Ryan Mee, CEO of Fulcrum Metals, reviews FY23 and progress on the Gold Tailings Hub in Canada. Watch the video here.
OK Valtree; who are you then?
If someone calls me deceitful, then I like to know at least who it is, rather than then hiding behind a wall. You know who I am. So let's at least play fair pal.
You have my email address. Drop me a line; I will maintain all discretion - you can be assured of that.
In all afternoon.
Furthermore, I'd like to thank you.
Thanks, in part, to your posts, a lot of folk worried that VAL would raise imminently and didn't want to invest. We'd float at 10-14p based on that, indefinitely.
In a way, swallowing that pill now has avoided any emergency cash flow concerns, as per last Summer, whereby we'd be cap-in-hand to the City, and 6-8p, with not much to show for it, beyond paying wages.
It would be dishonest of me to say I thought that any raise, whatsoever, below 20p, is not disappointing, and it is a pill of sorts. But I'll take some of it, if it means not enduring another 8 months of your incessant and unoriginal bile, in the run up to where the cash runway would have otherwise ended.
Well the market seems to agree with the general approach George.
One day to launch proposition and immediate take up.
And, to be honest again, I'm fairly relieved that you now have nothing left in the tank, because that's all you were banging on about.
Honesty is admitting that you are George Morris, ex VAL COO, with an axe to grind (at least I'd respect that).
And if you can point me to a time where you placed for growth, rather than to cover your lifestyle Company wages, at a mere 10% discount to a previous day's closing price, fire away...
I bought 50K worth, and I have not sold any shares. Nothing more to reveal.
Here is an honest appraisal, at least from my perspective:
This is a very swift and well-subscribed raise, by a limited number holders, generally TP HNWs, with sticky hands. No bucket shop or MM involvement; hence no preceding SP crash. Sorted in about 1 day.
I also partook myself, for the following reasons:
1. Increase the “stickiness”.
2. The raise is a good price. As you can see, there’s little discount, and, given the current environment, that’s fairly unusual at the minute. With most recent small cap BS raises, we’d have been at 6-10p. But VAL were organised in this, it was far from last minute, and it wasn’t to cover current overheads.
3. The raise is for lab equipment lease/buy, and to fund new employees. I see this as immediately value-adding by 2Q.
4. It is a modest raise, without excessive dilution. This gives a cash runway of a year for the lab, by which time, we will have revenue. They can demonstrate the strategy at sensible cost.
5. I have had a robust discussion with Suzy, Mark, and Stella – and a very long one. We need to see some organic growth now, and I’m actually confident we will get some. This will not only pave way for revenue, but demonstrate what can be achieved on the given budget. If the lab begins to show success, which I am 95% certain it will, then it is value-accretion and generates its own cash runway.
6. Probably the most significant point is that it will save considerable money in the evaluation of the new projects; therefore, substantially reducing the cost of these evaluations, both in preliminary studies, and once in an SPV. This will be at least tens of thousands saved in the near term, if not more. IP generated will also be a strong draw.
In all fairness, the members of the meeting were already largely aligned with me. They are very conscious about how the market behaves with a retail shareholder base, and we are fully in agreement about the “best” approach. One member with a lot of investor experience has particularly high targets within 2 years, and I was very glad to be a recipient of that bullish view.
The BOD are chomping at the bit on this one, so my view, at least, is to crack on, and show us definitive results this year.
Good day to all.
"I have never said that these boards were a bit of fun, as you put it". DH: 11th Jan 2023.
"Anyway, these chat boards are virtually useless anyway aside from some light entertainment". DH: 5th Jan 2023.
Maybe I made too many assumptions. Again. My bad.
If alluding to someone making contributions worth reading, but then slanting thread titles for ulterior purposes, is “putting the boot in”, DarkHero, I have been told.
And I’d sit up when someone said that posters were acting like degenerates and isolating individuals.
But then I’d sit straight back down again if the person that said it had spent some considerable time accusing two very named individuals of “insider trading”, and then, in their own defence of those accusations, stated that the BB’s were just a “bit of fun”.
Evening.
They wouldn't have removed a post from you Porky, as a thoughtful and informed poster.
They just assumed it wasn't you, as you didn't put "placing incoming IMO", as a thread title, to take all the credit off what may have been a perfectly decent post.
It's a franchise tax; payable in US states (Delaware) that you pay when you issue shares. It isn't corporation tax, Buda.
"Profit" not likely for them yet, but as long as they pay VAL the long over-due monthly consult fees; upfront payment, and first two years staged payments, I for one care somewhat less about their initial balance sheet.
CLX001, if it passes preclinical, will dwarf 201.
But that doesn't mean that 201 isn't important.
Because if you can sell somewhat of a bag of (albeit top quality) sand in a desert, if you own the only well, then you'll do very nicely indeed. And you might find one or two new wells, every 12 months.
So 201 is the foundation for a massive re-rate in SH trust in competence IMO, and everything else that has failed to lift the SP thus far, should rightly re-rate with it.
Summary > methods > outcome > future use/significance.
It's essentially a scientific paper, and today's rise shows that the market understood it.
You don't have to have a revenue RNS to build momentum.
Sure, the SP will stabilise/drift etc, but PYC have laid out what they have done, in full, and holders will appreciate that they haven't been sat on their ****s taking a wage.
Anyway, sorry; back to VAL.
It's not a revenue RNS nom.
It is a process and a defined outcome.
It's precisely the sort of RNS I look forward to with CLX001 in due course.
PYC - now that's how you write an RNS.
I'm not in PYC, but that puts to bed to the old adage that you have to limit what you can tell pharma shareholders in an RNS (applicable to many biotech companies, not VAL specifically).
Comprehensively-written; leaves nothing to be picked apart; and puts clearly into perspective the significance of the announcement.
Well done to them.
Future for me, personally, is small pharma outfits that have a model of weeding out undiscovered new drugs; evaluating them; and ultimately bringing in around two per year, each of which with a 30-40% chance of bagging a milestone deal worth 40X the current MCap.
But WTF do I know.
I'm not Adam. But I have been there when anything important has happened to Adam.
A bit like Valtree and George by the looks of it. But Valtree was wrong about George in not resigning; at least that's what it says if you look online. So George should tell Valtree to contact the BOD and tell them that George knows, that Valtree knows, that George knows that Valtree knows, that George resigned first.
Now I'm no Columbo, but somethings not right there is it, George :-)
The lab is an astute idea, and should be being instigated as we speak. To be able to offer this as an in-house service will be a BIG draw to early potential partners, will streamline in-house compound development, and will generate revenue. By 2Q, I would hope that some potential customers will be lined up. I expect Cenkos, at this stage, to be able to attract an Institutional Investor on-board, who is interested in providing some capital for growth. If the BOD have demonstrated the model on a shoe-string budget, and Cenkos are unable to do this, then I would at that stage encourage the BOD to explore another main broker. I don’t think that we need a joint broker in a Company of this size.
BC201 should publish in the next six months, and I’d expect an update regarding 401, but as a “nice-to-have”. It remains to me a slight tragedy that no one has been willing to explore 401 in a further trial, as cancer-related cachexia is a massive unmet medical need.
The management team have my full support, and I’d also be fully behind any new BOD/NED buys; confident in the knowledge that all genuine holders want the BOD to do well, stay on, and deliver, which I expect this year. I want to see an end to VAL as a purely trading share, which it is currently if we are honest with ourselves.
If we hit levels at which the BOD can generate options, that would be fantastic. If they do well, retail holders are also doing very well.
The next two quarters have inflection written all over them, and it is time that lady luck gave the Company a thumbs up. There’s been a lot of hard work over the last twelve months, and so something good is due.
The BOD have some good tools to hand, so let’s see what they make.
Good luck to all genuine investors.
Evening.
Good grief, I’ve read some tosh on here today.
Nick Slater with inside information; absolute nonsense. VAL in my opinion are, if anything, overly conservative, so whoever thinks that is well and truly shooting at a very wrong target. This is precisely the reason that I felt the role of “shareholder rep” was somewhat fruitless.
Nick can defend himself, but I can tell you that, as a man whom is vocal in his opinion, sometimes he simply didn’t rub so well with the BOD and, as a result, felt that he wanted to reduce his holding. It’s as simple as that. A shame, as he made many germane suggestions, and continues to do so. Some folk with differing approaches don’t mix so well, and we are where we are, but I can also tell you that although he wants to make money, he also wants, to the same degree, every other genuine investor to make money at the same time, in addition to the BOD. He was a firm supporter of the bonus scheme and I’d wager, in fact, he’d have had it higher. Lots of experience in the markets, and always worth listening to in my opinion.
Aside from that, as Nick has taken a proverbial back-seat in his professional offerings, plus, as everyone in pharma loves “stretched” targets, here are mine for 2023:
I’d like to see one of the two remaining evaluation projects locked into an SPV (obviously two more would be most welcome!), with potentially two more entering evaluation. Out of five SPVs, I think that two could go all the way. Big pharma still has very deep pockets, and I’m seeing some fairly average compounds going through to meet numerical targets, currently. Some are even pushed through, even though there is no indication that they will afford greater efficacy than competitor compounds, which are often further on. KCTNBC is unique, and has, as far as I’m aware, no competition. It would truly be a first-in-class, so hopefully the conversations have commenced. Value accretion occurs over two years, but this could generate early interest, at least in my view. VAL have just published a superb piece on the website – this needs to be communicated via social media, far-and-wide.
I’d like to see a resolution regarding 201, before Spring, either way. Beyond this stage, it may materially impact the momentum built from the new compounds, and I don’t want that to happen. If 201 is signed over, I will doth my cap.
I’d like to see 301 with a new patent or indication, and perhaps bring a resolution to the Japanese partnership. Partnering 201 and 301 was a three-year target by the BOD themselves, as of 2021, so I feel aligned with them in this.
Harvey - I agree.
I think "coming out better" is a reflection of a torrid year in AIM biotech. Look at SNG. 30MMCap, essentially due to a massive II and holders just not bothering to take money out, with nowhere to really go without a massively expensive additional clinical trial. 4D; mismanaged blow out. Lots of lesser evils, but some fairly horrific losses or stagnations. These stocks have had a big knock-on to other stocks in the field; VAL included. Probably half a billion quid of lost slush money in the sector.
VAL SP is shocking. 60% down, but the fundamentals you can't really argue with. The portfolio is halfway to being diversified, and that continues.
We could see 10 or 40p+ this year, and that is down to both science outcomes, and the BOD. I'd argue that it will be hard not to bring good momentum, based on the previous year's work.
So there's a fair bit of pressure to deliver, but the foundation is good. It will be interesting to see how they play it out. I watch with interest.
HNY to all.
Actually, I know TDK and he's rather delightful.
There's very few prats in my experience. I'd likely be happy to have a beer with George, as it happens, as I always think that, although he dishes it out, he can take it, and he comes back for more. I like that.
In any case, people have been frustrated with progress over recent times, and it can bring out the worst, but that will change in 2023, because the touch of bad luck can only last so long, statistically, and things have now been set up to change the direction of travel.
Let's hope we all get on like a house on fire next year :-)
That's great George; that's actually a longer runway than I had calculated by 4 months!
Good research pal.