Member Info for stt1

Maxi,

"I don't accept the attempts to claim the company had somehow guided it could be that low."

You miss the point.

It was an out of court settlement and crucially, funded so the backers would have wanted their money back with least risk.

I think the BoD had to follow the backers advice, so their hands were tied.

I think if the case had gone to trial then the company would have claimed the higher figure and hoped the judgement would settle for something more in the middle. Trial costs are significant without any guarantees of winning.

That was my assertion at the time - my posts on Nano:

https://www.lse.co.uk/profiles/stt1/?page=30

Hallsworthy,

"Every sell is weak hands and every buy is with a view to make profit from the level bought"

Given your assertion, you're obviously loading up at 30p and won't be selling for 2 years then?

Why the trader talk re current sp movements if you're a long term investor unless you trying to persuade readers to buy in whilst you sell?

Why the trader talk?

You claim to be a long term investor, so why does the current movements in sp matter?

Balance

"Regarding the current assertion how about strong barriers to entry."

What are the strong barriers to entry?

The clients largely paid for the new facility, so they obviously knew what their money was being spent on, spec etc. Nothing stopping them or rivals replicating it in India/China, is there?

Who benefits more? The clients who paid for the new facility. Are you saying the clients were being charitable? Why didn't they just buy HVO when the mcap was significantly lower?

How did India/China produce covid vaccines quickly?

No one has answered about from the generic "barrier to entry"

The simple business fact is where there is demand other companies will enter the market. Look at any product or service in the world.

Covid hype:

If you look at Byot, when covid hit, readers were told by rampers, there's barriers to entry, unique IP etc. My assertion was that if there's huge demand other companies will enter the market. Despite the 'unique' IP, other companies, inc P&G, huge conglomerate, did enter the market due to the demand. The shares crashed 99.9% from peak to being delisted, reasons being the red flags I warned about.

Hallsworthy,

Please read the subject header of the thread "what's stopping pharmas setting up a rival facilities" . No mention of 3rd parties.

It's fine if you can't answer the question.

Why can't Astra Zeneca or any other pharma setup a rival facility in India, China etc?

I think if there's huge demand then pharmas would setup rival facilities. After all, if HVO were busy and had no space available, why would pharmas be prepared to wait 2-3 years??

So there's no reason why rival facilities can't be setup, if huge demand existed.

Hallsworthy

"Pharma's have no interest in working with India and China"

Have you heard of Astra Zeneca?

Their locations include India, China, plus dozens of other places, across the world.

https://careers.astrazeneca.com/locations#region

They have been in India for 45years and have 2 locations there.

https://careers.astrazeneca.com/india

Hallsworthy

"As for pharma's doing it themselves"

They not doing it for themselves at the moment. That is the point I've made. They paid largely for the new facilities.

Pharmas get the benefit by spending a few quid(peanuts compared their size) and saving millions on drug development, whereas HVO have all the problems of setting up the project, monitoring and risks for little money.

Clients, who largely paid for the new facility, didn't do so out of the goodness of their hearts.

I think it's a questionable business model.

Hallsworthy,

"they will actively avoid them for vaccine development, given their history of intellectual property theft, geopolitical tensions, regulatory differences, data privacy concerns, and public perception."

Really? That's simply not the case.

All these Indian pharmas in US.

"Indian companies are also looking to receive final approvals for the launch of abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs). The approval rate is improving in the US and a higher number of niche product launches such as injectables that face limited competition will aid the margin profile of the companies, feel industry analysts."

If there's demand for challenge trials why wouldn't pharmas setup a rival in their homeland India???

https://www.livemint.com/news/india/us-business-to-fuel-growth-for-indian-pharma-companies-11692549777411.html

Plus India has the biggest manufacturer of vaccines SII.

https://cepi.net/serum-institute-india-joins-cepi-global-network-boost-production-affordable-outbreak-vaccines

Vast quantities of covid vaccines were manufactured in India by SII to the point they had to build additional facilities to do so.

In fact your reasons are exactly why Indian pharmas would setup a rival facility in India, IF there was sufficient demand.

Makes no difference if Tenner leaves or not.

There have been questions over the company for years.

The hope is that at some point someone will inform the market of the state of the company.

If there are skeletons in the cupboard then shares will crash otherwise they'll plod along as they are until next fy results.

And if readers look at 1gw_ posting history, they'll see virtually everything he has said on Trmr/Rthm/Byot/TLY hasn't come true.

If you look at those shares 1gw_ ramped, you'll see I warned of the red flags and those have come true, resulting in the shares crashing.

1gw_ portrays himself as knowledgeable, pickout comments from accounts/TU without actually understanding the details, business etc.

Virtually every share he ramps has crashed?

Trmr:

This was a classic exchange: - the shares were around 800p, crashed soon after and the company issued a profit warning, which I said they would do.

https://www.lse.co.uk/ShareChat.html?ShareTicker=TRMR&share=TRMR.L&thread=62E10958-4ED7-4A17-8EF6-B337764905C9

1gw_

fy ended 4 months ago.

The company said last year the environment was difficult for the NHS and therefore, TLY. The company didn't hide that fact, did they? Yet the chairman, co-founder of Liberum has been buying, IIs adding. c40% owned by IIs.

The company said this week:

More than two million patients were able to access appropriate care via Totally, including the treatment of c. 175,000 patients from elective care waiting lists.

Contract with NHS England for the delivery of NHS 111 resilience services renewed for a further year.

Mobilisation of new elective care contracts in England and three new contracts for the delivery of elective care services provided to Saolta Group in Ireland.

Multiple contract renewals and extensions underpinning 2023/24 revenue.

Mobilised largest corporate fitness and wellbeing contract to date, valued at £1.0 million over five years.

https://ir.design-portfolio.co.uk/viewer/100/65456

So they have treated 175,000 patients out of >7m waiting in NHS England alone. Obviously the patients will have different clinical problems.

Why do posters from shares you are ramping turn up on here to deramp? You are the only common link. Look at HVO, which you are ramping and the posters on here deramping are from HVO thread. Coincidence?

You were deramping TLY with the same accountancy deramping 5 years ago, as evidenced by:

https://www.lse.co.uk/profiles/1gw_/?page=10

The company still continued to grow.

Now given you portray yourself as well researched, reasoned poster, why do virtually all your shares crash?. Byot down 99.9%, Trmr down 80%, rthm down 80%, Stu bust.

https://www.lse.co.uk/profiles/1gw_/

How many multiple ids do you have and why?

Ricky

"there are very little barriers for competitors to enter the market"

There's already competitors in the market. That's already known and not denied by any holders, unlike some rampers on HVO.

The Chairman here is co-founder of Liberum. He has been adding, as have IIs.

I think being co-founder of Liberum, he will have lots of contacts with IIs, which should help increase exposure and IIs.

Where there is demand companies do enter the market. Anyone or company who tells you otherwise is talking BS. Rampers on Byot frequently said similar, yet many competitors did enter the market(as I said they would). Byot delisted recently, having crashed 99.9% over the past 4 years.

The same rampers are on HVO, making similar claims.

The crucial point is Labour are determined to tackle the problems NHS has been facing, junior doctors strikes, long waiting lists and they favour using private providers.

Nobody is saying TLY is risk free.

Mcap £20m compare that to your £200m HVO with £62m revenue and where the sitting chairman dumped all his 50m shares over the past 5 months.

BBs exist to discuss facts and opinions.

Otherwise you get confirmation bias and some controlling the narrative.

As evidenced by Trmr - open each thread on pages 33 & 34 - 10-15mins of your time could save you thousands.

If you open each thread, you'll see posters trying to persuade others to filter, posters mentioning Totally (TLY), posters posting personal abuse. Sound similar?

The shares crashed from 850p to 200p due to the red flags I was warning about.

https://www.lse.co.uk/ShareChat.html?ShareTicker=TRMR&share=TRMR.L&page=34

Same happened at Byot and Nano.

I think admin should cross check posters from Trmr and those on here. Looks like some are using multiple ids, even though it's against the site's rules.

Geordie

If there was demand, I think a rival company would setup in India or China.

Both created covid vaccines very quickly and obviously have the knowledge and capability of setting up companies quickly to compete against western companies.

Nothing stopping a pharma from doing so?

I still think they have a questionable business model.

Still no sign of the chairman resigning.

Not surprising BT is leaving.

I posted my opinions based on facts and it was clear to me the legal settlement would be lower than many of the rampers have readers believe. It was.

BT oversaw the legal case, made PIs wait over a year for the 2nd tranche of the payment.

Now he's leaving.

Not surprising at all.

The red flags have been there for ages.

We'll soon find out if there are any skeletons in the cupboard.

Ledzepper

"Unless I am mistaken, CF retains nearly 26m shares - a decent amount of skin."

No, not true. Read my earlier posts, CF, the chairman, initially sold nearly 26m shares in a discounted secondary placing in Feb. That represented vast majority of his holding at that time. His recent sale was for his remaining holding.

Initial secondary placing

https://polaris.brighterir.com/public/hvivo/news/rns/story/xlj8m3r/export

Result of secondary placing:

https://polaris.brighterir.com/public/hvivo/news/rns/story/xe1g9jw/export

I'm not surprised none of the regular rampers didn't want to say anything.

Dustofnations

"There is no requirement for a chairman to hold stock in order to execute their function."

No requirement to hold but it's red flags because firstly, CF is the sitting chairman and secondly, crucially, co-founder of Orph (now HVO).

First he dumped majority of his holding in Feb soon after the company was talked up for weeks before.

He then dumps his entire remaining 22m holding just 4 working days after a TU/investor presentation, again so soon after the company was talked up.

Chairman, co-founder, having to hold and dumping the entire holding are completely different scenarios. The latter is a red flag.

"Plus, the executive team is way more important than the non-exec chairman. given how fantastically well the company is executing, I'd rather there were no leadership changes in the short term."

Agree, the execs are more important but the fact the CEO has > 7m options incentivises him, as it was stated in the rns. He would then talk up the company.

https://polaris.brighterir.com/public/hvivo/news/rns/story/x21q5mw/export

Oilbaggar/Burtond,

"All very positive and it just highlights all the good things "

The article is over a week ago and it was so positive that the sitting chairman dumped all his remaining 22m holding, 4 working days of it being published.

That tells you how positive it really is.

I'm not surprised the usual rampers haven't mentioned the article being old.

17th July - article

23rd July - just 4 working days after TU, Chairman dumps his remaining holding at 29p.

Obviously he need permission from Cavendish and Peel Hunt, which in itself would have taken time.

FOUR working days after the TU. I think it would have taken longer to organise a secondary placing.

https://polaris.brighterir.com/public/hvivo/news/rns/story/xpdodqx/export

Look at the timescale.

14th Feb : Chairman dumps majority of his holding in a secondary discounted placing 28p

https://polaris.brighterir.com/public/hvivo/news/rns/story/xe1g9jw/export

9th April fy results

Obviously there was limited window for him to dump the remaining holding due to closed period.

17th July TU

23rd July - just 4 working days after TU, Chairman dumps his remaining holding at 29p.

Obviously he need permission from Cavendish and Peel Hunt, which in itself would have taken time.

FOUR working days after the TU. I think it would have taken longer to organise a secondary placing.

https://polaris.brighterir.com/public/hvivo/news/rns/story/xpdodqx/export

Sounds like the Chairman wanted out asap after TU.

I believe the sitting Chairman knows more about company prospects than any II or PI.

ViciousHippo,

Exactly. TLY is illiquid and so sp can move significantly.

The interesting point is there were hundreds of small trades. Yet only a handful of PIs.

Labour will be announcing their plans. I expect more contracts from ICB and National NHS to follow.