Member Info for Qd22

"Operating loss of £25.5 million predominantly reflects a non-cash goodwill impairment of £23.0 million relating to a legacy acquisition".

Against revenue of £36.8m, and EBITDA of £2.7m this is MASSIVE.

Does anyone know what it is??? Anything at all about it?

Still not RNS'd. I don't understand this crew. There seems to be no indication at all that they want to make this company work. They have the ideal technology for adaption into all kinds of Covid-world situations, to give businesses a chance to cope, but there is no indication that they've done anything at all. And when they make a win in their core business they don't even publicise it! It was never actually clear to me what was really going wrong before either, nothing to nail down. ???

What would you see as a sensible price for this?

Stockopedia has the P/E at 6.6 and EV/EBITDA at 5. Net debt at 27.4. But the profile they give is clearly out of date. Above all how do you price in the pension deficit? Now at least there is agreement on the way forward there.

Cheap isn't everything. Quality and above all Momentum seem to be better determinants of returns than Value. It has Momentum, and there are both the prospects for medical companies at the moment, and the particular prospects for a company like Carclo in the present Covid crisis. But fundamentally how do people see the actual value?

I am a holder, since Oct 18. Is that nowadays an LTH?! :) ATB everyone.

Thanks Basscadet

Sorry to be going on so long:

5. Then, line 5, finally the increase in EBITDA, which has turned into an increase in operating LOSS, which has turned into an increase in adjusted operating PROFIT, now becomes an increase in reported LOSS before tax (which then becomes a DECREASE in reported loss after tax!!). Wow!

I get that the wonders of company accounting are beyond me, but doesn't it all seem strange to you? Simply too much is unexplained. In fact the only explanation at all is for the increase in operating loss, gone into above. That is assuming that "operating loss" is the same as "reported operating loss" - since it is the same figure: £5.0m. And that explanation itself seems to me very threadbare: 'developmental intangibles' doesn't seem to mean anything, and 'patents and recognition of an onerous contract provision, related to cREO technologies' appear to relate to the same thing, and they have not yet reported any actual payments being made relating to cREO (nor have Silex I believe). And surely they have always known what the royalty was going to be. Just how did it need "recognising"?

I don't get these figures. I'm probably being completely ignorant here: but I would appreciate being shown how. I fear I'm going to be embarrassed! But it's better to know.

PS. Greetings seadoc. Yes, not easily forgotten! You seem to have avoided the typhoons.

.... and I still didn't know what it was.

I.e. I'm struggling to understand these figures. Please, if someone is able to shed some light on them I would really appreciate it.

1. Revenue up from £66.7m to 89.9. = 23.2 = 35%. Great, as expected. I'm happy.

2. Consequently adjusted EBITDA up from 7.4 to 16.3 = 8.9 = 120%. Even better, I'm dancing on the table.

3. BUT the operating loss has increased from 3.1 to 5.0. Loss has increased?? Why?? Ah, see below [with interpretation due to the lack of punctuation for the 2nd report running - which shows a real lack of respect for their investors]: "Reported operating loss of £5.0m primarily as a result of the non-cash write down of certain development intangibles, patents and recognition of an onerous contract provision, related to cREO technologies."
Incredibly vague! That is NOT reporting, it is obfuscating. Especially when they don't bother to punctuate: remember the famous book, "Eats shoots and leaves". However I've been interested in the progress of cREO for a while and remember that they bought the cREO patents from Silex Systems in Australia [which I also hold, in a much smaller way] for $5m in shares, and a royalty of - again VAGUE - between 3 and 6%. That could account for both the patents bit and the onerous cREO contract: are the "development intangibles" actually also the same? What on earth is a development intangible? I'm a shareholder and I would like to know, since it is affecting things so much. They say they have decided "to focus cREO development on filters and pause other cREO development due to re-assessed timing of anticipated revenue streams for the technology". Are they trying to do a Boris and wriggle out of the contract? I don't know how "onerous" 3-6% really is, but that was the contract they agreed to pay. It may be that alternative technologies are arising and what with the slowdown in the last 2 years they don't now see how to make a profit from them except in filters. Return to sender. Well, I suppose they have the right to try, though it's not honourable, and it would be nice if they were honest with us about it. Goodness knows, it's not as if they haven't disappointed deeply enough in the last 2 years anyway.

It's a good sum, this non-cash write down: it's turned the increase of £8.9m in EBITDA to an increase in operating LOSS of 1.9. £10.8m? Is that a correct way of seeing it? They said the "Reported operating loss of £5.0m primarily as a result of"... these things. But surely they've booked no value from these things anyway? Explanation would help here, please!

4. Next line: but then the"Adjusted operating profit / (loss)" has moved from a loss of 1.9 to a profit of 4.3. How does the increase of reported operating LOSS lead to an increase of adjusted operating PROFIT? Can anyone explain? It's a long time since school maths, and I know nothing of company accounting, but tax seems to come later.

To be co

Up nearly 18% at the moment. Having first bought at 81p and never sold it's nice to be in the black by about 15% following 2 buys in early April. (Wish I'd followed the same system elsewhere.)

BUT I'm at a loss to know the reason for today's jump. Anyone?? Yes, the report and accounts are being published, but I'm not seeing any new information. Truth be told, I've been a little surprised so far that the medical side hasn't done even better.

Great, it will stay on ST's radar now, with periodic updates.

Annoyingly it's in the Alpha Reports, for which you have to pay extra [rip off]. BUT having been introduced only there it's probably his great hot tip - worth paying extra subscriptions for. And it will eventually come down to plebs like me.

Big cats need more g-force to be able to move! :)

Interim Results on 15 September 2020.

pensioner167 thank you, that is really clear and helpful.

Yes, this is good news. Hope I'm not repeating you, Trek, but I am slowly learning that the only thing that seems to matter is money, and money as soon as possible. This cost effectiveness is a very strong argument to those with budgets to account for, let alone the job of saving lives.

"The results of the study demonstrate that at an example cost of £70 per test, the EarlyCDT Lung blood test will have a positive impact on the outcomes of those patients observed, and when used alongside CT surveillance, is a cost-effective approach to the management of patients with IPNs. The study calculates the ICER to be £2,417, substantially below the accepted £20,000 per QALY ("quality adjusted life year") threshold set by NICE."

£2.5k versus £20k. Strong argument.

The next paragraph is really important, too:

"According to Cancer Research UK1., there are approximately 50,000 new cases of lung cancer every year, making lung cancer the third most common cancer in the UK. Furthermore, lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer deaths in the UK, with 5- and 10-year survival rates as low as 10% and 5%, respectively. This highlights the need to detect and correctly treat lung cancer as early as possible."

I wonder just how effective this would prove in combination 4D's product. 4D are conducting "a Phase I study of MRx0518 in a neoadjuvant setting for patients with solid tumours" plus a "Phase I/II clinical trial of Live Biotherapeutic candidate MRx0518 in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) Keytruda® (pembrolizumab), the anti-PD-1 therapy of MSD, a tradename of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, in heavily pre-treated patients with solid tumours." The latter is looking very, very promising indeed on late stage metastic cancers [if I remember right Merck are paying the bills], including lung: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/DDDD/mrx0158-keytruda-part-a-clinical-benefit-data-drn4var8cdoty27.html. Share price has rocketed, so I'm not the only one who thinks so.

If it can do that - if, but it does look good - to late stage terminal cancers what will it do to the neoadjuvants that have just got started - picked up nice and early by ONC's test?

Wow - a £70 test and then a pill to cure lung cancer??!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have too many small investments, and can’t remember for sure where AFC is up to. But my other dream is at the other end of the spectrum, domestic level.

1. Solar PV on the roof.

2. Small scale AFC Kit.

3. Ammonia tank under the flower bed.

Sorted for the winter?

That brings up a vision of mid-ocean floating wind/solar plants generating ammonia which is stored and then used for refueling ships there, never being taken to land.

Some lucky engineer would have the challenge of designing safe and stable all-weather fuel transfer facilities. Force 10! My mind strays to something 20m below the surface. Probably they do that already.

Just dreaming.... :)

Desertwolch, so glad to hear you say that! Hope for the world! :))

imac1 while I agree with you that 4d has huge potential and I'm not selling a bean I would not compare it with SNG on covid. Basically on that it seems to me longshot. Great if it comes off, and the 4d scientists may know [will certainly know!] loads of stuff I/we don't, but on the face of it it's much less likely.

SNG the science was a slam dunk that it should work, something had to be very strange about coronavirus II or whatever it's called for it not to work. I know it's easy to say afterwards, but you can check out my posts on SNG if you wish, from before it popped. SNG replaces a protein the body makes to combat it on the membrane of the lungs, a protein the virus specifically has evolved to block the production of, and at the prime site of action. Plus all the previous trials indicated that doing just that worked on other virus infections, AND on coronavirus II in the lab.

With 4d it seems much less likely that a bacteria delivered to the gut should knock out a virus, primarily in the lungs. Why should it? But it might, it seems to do everything! Who knows? :)

Nice to dream of SNG, but I'm dreaming of 4D! Up 143% - and very grateful.

That's quite a find, Rivaldo.

2 more points:

1. They have to be able to justify this choice to their taxpayers: and led-by-the -nose-taxpayer-dominated politicians. Taxpayers will say "Why not a German company?"

2. For non-European companies looking for this tech the name is now THERE. It goes on the list. Even in the US.

Yes, brilliant news. I've never been in the commercial world but what strkies me is:

"...confirm the sale of a bespoke 100kW H-PowerTM alkaline fuel cell system to Forschungszentrum Jülich ("Jülich") for deployment at its Living Lab Energy Campus ("LLEC") showcase..." SHOWCASE.

It's a showcase and a demonstration site. Using government money. We all know the UK is NOT flavour of the month, year or decade with the Europeans. They won't have chosen AFC without very good reason.

It seems to me that for any European company looking for this kind of system (and Europe may be leading the way in this?):
(a) AFC will come onto the list - the name is there; and
(b) AFC will go straight to the top of the list.
(c) And that starts from now, not in 15 months time.

'...who stuff'? What stuff?

It was meant to be "...they are scared of people who know stuff." :)