Member Info for Obsisian

There’s a curious case of an investor whom attempts (fails) project experience but overlook what truly moves markets—data, innovation, and execution. Take Zenakine. Backed by measurable a neuroactive cosmetic ingredient in cosmetics, it’s not just promising—it’s proven. Add to that a purpose-built plant for industrial scaling, a curated VIP shortlist, and a second wave of 500 clients. These are not speculative details; they’re fundamental milestones.

A reasonable investor would devote time to understanding the significance of a neuroactive cosmetic ingredient like Zenakine—a compound that hasn’t just entered the conversation but created an entirely new category in cosmetics. Major industry players have spent years trying to crack this space. Zenakine has done it, with data to back it and infrastructure in place for scale. That’s why opportunity-focused investors are paying attention.

And then there’s Humble.

Instead of spotting emerging trends or even entertaining the idea that he might be missing something, he’s busy on multiple forums showcasing his inability to connect dots—while mocking those who can. He calls investors “gerbils”, posts off-topic drivel, and seems wholly unaware of how far off the mark he is.

This isn’t analysis. It’s intellectual laziness dressed up as cynicism. The lack of self-awareness is so extreme it borders on delusion—if not deserving of a stretch in a padded cell, then certainly a timeout from serious discourse.

Humble, disregard all this. He misses applied logic. Worse, conflates Fundamental Analysis (which looks at business value) with Technical Analysis (which studies price action), confusing two critical investing disciplines.

Humble? Not quite. Bright? Hardly. Dim? Undeniably. He's about as useful as a single candle trying to illuminate London during a blackout

Dear Nick,

There's an old adage—often echoed on the left—that people tend to project onto others what they themselves are guilty of. Perhaps that’s what’s happening here. Your apparent confusion over the phrase “Elrico Derangement”—a deliberate nod to “Trump Derangement Syndrome”—is telling. The symptoms, I assure you, are strikingly similar.

Unlike yourself, or indeed Oleric, I harbour no ill feeling towards Elrico. Quite the contrary—I’ve always found him to be warm, generous with his time, and unfailingly courteous. And no, before your mind wanders there, I haven’t greased his palm with silver or paper.

You, however, seem utterly unable to lay to rest whatever demons you’ve tethered to your history with him. If there’s derangement to be found, it’s not in me. The unfortunate truth is that you appear to be in the thrall of a mind too weak to release old grudges.

Might I gently suggest you embrace that timeless bit of wisdom: life is short?

I suggest you not post at all while you suffer with EDS.

I’ve seen no evidence of Elrico suffering from Nick or Oleric Derangement Syndrome, as it were. That said, he does appear to have been rather bullied into silence—which is a genuine loss to these discussions.

That’s on you. And perhaps it’s something visitors here ought to reflect on, even briefly, as the usual suspects carry on their tiresome little hate campaigns with all the grace of a village mob drunk on their self importance.

This post carries a trigger warning for Shychap.

Shychap. A shining beacon of consistency — consistently wrong, that is. Your latest pearl-clutching episode over a link that dares — dares! — to lead to a paywalled article is truly a masterclass in melodrama. I must apologise for not wrapping it in a health warning and scented tissue paper to cushion the blow.

But what really makes this performance sparkle is the sheer, unfiltered hypocrisy. You, of all people, screeching about paywalled content? You, who have repeatedly referenced another subscription-only site — one we all know, the one LSE helpfully censors the name of, but not the irony? You champion that material as if it were gospel, and yet suddenly clutch your moral compass when someone else dares post a link to something you don’t approve of. It’s almost Shakespearean in its self-delusion.

Your obsessive vendetta against Elric is painfully transparent. It's not about principles — it's personal. And yet, curiously, I don’t recall Elric ever launching a direct attack on you. He’s merely challenged misinformation you've tried (and failed) to pin on him, even going so far as to offer you a fair chance to explain yourself — which you flubbed spectacularly, as others rightly pointed out. Your defence? Claiming you didn’t have access... while posting from an account that clearly did. Smooth.

It’s all very “the lady doth protest too much,” except in this case, the lady is stomping her feet in the sweetie aisle, howling that the lollipops cost money.

More clickbait for you: 7 tips today by you good friend.

https://smallcompanychampion.substack.com/

Shychap, here we go again — the poster child for Elrico Derangement Syndrome. Honestly, your dedication to sniffing out opportunities to whinge is almost admirable in its relentlessness.

You’ve reported my post because — brace yourself — I failed to include a “trigger warning” that the link might, horror of horrors, lead to a website that asks for money. The nerve, I know. Presumably, you staggered backward from your screen in disbelief, clutching your pearls and gasping, “They expect me to pay for content?” Welcome to adulthood, dear.

Your outrage is particularly rich given that the resource in question might actually be useful to investors — you know, those grown-ups capable of deciding for themselves whether something merits a few quid. But instead of letting people make up their own minds, you pitch a tantrum so theatrical, it could earn you a BAFTA.

And the best part? Even in your sulky crusade, you’re benefiting from the very content you’re so eager to censor. It’s like watching someone spit in their own tea because they don’t like the china.

Honestly, if you put half as much effort into learning from the material as you do into stamping your feet, you might one day be of use to the conversation. Until then, do carry on — your tantrums are deeply entertaining.

I'm sure Oleric, Skid35 and Nick1978 will follow you tantrum. Bless.

Hat tip to Elric. No need to rush for an AI interpretation. Just ask the company. https://lemminginvestor.substack.com

What has ignorant journalists got to do with Mr Ashman and your rant?

I find it genuinely staggering that the entire press pack seemed blissfully unaware of the potential significance Zenakine holds—not just for the cosmetics industry, but quite possibly well beyond it. It's as if a seismic innovation strolled past in broad daylight, and not one of them looked up from their notepads.

After sitting through the latest Croda presentation—eyes peeled, notebook ready—I found myself rather underwhelmed by the glaring absence of any mention, let alone interrogation, of Zenakine. Not a peep from the assembled chorus of financial journalists. Did I doze off during a particularly dry slide and miss it? Unlikely, given the adrenaline rush that accompanies corporate waffle.

This silence is precisely what loops us back to the ever-bemoaned existence of Tom Winnifrith, Elric and Alex at lemming investor. Say what you like about their style, but without them, the level of scrutiny and corporate update and research would hover somewhere between non-existent and tragic. Before you whinge about their coverage, consider the alternative: a press corps asleep at the wheel.

Toyin, ever vigilant, points us to a fleeting moment—around the 21-minute mark—where Mr Foots appears to reference Zenakine. A throwaway line, almost apologetic in tone, suggesting that even Croda seem somewhat taken aback by early sales traction. Promising? Perhaps. But he offered no data, no detail, no meat on the bone.

In short: a promising whisper, drowned out by a sea of bland assurances and ignorant to market trends.

Jscsc,

TW didn’t tip it—nice try. Now the whole world knows you’re not exactly the poster child for trustworthiness. He simply remarked on the Singer Capital Markets note, nothing more.

The reality is EBITDA Benchmarks for Biotech companies are typically valued at 10–20x EBITDA.

Peter Lynch says if a company is growing its earnings at 15% per year, a P/E ratio of around 15 is reasonable and indicates fair value. His advice encourages patient, informed investing over speculation. It's about buying solid companies at reasonable prices and holding them as they grow— a timeless strategy that can help the lay investor build wealth steadily without needing to be a stock-picking genius. SBTX will take several years before it breaks previous highs where there has been around 50% more dilution, and more than double since 2019. Two years will require Croda retiring Matrixyl overnight. It's foolish talk.

Reality!

To justify a 100p share price, SBTX needs:

Annual EBITDA of £11.6m–£23.2m

Annual revenue of £23m–£37m

Ideally, much of this from royalties, which the market values highly

In short, this would be a major financial uplift from the company’s current position.

Valuation Multiple Required EBITDA

10x £23.2 million

20x £11.6 million

Within 5 years, no, but possible.

No, genuinely — On the 9th, Alex and Elric delivered an excellent breakdown of the cash dynamics and mechanics behind securing retail shelf space. There's inevitably a touch of speculation involved, as retailers tend to be rather tight-lipped on the topic — understandably so, given its financial sensitivity.

Oleric, I’ve little confidence you’ll fully grasp my previous post, so allow me to be perfectly clear:

In my view, Ashman has not definitively breached UK contract law — his statement doesn’t, on the face of it, constitute a binding contract. However, that does not preclude potential exposure under misrepresentation or regulatory provisions if the statement is found to be materially misleading.

For the most accurate picture, refer to SBTX’s RNS disclosures on the LSE. While the notion of market abuse may be a stretch, it’s not entirely off the table if the facts align unfavourably.

What concerns me more is the duration and opacity of the NDA — specifically, why it remains in force and how disclosing updated royalty figures could conceivably impact Sederma’s commercial relationships.

Now, if we could move on, I’d be grateful — I’m wary of triggering another Elrico episode, and I’ve no particular desire to bruise your metaphysical core.

Oleric, it's genuinely remarkable how you're unable to contribute without succumbing to a bout of what can only be described as Elrico Derangement Syndrome. If you're in need of a therapist's couch, I have one going spare — reasonable rates.

Now, returning (mercifully) to the topic at hand:

Public Statements as Contractual Representations as previously discussed

A CEO’s public statement — particularly in a formal investor presentation — can, under UK law, form the basis of a contractual commitment, provided it satisfies the necessary legal elements.

For such a statement to be binding, the following must apply:

It must be more than a vague aspiration or forward-looking comment; it must clearly convey an intention to create legal relations.

All elements of a contract must be present: offer, acceptance, consideration, and intent.

The investors — as the audience and financial stakeholders — may be construed as the counterparty, particularly if decisions were made in reliance on the statement.

SBTX's defence, naturally, would rest on the argument that the statement lacked intent to form a contract, and was made in good faith based on information from Croda. Fair enough — that’s a legal position, not a denial of the legal possibility.

This framework really ought to be clear — even to you.

Belgrano, my original reply was directed at Acquaesulis. Upon realising the chain of posts, I corrected myself — the irony in my comments was unintentional, and the confusion was entirely coincidental.

As for your use of the term “troll”, you might want to revisit its definition. You appear either confused, needlessly paranoid, or — rather like Oleric — intent on shutting down discussion simply because the topic doesn’t align with your preferred narrative.

Invoking the “TW card” to cast yourself as the victim doesn’t strengthen your position; it merely avoids the substance of the argument.

Mr Ashman was manoeuvred into a constrained position largely due to Croda’s actions — including, but not limited to, its M&A activity — which curtailed his ability to execute the strategy as originally intended. It’s highly likely he would have preferred to progress following Croda’s commercialisation, thereby avoiding the eye-watering 100%+ dilution that followed.

To compare this scenario with OPTI is simply inaccurate. OPTI has never operated under comparable circumstances, nor has it faced such external limitations on strategic autonomy. Your argument overlooks this critical context and, with respect, reads as though it were drafted by Admiral Belgrano himself — misguided, misdirected, and ultimately sunk by the facts.

Mr Ashman was manoeuvred into a constrained position largely due to Croda’s actions — including, but not limited to, its M&A activity — which curtailed his ability to execute the strategy as originally intended. It’s highly likely he would have preferred to progress following Croda’s commercialisation, thereby avoiding the eye-watering 100%+ dilution that followed.

To compare this scenario with OPTI is simply inaccurate. OPTI has never operated under comparable circumstances, nor has it faced such external limitations on strategic autonomy. Your argument overlooks this critical context and, with respect, reads as though it were drafted by the Admiral of the Belgrano himself — misguided, misdirected, and ultimately sunk by the facts.

Oleric’s your latest declaration on the absence of legal implications surrounding Mr. Ashman’s unfulfilled commitment is, regrettably, yet another example of confident pronouncement untroubled by comprehension. Despite multiple explanations, he remains stubbornly impervious to the core legal and regulatory considerations at play — a fact which may explain why his interpretations so reliably diverge from reality.

You suffer from the same flaws as usual: a refusal to engage with detail, and a reliance on misplaced certainty over analytical rigour. The suggestion that there is nothing to see here not only contradicts a surface-level reading of UK securities regulation, it ignores the very mechanism by which investor protection is maintained.

You're entitled to your opinions. However, entitled to be taken seriously when he fails to understand — or even attempt to understand — the actual legal and regulatory frameworks in question.

Toyin, Per discussions with colleagues on your subject matter, you will find interesting.

Legal Profile of the Statement

Nature: This was no offhand comment. Delivered in a regulated setting, the statement operated as a de facto assurance — potentially forming the basis of either a verbal contract (with Croda) or a regulatory representation (to investors).

Binding Force of Verbal Agreements in UK Law:

Contrary to popular belief, one needn’t scrawl in ink to strike a deal. UK contract law acknowledges the validity of verbal agreements — provided they tick the requisite boxes: offer, acceptance, consideration, and a mutual intention to create legal relations. However, proving such an agreement without written evidence can be rather like nailing jelly to a wall — tricky and rather messy.

Investor Communications & Regulatory Oversight:

CEOs don’t speak into a void. Statements made in investor presentations are subject to scrutiny under the rules of the AIM market and the Financial Conduct Authority. Investors are entitled to rely on such pronouncements — particularly where they appear to signal company intent or anticipated action.

The Fallout: When Disclosure Doesn’t Materialise

Possible Breach — Croda and SBTX:

Should Croda have genuinely assured SBTX of post-launch disclosure rights, only to later withdraw them, this could constitute a breach of a verbal agreement — albeit one difficult to prove without documentation or supporting correspondence.

Investor Reliance and Market Impact:

If investors made decisions on the strength of Mr. Ashman’s declaration, and that declaration proves inaccurate or undelivered upon, SBTX may find itself entangled in allegations of misrepresentation. Not ideal. Class Action?

Regulatory Implications:

AIM rules are unequivocal: material information must be disclosed in a timely fashion. If the company had reason to believe disclosure was permissible after three months, and failed to act accordingly, this may raise regulatory eyebrows — or worse, trigger formal investigation.

The Verdict — Is There a Breach?

Between SBTX and Croda:

Possibly — if there was a definitive promise and clear intent to permit disclosure, and Croda later reneged without cause. But verbal agreements, as noted, demand strong evidentiary support to stand up in court.

Between SBTX and Investors:

More pressing. If the CEO’s words were reasonably interpreted as a commitment, and investors relied on that to their detriment, SBTX may face claims of misleading communication — or worse, a regulatory complaint.

Enforceability:

All hangs on the supporting evidence — minutes, emails, contemporaneous notes. Regulatory authorities may also intervene should investor protection be seen to have been compromised.

Another BBM seemingly incapable of reading and understand English. Moving on...I realise that facts don’t appear no to be strong suit for some of you, so allow me — once again — to lend a hand.

Yes, SBTX did indeed 10–12 bag some time ago. But since then, the company has issued more confetti than a Liz Taylor wedding. However, the game is about to change, even with a weak CEO.

As for Lemming Investor — they always declare a financial interest and, crucially, give their members 48 hours' notice (that’s two full trading days, in case you’re struggling) before selling. They’re not tipsters, and therefore under no obligation to declare anything, but they choose to do so out of transparency. That, at the very least, should earn a modicum of respect.

And while I’m here, let’s clear up another misconception: “Lemming’s article emphasises the risks while ignoring exceptional positives like the NHS trial.” That’s yet another fundamental misread. If the NHS trial wasn’t highlighted, it’s probably because Singer’s report — which the article heavily references — didn’t mention it either. How many times did Singer bring up the NHS trial? Exactly zero.

Now, I’m not here to act as a PR agent for Lemming Investor — though perhaps I should, given the chaos I’ve apparently caused recently — but if you’re going to publicly lambast someone, the very least you can do is get your facts in order. Otherwise, you’re just yelling into the void, and the void’s not listening.

Good luck. The world needs Solvonis to succeed. I know better than some of you here, thats for sure.

I don’t expect you to understand — I encounter plenty of your type on a daily basis. You quote, “They like a company called SkinBioTherapeutics as one of their stock picks. Karl Keegan, the analyst at Singer, is writing an article on SkinBio, and they’re hoping it won’t be published.”

Now, you may be unaware of the nuances here, likely because you lack the critical faculties required to apply sound logic. Instead, you attempt to outwit casual observers by parroting fragments gleaned from other forums, hoping no one notices the patchwork.

Allow me to assist you — but do pay attention, as what follows contains key clues.

The reason some of the more discerning SBTX investors are not in favour of a Singer note at this moment is rather straightforward: it would almost certainly omit crucial data, namely the Croda and Superdrug figures. For these to be included, SBTX would first need to release them officially. Without such disclosure, the Singer note would be dismissed as little more than standard “house broker” fluff — persuasive only to the uninformed.

I fully appreciate that no one enjoys reading anything even vaguely critical about a company they’re invested in. It's a natural reaction — we're all human. However, it's essential to weigh both sides of any argument if we're to make informed decisions, free from emotional bias.

There’s ample information out there, and to be clear, I haven’t said anything negative about the company itself. If anything, I suspect I may be missing a piece of the puzzle — and I’m quite open to being corrected, provided it’s done with reason rather than rhetoric.

Contrary to any presumptions, my remarks were not directed at Solvonis as a company. Rather, my critique was squarely aimed at Singer — specifically, in agreement with an existing analysis that characterised their note as fundamentally flawed. At no point did I offer an opinion on Solvonis itself.

The commentary should be read for what it is: an analysis of substance, not a declaration of allegiance or agenda.

As for the timing — it’s quite simple. Solvonis is now catching the eye of BBM, whose analytical rigour could best be described as akin to a goldfish on acid: erratic, dazzled, and wildly unequipped for serious financial discourse.

Let’s try to keep the conversation tethered to facts, not assumptions.