Member Info for Occam

@Bunsen If you had loaded your truck up 6 months ago at 210, then you would have seen a correction of 70% I fail to see why you regret not loading up. The good news is that having already lost 145, you only have 65 to drop from here.

Traders will wait to buy the stock until there is an indication of a reversal in the downtrend. Investors will move on to situations where they have the tools to analyze the company. "Long Term Holders" are pure speculators, who don't even claim to see any real value in the company. The speculators put a positive spin on the most negative of facts. The company doesn't have any tangible assets for a value investor to buy at a discount to fair value, and to grow from a company to an actual business is said to take more than $100 million in funding and 10 years. Along the way, "management" (there's no business to manage) are rewarded primarily for their ability to string along the speculators.

Might be Allenby (house broker to Tintra) stepping in to support the stock and buying all the shares on offer at that level

As far as I know, the company is not meeting the reporting standards for AIM listing. I can't find any audited numbers since the year ending Jan 31st of 2022. The company has said that they need to attract new shareholders to continue operations. Maybe delisting the holding company and using Tintra Foundation as the vehicle to bring off-grid banking to the masses is the way to go.

As an analyst, this is a great example of my frustration building a financial forecast model. I agree with everything- but I don't know if this is an IP company (and they license to a bulk manufacturer) or if they strike a deal with a distributor. Are there competing products? What market share do I assume? All good problems to have, but with little but my guess on the margin, let alone the timing of revenues/profits, the market can't trade the stock at the real value. I can totally understand the frustration of others with the timing of revenues (Covid seems to have delayed big approvals in the US by years). Love the stock, fully behind it, but airing my frustration!

Another distribution agreement. My sense is that Jeff Tweedy is great at commercializing the products. The right man for the job. My view remains the same, the current stock is dramatically (10x) underpriced, based on peer group revenue multiples. I'm looking at near-term revenue, not even plugging in the revenue goals the company hope to reach. That begs the question where and why do investors see risk that I do not. What is the bear case? Is it the ProTec development platform is limited in potential? Is it that the company don't have a profitability goal to match the revenue goals?

@ fatinvester- Do you know that there is an "RNS later today"?

AIM costs: honestly I have no idea, of the total cost. The explicit cost of listing might be 100k, but then there are additional costs that come with the responsibility of being a public company (regulatory & legal, auditing, reporting, etc). Tintra is a complicated account reporting, with legacy business etc. Honestly, I don't even understand the funding of the Tintra Foundation. I saw the Tintra management team were representing the foundation at a gala event in St Barts over the New Year, (a single ticket was 12,500) https://www.cornucopia-events.co.uk/unicef-st-barth-2023/. I'm sure it's all above board and a separate event (and good on management for the cause), but I'd like to understand the accounting and the overlap.

I would actually suggest to the company that they de-list the current Venture market listing, which brings costs and no benefits. Relaunch to a higher level of listing in the future would save cash now. Personally, I would suggest spending every penny on a milestone of achievement towards the goal. Cut expenses to the bone. Fly one member of the team to Rowanda, rent a conference room and zoom in the others. This is no time for team jollies to exotic locations.

@elmstterino- Nasdaq listing is impossible. Expanding the US listing beyond the current Venture listing boards is not possible.

Maybe others have different costs to settle trades than I do, but I pay a flat fee for settlement regardless of the amount of stock. I enter orders for Eden "all-or-nothing" for the full trade size, because it makes no sense for me to trade less than 3,000 shares at a time. My cost base including the settlement will already be significantly higher than the screen price (and same for settlement). Another reason why illiquid companies can't be short term trades, and I look at comments of "flipping for a quick profit" with cynicism.

In my opinion, I don't know enough about this year's cash flow to say that they are "running out by December". With distribution agreements this year, one would have to have a view not only on the cash outflow but the timing of any cash inflows for the agreements we have seen annonced. I don't think that as a contract manufacturer, the company need to drastically increase working capital to hold inventory etc. Whether the company want more cash is clear: give them 20 mill and they can spend on regulatory applications around the globe that they cannot do now. If the team believes in the progress, it would make more sense to issue stock at a higher level, rather than here. The whole ball game changes when the company transition from a start-up to business model. My concern is only the valuation, which on a multiple of revenue is massive. I don't have other metrics (profits) to make a valuation call this early in the game.

I'm disappointed that as an existing shareholder, I wasn't given rights to buy into the cap increase. I would have been happy to subscribe and avoid dilution and let the new shareholders buy their shares at the market price. I'm not a fan of selective disclosure. I know the company care more about the holders of 100x more than me, but I'm still a shareholder and would have liked to been treated equally.

Lenoman - if there is an announcement (good or bad) in the next few days, then somebody has access to material non-public information. This is a public company, so that's illegal and will be easy for the SFO to see.

Volume is the stock price polygraph. The reason I believe the price is sustainable is the huge volume (compared to historic) behind the recent moves. It is the opposite of an "odd lot" where somebody invested 2 grand and just took all the shares on offer. A start-up early growth company will have cash, which they spend without revenue as they invest for future growth. As the company cash goes down, the tangible value of the company falls. It is the worst business model, with negative cash flows and no revenues. When that IP (Intangible asset) turns into revenue (which comes with deals) it becomes the best business model: revenue grows sustainable through distribution sales, and costs do not repeat. It took alot of time and money to get EPA product approval.

Researcher1: well done. You can die rich fellow taking profit early... I'm hoping it is taking profit early!

Eden (IMO a comparable business) has seen sudden interest and more volume than it's seen in years. The valuation gap (I'm looking at current multiples of revenue, not higher risk future forecast) between PHC and Eden was massive and is wider now than at any other time in the past. I hope I am not forced to tender my stock in any recapitalization of PHC. I think it has the potential for extraordinary gains in stock price over the next 5 years.

What suggests that the company are running short of cash? Signing a distribution deal means revenue. I'm guessing the revenue of the announced agreement will exceed (even a first class) flight to Latam ! What milestone cash payment outflows do you know about and what cash calls?

Personally, this isn't a trading stock to buy and flip up 10% ... there simply isn't the liquidity for an investor to do that. Selling stocks that are performing well isn't a traditional profit-generating trade strategy. An investor who follows that might be left with a portfolio of dogs and a taxable gain.

@1Pencil. There is a huge cash-cost saving to going private. I think the US listing is a total waste of money, and that listing should be dropped in the interest of the shareholders. There's no benefit and there is cost. Secondly, I see two paths for the company. Slower organic growth (products come from the PRE-tec platform), or cash of 15-20 mill accelerates the process. That would be equity funded, so would need the agreement of the big existing shareholders. There may be covenants in the investment mandate from Janus Henderson to invest in small high growth companies - so they might be a forced seller into a tender offer. I don't know. I also do not know what Ospreie would do: would they sell another investment in their fund to have more cash to invest in PHC and not be diluted? Do they have cash? Personally, I'll hold for 5 years and have confidence in the Jeffs to deliver. If I have to tender at a higher price, then there's no decision to make.

Not everyone who asks a question is an idiot, and they may be asking because they hope somebody has the answer. I very much doubt anyone is trying to "manipulate the stock down". Nobody can make money shorting this stock (it is illiquid and there's no lending).

I was not claiming this company was only worth 180,000. I thought I made it clear that the last financials I can see had a net asset value of 180,000. It is perfectly normal for am R&D company to convert cash to intangible IP.

In my opinion, and it is my opinion based on what I can see, the company have devoted all the funds available to researching the IP. I know biotech, and I know a little about AI. I am the first to say that I don't know banking software AI. If it were a biotech, I would simply look at the potential market in Y+x years. Assuming the AI works, I think it would be worth much more to an existing player, who knows how to work with regulators and have the banking licenses. Biotechs create IP value, they don't attempt to roll out.