Member Info for StarBright

I think we all know that significant expectation has been baked into the SP. Also that there are short-term holders hoping for the immediate boom/rocket rubbish touted here daily. Some of those will be selling up and putting their Bentley orders on hold, simply because this isn't +25% today. That's how they roll....

Nothing to worry about for investors.

Yes - that was my interpretation too.

The reference to regulatory strategy in the leaked slide has nothing to do with a NASDAQ listing. It will be connected with regulatory strategy in the sense of FDA etc approvals, not company listing.

Readers of this board can draw their own conclusions as to whether you are naive or intentionally misleading. Or both.

....as is TEMPLAR's thread title.

The bullet point on the slide "Reviewing US regulatory strategy" is presented solely in the context of the timeline for Antigen test. It's nothing to do with NASDAQ or listing etc.

RNmyS's post is either naive or intentionally misleading.

I don't think so. More likely simple political indecision. The whole topic of testing, certification (vaccine/antibody passports etc) is acutely political.

Industry insider here. Not wanting to pour cold water, but none of those are the nominee names of "institutional holders" in the sense of pension or investment funds with professional managers. They are a mixture of self-invest platforms and private client businesses. It is interesting to see some of the wealth managers (JM Finn, Close Bros, Redmayne Bentley) appearing on the list, but we should remember that in many cases these firms have private clients who call them up and say "Buy some XXX for my portfolio" so frankly just older/wealthier private investors.

What is the source of the data? I don't recognise the format. And where are the holdings of investors via HL...?

DM83 - yes, you have understood this properly. The market will catch up at some point. ODX, ABDX and AVCT will all deliver strong returns for investors, even starting from current levels.

Russky - you post frequently about market makers, but you have a tendency to mischaracterise their activities, objectives and influence. MM p&l's are driven by flows not by price movement, and they are typically tightly constrained in terms of their available capital and risk appetite. For the most part they are price-takers not price-setters; content to mark their books at the point where both buyers and sellers are willing to transact. They make their money from the spread, not (other than in the very short term) from driving price action to suit their needs. Whilst there are a few examples of market makers going rogue and operating outside of regulatory parameters these are exceptions, not the norm. When a share price falls, it is far more likely to be an outcome of investor activity (ie selling) than market maker conspiracy. They are Remora fish not sharks...

Sorry - typing on mobile!

The point is that these are small £ awards made several years ago, for which the shares are only now being issued and sold.

No.

Share options granted (say) 3 years ago have been exercised by holder. Company issues new shares under AGM authorisation. Shares are sold. That’s what we see.

Just someone who a few years ago was given a share option award a few years ago exercising and selling.

"vile trolls".

Thanks David.

;)

I don’t see any particular reason to conclude that this was a naked short. LO will have borrowed the shares and sold them. Remember that the buyer(s) of those shares will have insisted on good title. LO will now return their newly minted shares to their counterparty in the stock lending agreement. Counterparty has their shares back, LO are square, all good...

I don’t think this article contains any new information. There is clearly a continuing campaign against LFT’s for reasons that have not yet become apparent. Jon Deeks is being used (knowingly or unknowingly) to front this from a “science” perspective. He’s obviously quite thick-skinned and good at hammering a simple recurring message, attributes typically unusual in scientists. Holders should continue to disregard the noise.

To some extent the government is in a difficult position. On the one hand, the flaws of the Innova test are useful to them in positioning for a change for a home-grown “sovereign” test. On the other hand, they’ve spent a fortune on buying (and transporting!) the Innova tests and won’t want to be exposed for wasting taxpayers money by the likes of GLP. In cricket terms they are jumping and ducking at the same time. Perhaps the cognitive dissonance created by this comms conflict is the reason for the apparent delay..?

No. Plenty of black crows visible today. Possibly a murder?

Where’s JOHNRAMBO...? I miss his analysis.

Yes. It is likely that the present dispute centres around interpretation of the phrase "Comparable Customer"...

From bitter experience I know this is phrase which is subject to narrow interpretation by vendors, and broad interpretation by their customers. When the definition is disputed, the lawyers tend be the big winners..

Interim FS look fine to me on a first read through. Nothing unexpected or left-field. Cash/funding reflects what we've been told by the company. I'll take a closer look later today.

You mean that ECHO isn't about to bank £22m from the warrant exercise...!?