Member Info for paternostpauper

Porky, I hate to destroy your illusion but Warren Buffet you ain’t. Your LSE track record of share failures is appalling and there for all to see. To then continually post your opinions, advise where the company is failing and criticise others on this board is frankly laughable.

At first you were 3/10 for entertainment value but now just an annoying little piglet. Poor old Peppa wonders are you ever going to bring home the bacon?

Sorry about the lack of capitals. Phone playing up.

i was disappointed that there were no bod changes at the recent agm. adam joining the board in a senior position would have been the ideal scenario but we are not privy to his personal circumstances and the time commitments would probably have been too demanding. still, as a fallback, his advisory position has to be taken as a big plus. he has the most to lose of all val holders and obviously feels he can have a positive influence on future decisions in this role. in voting to support the existing board he clearly believes stability is the key to eventual sp growth.

there has been a lot of in-******** on this forum which can do little to either entice new investors or show support for the current management. clearly much of it is agenda-driven, whether pm's ramping when genuine positives are in short supply or porky's desperate attempts to influence shs to sell by constantly claiming a giveaway raise is imminent. as an investor, i want nothing more than the sp to head north but accept there is nothing i can do (or afford to do) to expedite that happening.

most fellow investors post to simply vent their frustrations at the diminishing sp and who can blame them. suzy has made some very poor decisions over the last 18 months to our detriment. we are invested in a venture which has the potential to make significant advances in cancer research and hoping to make a decent profit along the way, yet most of us are underwater to varying degrees. even wannabees like porky can see the potential or why waste hours posting daily deridng the share in a pathetic attempt to drive the price even lower. i must admit to having a laugh at nick slater's tongue-in-cheek suggestion of clueless porky joining the board. peppa has more business acumen. 😀

i am optimistic now that with adam's expertise and guidance we can eventually fulfil our potential and when our financial position improves, capitalise on market opportunities within our budget. we are far from the only microcap with a struggling sp. there are many aim shares vying for limited funds in the current macro environment. we may need a bit more patience for general market conditions to improve before we see any significant advances in the sp. however, with adam's influence pending i believe the bod have taken, albeit long overdue, what will prove to be a shrewd decision for the future of valirx

Two months ago, I decided that unless the SP was in the mid-teens by the AGM I would vote for change. It would be daft to keep the status quo and expect a significant turnaround. I respect Adam Hargreaves’ opinion enormously and recently he requested we wait until after the Q&A before making any voting choices. Having watched yesterday’s presentation and considering recent developments, I have seen nothing to suggest anything other than a continued decline in the SP under the tenancy of the current BOD. At no point have they inspired belief that a major rerate is imminent.

Yesterday was just an exercise in RS-covering in a pathetic attempt to justify each individual’s BOD position despite an 80% SP collapse over the last 30 months. A significant team rebuild is required if we are to see any major SP increase in the short to mid-term. Stability is all very well if there are signs the team are on the cusp of a major breakthrough. I see no such thing. Without personal investment, Stella brings nothing to the team. She can go.

The lack of BOD investment is the prime indicator that all is not rosy in Val. Similarly, the clear reluctance to have Adam on the board confirms they do not want a major shareholder having any significant influence in business decisions. Obviously, it could adversely impact on Suzy’s empire-building aspirations. Ideally, Suzy remains as CEO but I hope she views the voting as a reflection of our dissatisfaction with her performance to date.

I agree with Nick Slater that Gerry and Martin’s time is up. By keeping Suzy and Kevin we retain the general direction and their belief in the potential of our legacy products and new compounds. They also will have developed alliances which should prove beneficial when dealing with universities and the like.

If Suzy is unfortunately voted out as CEO she may consider a CSO position but she is far from indispensable. If she throws her toys out then que sera. She and the BOD have ignored our concerns for far too long.

Porky, let's face it, if I only had 10 shares in Val, it's 10 more than you have!!!!!!

Good to hear from you Adam.

My sentiments exactly, though I have to admit my vote is still in the balance depending how things pan out over the next week or so.

Investors are here to make money, some short-term, some long. Suzy doesn’t appreciate the frustration of supporting a company thru’ lean years only to see latecomers benefit from significantly discounted placings. Furthermore, such fundraising inevitably attracts short-term profiteers and the subsequent volatility of the SP. For over two years Suzy has been promoting our products and informing us how well the various projects are advancing yet the SP does not reflect progress. On the contrary, we have seen an 80% fall since the LOI RNS in Nov ’21.

Regarding the long-standing TRX 201 debacle, in Dec ‘22 Suzy confirmed “if insufficient progress towards funding seen at any time the exclusivity agreement will be terminated”. We have not been informed of any termination so can only conclude she HAS seen sufficient progress and we can at last look forward to a detailed summary of such. She has previously stated that this information is commercially sensitive and shareholders will not be informed until it becomes “fully public knowledge”. Fine, release an RNS giving an update of where we stand. You cannot tease investors with tweets and comments suggesting good progress, yet 18 months following the LOI we are still completely in the dark. Time to let the sun shine through!

Many differing opinions/suggestions as we approach the AGM regarding the best way forward for VAL. There appears unanimous agreement that some change is required. However, in functional areas where it isn’t broken…..

From a research and development perspective, Suzy, Cathy, Zai and most informed fellow investors clearly have great belief in our bio-portfolio. The company appears to excel in creating quality products but then struggles to capitalise on their potential. Cancer research is a very competitive arena but the potential gains are astronomical. Many bio/pharma will fall by the wayside but for those that achieve any degree of success the possibilities and rewards are limitless. Most low caps bios have a single product. We have multiple and it only needs one successful take-up to propel us upwards and all the rewards that would entail.

However, promoting and marketing those same products is a concern and a significant weakness within the company. A fresh perspective in this area is clearly needed. Dr Dilly may be a brilliant scientist but this is not her forte and she is not receiving the support required from her colleagues.

Secondly, our CEO either doesn’t understand market forces or considers them insignificant. A major failing in such a key position. For Suzy to be successful in the CEO role she clearly needs strong guidance in this respect. If she had been less naïve and better advised at earlier key junctures it is likely our finances would be in a far healthier position. The less said about Cenkos the better.

Finally, whether in her RNS, tweets or Q&A sessions, Suzy talks of the science, staffing, future plans and bio market events but the SP appears a minor consideration. And therein lies the difference to our viewpoints! Dr Dilly seems to believe this is a sponsorship arrangement for her pet project. She simply does not ‘get’ the SP significance. Why would she? With such a comparatively minor holding there is no direct correlation between her personal financial position and the current SP. She still receives her salary and her project continues regardless. When eventually there is a major advance in the SP further rewards will kick in but at the lower SPs they are irrelevant.

The above concerns could all be resolved by Adam’s involvement as a director in some influential capacity. He can call on his own experience to make suggestions, identify and evaluate market opportunities and help steer board decisions away from the incompetence which has trashed the SP. More importantly, he has overwhelming support from the majority of shareholders. Both individuals are enthusiastic and extremely optimistic regarding the future but Adam’s interests align directly with our own whereas Suzy’s are from an empire-building perspective. Simply announcing his appointment would probably boost the stagnant SP by over 10%.

As an investor, primarily I assess Dr Dilly’s CEO performance by the current SP. In that respect she has failed miserably. We are now approaching the AGM, the share price is still languishing around 10p and the silence is deafening regarding significant progress on any of our lead products.

Many LTHs will recall the dark days of early 2020 when Valirx were teetering on the brink. Indeed on 17th Feb that year the company issued an RNS advising it only had funds to last a further 6 weeks. Thankfully, we survived that scare and Suzy, was promoted to CEO in June 2020, making significant progress in the early days. However, she has since made some critical errors during her tenure.

The original Letter of Intent with TheoremRX was announced by RNS on 2/11/21. Prior to the release the SP was 52p. Following the RNS it dropped to 34p and has pretty much been in decline ever since. Surely our CEO could have envisaged the likely impact of announcing a potential deal involving one of Valirx’s prime assets to an unknown start-up.

Suzy would have been continually aware of the company’s financial position yet she waited until the SP had fallen to 16p in June ’22 before announcing a 10p fundraise, resulting in considerably dilution to almost all holders at that time.

Over the last 2 years her beloved twitterings include “…..a deal with TRX worth up to over $61m in near-term payments” (to coincide with the LOI RNS on 2/11/21). When there were later murmurs of discontent at slow progress we got the renowned “totally confident and unconcerned” tweet. Although not an official RNS, such positivity from the CEO undoubtably has an impact on how PIs view the company. I’m not alone in reading those tweets and believing a major deal must be imminent. In reality we were led up the garden path on more than one occasion.

Several contributors to this forum have criticised Dr Kevin Cox’s input to the current SP fiasco and while that may be justified, as CEO Suzy carries the can. If other members of the management team are not up to the job then she needs to remove the chaff. The buck stops with Suzy.

My belief in Dr Dilly as a scientist and valuable member of the team remains. However, for me, her leadership skills are very limited. She has had ample time to bring at least one of our prime compounds to fruition yet, barring the proverbial rabbit, the prospect of yet a further fundraise beckons. As a developing company in AIM, I accept that goes with the territory but not at these rock bottom SPs. I expect to see SP growth and fundraises at a premium price as new investors scramble to get their foot in the door.

With little personal financial commitment, Suzy appears only interested in developing her Valirx project, regardless of how it impacts the SP. Investors are a nuisance to be humoured and pacified. While admiring the focus of Valirx’s work, I have invested here to make a profit, not just to fund a scientist’s dream. In this respect. There seems a clear conflict between her interests and ours.

Only another few weeks and we get the opportunity to make a significant change in how Valirx is managed. Ideally, like most on this forum, I would love to see Adam at the helm but I accept that may be too demanding as he has other commitments. However, just to have him as a director would give a massive boost to investor confidence and assist in steering the company to profitability in a much shorter time frame. With significant skin in the game Adam would obviously have a direct interest in the SP.

I ask Adam to consider promoting himself as a potential director in whatever capacity he feels he could commit to. He will have undoubtedly considered this as he has been one of those hit hardest by the current SP. I have no doubt he would gain tremendous support from the shareholder base. Nick Slater has indicated on several occasions that he would welcome Adam’s addition to the board. The snag is we would lose Dr Hargreaves valuable contributions to this forum. Nevertheless, as we see the SP rise with each passing month, I’m sure we would soon come to terms with that setback!

Dr Dilly is undoubtedly a talented and knowledgeable scientist. I have no scientific background but have no doubt other shareholders with experience in this field would have called her out long ago if this was not the case. Her happy and carefree manner makes it hard to dislike her.
However, she is not CEO material, completely naïve and out of her depth in the world of business finance and negotiations. Likeable or not, her incompetence in the timings of placings and refusal to enforce contractual terms has devastated the SP. The arrogance in refusing to even contemplate becoming a significant shareholder shows her total disdain towards ourselves, the owners of Valirx and suggests we can expect the SP to fall further as part of her buy and build strategy.
Her Twitterings inform us she is completely comfortable with the progress being made by THX. What progress? Show us the evidence. Two years down the line and not a bean from them. What was the point of negotiating an ‘agreement’ if it is entirely discretionary whether one party honours their commitments and where financial obligations and deadlines are totally ignored.
I have no time for those who constantly berate the company with a view to diving the price even lower. However, 3 years down the line, this is now my biggest holding by some margin and as such I feel entitled to vent my frustrations towards management. I still have complete confidence in the science (thanks Adam), but as we near the June AGM I now feel Suzy should concentrate on her scientific talents and be moved over to allow an experienced and qualified CEO to drive us forward.
Unless there is a rise is the SP to at least the mid-teens by that time I shall certainly be voting to that effect.

Recently took a small holding here. Looking at the Q1 results I'm optimistic it could prove to be a shrewd investment.

I have taken an initial small position here. The SP is near a 10 year low yet China was the only thorn in the September update, otherwise an exceptional performance. With China now opening up and considering how quickly small caps can fly it appears too good an opportunity to miss. Nearly 80% of the market capital is held by institutions so limited shares available for us small fry.

I agree with Mark's viewpoint and indeed have taken this as an opportunity to average down. My concern would be the timing of the placing at the current price.
If we are to see imminent progress on any of the main pipeline drugs or the long-awaited TX fundraise then the SP would inevitably rise, possibly quite significantly. Any fundraise would then be at a (much?) higher price. This would suggest to me that any major progress is, sadly, still some way off. I still believe in the end destination but fear the route has been extended by a few miles.

Delightful to see GLG increased their short in October. Bet there are some red faces in their offices this morning. lol

I find every southerninvestor comment very amusing. Why would anyone with a purported holding in a company continually deramp as he does (see pages after page of his history). Answer - he has no holding but sees the tremendous potential and is looking to board at a lower price. Unfortunately, he probably only has a few days before that ship will have sailed!. He will be left standing on the quayside, bags in his hand and a tear in his eye as the dood ship VAL sails off into the sunset.

I may be naive but it seems the only reason the company offered a 40% discount is they know they have presented very little to entice new investors and an offer nearer the market price, at the time of the RNS, would have been laughed at. If I had a product I believed in and was confident would take the market by storm I would reluctantly give a 5%-10% max discount to raise the necessary funds. If the institutions saw promise they would gladly accept the minor discount. A 40% drop smacks of desperation.
There is no thing as loyalty to existing shareholders on AIM, particularly PIs. Thankfully I have only a small speculative stake in this venture but will not be averaging down. I hope for those who are in deep it all works out but I fear the worst.

Cheers.
I've actually sold JET for a small loss which goes a bit against the grain.
I retired last year and with plenty of time on my hand started 'playing' the stock market. I made a few mistakes, mainly due to believing much of what I read on forums, but overall my portfolio is quite a long way ahead. Not because of any great insight into the market, simply because I was buying in at such low prices that I could hardly fail. I've decided to cash out on several of my gains and keeping my powder dry as I fear a further, though hopefully less severe, winter beckons and want to be in the position to take advantage. At least I will be a little less gullible next time around!

Can anyone advise what is the impact if JET suspend trading on the LSE.
I have held shares through IG since the beginning of the year and currently in a "paper loss" situation. Thanks

Hi everyone,
Pretty naive trader here. I hold some TP ICAP shares through HL and have been asked whether I would vote for or against the redomicile and rights issue. Can I have the consensus on whether I should vote "for" and then presumably take up the 2 for 5 offer, or "against".
I accept nothing is cut and dried but an educated opinion would be helpful. Thanks