Member Info for Silverblade

8 years to get here Hawker.....not good. Honestly between this and verici :-( SB

Once again, Renalytix has shown a complete lack of transparency to its shareholders - including those institutions who have funded the company since 2018 with more than £200m in capital provided to a company now worth less than £20m. Setting and failing targets is a simple way to erode any trust the market place has in the management team. Its an own goal. Rather than a positive (yes a very small one) saying they are looking at a 30% YOY growth, the shock at a 100% revenue downgrade has caused fear and uncertainty on the company's commercial viability. How on earth are such forecasts allowed to be made without evidence they are achievable. It was only four months ago - when they must have know Q1 was poor. II's who supported the business at 9p must be livid. SB

Disaster. From $8.4m 2026 target to $4m, completely unacceptable. No wonder Baines bailed out. Staggering incompetency. SB

That would explain the wave of selling today. SB

I can fully understand fevertrees anger and frustration here - it is likely representative of a large number of longer term shareholders. The grim reality is that whilst the latest update is encouraging in terms of revenue growth, the actions of the board last year in delaying the fund raise to the point it required a price of 0.5p to secure funding has created a position where the sheer number of shares in circulation render's the majority of investors trapped with little chance of recouping any investment made in the 2-5p range. Anything above that is gone. Add to that a further capital raise in the next 4/6 months - and lets say they go for £5m - which would require 1b further shares being issued at 0.5p. Nothing suggests the share price moving to any significant extent given the reaction to recent news. So then you have in the region of 2.5b shares - even assuming a share price of 1p, that's a £25m market cap for a still loss making company. That in turn assumes the company is capable of doubling its revenue this year - which is possible - which also reduces the further risk (and scale) of a 2027 fund raise although this is still likely. I am invested here - and think the product is viable - but historic investors have been completely shafted. Even the company's own broker has an optimistic price less that 3p a share (don't get me wrong I would grab that in a heartbeat). The best outcome would be for an approach to take the business private or a pharma takeover at a decent premium to the current price. The alternative for shareholders is throwing more money during the fund raise to lower entry prices - which is a sobering thought. All imo. SB

Cash burns remains significant - company raised £6.35m during the year - which added to the $800k difference in year end balances show the level of cash required to support the losses incurred over the last 12 months. Breakeven is predicted at $10m revenue pa. SB

On a positive note at least company has provided a FY update with a relatively small target miss, revenue is growing with new partnerships coming on stream and cash is ok for now. Against that - tests sales in H2 were less than H1 (591 v 582) which is concern - why no growth in actual testing volumes. What I can't reconcile is the Tutivia revenue for H1 was $1.2m for 591 tests ($1962 per test); and in H2 Tutivia revenue was $1.8m ($3092 per test). This just doesn't add up imo. Unless there is deferred income from H1 coming into H2 receivables. I think note 1 in the update is attempting to clarify the issue - but the language on revenue estimates being used rather than actual revenue are a bit concerning. Actual audited accounts will be more revealing and may differ from these unaudited updates. SB

Renx no longer post quarterly updates.

Looks like the imminent trading update is going to hit hard. All time share price low today. Market bracing itself for bad news - history just repeating itself here unfortunately. SB

" TRIG has relatively limited exposure to UK ROC and FIT revenues (16% and 1% of projected revenues for 2025, respectively) given the nature of its diversified portfolio. The Managers estimate that the impact of such a change, were it to be applied to TRIG's NAV per share, would be c. -0.6p under proposal 1 and c. -2.4p under proposal 2." SB

The government has now confirmed (despite major challenges from the industry) it will change the inflation measure on RO schemes from RPI to CPI with virtually immediate effect - in an effort to reduce the cost of electricity generation in the UK and lower consumer bills. GCP had previously estimated this change will have small (0.46p) negative impact on NAV. SB

Sounds a difficult prognosis to live with oldbut. Renx and its sister company verici were both spun out of ekf diagnostics about 5 years ago based on two unique biomarkers relating to kidney disease - renx is all about early warning and intervention through patient testing and verici focuses on pre and post kidney transplant risk monitoring (rejection). Both company's have excellent technology and a key relationship/partnership with Mount Sinai in New York who provide access to an extensive patient database which assists an AI driven approach to improve patient outcomes. The key issue is convincing clinicians at scale that the tests should be deployed (despite having all required regulatory approvals in place and agreed Medicare reimbursement secured). Market penetration remains slow; cash burn remains high and the market remains sceptical on the company's ability to commercialise their products - hence the low valuation here and at verici. Corporate updates expected in coming weeks. SB

Morning unhooked. Plodding was me. I have now changed my opinion to limping. Todays update was shocking imo. £53m revenue target missed (They even removed reference from consensus estimates to focus on ebitda. Growth of 3% is less than inflation - in real terms company is regressing. All cash generated was spent on a poorly executed buyback. Fermentation clearly still a disaster zone. Year 1 of five year plan an epic fail. I have sold 50% of my holding at opening as a significant loss. Anything Baines leads with Mills in background is just a disaster - EKF is just limping into obscurity.SB

Interesting times ahead now. Saba are an activist hedge fund who appear to focus on securities trading at significant NAV discounts "where corporate actions may be an effective tool to unlock shareholder value and monetize the discount to NAV". The timing of Saba's swap position would appear to be linked to recent confirmation that GCP is getting closer to completing its disposal programme (£80m proceeds to date - up to a further £170m in disposal pipeline totalling £250m with less than £20m being utilised in the RCF). Shareholder consultations expected to commence in early 2026 on where GCP go next. AGM next month. Could this be an attempt to force a continuation vote and force asset sales; or merely recognition the share will re-rate over the coming months as higher risk assets are disposed of. SB

B_Positive - feel free to use the actual numbers in your updates.

H1 2025 / Q1+ Q2 = 591 Tutivia™ tests ordered with about 10-15 transplant centres onboarded.

591 tests x $2650 = $1,566,150 (INCORRECT: H1 actual revenue was $1.16m = $1962 average revenue per test).

H1 2025 licencing revenue = $750,000 (CORRECT)

Q3 2025 286 tests ordered, as per investor presentation, with about 10-15 transplant centre onboarded. (Test numbers CORRECT. Centres INCORRECT - there were 21 onboarded at time of results).

286 x $2,650 = $757,900 (Likely INCORRECT based on average revenue per test of $1962 achieved in H1 2025 - likely revenue $560K).

Q4 2025, 20 centres onboarded and let's be conservative and say 300 tests. (INCORRECT. There are now 30 centres onboarded. Company is targeting in the region of 750 tests in Q4 in order to meet its Q4 revenue target of c.$1.5m)

300 x $2,650 = $795,000 revenue (We will find out in due course what was achieved in terms of test numbers and average revenue per test)

H2 2025 licensing revenue, let's be conservative and say $500,000. (INCORRECT. No licencing revenue will come from Thermo in H2)

Combine all of that above and you get = $4.3mil or £3.2m. (H1 revenue was $1.9m/ Q3 likely $560K. Q4 not yet reported. Company is targeting total FY 2025 revenue of $3.95m, comprising $3.2 Tutivia tests and $750K licencing revenue)

Still nothing in the way of a trading update from the team at vrci. SB

Not much to add to comments on HICL's affinity position- but I do think it is interesting the clear strategy for HICL (TRIG merger aside) appears to be the boards intent to create a portfolio with a roughly 50/50 balance between 'yield' assets and 'growth' assets - targeting a c. 10% annualised investor return which seems favourable when being comparted to falling government 10/30 year bond yields. I don't know the corresponding figure for INPP but they have a similar approach and similar annualised target return. Lots of similarities between the 2 imo. The share price for INPP has reacted better in the current macro environment - and they have a larger buy back programme - but both company's should continue to benefit from what is turning out in time to be large scale market purchases of their own stock. I've added to my position in INPP in last week - dividend should hit 10pps in five years based on inflation increases. SB

Next news is likely to see share price hit all time lows - enough negative hints have been dropped recently about current trading. Statements such as "Commercial outcomes.....remain difficult to predict"; "Each practice currently represents modest initial testing volumes"; "Engaging with large healthcare systems presents inherent challenges" - do not fill me with short term confidence in the $8.4m 2026 revenue target - we are about to finish month 7 out of 12 in that regard. And if that revenue target is not met where does that leave the cash position? Does make you wonder what exactly the company's 11 full time sales reps are doing - door knocking physicians will not cut it here. SB

$12m was a direct quote from Vrci CEO in latest Vox markets interview. As for my 'precise' figures - strangely enough when it comes to investing I prefer to deal in fact rather than making it up (refer B_Positive). As for my views on the business - I remain invested so I am hopeful there is a future here or would have taken my medicine and moved on. That does not mean to say I will not vocalise my thoughts on areas of mismanagement where the company could and should be doing better; or to call out posters who are just making it up as they go along. SB

I'm not really sure why I need to explain this, but here you go B_Positive.

Your bullet point regarding Tutivia sums the position up very well.

Transplant centres service both Medicare patients and private paying patients. So whilst the Medicare payment of $2650 is being provided by the US healthcare system for patients who benefit from the Medicare and Medicare plus programmes - there are actually six key revenue streams for test sales of which Medicare is one (albeit the largest - 68% of tests being undertaken are covered by Medicare seems to be the claim from the company). Private payers (via healthcare insurance) do not pay the $2650 - they receive discounts. Clinical trials pay nothing. And there others. If you divide the H1 Tutivia revenue of $1.16m by the 591 tests in H1 it comes out at $1962 . That is the current revenue reality for test sales. The recent RNS highlighting the agreement with Prime Health Services is all about trying to establish consistent pricing of the Tutivia test with the private payment market and clearly with the goal to increase current pricing which is diluting the Medicare $2650.

In relation to your H2 licencing point the following clarifies the position " Thermo Fisher is investing in new research related to PTRA aimed at identifying the earliest stage at which the test can be utilised before transplantation. Consequently, the second milestone originally anticipated for 2025 will be delayed as we continue to collaborate on publishing clinical validation data and Thermo Fisher pursues these additional research efforts to help broaden utility and adoption of the assay."

FYI the breakeven position for Verici is c.$12m - so that provides an indication of the revenue which is required from test sales, licence revenue, protega etc to cover vrci operating costs.

SB

Mikemine - your points are valid - but highlight one of the main issues here. Why set a target and fail. Undermines confidence, craters the share price, makes fund raising tricky and makes investors wary on growth. Much better to overdeliver on achievable targets than underdeliver? But maybe we will be get a pleasant surprise. Thermo are just doing their own thing on the PRTA at present. SB

No licencing revenue in H2 2025 and average received revenue per test is $1900. Do some actual research please. SB