Member Info for Spikeyj

nice opportunity (i hope, lol) from an investment view. fingers crossed.

well, the RNS tells us more about that big volume yesterday, some chunky director sales at 685p. so an investment question is whether that's simply directors locking in some profits/ - or whether there are some changes in the biz environment for clinigen that concerns them? so far, i can't spot anything such as change re generic competition for foscavir, but then again i am just a pi, so will be last to know, lol.

has been a seller/s around today; interesting thing was the volume, well up.

clock, i think we will simply have to agree to differ. i have read the same RNSs that you have, & i don't see any clear explanation in them why they did not publish their accounts. others can read & make up their own minds.

no clock, they didn't outline the reason for suspension. they said, they aim to publish accounts once they have agreed a funding package. but they didn't say **why** they couldn't, or wouldn't, publish the results when they were meant to do so on sept 30th. possible explanations might include that they have fallen below required regulatory capital, e.g. because of additional provision for bad debts, or that the auditors were unable to satisfy themselves that the company can continue as a going concern without additional financing or other assurance on business prospects over next 12 months. -- but as you have pointed out yourself, it is conceivable that they could have published their accounts, but simply *chose* not to and decided to wait until they have arranged some funding for some kind of specific project/new venture, yet to be announced. [tho' why that would delay historic accounts is a puzzle]. but whatever their reason for not publishing the accounts on time, they have not actually explained publicly via RNS. saying when they hope to publish the accounts is not the same as *explaining* why they did not meet their own planned timeline.

mildly interesting. possible flag formation? fwiw.

"This bulletin board is full of people who spout the attractions of certain investments." nope, this bulletin board is not full of anything! - dead as a dodo. - even counting the two posts deleted by admin from someone who one guesses was a multi-ID poster, that still only makes an average of one post a day over the last week. very quiet. good luck with your investment here rylidan.

worth remembering the june RNS: "Imaginatik plc (AIM: IMTK.L), the world's first full service innovation provider offering a range of consultancy and technology products notes the significant share price rise over the course of 19 June 2015 and confirms that it knows of no reason for such a rise." ... other than RT's interest, seems not much else has been happening here. so if you want to back RT, then it's a very decent punt, as there must be a chance he will attempt to take it over. but if you don't want your money tied with RT, perhaps best avoided at current sp, as most of the rise seems from RT's buying + his ramp tweets. an interestingly leveraged play on how smart a cookie RT is, and what the SFO might eventually conclude.

posting on a suspended share is not that different from posting on any share outside of its normal trading hours, at the evenings or in weekends. ( -- perhaps the exception to that comes if you expect suspension to last a very long time? .... i guess if the guys at WRN had known just how long their current suspension would last, probably pros & antis would both have posted a lot less months ago.) also depends on why you think people are posting. if you think bulletin boards are just for 'talking shares down' (& hence presumably for holders 'talking shares up') then you will read others' posts very differently than if you believe that bbs can also serve purposes such as interest and entertainment, genuine research, information sharing, using others as a sounding board to help develop your own analysis & to help you spot weak spots in your own arguments, notice issues you hadn't thought of before, etc. (the above applying both whether long, short or neither).

[ * * tumbleweed * * ]

as and when 'real news' does arrive, point will be to keep track of (a) whether or not new shares have been issued, & (b) if so at what price / in exchange for what assets, & (c) whether there is evidence of any new equity being earnings accretive vs dilutive .....i.e. rather than whatever word is eventually used to describe it, or indeed whatever they claim the money is for. presumably, tho', nomad will have some control over how far RNS wording can stretch. (... am anticipating that no matter what the eventual 'news' is on resumption - i am assuming for sake of argument that there will be a resumption - that clock & rhambo probably still won't agree whether or not whatever is announced is a placement or not, lol.)

hi catch. "If there is a "going concern" perceived from YE accounts (and that decision is based purely on the YE accounts by the auditor) then funding won't affect the decision. " sure, agree. a crucial bit there, re the suspension, is that "IF" at the start of your sentence. if the auditor was indeed already satisfied that this company was a going concern from reviewing the YE 2015 figures, then that still leaves the puzzle of why the accounts weren't published on 30/9. if as you suggest, the 'funding package' yet to be announced or finalised is something to do with additional funding for a specific project going forward, a new venture, or something similar, (i.e. rather than a plug for an overall capital shortage), then presumably it should have made no difference at all to the auditor's ability to sign off company's YE 2015 accounts, or the company's willingness / ability to publish those accounts. but for sure, speculating makes no difference to what will actually happen next with this company. so let's see what next. atb.

[more, also from wikipedia re "going concern"] "The auditor has a responsibility to evaluate whether there is substantial doubt about the entity's ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time, not to exceed one year beyond the date of the financial statements being audited (hereinafter referred to as a reasonable period of time). The auditor's evaluation is based on his or her knowledge of relevant conditions and events that exist at or have occurred prior to the date of the auditor's report. Information about such conditions or events is obtained from the application of auditing procedures planned and performed to achieve audit objectives that are related to management's assertions embodied in the financial statements being audited, as described in Auditing Standard No. 15, Audit Evidence. The auditor should evaluate whether there is substantial doubt about the entity's ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time in the following manner: The auditor considers whether the results of his procedures performed in planning, gathering evidential matter relative to the various audit objectives, and completing the audit identify conditions and events that, when considered in the aggregate, indicate there could be substantial doubt about the entity's ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time. It may be necessary to obtain additional information about such conditions and events, as well as the appropriate evidential matter to support information that mitigates the auditor's doubt. If the auditor believes there is substantial doubt about the entity's ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time, he should[7] obtain information about management's plans that are intended to mitigate the effect of such conditions or events, and[8] assess the likelihood that such plans can be effectively implemented. After the auditor has evaluated management's plans, he concludes whether he has substantial doubt about the entity's ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time. If the auditor concludes there is substantial doubt, he should consider[9] the adequacy of disclosure about the entity's possible inability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time,[10] and include an explanatory paragraph (following the opinion paragraph) in his audit report to reflect his conclusion. If the auditor concludes that substantial doubt does not exist, he should consider the need for disclosure."

"This is not the time to speculate." really? seems a pretty good time to me! ... company has gone into suspension without explaining why they did not produce their accounts in time. (not much point speculating once all is revealed?) rhambo's mention of the 'going concern' concept may be relevant here. YE march 2015 is of course not the same as cash right at this moment, but the auditors are required to consider in signing those off what they considered the outlook was for the future, certainly next 12 months, in terms of whether biz might face threat of liquidation/winding down. e.g. from wikipedia: "A going concern is a business that functions without the threat of liquidation for the foreseeable future, usually regarded as at least within 12 months. It implies for the business the basic declaration of intention to keep running its activities at least for the next year, which is a basic assumption to prepare financial statements considering the conceptual framework of the IFRS. Hence, the declaration of going concern means that the entity has neither the intention nor the need to liquidate or curtail materially the scale of its operations." "An entity is assumed to be a going concern in the absence of significant information to the contrary. An example of such contrary information is an entity’s inability to meet its obligations as they come due without substantial asset sales or debt restructurings. If such were not the case, an entity would essentially be acquiring assets with the intention of closing its operations and reselling the assets to another party. If the accountant believes that an entity may no longer be a going concern, then this brings up the issue of whether its assets are impaired, which may call for the write-down of their carrying amount to their liquidation value, and/or the recognition of liabilities that arise on account of the entity's imminent closure (which may not arise otherwise). Thus, the value of an entity that is assumed to be a going concern is higher than its breakup value, since a going concern can potentially continue to earn profits. The going concern concept is not clearly defined anywhere in generally accepted accounting principles, and so is subject to a considerable amount of interpretation regarding when an entity should report it. However, generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS) do instruct an auditor regarding the consideration of an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern."

i can see from the RNS the day before that they were clearly aware that there was a possibility that they might not be able to publish the accounts on 30/9. ... but that seems a bit different to me from the idea that they were deliberately *planning* not to publish their results on 30th sept. why would they have *wanted* to avoid publishing (& hence go into suspension)? it seems plausible to me that they were trying to get the accounts published by 30/9 but simply weren't able to get them finalised. that makes sense, & happens sometimes with other companies. but if you can think of an alternative, good plausible reason why DAN might have been in a position where they *could* have published those historic accounts, but deliberately chose not to do so, i would be only too happy to hear it. as it stands, i don't think you have made your opinion on it 'perfectly simple'. i do understand that you like the company and that you are optimistic on the sp & future prospects, fair enough, & I do understand that you think it was part of their plan to choose *not* to publish accounts on time... . but the bit I don't get is why you think they would make such a choice not to publish their results on 30/9. - what on earth would they stand to gain by doing that?

clock, ... so why do you think the company did not publish its accounts by the 30th sept, which it had previously said was the date that it was trying to publish by? ...i can see that you don't like the kind of explanations that rhambo is offering, but am unclear what you believe is more likely. (seems unlikely they would want to go into suspension just for the fun of it?)

but that in itself would not have been a reason not to report past results on 30/9? (if for example there was a company who was concerned that news about an impending takeover or major deal was starting to leak, they could request a trading suspension on such grounds, but *still* proceed to publish accounts etc.)

i suppose a key issue is *why* DAN failed to publish their accounts on time? to me, that does suggest that they have a hole in their accounts they are trying to fill (or at least, a dispute with auditor re size of the hole). but i suppose clock & enthusiasts might prefer to suggest the results were not published on 30th sept for some very bullish reason (.. but what?) ...given that the accounts are by definition historic, backward looking, no good reason to delay publication simply because of hopes that they are about to get a take-over from epsilon, or a nice juicy fat new client, etc. etc. would be interested to hear long views re why they failed to publish their accounts.

++

what puzzles me is why they didn't try to raise more in the last funding round, especially as they claimed there was decent appetite for DAN stock back then. did they really, really not anticipate that they were going to run short of capital in this way? (if not, why not?)