Member Info for Obsisian

Hi Toyin,

There appears to be a strategic misdirection in play here – one that conveniently protects Matrixyl’s market position as a legacy anti-ageing ingredient, despite its lack of scientific backing or clinical studies. In contrast, Zenakine not only has robust evidence supporting its efficacy but also boasts over 600 formulations on the market, compared to Matrixyl’s more modest 65. Given the overlap in their intended applications, this statement seems more like a PR deflection than a scientific distinction.

They’re trying very hard to say, “No, no, they’re completely different things,” when they clearly swim in the same anti-ageing pool – one with arm floaties (Matrixyl) and one with actual lifeguard credentials (Zenakine). In short, they are protecting their clients from large SKU write-downs.

No answer, just the usual emotional response.

Concise enough!

Toyin, most of the sensible investors — yourself included — recognised some time ago that SkinBio had little choice but to hedge against the risk of Croda failing to deliver, hence the dilutive acquisitions. Debt might have been another route, but alas, we weren’t the ones advising the board.

It's patently obvious SkinBio's board were concerned, most of us were.

Now, indulge me for a moment: let’s entertain the scenario in which Croda declined the option to commercialise and simply walked away. I’m fairly certain something of that nature occurred with Opti. So tell me — where do you think SkinBio would be today? In a stronger position, or a weaker one?

Oh dear, Bazzaman. Much like the self-proclaimed business sages declaring, with great confidence, that 9 to 12 months is ample time to judge BTS and Dermatonics as failures — a truly daft assertion — you now attempt to outdo even that level of nonsense. A bold effort, but folly nonetheless.

At present, all we’ve got to go on is your amateur dramatics — and given the rollout is barely halfway underway, with only a few short weeks behind it, throwing a tantrum now seems more than a little premature. Do take care — that rattle you’ve just lobbed might bounce off the pram and smack you square in the face.

Shall we deal in facts, Contender? Stuart Ashman formally assumed the role of Chief Executive Officer following a transition period, having joined the board as an executive director on 18 April 2019. Professor Cath O’Neill stepped aside as CEO to take on the role of Chief Scientific Officer. Multiple subsequent annual reports and corporate governance statements have consistently and unambiguously recorded Mr Ashman’s appointment as CEO as having taken place in July 2019.

At that time, the share price — specifically the closing price on 30 June 2019 (the closest reference point in the 2019 annual report, with no significant volatility observed in early July) — was 16.5p, not 70p.

Now that we’ve re-established the historical record, let’s turn to the RNS. It stated there would be an IMC presentation in January — not quite a sworn oath, but certainly phrased with enough regulatory gravity to give the impression of intent. Accordingly, any change to the date, or indeed to the platform (whether from IMC to LSE or elsewhere), ought to have been communicated via an updated RNS. That no such update has been issued is, frankly, regrettable — especially in light of the board’s recent reinforcement with the addition of Alyson Levett.

As for excuses, I will come to, I am sure most do not consider any particularly acceptable. Mr Ashman did, during the Q&A session with Elric (which was, to be fair, made available to all), offer several caveats. Perhaps that was deemed sufficient, especially since the matter was subsequently amplified by Mr Winnifrith in one of his more emotionally charged tirades to a much wider audience than a bakers dozen. One might reasonably argue that, by that point, the market was not wholly unaware.

Still, it’s poor form — and regrettably, it marks no improvement on the company’s communications standards going into 2025.

By all means, lodge another regulatory complaint if it brings you comfort — and if distracting the executive team from actually delivering on their strategy helps soothe your indignation over what I view as a regrettable, yet ultimately minor, misstep.

No he didn't. The caveats have been discussed. Do we really need to rehash?

Toyin, It’s been said before—and rightly so—that no one outside of SkinBio is truly in a position to judge the success or failure of the acquisition after merely nine or twelve months. It’s a process that demands two to three years to properly unfold, allowing the strategy’s roots to bed in and the much-vaunted synergies to do more than just stretch their legs in the sun.

Naturally, I agree that the acquisition wasn’t accretive in its first, partial year—though many of us had hoped it might be.

As for the rather public spat between Mr Winnifrith and Elric—whom he now refers to as “the rodent”, having apparently upgraded (or downgraded?) him from “the lemming”—it speaks volumes. His concern over a modest handful of subscriptions being a poor reflection is, frankly, a bit daft. More importantly, there’s been a noticeable drop-off in engagement across the board, particularly in the threads where he takes aim at Elric.

He might do well to read the room: the audience seems weary of the whole tiresome saga. And frankly, I’d hope Elric takes the hint too, and stops feeding the beast. Only one party is keeping a dignified silence.

Nick, I already have — do calm down. To be fair, until Toyin clarified, Bazzaman’s point wasn’t exactly crystal clear. I was attempting to assist you, you might wish to keep this in mind.

Ah, thanks, Toyin — my mistake. I hadn’t realised that you or Bazzaman were referring to an RNS; I had naturally assumed the comment was a misremembering of something Mr Ashman said during the Q&A. That’s on me, and I apologise to you both — particularly to Bazzaman.

That said, doesn’t the company now have a compliance officer in place who would likely have oversight over what can be shared and when? If that’s the case, then surely it would be prudent for Mr Ashman to communicate any change to the expected schedule — even if no firm date was ever given.

Bazzaman, I’ve no issue whatsoever with apologising if I’m proven wrong on a point. However, before doing so, I’d appreciate the opportunity to check the details myself. If you could provide a timestamp, it would help me quickly verify whether we are, in fact, referring to different events — presumably one that included an explicit promise. If that’s the case, I’ll gladly stand corrected.

Thanks for clearing that up, Bazzaman.

Do you have a time stamp?

Nick, I am the wrong person to be asking that question. I am assuming Bazzaman and Toyin are expecting the interims to be posted early via IMC.

Extract text format hasn't been copied accurately. The audio states no date, so we are clear.

Toyin, I never insulted you. Please don't play the same tactical psychodrama as Mr Winnifrith.

Nick, at the end of the Q&A with Elric in December, at 56:38 minutes, Mr Ashman, unprompted explained he would try to get the interims posted early, rather than late March.

If Bazzaman is expecting the interims to be both published and presented via IMC — and assuming I’ve not misunderstood his position (as opposed to Toyin’s version) — then it’s worth revisiting what was actually said.

The language used was heavily caveated, with phrases along the lines of: "I can’t promise," "I’m not going to give a date," "We’re going to try to do it earlier," and "Don’t take this as gospel — we’ve never done this before." There was even a tentative mention of "early January or the first week of February" — but again, nothing definitive.

Extract with kind permission from Elric: So once December is done, AGM is finished and December's closed and the order books are closed. We're going to try to expedite the closing of those accounts and issue our interims earlier than we would normally have done. We normally issue our entrance in March. 
We're going to try to do it early on. We going to give you a date. I do it in January or 1st week of February. 
We're going to try very hard with Emily driving it to get the book stores off and hopefully when I put the interims up, people will say, yeah, now I understand that. Now they are now now we understand. There's a slight miss. 
It was a timing issue there and it is right there. This is what's going on. This all looks positive, this all looks rosy, so.

Taken together, those statements clearly negate any suggestion of a firm commitment. Any talk of a ‘promise’ to release the interims early or to present them via IMC simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Toyin, if you choose to overlook the caveat, that’s entirely up to you — but as Bazzaman states, it still doesn’t amount to a promise.

It does seem some are rather eager to kick off yet another rant-fest, and, predictably, Mr Ashman appears all too happy to hand them the loudhailer.

Bazzaman, There was never a promise of an IMC. What was mentioned was an intention to be more organised in releasing the interims earlier — albeit heavily caveated, which is precisely why I raised concerns at the time. Remember, they were typically announced on the last trading day of March. Remind me, what month are we win!

So let’s not invent promises where none were made or even implied. Misleading others helps no one; in fact, it only serves to muddy the waters further.

If your objective is to sow confusion, then by all means, carry on — but don’t feign surprise when you're called out for it.

Oldscool, The recurring presence of the same individuals posting over an extended period (I keep seeing the same names trying to decipher the situation) strongly suggests they’re long-term investors — precisely the sort of shareholder base the company ought to attract, and indeed, retain.

Their continued speculation — entertaining though the guessing game may be — stems from a lack of current guidance. We appear to be operating off what is, by now, an outdated broker forecast, which hardly inspires confidence.

Both Acquaesulis and Toyin raise valid concerns regarding BTS, Dermatonic, and the SD launch — particularly the absence of effective marketing and the dilutive implications.

Despite Elric’s commendable efforts to keep the faithful informed, we still seem short on detail when it comes to the launch strategy, associated costs, marketing efforts, and, crucially, whether SkinBio has any contractual escape clause should SD fail to meet performance targets — assuming such targets even exist, which is increasingly unclear.

Mike Caine of Lemming did mention — when pressed on the matter at the AGM — that the responsibility lies squarely with SD and is ostensibly nothing to do with the SkinBio.

On the one hand, one might see that as encouraging; after all, given the rather underwhelming growth of AxisBiotix-Ps over the past four years, the hope is that SD, being another Plc, might fare somewhat better.

However, here’s the sticking point: SD will, quite naturally, prioritise their own products — particularly where there’s overlap in the target demographic — and, to compound matters, their stock control has long been inferior to that of Boots. That’s not speculation; it’s a well-established fact.

I do hope Mr O'Hara has access to Lemming Investor—Alex has come out swinging. That statement is a masterclass in misdirection, riddled with falsehoods that are promptly and thoroughly dismantled.

I've just been corrected: Zenakine is indeed patented — but the patent covers the process and composition, not a legal obligation to declare it by name on INCI lists.

Which rather begs the question: has Mr Ashman been given explicit assurance of its inclusion, or is he perhaps misinterpreting the legal framework — and, by extension, the INCI labelling requirements?