Member Info for Notposting

No, you are here because funding and risk have not been properly managed by the company. They have given in to disingenuous PIs who have taken advantage, allowing them to sell and keep warrants with no personal risk. The drop is not solely due to warrants; it is also driven by greedy long-term holders who have been selling down, causing significant impact, and who will likely repeat this behaviour, despite claiming the moral high ground and being “in it for the science”.

No one has suggested the company will go bust. The fact remains that the funding shortfall is the elephant in the room. Whatever form the funding eventually takes, it leaves little room for any halt or contingency in case of issues. This risk is heightened with paedeatrics and increased dosage, and with at least a further £10 million needed fairly imminently hike the 27/28 requirements and the delay in the next cohort.

It was your group that resorted to insulting anyone who pointed out that funding would be an issue, both before and after the prospectus.

Haywain, I gave you the benefit of the doubt yesterday, but it is clear I was wrong.

There is a clear difference between managing risk with integrity and ramping a story with misleading posts while selling, using inside knowledge to free up funds for the next placing, and encouraging others to hold or buy, only to fleece them with a discounted placing disguised as a premium with “free” warrants. No one has encouraged anyone to sell, but risk has been highlighted alongside pointing out mindless ramps, such as your claim that it would reach a £200m market cap just on the DSMB report alone.

There is no need for personal insults with regards to your remark. Respectfully, it is not me who has a track record of repeated misjudgements, poor investment history, especially in science, or misleading claims regarding processes or valuations.

Firstly, I have made it clear multiple times that I am not the individual you are referring to or any other your group have suggested.

Secondly, no one can “guarantee” outcomes, especially not you. That is a false and misleading statement.

Thirdly, it is not rhetoric. It is fact.

Anyone who had ignored the hype and instead managed the risks I highlighted would be in a significantly stronger position today. I suspect many are now looking back wishing they had heeded guidance like mine rather than posts such as yours. Fact.

It is not reckless. It is transparent and necessary. Anyone that suggested that no further funding was required and claiming they have somehow “saved the company” was being misleading. The situation has been clear for some time, and it should not be a surprise to anyone as such.

It could be worse https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/TRX/proposed-163175m-cln-raise-cancellation-of-trading-bxv58koq1pt17hl.html

I’m assuming this projection relies on everything proceeding smoothly, without further delays or unforeseen complications. Once the programme expands into paediatrics, the operational and regulatory risks naturally increase, along with the potential for additional costs or even temporary halts. Given that, I find it difficult to see £5.6 million being sufficient. In fact, it seems optimistic to expect that level of funding to carry the company through the year without the need for further capital but we will see.

Extracts as follows (emphasis etc added previously)

To address this anticipated funding shortfall, the Group will require additional working capital of approximately £5.6 MILLION BY THE END OF JANUARY 2026 in order to continue its product development activities, with a primary focus on HG-CT-1, to the end of 2026 and an additional £10 million during the period from 2027 to 2028

The Group will have insufficient working capital after Admission, and further funds will be required to be invested in the first quarter of 2026 for the Group to continue its activities and thereafter to complete Phase I trials of HG-CT-1 in both adult and pediatric patients.

The Company is of the opinion that the working capital available to the Group will be insufficient for its present requirements, that is, for at least the next 12 months from the date of this document.

Noted as end in the prospectus, Pumpy.

Well, you don’t. The company have made that clear in the prospectus.

You need £5.6m before January 2026 to continue operations.

Yes, there’s been a potential bounce, but the ramping has started again and it’s not helpful. A bit of caution wouldn’t go amiss as the underlying financing issue still hasn’t been resolved, and that remains the key risk here.

Https://hemogenyx.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Hemogenyx-Pharmaceuticals-plc-Prospectus-20251119.pdf

Provides a summary overall.

“few good buys at the end of today.” 🫣

You do not have that amount available, as confirmed in the prospectus. The last £1.1 million is allocated to Made.

Selling shares to reinvest with warrants is not supporting the company; it is actively damaging it as you will have now hopefully seen alongside the constant fabrication and false narratives.

They have limited/ no funds to continue operationally into/end January 2026.

BBB11. This narrative is entirely speculative. Estonia is only involved at the level of an LOI with a CDMO, which means the company would be engaging their services and paying for them. While there may be some eventual benefit, there would also be significant set-up costs before anything could progress, even if a green light were given.

Patient recruitment in Estonia would be limited and far too small to make any meaningful contribution to the company’s wider operating costs. It is important to keep discussions factual rather than building a storyline that is not supported by anything the company has stated.

The company has never suggested that Estonia is a temporary solution or an alternative to securing proper funding for clinical trials. They cannot rely on a hypothetical scenario or a “maybe” to advance the programme, as funding remains the critical requirement.

At best, and only if the Estonia arrangement actually goes ahead, it might cover something minimal, perhaps the equivalent of Vlad’s salary for the year, but it does not resolve the underlying financial needs.

Have no doubt the “group” will get these posts removed via mass reporting as they have done over the last few days 🙄

HedgeHogarth. I recall you being one of the voices insisting no further funding would be needed and made similar comments when challenged. If the company requires £10m for 2027 and 2028, when exactly do you think they will need to secure that, especially assuming no trial halts and all goes positive? And how do you expect the market to react as a £10m funding requirement looms going into 2027? It might be worth reflecting on the lessons recent experience should have made clear.

Mpky, you’re giving them far too much credit. Many of these so-called ‘LTHs’ have already sold while publicly ramping the stock, keeping their free warrants and trading the swings in between. It’s the same rinse-and-repeat cycle every time.

As I said previously to TraderRicky (who is also no where to be seen):

Notposting

Posted in: HEMO

Posts: 622

RE: The big tiger 🐅 bounce back has started28 Nov 2025 09:17

TraderRicky.

Notposting

Posted in: HEMO

Posts: 560

RE: The big tiger 🐅 bounce back has started27 Nov 2025 19:26

You don’t know 50% of the shareholder base. That claim is as fanciful as your supposed trip abroad to visit your “special friend.” And as for “investing,” what exactly do you think has been driving the recent volume and price action? These are not simply warrants. When people like you say you are “investing,” what you really mean is that you will dump shares, then re-enter under the false pretence of paying a premium for a placing after causing the very damage you exploit and with free warrants to boot. It is not support for the company or its shareholders; it is self-serving opportunism dressed up as contribution.

As for points 2 and 3.. Nothing will likely move forward with the next cohort dosing until funding is secured, and even then progress is unlikely before late Q1 or early Q2, depending on when the manufacturing transfer process actually began from best guess.

Notposting

Posted in: HEMO

Posts: 622

RE: Smoking Gun28 Nov 2025 09:14

Agreed.

Notposting

Posted in: HEMO

Posts: 559

RE: The big tiger 🐅 bounce back has started27 Nov 2025 19:34

“Vlad only needs to give the signal and the funding would be in place, and yet there are numerous other cash-rich investors who would not hesitate to commit significant sums.”

He has already provided a strong signal, totalling £5.6m. If you all genuinely believe in the long-term potential of the company, even up to a potential buyout, you would be investing at the current market capitalisation with warrants priced for a £80m, 90m, or even £100m valuation should still offer substantial upside. True supportive investors would have participated in the previous placing on terms with warrants reflecting future multiples rather than the valuation at the time. Instead, the placing was structured primarily for self-interest, not genuine support, and it imposed selling pressure that benefited those recycling shares rather than the company or its long-term shareholders.

Even if the £5.6m financing is secured, trial activity is unlikely to resume before late Q1/ mid-2026 all going well. Shortly after that, the company will need to address the remaining £10m funding requirement and that’s precisely as the programme enters one of its highest-risk periods. This includes the paediatric cohort, where the likelihood of further delays or even another trial halt is significantly elevated. Unless non dilutive funding is found during that first part there is significant dilution to occur still or worse still, CLNs.

Let’s hope there is a miracle with funding.

What credibility?

And I’m referring to the market here specifically.

Respectfully, if you’re not fully aware of the requirements, it’s best to avoid making assumptions. Companies aren’t obliged to provide ongoing, let alone post patient updates unless there’s a material adverse effect ie specifically a serious adverse event that impacts or is caused by the trial.