Member Info for RichTheNewbie

Obviously the key being whether they've got serious competing interest from more than one major. That's what'll lead to the higher numbers whether on takeovers, up front payments, milestones, profit shares, or anything else.

Yeah - might even be split milestones per indication. Say $100m-$1bn up front. Then another milestone perhaps for approval (EUA or successful quick P3 in the US let's say). Then share of profit (or some other share of the proceeds of doing well). Then perhaps milestones for P3 trials in other indications (COPD for example) and shares of profit in those other indications. That way the major manages their risk and initial outlay but SNG can still do extremely well if COVID, COPD, or anything else, go on to do well.

No worries Y-Alam. Hope you did well (or continue to if still holding some) :)

I should have said 20% profits in all indications.

I think the profit share is a bit optimistic. I think majors would demand more.
I prefer to be conservative and pleasantly surprised. Even a deal for $500m and 20% profit share could mean Synairgen make serious money if it's a top pharma who start pushing it out widely in the US. Not least because if they start to trial it for other things that 20% profit share could end up being serious money.
I know takeovers for a big lump would be the biggest quick-win but pharma's often like deals with milestones or profit shares to manage their risk. So a deal for $500m plus 20% profits could still end up making SNG many billions if everything went well.

"getting the risk" = "getting the virus" (in final sentence)

Org30 it's fair to say the deaths for under 50's has been negligible....however that doesn't mean there's no risk.
Above the age of 15 the amount of coronavirus cases rises rapidly (UK data) and from about the age of 25 upwards charts of coronavirus cases level off and aren't far off being even for every age bracket above that.
What's also clear is you can survive coronavirus but be seriously ill and have long-term damage to your body.
So, whilst the under 50's are at low risk of dying, anyone over about 15 has a significant risk of getting the risk, and they are at significant risk of long-term damage to their body, even if they don't die.

Bella - I disagree (with "No country anywhere in the World has managed to get it right yet").
Some countries have done extremely well. It's the ones run by moronic leaders that have done worst (Boris/Trump).
Taiwan and their population of over 22 million....right next to the Epicenter of the outbreak in China....479 cases and 7 deaths. Funnily enough their vice president is an epidemiologist.
And there's many others who've also done really well and showing up the ineptitude of the UK/US management.

Miggy007 - I think I'd rephrase "so successful" to "a complete clusterf*ck of mismanagement by government from start to finish leading to far more deaths and serious injury than should have happened". It's hard to imagine how they could have done much worse a job.

That's the weirdest thing that's been said on here since that weird COVID denier piped up.

That's aside from the fact that, as it stands, scientists are skeptical about the length of immunity people get anyway.
Their dithering, not taking the virus seriously, and pontificating about things like this, before eventually starting to take it seriously, probably cost thousands or tens of thousands of people their lives.

Herd immunity was always a f*cking stupid thing to save by the government or their advisors.
Yeah great if everyone's immune then it's not a problem.
However you're going to have to have 70/80/90% of the population who've had the virus to make that effective, and we've all probably seen by now the horrible effects of this virus, even in people who recover, so that would be a total and absolute disaster.
It was probably thought up by the evil hobbit Cummings and probably backed by the idiot Boris.

It's like an episode of Eastenders in here most days this year.

I don't really think the mine life is holding them back at all. It's like having a 6 bed mansion in London and valuing it at £300k because you've only done up the first two bedrooms. Yeah it'll be worth more when you've done all of them up but it doesn't make the rest of the house worthless. And HUM will have three houses shortly anyway ;)

It would seem bizarre to accept anything less now that they've got a cash cow up and running and others likely to come on stream in the coming years. They've done the hard part...now reap the rewards.

For what Hummingbird have I don't think anything less than £1 should even be given a moment's though. I think they can comfortably surpass that in the next year or two based on their existing production/exploration as the other two projects come closer to being a reality. I don't think they'd consider it unless the offer was multiples of that.

Seems weird to me all the posts about Dan Betts himself, or baseless conspiracy theories, and no good reason to be anything other than positive on this.
I keep looking around for better value goldies and not finding any generating anywhere near the level of cash this is/will, as well as all the other near-term projects and exploration to solidify even more value.
Separately - I also find the Berenberg broker note rather odd and essentially ascribing no value to anything other than the existing producing part of Yanfolila. If you only valued the already producing parts of most goldies they'd not be worth anything!
For a company that's at the point of generating $120m/year now in profit, with big near-term upside from Dugbe and Kouroussa, the current price seems bonkers to me in comparison to peers.
I'm also not sure people are giving them enough credit for essentially being very prudent with their money, not over-extending themselves, and leveraging others to get Dugbe into production, whilst adding significant near term production from Kouroussa on an asset similar to Yanfolila.
As far as I can see they're simply not over-extending themselves whilst trying to grow the number of ounces they produce very quickly. That seems a more sensible/stable way to ensure the company grows fast rather than over-extending themselves and crashing and burning.

Any other good non-hedged goldies people recommend? I didn't find anything that looked more appealing than HUM on my last look but if there's something else to consider/reconsider I'll have a look.

It's quite simple. Don't do it.
https://www.naspp.com/Blog/April-2014/Husband-and-Wives-Insider-Trading
There's a high chance you'd end up in hot water yourself and that's ignoring any risk to your partner and their job.
Find a share that you don't have any connection and invest in that.

I really don't understand what Miagi is on about. Seems like he's just sold out before the recent rise and clutching at straws trying to find a negative. All the information you want should be in the annual report from June.