Member Info for semantic

Max I am suggesting that conventional publicity does not appear to have any causal relationship with revenue or success in this sector and that anyone who believes I am mistaken can search for examples for evidence and share them with us if they find any. This business is above all else, a science business, and we should arguably take a scientific approach and rely upon evidence, as the Team does

If you check the history of this company you will find that it was floated for an approximate valuation of £75m at end 2018, reached market cap of 1.2 billion in 2020 and is now valued at £19m. It is interesting in many ways but it has never made a profit, raised millions from shareholders, issued hundreds of RNS'. Interims show a loss of £9m. There are many companies like this, many have disappeared and today we see only the survivors. As an interesting diversion, maybe find an example of a company that did all you are urging and that has made lots of money for shareholders, amongst others you will encounter, Physiomics, Feedback, Aptamer group, lots and lots of RNS, videos, interviews , noise and smoke and mirrors. But just find me one which exemplifies your hypothesis that it is spades of publicity which makes for success

Max, I am not anti shareholder. I try to add balance and rationality to discussions here which sometimes become unhinged, or seriously misguided, i.e. not evidence based. Even so, many here ascribe self-serving motives to my interventions, which at times make me question continuing. Your assertion that

I am "constantly attacking shareholders" is an example of an ad hominem attack. Whether you are right or wrong about this, what can it possibly add to serious discussion?

"The open-access charges are currently covered by SNO and EANO, making all content accessible without cost to readers, potentially increasing its reach"

Targeting is key, I would suggest an RNS is not going to be read by a single oncologist

*Neuro-Oncology Pediatrics* is a relatively new open-access journal launched by the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO). It serves the pediatric and adolescent/young adult (AYA) neuro-oncology community, focusing on basic and translational research, clinical trials, and late effects. As an open-access journal, its articles are freely available online to a global audience, which likely broadens its readership compared to subscription-based journals. The open-access charges are currently covered by SNO and EANO, making all content accessible without cost to readers, potentially increasing its reach.[](https://academic.oup.com/neuro-onc-peds)

The journal's readership primarily includes professionals in the pediatric neuro-oncology field, such as pediatric oncologists, neuro-oncologists, neurosurgeons, radiation oncologists, researchers, and other healthcare specialists like nurses and social workers. Given its affiliation with SNO and EANO, its audience likely includes members of these organizations, which are prominent in North America and Europe, respectively. Additionally, the journal’s global outlook suggests it attracts readers from institutions worldwide, particularly those involved in pediatric brain tumor research and treatment.[](https://academic.oup.com/neuro-onc-peds)

The journal’s open-access model and its backing by major neuro-oncology societies suggest a potentially wide readership within the niche but critical field of pediatric neuro-oncology.oncology/pages/why-publish-with-neuro-oncology)

Tyke, a reasonable question, but imagine a hospital oncology department or a radiology section. Both will be staffed by overworked personnel focussed on just getting through the day, there is almost no time which isn't already allocated, there is no door to knock upon, in fact it would be impossible for any salesperson to even gain physical access. Virtually the only way to communicate is via conferences, journals and scientific papers and peer conversations. Relationship collapse, anxiety states and burn out are the realities for many. Just keeping it together is a full time challenege

There have been many posts speculating as to why TEB sold his shares to Braveheart. My theory is that Brown, 79, realising that he might not be around to see all the projects through to fruition, but not wanting to see control pass to someone inappropriate, decided the way to keep the holdings intact and in one place, was to offer them to BRH plc. I could be wrong and I realise it is probably impossible for the usual paranoiacs to give their persecutory TEB obsessions a break, but it makes a lot of sense to me

Tyke are you insomniac?

I have been observing the comments here since the last RNS, trying to make sense of all the TB stuff, now mostly ancient history whatever your view, and frankly it is difficult to believe that whatever is alleged to have happened and when, has much relevance to the current share price. But let's assume all the allegations and accusations, though unfounded (btw if they were true, the FCA would have been over him like a rash), then what?

If you look at the audited accounts the value of intangibles, which include IP is calculated (estimated, guessed) partly by reference to the prospective income they will likely produce. But whatever the theory, the value of the IP and everything else is £1.5m according to the share price, right now. Why iB's value the same as 18 Bitcoins or a Bugatti Chiron, how much IP is there in a Bitcoin, will the Bugatti contribute towards more or fewer lives lost over its lifetime?

Xviolet the average premium paid in takeovers is between 35-50%, so if applied to IB, that would amount to around 0.9p at the upper end - current market cap £1.48m, + 50% premium = £2.2m. Be careful what you hope for...?

Paladin. The Company has made clear to shareholders what it is aiming to do, and why. Shareholders can buy, sell or hold the shares, and the resultant market cap is just a summation of those views. The directors have stated how they hope to deliver on strategy while ensuring the day-to-day viability and operations of the business. The share price has zero bearing on this process. Buffett famously stated he would be perfectly happy holding stocks even if the market were to close permanently. The question for share price fixators is - what difference does it make to the reasons they invested in the first place, or are/were they primarily traders? I can see that a trader would have a completely different perspective to investors and insider directors, but any discussion with traders as opposed (yes opposed) to investors is pointless, reflected in the endless exchanges like 'Showjumper's below "At least bitcoin are liquid unlike junk stocks like this one". Really? The intellectual weight of argument is stunning in its lightness....

Warren Buffet, said he would't care if the stock market closed tomorrow for a year or more, because the prices transacted had no bearing on the investment valuation fundamentals of his businesses. You would be forgiven for assuming the IB Board might feel the same way. What they are doing has little connection with the prices paid and sold in the market. Why would you care what a mad person (market) thinks and why would you try to engage with them (it). What would the consequence be if the share price went to .0001p - nothing operationally would change? Though the Board are the largest shareholders, what relevance is the share price to them?

That's 18 Bitcoins

At close today the market cap at the bid is £1.48m

Tyke, the facts are there for anyone to check, from Feedback onwards, he has made millions for shareholders. Sadly it is a another fact that in general, the shareholders who didn't sell, or bought at too higher price, the ones under water, who remain and say things like " I have read all about the way he turned holders over to pocket a big payday from one of his other manipulation machines I.e. Braveheart whose shares have also been lying in the cattle’s septic tanks" though I am not sure what this person means or if it makes sense. I am aware of one person (not an insider) who made £7m from RMS in 2020 for example. Even the then nomad made £1m+ from RMS. Investors who made a killing are in the majority but they have sold and gone and so have no reason to post anything here

In my humble opinion, there is still a significant overhang of shares in 'stale bulls' hands from the placing. Barely any trades occur on averge days, making it impossible to sell even small volume. These holders have no interest in the Company beyond waiting for news which may provide an opportunity to get out - for these investors the price is secondary to quantity. So a little uplift in volume provides a window to dump a few. At some point all these holders will be out, and there will likely be no further supply. Don't overthink it

Tyke you seem to have missed the point

Maximillion69, the first company which came to mind with many eggs in its basket was....Berkshire Hathaway, but the point I was making was that it appears that the market is valuing at least one of the eggs at zero.

At COB today

BRH market cap is £1.7m

BRH's stakes in Autins plc, BUC and IGE have a market value of £1.4m, £.38m and £.2m