The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
"But he didn't give any numbers....presumably (guessing here) the 'offer' would have been above 60p.....so his forecast of 50% uplift would be above 90p."
================================================================
Obviously the 60/90p estimated valuation would have been before the rights issue dilution...so gawd only knows what figure Mr Barder is thinking of now...probably the 11p figure (presumably a multi-million pound bonus will be based on that)
Back in September Mr Barder said that he was going to proceed with MED2002 phase 3 without doing a deal for the sake of shareholder value....I think he said that MED would be worth 50% more with P3 complete. I wonder what he thinks of the current SP.
Hopefully that 50% increase in value isn't based on current SP...or about 11p.
But he didn't give any numbers....presumably (guessing here) the 'offer' would have been above 60p.....so his forecast of 50% uplift would be above 90p.
But P3 has to deliver good results first....not guaranteed IMO.
" I don’t think the apparent rivalry between R1 and TLY boards adds anything to either board, it just wastes space."
==============================================================
BrassNeck, thanks for pointing me towards the TLY board. For a while now I've struggled to understand why the likes of SST1 & 'Graham-wales' have been so negative about RTHM. It seems to be some childish tit-for-tat vendetta....they seem to feel they are protecting their TLY investment by trashing RTHM. They must be about 5 years old...(that's probably unfair to toddlers)
OK, both TLY and RTHM aren't doing very well at the moment....trashing a companies reputation just because it makes you feel good doesn't help matters. It won't make your investments do better. Time to concentrate on what is important IMO.
RB, another equally plausible scenario....but I expect most shareholders would see a cosy pre-pack arrangement as a con. Presumably ALTN still has assets....a working gold mine, with 'proven' reserves and also the prospective area (for which the company paid a ridiculous amount of money for the data).
So given that we aren't actually on AIM but the main market....hopefully that does offer us extra protection. But we could well end up being stitched up. The problems getting the finance to develop the mine tells me that something dramatic is going to happen soon.
RB, I too think you're pretty much on the money with your thinking. They need quite a bit of money to develop the underground mine (more than £5m I would have thought) and if 'the family' has to stump up the cash then they might as well own the whole company first.
The company may be running quite low on funds - assuming they don't perform a miracle and get outside investment - so any 'takeover' may happen quite soon IMO (guesswork).
It's a shame but it seems to fit the pattern for AIM stocks (it really is an AIM stock, despite the window dressing)
Jet, agreed....I expect there is an agreed format to the questions. Which doesn't always ask the questions that need to be asked and get us to the truth. Window dressing.
We get more insight by what sort of shirt Mr B wears and his body language.
I expect it's the wait for news on additional funding that's doing the damage. For some reason nobody wants to loan any money (admittedly sizeable amounts) to a gold producing mine.....the question is why?
Even the family that effectively owns the business don't want to put in any more hard cash (apparently).
Notrac, could be sloppy writing....although I don't think an announcement on the funding is certain to happen on Wednesday. It would be good to get the cash sorted out asap to remove the uncertainty but I don't know how quick those sort of things happen. It could be FUM management are still absorbing what has happened to the SP after the news and are discussing their options. Sell that spare yacht I say!!
The 'probolem' with STT is that he is wasting his time....because we just ignore his posts.
However ther is some potential truth in the article about GDPR that he posted the link to.....the publishers are finding workarounds to GDPR (burying permissions in hard to reach places & pre-selecting all options) rather than adapting their business models to embrace the spirit of the law. It is more annoying for consumers the way things have worked out IMO and the danger is that the law makers get tough and introduce more onerous laws.
In the short term I don't expect GDPR to impact R1 too much....but the question is whether R1 are missing a trick in not preparing for the future regulatory landscape....being proactive rather than reactive. But I suppose one of the strong points in their favour is their ability to change....even if it is forced upon them.
""In other words, the 0.6% dose probably achieves the peak concentration of the 0.2% dose in a third of the time (sometimes less than a third of the time) whilst the 0.4% dose probably achieves the peak concentration of the 0.2% dose in half the time (approx.)..""
=========================================
DI, that would be perfect. No reason the above would be misleading IMO....quite the opposite.
As you wrote: "Accordingly this points to an approximately linear rate of absorption. Therefore if it’s approximately linear,... "
The use of the word 'if' in the above would point to a certain amount of uncertainty in your assumptions...but I think you are 'probably' correct.
Didin't mean to infer you were misleading people....more that I couldn't entirely tell what was quoted from the PK study and what were your ideas.
"For those that attended the AGM, there were some who came back with the impression that Futura Medical would go it alone for phase 3 trials. One such individual is Fx....on ii and his post should still be there.
He clearly felt they were prepared to go it alone if they were unable to get the numbers they wanted or in terms they wanted."
=========================================================
It's not how I remember things (although I never went to the AGM). I though some on the BOD wanted to wait for the 'deal' to finalise before starting P3 trials but Mr Barder decided they needed to push ahead (correctly IMO). I think they knew that they didn't have sufficient funds to complete all of the P3 trials and the upfront payment from the 'deal' would get them over the line. I believe that the P3 trial is staged (2 stages?) and they possibly have enough cash for the 1st stage but not later stage(s). Hence the need to raise funds now....hopefully not that much...perhaps Mr B can find the extra money he needs down the back of a sofa.
Hawkshead is being pompous complaining about posts....some have been heated but I can understand the anger...they are only letting off steam....nothing too libelous I could detect (but I'm no lawyer).
"In other words, the 0.6% dose achieves the peak concentration of the 0.2% dose in a third of the time (sometimes less than a third of the time) whilst the 0.4% dose achieves the peak concentration of the 0.2% dose in half the time (approx.).."
================================================
DI, I presume you're trying to predict how the stronger doses will behave (perhaps you should use the word 'probably' a bit more often). I would class the above as an educated guess.
I think the stronger doses were introduced to tackle ED in more severe sufferers. But I suppose the game has changed and speed of onset is 'probably' more important to FUM (although the regulators may have a different view on the subject....'possibly').
"So I would expect that 3rd trial money to be paid upfront in any licensing negotiations later next year."
==================================================================
TB, the P3 trial won't be completed until Dec 2019.....so do you expect a licensing deal before then? (Mr Barder said in the Proactive interview it was a possibility....but he didn't sound very convincing IMO).
I would expect any MED2002 licensing deal to be announced in 2020 (at the earliest).
It would be good if FUM announced the funding details next week.....but I doubt things are that quick....unless Mr B re-mortgages his house....perhaps they could sell one of the company yachts!!
So shareholders will have to wait to get there hands on him.....I don't expect they will have calmed down any by the wait....unless he does pull a rabbit from a hat.
I do remember in the past that they may have got funding from a member of Mr Barders extended family.....it would be good if Mr B, BOD and family contacts could provide a sizeable chunk of the additional funding....putting their money where their mouth is would show some confidence in the eventual P3 outcome.
Rhodi, unfortunately I don't think big pharma would be interested in FUM even at 40p (at the moment).....because they probably don't trust the claims that FUM has made regarding MED2002. They have asked FUM to show them by completing P3 trials....but unless the results are outstanding I doubt they would interested because FUM seem to be playing loose (IMO) with some of the scientific claims (5 minute onset). As some have said Mr Barder may have lost credibility.
All those reports that were aimed at showing the value of MED2002 may be worthless now.....because they were based on the speed of onset claims (which now look weak or erroneous).
DI, they have to withdraw the 5 minute claim because there is no proof that the speed of onset is due to MED2002, patients had the same speed of onset when using the placebo. They are 'hoping' that stronger doses will allow them to differentiate between placebo.
They have to find a way to differentiate between placebo & MED2002 in the same patients.....each patient reacts in a different way...indeed the same patient can react differently from day to day. They cannot make the claim if placebo gives the same response as MED2002....sounds like very weak scientific rigour to me (big pharma must have been surprised at the claim).
"The speed of onset of action of MED2002 was rapid, partly reflecting the method of application with the gel being applied directly to the penis. 82% of patients with mild ED had an onset of action within 10 minutes and in 54% of mild ED patients onset was within 5 minutes. This rapid onset of action means that MED2002 has the potential of being the world's fastest-acting treatment for ED." (RNS Sept 2016)
==============================================================
I couldn't find any mention of the removal of the 5 minute claim in yesterdays RNS....was that announced in the Proactive interview?....very strange!!