Member Info for RichTheNewbie

(technically I did in the end :p)

Urgh - sorry for double post. First one vanished then reappeared.

Just added another batch. Nothing goes up in a straight line. Was hoping for this.

Just added another batch. Nothing goes up in a straight line and this is what I was hoping for.

Even if it was the top end of the spread rather than the bottom Dave (which if you were purely going on that would suggest it's a sell) the chances are it's a trade that's had to be worked over a period anyway. The market makers aren't going to be holding that level of stock to sell in one go.
The TNCP flags are for Non Price Contribution to Discovery Indicators. A SINT trade is a systematic internaliser trade which as far as I'm aware basically means trading done off-market. So basically there's been a big trade somewhere other than the market.
Trying to say you definitely know whether it's a buy or a sell is bonkers (as it's both - like any trade :p).

What a load of nonsense.

You thought you'd let us know you placed a really bad trade and it's still wrong even now? OK thanks.

These broker notes do my head in and basically ignore much of the value of Hummingbird.
They don't apply risked value for anything bar the producing part of Yanfolila.
For all gold explorers the target price would be an assessment of the value of their assets with a discount for risk leading to a valuation.
Yet because they've got one producing asset it seems they throw the baby out with the bathwater and ascribe no value in their target price for any of the non-producing part of Yanfolila, nothing for Dugbe, nothing for Kouroussa, etc.
I could forgive the Kouroussa bit being not totally completed yet but ignoring the rest just seems nuts to me.
If you applied this logic to a lot of gold companies, with assets not yet in production, their target price would have to be 0p.

I wouldn't read too much into what Trump says. This is the guy who just said this:
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1292956445944606721

Lol.

They’re also just a way of deceiving dozy people. Put a “code” through and tell some gullible sods it means something good or bad.

_Mr_Big - Hah. Very well put. I'm probably the former, to a degree, but in knowing that, try very hard not to be, or at least less so ;)

CityTTrader - You're clearly just missing the point. We can move on though - save filling the board with a back and forth.

eva - you missed the point completely. I'm certainly not here for the drama and couldn't care less about earning the likes of people. It's easy to tell people what they want to hear - most of the time it's not popular or right though. I certainly don't do that :p
As for your "buying against acacia"......does that just mean you timed your buys really badly (back in the 70-80p range before it fell to 35pish)? Or are you trying to suggest you were the only member buying down at 35p in the period Acacia started dumping (which quite clearly isn't the case - as I bought in then as remember having to tell many people not to panic about that - on both occasions that they dumped it back down to the 35p level).
I don't give a monkeys if Ghia is 80% here. Your investment strategy seems to be reading what a few people post on a messageboard and then doing something reckless based upon it. That's a very fast way to lose all your money unless you get incredibly lucky. So far you have :p

CityTTrader - I couldn't disagree more. Your post is hindsight trading. Much like Eva's. GKP could easily have had real-world political unrest/violence or countless other problems that could have made it near worthless overnight. Let's not forget it fell thousands of percent from over 3200p to not much over 100p The market wasn't wrong. The market prices in risk. If the risk factors don't happen that doesn't make them wrong. That's not to say that you can't spot opportunities and back them more heavily. I'm not against that myself hence I had my largest position here when it was 6p. However advising people to go all-in on shares like they're sure things is pretty much always dangerously reckless.

I always find the rewriting of history on this board rather interesting :)
The post from Trinityman gets more likes than almost any other yet it's rather wonky with a lot of the information.
How could I forget my argument with Nolupus about RM's interview on Jun 19th the day before the big RNS:
https://www.lse.co.uk/ShareChat.asp?ShareTicker=SNG&share=Synairgen&page=559 (in 25 posts per page view)
Still doing alright at the poker too ;)

Manifesto - I think I'm a bit more of a realist. The list of great products that never made it to market because they didn't have the right support/opportunity/chance/connections is probably longer than war and peace. It's a bit like the old Dragons Den game. Some minnows will make it on their own but many won't (even if their thing is good). When it comes to government spending billions probably even more so. Never underestimate the value of connections or vested interests.

If you want scandal already in this pandemic just read this series of tweets by a top barrister: https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1291244082145177600

Not a case of not managing them. I’m sure he’s capable of discussions over here. That being said a global pharma will be at a whole other level in terms of connections, political clout, lawyers, lining up a package for a country, logistics, distribution, etc
It’s not that he couldn’t negotiate or line things up they’re just a world above and if a deal can be done then it’ll be their game.

I would imagine if there is a major (or majors) in talks then they'd be the ones who'd push for approvals (especially in the US). They'd be far better at it than a tiny company like SNG.
It would be nice if we'd had the COPD data to know whether that string to their bow is strong or whether it's more binary in the near term. I'd feel a lot more comfortable with an increased position here if that data was good too (and consider more back in if it was). Simply because the skeptic in me can't help thinking if the COPD data was strong too - they'd have released that as well by now - to further show how effective the drug/method is in general.
So that's a slight concern for me - but perhaps would tie in with something like Nolupus says - in terms of they get the deal for the major on COVID which has shown most impact - but retain the COPD rights - and then with the added cash they try to show - in a P3 - that it really is having decent impact (if the current results are only "promising" rather than conclusive).

Don't get me wrong I pay no attention to the media. Their reporting of the initial results by SNG001 were awful and frankly derogatory to RM and the team. All about them getting rich rather than having spent 10 or 15 years developing a treatment which may be of massive help to the world whether for this virus or other conditions.
Having said that, it's not beyond governments to use the media to paint the picture of any drug company, large or small of exploiting people for profit, and that'd be doubly impactful in a pandemic. So I've no doubt SNG or the major on their behalf will try to make the most money from this but at the very same type they'll be treading a tightrope with regards to pricing. I'm certainly not saying they can't make good money.

Manifesto - I think they will have to price it "right" so I don't think his comment is unfair. Remdesivir is $2,340 for a 5 day course and they're being pressured by governments on that. Obviously ever government would haggle (and will) but I don't see any reason they couldn't be aiming for $1000 or $2000 for a course of SNG001 without risking too much push-back.

This is also part of why I think a deal for SNG001 will be a profit-sharing / milestone type deal. Nobody knows how long coronavirus will be around, whether due to vaccines in future years, or because it's got under control enough (whether in the richest western markets or elsewhere). Or because another treatment (or vaccine-like product) appears from somewhere else. It's something of a moving target for the major making it harder to justify big initial outlays and easier to justify allowing SNG to retain a certain percentage of the profit so everyone wins if it's used a lot.