Mystery Seller Saga5 Sep 2020 19:12
Ok - sitting in front of open fire with cider (why not) pondering II Seller (or short selling), and have a conspiracy theory.
@Dave77 highlighted it could be GHIF but I thought Calculus, but reviewing previous research, maybe that doesn’t stack up:
- Calculus (8.99% at last update) - per ‘results’ section they were happy to promote ‘Genedrive (May 2020) 2.1x return’ but that was selling circa 140+, so would they be comfortable with smaller returns (presuming chunk of shares from placement - maybe they bought earlier, haven’t checked back yet).
https://www.calculuscapital.com/what-we-do/
- Alternate is Spreadex (5.05%) - as impatience wears thin maybe those who took long positions expecting approvals are retreating.
But what about GHIF (13.66%)?:
- Longevity of II selling makes me question if GHIF are the only II with enough shares for prolonged selling without yet crossing 2.99% notification threshold.
- Selling initiated since BC RNS - has that changed the investabilty of GDR (Per below) - do we no longer meet GHIF primary criteria?
- Does GHIF feel GDR are now on their merry way & have potential large US Pharma tie up meaning funding no longer required?
- GDR still seem to clearly tick India box but maybe concern BC tie up will mean US will swallow up majority of production capability?
“ We only invest in companies developing innovative products that can be used in settings with limited resources. Much impactful and innovative medical technology is never brought to market outside of the US & Europe, because there’s generally going to be less of a financial reward for doing so. That’s where GHIF comes in. We identify high impact health outcomes, generally involving a new medical technology or drug. We then do two things:
Firstly, we screen whether the product serves a need in low-resource settings, like sub-Saharan Africa or India, where I just returned from. Secondly, we screen whether the product has compelling financial prospects. Fortunately, if a product fails this second test, but we find it sufficiently compelling in terms of the first, we can send the opportunity to our colleagues at the Gates Foundation, who can pick up low-return but high-impact projects.”
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/kevinharris/2019/04/09/how-the-gates-foundation-is-revolutionizing-global-health-impact-investing/amp/
I’m really not sure - but interesting angle to explore, thoughts?
PP