Member Info for opti_mystic

What information were you expecting that you don't have and why were you expecting it? It has all been explicitly expressed in the communications so far that I think have been excellent in terms of what the drug does, how it does it and what applications it will have/how it can be used and what applications it won't have/ where it can't be used, and where it's competitive advantages are etc. It seems a compelling case to me. You just have to wait for the science to verify that in a bigger sample size.

The way I see it is the actual share price is essentially irrelevant. The price will be driven by hard data and that which has already been disclosed is encouraging but it won't be conclusive for sometime. So what we have is a very exciting prospective drug with good outcomes for efficacy and side effects as well as higher drug doses delivered to the tumour site only rather than surrounding healthy tissues. If it all goes well through phase 2 and 3 then very, very happy days indeed. But that is still an if. If there is enough information to tempt a big pharma they would have been tempted already, but they, like us, are having to wait for the hard data, and that is not something that can be rushed. Until then why would the price rise? No positive data, no bid, no increase. Phases 2 and 3 go from 2026 to 2029. I don't know at what stage big pharma will have seen enough to make a bid, but the way I see it the longer into the data it goes the more they'll have to pay because this looks transformative to me if it works as they seem to think it will. Icecool set out various scenarios on value and frankly I'm happy to wait for those returns because the later they wait the more we're going to get. It then has to obtain FDA approval which is going to take another 6 months or maybe longer. With a timeline like that why would the price today tomorrow next month or frankly even next year be of any importance? Unless the trials are completed the data results are in and confirm the initial phase 1 results. That's when we're likely to see a re-valuation. I'm happy to be told I'm wrong and this is why but I'm not holding my breath on this one

I'm sure if this is helpful on the number of patients but according to cancer research UK the phase of trials 1,2,3 is typically ten people for phase one, 100 people for phase 2 (possibly the same for 1b?) then a wider rollout in phase three. My understanding is that the small numbers in phase one is by design because if it all goes horribly wrong you don't want to be affecting a large number of already ill patients. The sample sizes are cautiously increased as indicated above if things go well to 100 people which is I am guessing where they're at. They're looking for efficacy but also side effects essentially to make sure it is safe, so they analyse results before they decide what to do next and any changes they wish to make for the next phase. Sounds like results were encouraging but they wish to tweak it for 1b and go from there.

That's some big bets going either way on the outcome of this legal case.

I agree they should but they're not, which is a bit worrying isn't it? None of the Directors are buying shares nor have they in any significant amount even after the last mauling.

I think the update was as expected. For me the critical part is the last two paragraphs where the known unknown is. The supreme court ruling is going to be very significant for this company and many others too in terms of profit in the near future. The board note the ruling but do not really address it in any significant terms. My take on it is that historically they have not written to the customer and told them about commissions payable to third party introducers but they continue to do business with those that currently do disclose commissions to the customer. It is the responsibility of the lender ie Vanquis to do that and I would not be relying on a third party for that myself. To me even now they seem to be a little casual about their legal responsibilities. The discretionary commissions thing is a red herring because it is not the type of commission but that any commission was paid at all without the client having had sight of that, that is the problem. If the appeal at the supreme court is favourable this company will see a good uptick in share price over the next couple of years imho. If it goes the wrong way, it could take a long time to sort out and will obviously have an impact on profits for a while.

Karv1 it isn't messy it is very clear in the judgement. If Money Barn did not state to the customer in written form, "we will pay your broker/introducer £X" then they did not meet their legal obligation to inform the customer, therefore the customer did not give informed consent, therefore the customer is due a refund of the commission paid to the broker. It seems from your earlier post they are not even as explicit as they should be now. This was dealt with in the judgement with very similar themes of partial disclosure in similar vague terms, "we will/may pay your broker a fee/commission" but that isn't enough. Money barn can claim they told the customer but it has to be written down to be credible and relying on the broker is not sufficient because the legal duty rests with the lender. The chances of the broker having declared it in the necessary format is by and large pretty small I think. This is going to be a problem I fear.

I think it's almost for sure there was a commercial arrangement and that commission was paid. I think it is almost certain that this was improperly declared or effectively not declared at all as per the ruling. It looks as though they don't think a limitation is going to fly as it wasn't pursued. Therefore every single finance agreement that ever was used to obtain a car by lease, loan, HP PCP whatever, where a commission was paid but not disclosed to the customer seems to be within the broad remit of this decision. Being as the vast majority of vehicles on the road including lorries, you name it, are going to be within the remit of this ruling I am actually surprised at this point that there is so little reaction. I obviously could be wrong as I am no expert, but I think this is explosive, it is utterly enormous, vast. I would think 80% plus of vehicles on the road has been financed at least once. It's is so big that I can see the FCA getting involved and saying every customer whether they have complained or not has to have redress. That is a lot of cost, a lot of admin cost to sort it out and it will take quite a long time before there is clarity on the future profits of any company involved you would have thought. How long did PPI drag on for?

I am pretty sure that the FCA won't be liable. As I mentioned previously it is possible they'll put a statute of limitations on it, if they don't as you say it is absolutely vast, it'll make PPI look like loose change. Interesting that there is a new short on the stock after the recent falls.

Hi Rizzel, I am just trying to take a pragmatic view, I am not claiming to be an expert but this is worrying for the future of the company and if it survives how long it would be before it is back in profit. I was expecting it to be 2026 with improvement next year, possibly a profit in 2025. If the company is now on the hook for commissions paid but not disclosed that will simply have the opposite effect to what I was expecting, that the complaints would dry up because Vanquis did not make the discretionary commission payments. This is must have significant implications unless they can legally challenge it .

I think that the court ruling has significant implications across many businesses and the disclosure or lack thereof of commissions received. In essence the ruling very broadly says if you didn't tell the customer what it would be in £ then they did not consent to it and the customer is due it back from the finance company/lender if they complain. This could be catastrophic. If you think the price was 1.25 ish before the latest set of bad news and complaints. The lower price range stuck even though Vanquis said they did not pay the discretionary commissions, but other factors like to cost of dealing with the complaints however spurious was an issue. Now that the discretionary commissions story is effectively irrelevant, it is more to do with the lack of disclosure which in my personal experience is every car I have ever had on finance, this is huge across anyone that has lent money to buy a car, and I guess by extension, leased whatever on finance.

I always read your posts with great interest Mary, so I'd like to understand why you are so sanguine?

I'm wondering if the statute of limitations may come in here? I've read six years may be the number. If the FCA changed the rules in 2021 and they've been complying properly since then such that there is no liability on the lender (I don't know if that is so or not) then maybe it is only three years' worth of commissions, which would be quite a sum of money, plus the cost of the administration which would be another large sum of money. There's an awful lot of uncertainty which is why the price is so affected.

I have skim read the judgement. In my opinion it moves the responsibility for the disclosure of commission from the motor company/ broker to the finance company providing the finance. In my experience the agreements many of us have signed over the years make mention in vague not specific terms, of the possibility of a commission for arranging the finance payable to the motor company/broker. It s obvious to me that there would be a commission payable, and that there would be interest payable on the loan. However common sense seems to go out of the window in these cases. If the lender is going to be on the hook for years and years worth of commissions undisclosed by the broker then where does that end and what's the quantum?

I see, thank you. One would have thought in view of the previous tangles with the regulator that this company would have dotted the i's and crossed the t's on these sorts of things. However in view of the company's track record on things you would've thought they'd done versus what they actually did, I don't have much faith in them to be honest. What was the specific case? I would like to check the relevance to Vanquis or is it across the board for all such companies?

I am wondering why the price has dropped so significantly recently? What am I missing? I was expecting some good news this week (finally!) on this share, and as seems to happen with monotonous regularity with this company the price drops significantly and no further news. My understanding of events is that the commissions for car insurance for which claims might be made are not a liability for Money Barn because they did not pay them. The other risk being spurious claims which they were trying to deal with legally. Obviously valid claims is a risk any financial services company has to deal with anyway. So what is causing the fall from 57p to 44p? A drop of more than 20%.

I would contend it's more investible now than at any time in the last ten years.

Looking for the wisdom of the forum. Some things I don't understand here. The price earnings ratio (p/e) is currently about 2. Typically you'd expect 8 to maybe 14 ish. The assets are about four times the totality of the share value, the company is expected to make a profit if not this year then next, they are re-pricing the interest rates on certain products UP not down as I wrongly surmised, but the price doesn't really move much. The complaints thing is a storm in a tea cup. (I know it's going to cost a few quid but they say they don't have a significant problem to worry about other than the cost of cases going to the ombudsman) What am I missing?

Yes, the whole business is targeted at the slightly sub-prime/adverse credit history market but the top end of bad credit if you see what I mean. That is a market that is according to Vanquis "under served", but not so under served that it's easy to grow your market share by the sounds of it! So under served they may possibly be, but obviously still a competitive market which brings into question how "under served" they are. On paper it sounds like a compelling business model but in practice this company's results demonstrate one difficulty after another. Just when you think the decks are cleared there is something else and what follows is another material step down in the share price, that never gets back to where it was for long enough to move on from there.

Also I read that they have already moved into second charges on property market so that also seems to marry up with what you've recommended previously.

Yes I have seen your posts and agree and disagree in roughly equal measure. The credit card has not been growing in numbers and you say it is the main business, but it still delivers a profit and that is the name of the game albeit not a growing profit which is what we'd prefer to see. Do you think it has a future with the proposed strategy which seems to be in line with your own thoughts? Can the new management deliver? If yes this is a bargain, if no....