation (offices/warehousing) and integrations completed, growing profit, dividend maintained: You wouldn't think there's a pandemic on!

PS: The final line in the "CSV" data in that last post is a line of totals, and the Q1 2019 figures are calculated as the difference between H1 2019 and Q2 2019: I didn't find Q1 2019 in any of the statements etc.

Tremor put out their KPI figures in trading statements and I see them drift by, but the proportion of revenue these are now generating is starting to make me sit up - it looks to be about 46% for FY2020, compared to 14% in FY2019. In Tremor's own words: ...our key performance indicators ("KPIs"), which were introduced earlier in the year to monitor the revenue growth of our core strategic growth drivers.

Of course do double-check my figures and make up your own mind if this is something of interest. I was interested to draw a graph of the KPI numbers so threw them into a spreadsheet and it looks good and does seem to corroborate Tremor's more assured and confident tone in their recent statements.

FYI here's the numbers I pulled out of the trading statements and results announcements that you may like to use for your own graphs,

Connected TV CTV / Private Marketplace Packages PMP / Self-serve Demand Side Platform

Q1 2019
2.2 / 0 / 1.6
Q2 2019
3.9 / 1.2 / 1.8
Q3 2019
10.8 / 1 / 1.3
Q4 2019
18.1 / 1.9 / 2.3

Q1 2020
13.9 / 8.5 / 4.2
Q2 2020
14.2 / 6 / 4.2
Q3 2020
26.1 / 16.3 / 10.1
Q4 2020
41.1 / 24.5 / 16.7

or the same figures in "CSV" format you can load straight into a spreadsheet (hopefully),

Revenue KPIs,Q1 2019 ($m),Q2 2019 ($m),Q3 2019 ($m),Q4 2019 ($m),Q1 2020 ($m),Q2 2020 ($m),Q3 2020 ($m),Q4 2020 ($m)
Connected TV,2.2,3.9,10.8,18.1,13.9,14.2,26.1,41.1
Private Marketplace Packages (PMPs),0,1.2,1,1.9,8.5,6,16.3,24.5
Self-serve Demand Side Platform,1.6,1.8,1.3,2.3,4.2,4.2,10.1,16.7
,3.8,6.9,13.1,22.3,26.6,24.4,52.5,82.3

Looking good from here!

Not sure about that link, perhaps you mean investegate (note the spelling with 'e') .co.uk

Mkx007 writes: "... unless they can be first to get the solid state battery operational at room temperatures ...".

This isn't a problem: Ilika's (and others') solid state batteries do operate at room temperature (and indeed Ilika's operate at a wider range of temperatures than the competition, so good in extreme environments); maybe there's some confusion between solid state batteries and superconductivity? The latter is all about power transmission, not power storage; superconductivity hasn't been achieved at room temperature yet. Irrelevant when looking at Ilika.

Today's trading statement seems reassuring: Debt being paid down and significant gains in sales and market share - and profit, with estimated trading profit for FY 10%+ higher than prior FY. So I think the fall in SP today will be down to a mixture of shareholders expecting something more stellar (rather than slow-and-steady), and (my guess here) a larger seller using this reassuring trading statement to reduce their shareholding. Checking the graphs there is greater volume today which would fit with that possible interpretation.

The use of dollar signs well spotted by Justin Waite, and I think he may be right that Ilika is catering to a US audience by doing so (the recent share price movements would seem to suggest a more international shareholder base than in the past), but I'd temper his message somewhat: As I understand it the comparison with Quantumscape isn't as straightforward as he presents it: The latter is more interested in the gigafactory model and therefore needs a large capitalisation to build those factories, whereas Ilika is more in the licensing model which is capital-light. Think of ARM (licenses chip designs) compared to Intel (designs and manufactures chips) which I think is a reasonable comparison in terms of their respective business models.
All that said though, it looks like exciting times ahead for Ilika.
What I've written relates to my understanding of Quantumscape, I've not done any research to check my assertions above - so always DYOR.

Noticed Eleco mentioned in this, seemingly an occasional supplement to Shares Magazine. It's not clear to me if it's been written by the magazine or is more by way of paid content. It does give a useful overview of the company though, esp. if you've not been following Eleco's progress closely.
https://issuu.com/shares-magazine/docs/spotlight_shares_2611120

I agree that short selling and bot trading is corrosive. There have been attempts at a tax on share transactions - a 'Tobin tax' - including by the EU in the recent past, but this was fiercely rejected by the UK (and Sweden); the Wikipedia page on this makes for interesting reading; it also mentions that stamp duty - which is a form of transaction tax - has exemptions for institutional investors. I feel that given covid etc, now could be a good time to explore transaction taxes as a possible revenue source, which might have positive side-effects in reducing share price volatility due to excessive shorting etc (the Wikipedia article suggests some negatives mind).

Responding to latpulldown's post: I'd very much agree that this has been oversold, presumably driven by the expectation that the results were to be a car crash: There's some logic to that if you look over the past year's results and trading statements with the company freely admitting that it had gone off the rails - but those same results and statements also had info on how it planned to get back on track. I think the plummeting price has been due to the former; with today's statement we're seeing the early fruits of the latter causing the rebound. It feels like MCRO are taking the right actions so I expect the rebound has a long way to go yet. Given the issues it's been dealing with (both covid and its internal issues just mentioned) I don't think it'll get all the way back to £10 just yet (that £10-a-share company may now be somewhat damaged), but I do think it's on the way up. As ever working out what level it'll reach is the hardest part, but hopefully some dividends along the way will make it easier to hold on to, although I'm not in a hurry for those to resume.

doh, I should do the maths against the number of shares sold: 33,725,000 and 35,481,173 against 962m shares in issue (according to LSE fundamentals page). So that's 3.5% and 3.7% resp.

Well spotted - so £8m set against a market capitalisation of about £120m - about 6.6% of the company's shares (unless £4m sold, £4m bought, in which case 3.3%). Either way big stock changes for INSE, is Gresham House buying again as rivaldo noted? Seems like INSE's a good place to be right now: It feels oversold, and the economy is likely to revive as vaccines come on-stream so the company can get back to normal service... and now this major shareholder activity, possibly just adjusting portfolios, but also the chance of a premium if this is leading up to a bid.

I see there were 2 large trades yesterday, each of approaching 1% of INSE's market cap (no idea if they're buys, sells or one of each). Quite a contrast from the typical < £5k trades; also interesting that a typical day's trading seems to have about a dozen (small) trades at the moment which feels very quiet. I wonder if there will be a "Holding in Company" RNS on Monday...

05-Nov-20 16:53:40 11.00 8,500,000 Unknown* 10.50 11.50 935.00k O
05-Nov-20 16:53:19 11.00 12,960,852 Unknown* 10.50 11.50 1m O

https://www.xaar.com/en/news/2020/xaar-sets-vision-for-the-future/
(from last week: 30th Sept)

Thank you to those who took the time to respond to my post re. the critique of SNG's trial results, see earlier in this thread. With some suggesting I check the original presentation re the numbers I referenced from the critique (in which case the results would be more favourable to SNG), I've done so; before continuing here's the page where the presentation is found,

https://www.synairgen.com/investors/presentations/

so anyway, the slide titled 'Demographics' is where the numbers are. The overall co-morbities numbers are basically the same (1 more in SNG001 group, but that group has 2 more participants; as % that's 54% vs. 54.17%). I was more concerned with the diabetes figures, having 9 in the placebo group and only 3 in the SNG001 group. Those figures get included within the co-morbidities figures, but if diabetes (or cardiovascular disease, also broken out on that slide) is a more dangerous co-morbidity than other co-morbidities that weren't specified, then the results aren't quite as good. Similarly there's a slightly higher proportion of women in the SNG001 group (43.75% vs 38% in the placebo group). One figure that does favour the SNG001 group is that the average 'frailty' is a higher number (I assume a higher number means more frail): 1.8 in the placebo and 2.1 in the SNG001 group.

In summary I remain excited by these results, but I think they need to be taken with a pinch of salt (as above) - having now checked the numbers (and do follow the link to the presentation above for your own satisfaction/research), overall it seems that they are a bit less favourable to SNG than the headline about the trial's success: I won't be investing the family silver on this one, it remains a small gamble (and thus small purchase) for me.

I guess I'm always a bit sceptical of grand claims: SNG's results are seemingly fantastic. I did want to dig a bit deeper though to understand the numbers, and found this critique which I thought was well reasoned,

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-announcement-by-synairgen-that-their-drug-sng001-has-had-positive-results-in-initial-trials-on-covid-19-patients/

in particular I notice that there were more patients with additional risk factors (diabetes) on the placebo side of the trial, slightly taking the shine off the grand claims made: I'd prefer it if the company's RNS had mentioned this, rather than glossing over it. Nevertheless other aspects of the results still impress me, and I've bought a small amount of shares as a gamble: That is of course what this is until we get more detailed results; I particularly like that this drug might turn out to be important as a general antiviral treatment - including against potential other coronaviruses of the future...

I'd also note that most pharma companies like to be rather selective in what they report, so Synairgen are hardly unique here.

...promotions/demotions are in March, June, September, and December (thank you Wikipedia)

Looking at the current market capitalisation at the current price I think we're well into FTSE250 territory, so this may mean that tracker funds are buying shares: Given the current price and all the positives recently I'd see PFD getting promoted from it's current FTSE all-share index into the FTSE250 (esp. being able to offset the Premier Foods pension fund deficit against the Hovis pension fund surplus, I still don't understand how they managed that but it's good for shareholders - that was always the major risk with PFD, with that deficit previously not able to benefit from the ring-fenced Hovis scheme surplus). So I would expect that the closer we get to FTSE promotion/demotion day the stronger should be the demand for PFD.

As always, DYOR; my suggestion if you wish to check my logic would be to get the list of FTSE250 constituents with their market caps. This site doesn't seem to have that option that I could find, but the London Stock Exchange site does. So, get that, sort the list by market cap and hopefully you'll also find that PFD could sit comfortably in that index. (I suggest also looking up PFD there to use that site's figure for PFD market cap to be using the same source for your numbers when you do that check)

Comparing these figures is meaningless without considering how many shares were in existence in each case - thus for example measures like Earnings per Share; alternatively the market capitalisation in 2006 vs. 2019 would also be helpful. Maybe someone might like to post those sort of figures.
I think presenting the figures like that is misleading: All it tells us is that MCRO is a much bigger company than it was; it will also have more shares so each share held is a smaller piece of the overall company now than it was in 2006.

I've now noticed that that Sheffield Star article is derived from a Jaywing press release,

https://jaywing.com/news/a-bold-new-plan-for-future-growth