Member Info for sir_digby

It hasn't been used, it's still there as of last week as per their RNS.

CRL123 which larger shareholder? The largest holder on record doesn't even hold 1% of the company, that's the problem the board face. If they could have done it, they would have.

Unfortunately for them you have to dance with the one who brought you.

@bluelight If they don't have the self awareness to understand and take on board what happened today then they aren't fit to hold their positions. It would also help their cause by not trying to hide behind a screen for the rearranged AGM, we're a testing company, it's so easy to put covid protocols in place it's not as if we don't have the stock.

@wilson63, it pained me to post it because we have great products. I watched it twice and he may not have meant to come across as arrogant but that's what I took from it. I suspect he's going because they've been told under no uncertain terms the IIs wont touch us until he's gone and there's further shake up at the top. 2% II involvement, it beggars belief at a time when diagnostics is having its heyday.

None of this is the fault of shareholders to imply it is is simply nonsense. Go back and rewatch the investor Q&A from Aug, not once did they address the shocking share price performance and barely mentioned delivering value to shareholders if at all. It brought not a single institution on board so they clearly saw it for what it was.

Mullis' response to the progress of the antigen self test release was embarrassing, the US has been screaming out for LFTs and FTF demand in the UK was at its summer peak yet he wanted to hold back because the NHS was giving them away free? They can't be used for travel and he bloody well knows that but thought we're dumb enough to swallow that.

The usual hardworking crowd here and on twitter have had to scramble around to find the merest titbits of info about new products, work that I'm particularly grateful for but really shouldn't be their responsibility. Coprep being yet another example in a long list of stuff they can't be bothered telling us about.

Their comms with PIs in H1 was a disgrace, literally ignoring the most basic queries from PIs without even acknowledging receipt of those queries.

It's entirely the fault of the BOD and their brokers that they have no Institutional support, this is the worst supported listed company I've ever seen. Nanopore are listing next week, oversubscribed with 18 times our mcap. Their product offering and sequencing efforts aren't wildly different from ours and their revenue actually lower. What a kick in the teeth but Mullis boasted that he'd repeatedly ignored media requests, well that worked well for us didn't it because Nanopore sure as hell didn't ignore them.

Then we have the clusterf@ck of the dispute, contracts signed with NDAs so restrictive we don't even know why we're in dispute with the DHSC. We just have to take the BODs word that we have the much repeated 'strong legal grounds' to enforce without them having to provide any evidence to us to back up this position or reach a conclusion. Just take it on faith that you won't bugger off in to the sunset with an obscene pay off and potentially leaving us without a pot to p@ss in.

As for the rest of the BOD, if the status quo in attitude is maintained and this requires a first past the post vote. Their time may be well spent updating their linkedin profiles because I imagine the votes actually cast were painting a picture they didn't like.

It's your circus and your monkeys Graham until the 18th October, about time you took your role of ringmaster seriously.

They needed 25%, roughly 18m shares to vote. A big ask from PIs.

Mullis knew what was coming his way with regard to the bonuses, hence the virtual AGM instead of facing up to shareholders. As for the rest of the board, start delivering or hit the road.

They created this issue, ignoring PIs for months while IIs ran for the hills, sh@t PR and woeful brokers. They have treated us with contempt. They'll have also seen which way the wind was blowing withe voting. I said months ago they'd struggle to achieve a quorum.

Not surprised at all, that's what happens when you p@ss off PIs and iIs.

The IPO is oversubscribed as well, they had to release another 12.75m shares so the demand is there.

Perhaps we need to release a single test gimmick to get the city hot under the collar because we can't buy institutional interest with our 'best in class' offerings.

3.6bn it is then.

https://www.reuters.com/article/oxford-nanopore-ipo-idUSL4N2QU2O6

If people want to truly depress themselves head over to companies house and read Oxford's financial statements pre IPO. More cash than us (raised 201m funding in the last 12 months), turnover 2020 113m, contract cancelled by DHSC in April and as far as I can see no further business with them since. Still coming to the market with a 2.5bn valuation.

That flying under the radar approach by our management really paid dividends.

Interesting that ADL were willing to take an all share offer from EKF, that said, the modest 10m price would have swallowed half their cash.

If that's their aim then there's the possibility it will backfire on them spectacularly on Wednesday if some of those directors fail to get voted on to the board and other resolutions don't get through bluelight. I trust aim management as far as I can throw them but without a significant holder it would be hard to push through a hostile mbo. I just think their comms and PR strategy has been utterly inept, largely down to a strategy driven by the CEO who's now unexpectedly retiring.

We donated 1m tests to UNICEF and didn't get a column inch of media coverage anywhere in the middle of a global pandemic. Someone in PR has definitely been stealing a living on our dime

Nobody is saying it's good news but the vat credit is there and it's reality, I sincerely hope the dispute doesn't rumble on in to 2022 neither I suspect do the management. We're being absolutely throttled by this dispute and it's getting increasingly frustrating that we're being left holding the baby by the outgoing CEO. It's not just 49m either.

Bluelight, it gets even more depressing when you consider only 2% of the company is in institutional hands, 2 bloody percent. Vatel probably hold at least 1.5% due to them having to hold 1m until next year. So let's be very generous and say 5% in institutional hands. What on earth are we paying the likes of numis for?

This is the worst institutionally supported company I've come across in over 20 years. A company making good money developing world class products with half its market cap in cash can't even attract the interest that debt ridden explorers do.

Anybody know a worse supported company? I'm really struggling to come up with one.

This dispute is throttling us in every way imaginable.

+£10m corporation tax credit. Assuming no resultion to the dispute by YE we're possibly looking at around £110m cash, perhaps more when you take into account £8.3m VAT credit which will offset VAT against sales in H2.

On top of the 10m corp tax overpayment there's also an 8.3m vat credit.

In the same period we'd also increased our inventory to 46m from 30m

The H1 loss is solely down to the 35m inventory write down. Which now also forms part of the DHSC dispute so we're looking to recover that as well as the unpaid invoices.

They've deleted and replaced that tweet.