The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
If you could go back to the Directors Talk interview and find exact timing and quote please.
It will help me when I try to compile some information to formulate questions.
(Any other pertinent stuff along these lines too, cheers)
Thanks
All posters on here have equal weight and an equal voice in my mind. I like everyone having a say. The more the better.
Widglide..
As I mentioned in my early posts I relied too much on other posters, which was entirely my problem.
Now I've got to know the company a little bit more - a bit late! - I'm slightly more circumspect.
To be honest and to be fair though, I don't think it's down too much to overt optimism by other posters , it seems more that the company has been giving misleading updates.
What do you do with that?
Unfortunately for me it's a little bit after-the-facrbto realize the company is full of BS, but I have taken quite a few of the table.
Our endeavors should be towards the company and knowing what's going on from now on, and not personality driven.
All posters from Telegram group have equally valid views, but I'd rather they were shared publicly on here than in a group.
Ps Widdy... What makes you think the next RNS will be a stinker?
PPS my Santa apology (I think Neil got it! - I was apologising that Neil was the one to confirm that Santa doesn't exist! not for offence of first post đ
Anyway , all for one and one for all.
Brond said:" dont want messages between the company and individuals and shareholder reps and secret Telegram groups. I want RNSs that are clear and explantitiv and follow up interviews that are more than just a replay of the RNS."
Couldn't agree more Brond, but without more pressure we aren't going to get that. And from a personal basis I'm going to apply more pressure from various means.
Telegram groups et al:
My view on these type of groups is that I can't stand cliques, secrecy, self-imposed hierarchy and group think.
I hate these little secret subsets of 'power'. Information should be shared.
Thomson Reuters Practical Law.
Updating the market: Disclosure obligations:
Listing Rules: Isuers must notify without delay major new developments that may affect their business if the development may lead to a substantial share price movement.
Misleading statements and creation of false or misleading impressions. Section 397(1) and (2) of the FSMA (relating to investments) provide that, in certain circumstances, it is a criminal offence for a person to make a statement, promise or forecast which he knows to be misleading, false or deceptive or is reckless in making it, or dishonestly conceals material facts. In certain circumstances a person who does any act or engages in a course of conduct which creates a false or misleading impression as to the market in or the price or value of certain investments commits a criminal offence (section 397(3), FSMA).
There is no suggestion anything like this has happened with Ciz.
On Tuesday or Wednesday I will send an open question on here to Tim Metcalfe and Allan Syms, regarding information in previous interviews and RNS'.
I will also call/text and/or e-mail TM directly and report any answers back verbatim and fully on here.
If the answers confirm previous RNS and interview data, no-one needs worry. To contradict any of that should have been RNS'd.
A lot of supposition there Green, but that's all we are left with.
"I think the science works", you say. Maybe.."A 10B business isn't going to risk reputational damage by RNSing something they can't stand behind"..you added
Again, maybe.
Maybe that was true at that point within limits but it didn't go far enough. Maybe Ciz version doesn't tally with Biotechne, maybe something has subsequently changed.
We don't know..
And again.
We SHOULD be informed. Since we had no idea of Biotechne (in the positive), Ciz is setting an unsettling precedent of only releasing news that suits them.
Unfortunately this works to the negative too.
Openness and accurate updates are the key to trust, else we are just flailing in the dark.
Ps what makes you think it's just one private investor in the fundraise?
If so, it's a sign of confidence, but I doubt it's just one person. I concur that future funding will almost definitely be needed, but I think these shares will be flipped - and if so, another black mark against Ciz.
We'll see on that one.
Papertub, I basically agree with what you're saying. I also think timescales are going to be drawn out. They may never achieve what they're hoping to commercially.
The problem is that they stated that assays had basically been optimized, and it was time for clinical trials and then commercialization.
Now they're saying something totally different.
Labouring a point here, but I think we're at a stage where we all need to know what's going on.
Well , absolutely no offence intended Brond. Good-humoured banter.
Again. ..
Your post gets to the crux of things without actually stating the subject.
Whatever is going on, whichever path they are taking, progress.
WE NEED TO KNOW. As shareholders we have a RIGHT to know
(Not every little scientific step or daily increments in the lab, but an overall picture ..why details on reagents etc have fundamentally changed)
Thanks v much for that Neil and I think it reinforces, supports my/our concerns here. Again, I really do appreciate your views, and it's a flaw of my character that I sometimes shoot from the hip. Big heart, open mind and reason lies within though.
I think we can all agree on this now - that we don't know fully what is going on, and we NEED better communication with specifics to make a judgment on our own investments.
It's just not good enough and the company, as you say , have been sending out mixed messages (at the very least). Speaking with forked -tongue.
My unease comes from not even knowing what they're saying! Allan uses "done, partly done, being done and to be done" in highly unspecific vague waffly lingo. It's so loose, it's unprofessional. I've certainly lost trust in what he says.
We don't know what we have achieved , we don't know what the problems have been (some for sure, I'm guessing) and we don't know what is to be done - and we don't know the timescales.
Neil, I wouldn't read too much into the ÂŁ620k specifics. And also more vague semantics from Alan " to go towards the completion of commercialization"..
"Towards" in Ciz language could mean anything.
The trading patterns in the 3 weeks prior to RNS were irregular. I've been mentioning block sells for ages. It wasn't normal PI stuff. That's all that I can say with surety.
Neil, I would be grateful if you could keep us posted if you hear any more.
All very reasonable points, Brond, and maybe it is negative confirmation bias on my part.
Just specifically in response to your ÂŁ600K funding raise, YES , they would do it for a random punt, because I know that select shareholders are courted and given first dibs on these - because, as OAPk alluded to, they know there'll be a (false ) rise to let them out with a profit - if they haven't already forward sold.
I'll be surprised if there's any sticky hands in this raise, although, if so, that would add a lot of weight to it... Maybe they have done it for that maybe they have done it for their benefit..and if it was Biotechne, this would rocket.
Hi again Green..I've had a re-read and think.
Imo, with voluntarily or involuntarily confirmation bias, youâre giving Ciz lots of leg room, maybe shifting your own views a tad to fit the prevailing info (ala shifting sands I mentioned - you may not realise youâre doing it)
We were all extremely happy with âin the market in the near futureâ and gave it weight; now youâre retrospectively putting âcontextâ on it and giving AS lots of leeway ( although bio-tech timelines are different to real world). However, you canât have it both ways to fit shifting disclosures by Ciz.
Reagents - your take on it is ârefinementsâ, but that is not evidentiary based, just giving them the benefit. Refinements to me means - in context of âclinical trials being doneâ, it DIDNâT work. Iâm surmising here, but I think the sensitivity data on scale-up was poor. You canât assume by changing the source that this will improve. It could be an intrinsic problem. (It may not be - but youâre assuming to the positive - of it purely being âCommsâ. âReading too much into itâ is a subjective feeling.
China - something that was once pivotal, almost a Raison Dâetre for some , is now âcouldnât care about Chinaâ.
Now, I completely understand that you donât care about China, but a cohort on here (Jace et al) used this to prove-up their ÂŁÂŁÂŁs valuation with ÂŁ100Millions/ year.
The (possible) loss of China reveals something not simply of monetary value itself but the institutional naivety of Ciz. They spent so much time developing that ârelationshipâ, flawed from the start IMO (got to understand Chinese mentality). Now itâ not a deal, but thatâ ok??
This, in itself reveals the weakness and possible gullible nature of the BOD.
All these things cannot and shouldnât be taken in isolation; they build a picture.
Itâs the investor who has to try to see that picture clearly, without bias. Hard when money is invested in something you want to succeed.
But ,again, the most important element is that if you cannot trust what they're saying, how do you ever trust what they're saying??
Neil, I sincerely enjoy your excellent intelligent posts and admire the time dedicated, but I wonder if youâve lost objectivity?
Cognitive dissonance is a powerful force.. leads to self-justification in the best of us. That shifting sand analogy I used can carry investors to a place they donât recognise without awareness of change.
So, serious questions, if I may:
Could you please explain your thinking behind âbelievingâ in the final outcome when:
1) Allan Syms with âmarket in near futureâ quote was either naive, optimistic or willingly deceptive. (Any one of those is bad trait for a leader of empirical science).
2) Last year he said we were about to start clinical trials, but this was patently false. (Again, deceptive, naive or optimistic)
3) The Portugese reagent company - supposedly the best - is out of the picture (with no RNS) and a French company âsuddenlyâ involved. (With no RNS).
The obvious conclusion is thereâs probably been problems (of nature unknown). Thatâs a fair assumption, no? (Again, no communication from CEO, so assume negatives)
4) With Reagents not even verified at scale-up - and clinical trials posing another unknown, the permutations are unknown. Where is the foundation for staunchly standing by your âbeliefâ?
5) Is Biotechne still involved..to what degree? Ciz is so shoddy with communication, anything could be going on.
Most people - me included - wanted a bigger tie-in with Biotechne. It hasnât happened.
6) China no longer in the picture it seems. I think my first post I warned of this to much derision. Why? - again NO update from BOD. Nada! Investors seem happy to go along like itâs all fine!
Blinkers off, people !! Itâs huge and, indeed, the main Market reason some people invested! The Avuncular cuddly AS probably eaten alive over there.
7) Not using drawdown. Not selling CDT shares. Probably mates rates for a raise. Awful - again. Trust?
8) Donât you agree that the direction has appeared to have changed? The tone? Material things? Timescales?
Without knowing the full context / picture, how can you remain confident with duff data and disingenuous company statements. I donât understand the basis of your belief, apart from âIt will all be ok in the endââŚwhich isnât an argument based on the facts.
One of the main rules of investing - divesting - to me is simple:
When companies start lying/ being liberal with truth on promises/ timescales and progress, it's usually time to , at the very least, question your investment, or get out.
The awfully nice Allan Syms does not impress me, and after that shocking RNS plus the antecedence regarding communication with Ciz, I no longer understand my investment.
Do you? Really?
Ps Brondby/ Green especially. Also love your thoughtful posts.
For transparency, I sold 2/3 of my holdings after that diabolical RNS at 10% loss yesterday. That RNS was the pits. Very disappointed.
Iâll keep 1/3 and assess
Sick of my own voice, a sentiment I'm sure is widely acknowledged, Amen. So will give you all a few days off from my blather after this.
Hogbog - I think it's what Allan Syms didn't say that's alarming...and some fundamental changes.
Ie "On 10 August 2023 the Group announced an expansion of its research programme...this followed significant further progress in isolating additional new and specific monoclonal antibodies to the CIZ1B biomarker and incorporating these into a new high-throughput clinical diagnostic immunoassay platform. The recent developments meet key milestones to begin commercial clinical trials."
This was said in August. Imminent.
Today we are maybe weeks or months away from this.
There has definitely been a significant change in tone and content in yesterday 's RNS.
Clarity needed.
And for me, the pub needed.
Hope everyone stays safe and well and will keep looking in until my next random rant.
Good luck all.
But