Member Info for Soupdragon78

Haven't got a scooby whats going on, but its fascinating none the less. (although I wish it wasn't this fascinating)

MickR, its not a rumour its speculation as part of a conversation between myself an amaretto over there.

His view is that its a set up by DG and Lanstead.

Defo not a rumour.

Cash at the H1 September period-end was £1.07m, down from £1.67m in March 2021 after the net £1.56m capital funding. There is still a tax credit of £121k to be received and a trade creditor of £54k. Trade payables remain at £165k. Net Current Assets are therefore £1.09m.
The cash flow shows an operational outflow of £416k plus £181k of working capital movements, mainly paying creditors, presumably CRO costs giving £597k. Assuming a further cash outflow of £400k to March 2022 plus the possible £82k (but subject to adjustment) received in March 2022 from Lanstead (see below) plus working capital and tax, cash might be about £940k at the year end.

NFT's, they are interested in Oncology, hence they've got NXP001 and NXP004 would be of big interest to them.

Last month Oxilio split their stock 100-1, they could now easily snap up nfx for an all share offer with no dilution to themselves.
They’ve already snapped up Dans consulting.

Nfx had £900k cash at end of March enough to rework the 002 test.

Good timing chab.

And good luck in what you choose to do.

Got to figure out how to manage this situation now.

Give the job to Dan

By who?

The irony that he praised Anne for seeing out her 6 months as she was a ‘professional’ and yet he walks with not a care.

No surprise

Filter, one thing to note is that for the last couple of announcements, when they did an interview it was usually a day or two after the RNS. The timing of an interview isn't usually dictated by the company.
With this week being a short week we shall have to see.

Quite a mentally challenging day to say the least and not fun in any sense. Here are a few reflections which are probably nothing more than me trying to ease my own stress levels here.

We knew they were expecting results 'early 2022' from the CRO, so it seems likely that the board set up their warrants ahead of the return of those results at the end of Jan. Fair play, positioning themselves for potential good results.

Obviously the first voided results then became known to the company. I get the feeling that this is why DG was brought back on board, with his prior knowledge of the product, to try and help work with the protocol. He was obviously not on the first plane to Japan as some would think.

So, they then moved onto the reworked study as per the protocol. Which has now been inconclusive. The key takes outs being that they are content to run it again, which is better than ditching the whole programme. But they do need to clarify whether it is entirely with the new formulation or if they are running the pharmacokinetics again to cross check the first test, whilst at the same time running a new formula alongside.

Whilst its annoying that they seem beholden to the CRO timetable slots, it makes sense not to move to another as the present CRO has the knowledge of exactly what happened previously.

On NXP004, I am keen for them to outline what the strategy is moving forward. Todays single paragraph doesn't really leave us any wiser.

For the CEO, as filter says, I also think that the potential CEO would have been lined up to be on board with successful results, but not be part of anything other.

Exactly filter, the board in fairness did the right thing. The first issue was with the CRO and the protocol failure, for which they re-ran the test. The board could have released news at the point of the protocol failure, but then would have been criticised for doing so as it would have hit the sp at that point in time.

For me at this point in time, I want to know the plan for NXP004.

002 timeline has moved out, which is what it is. I want to know the approach strategy for the next few months on 004.

Also could do with an explanation of "...decided to move forward with further studies, including evaluation of a new formulation."

So are they reworking the studies alongside looking at a new formulation?

An updated broker note or investor presentation setting out their strategy for moving forward would be the key now, but I'm not optimistic that will happen.

I guess DG and JH have accepted the fact they are now unlikely to see their options realised before they expire this October.

Would've been nice if they could have added more detail to the NXP004 section.

Lol. Sorry to disappoint B009, I’m just an average punter who’s average is 3p here deep underwater.

What I try to do is logically look at situations. I see people saying it’s the boards fault for this and that and test results not being right. So the logical question is would a different board have led to a different situation?

Blood, what do you think the company should have done differently?