Member Info for StarBright

Options awarded under a sharesave scheme, which would have been set up either 3 or 5 years ago. The end / exercise date would have been set at this time, as would the exercise price which is likely to have been sub 20p based on the share price on inception. Employees will have saved monthly into the scheme for three / five years. Hardly a reward for failure, but don’t let that stop you parading your ignorance...

The SP and - to a very extent - discussion here reflect the reality that at 73p the share might be materially under- or over-valued.

Applying (in a simplified way) the idea that an SP is the aggregate of market expectations; if 50% of investors believe Omega is worth 125pps, and 50% believe it is worth 25pps then the market clearing price will be 75p. All those who believe in 25p will be convinced the SP is way too high, and all those preferring 125p will be saying it is too low. Neither group is “satisfied” by the current SP, hence the heated exchanges on this board. Particularly from those who approach the LSE forums as an opportunity to influence rather than to discuss...

In the same way, if 90% of investors believe *something* is going to happen, then 90% of the value of that something will be "baked in" to the share price before it is announced. When the announcement is made the SP may be little changed. This is how markets work. To be a successful active investor in the long run all you need to do is find (& buy, & hold...) companies where the REAL odds of success are higher than the market perception. It is - as per the title of a book written by a former client I learned much from - "Simple But Not Easy".

Covid is likely to be with us for the foreseeable future. Our government have placed a massive bet on rapid-testing being required for meaningful recovery to be sustained, and on the idea of strengthening our domestic diagnostic capabilities/industry. Companies like Omega are well placed as a result. And Omega has other opportunities that may - in time - generate huge value for shareholders. For these reasons I am happy to stay invested, and a marginal/opportunistic buyer below current levels.

Not many - if any - will have achieved this though, despite what you might read on these 'boards.

I'm happy!

Other holders should be too.

Friday is not the preferred day for companies to release good news RNS.

Yes - there are exceptions, and in some cases companies don’t have the luxury of choice. But custom and practice is for planned good news RNS to be released on Tue/Wed/Thu when capital markets desks are properly resourced.

I’ll be happy if today is an exception for ODX..!

Maybe the price has been manipulated up by evil MM's..?

Sliotar, you are going to need a lot of whoosh parrots....

@Hh - I am with you until your last line... I'm afraid that it isn't true that everything eventually has its day. Understanding that facts have changed or that your initial assumptions were incorrect, and then being prepared to act accordingly is central to successful value investing. To assert that everything eventually has its day is to make the case for passive investing, where the removal of "judgement" in favour of capturing market beta is the key. I think you are smarter than that..!

One of the dirty secrets of index investing is the capital burnt supporting businesses that prove eventually not to have the capacity to generate real returns. If - as an active/value investor - you achieve nothing more than avoiding these traps, you will generate index-beating returns.

Good post Hh....

Value investors learn to live with being out-of-step with the crowd, sometimes for extended periods. When you are managing money for others in this way, you have two career threatening risks:

1. That you are actually wrong, and the market aggregate take on value is more accurate than yours...
2. Your investors tolerance for being out-of-step is lower than your own, and they walk leaving you with no money to manage...

One of the big differences with investing as a PI (aka eating your own cooking) is that risk 2 doesn't apply. Provided you get more of your value judgements correct than incorrect, you will realise returns in the long run.

+30% from a market cap already north of £640m...?

%'s aren't that useful for precisely the reason I alluded to earlier. AVCT is a great prospect, but significant value is already priced in. It's not a negative message, just a reality check.

I posted this, back in February: "The company has said that it may need more capital, and that it plans to consult with shareholders. Best case scenario is that one or two of the existing shareholders (perhaps the SWF..?) can be persuaded to stump up for this in return for a discount, so existing shareholders will have to accept some dilution."

Looks like I was right (and Winnifrith was wrong...) about additional equity capital being needed. But it also looks like the existing major shareholders haven't (yet) bitten.

This looks very bottom-drawer-ish for the foreseeable future.

@D9Ber1: “Once we confirm the CE surely SP will double...”

Not a chance. That really isn’t how markets work.

Firm orders with confirmation that both volume and retained margins will be as high as hoped for here will be required for the momentum you are looking for. We’re not starting from zero today; significant value generation is already priced in.

https://youtu.be/wvVPdyYeaQU

Very little chance with a shareholder register dominated by PI's. Simply too much execution risk as a result. It would be much too hard to get the votes required without some institutional block holders. Whatever offer was received this board would be full of posts from people saying don't sell - we need an offer 3x higher etc..! It would be painful...

Frankly it's a prospect I'd dismiss.

This interesting report from Boston Consulting Group sets out the case for Covid-19 test demand to be sustained for years to come.

https://www.bcg.com/publications/2021/why-covid-19-testing-remains-a-crucial-part-of-the-response-to-the-pandemic

“Testing in private and public labs continues to be a crucial pillar of any comprehensive response to the pandemic. Since COVID-19 isn’t going to be eradicated any time soon, we will need to maintain a significant testing capacity and capability for a number of years after a highly efficacious vaccine has become commonly available.”

It's a positive for Omega Diagnostics upomega.

I've explained it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

LSE has mangled the formatting / link...

The point is: here is an academic paper supporting implicitly the use of LFTs for mass screening. We have seen this idea criticised by Jon Deeks and others, with their criticism focussing on the sensitivity of LFTs. This paper provides a rebuttal.

Apologies if discussed before (linked paper is from January) but this is an interesting analysis. It discusses the limitations of PCR testing and outlines how frequency and turnaround time may be more important than sensitivity. In a nutshell, frequent testing with quick results is most effective in managing a pandemic.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7775777/"The COVID-19 pandemic has created a public health crisis. Because SARS-CoV-2 can spread from individuals with presymptomatic, symptomatic, and asymptomatic infections, the reopening of societies and the control of virus spread will be facilitated by robust population screening, for which virus testing will often be central. After infection, individuals undergo a period of incubation during which viral titers are too low to detect, followed by exponential viral growth, leading to peak viral load and infectiousness and ending with declining titers and clearance. Given the pattern of viral load kinetics, we model the effectiveness of repeated population screening considering test sensitivities, frequency, and sample-to-answer reporting time. These results demonstrate that effective screening depends largely on frequency of testing and speed of reporting and is only marginally improved by high test sensitivity. We therefore conclude that screening should prioritize accessibility, frequency, and sample-to-answer time; analytical limits of detection should be secondary."

Thanks Anders. That (WorldQuant) position isn't showing in the underlying AFM data that supposedly drives the shortsell.nl site. I can't explain why. It's too small to be having any material impact in any case.

RNS today looks good to me though..!

There are no disclosed short positions in NYCT. Unborrowable, so perhaps only a few lingering small-size spread bet positions. For all the noise, talk here of shorters is unsubstantiated nonsense...