Member Info for The.Italian

obviously bignose i am impervious to your ironic subtleties . i will try harder next time

on a serious note i agree with matts thoughts regarding recordati wishing to continue hopefully full steam ahead as this really is crucial to success.

i suspect bignose you were joking about your post being removed but it has been as has my brief comment on it!

i will refrain from making the obvious connection between the claimed benefits of fortacin and 20 second holding periods as i am preoccupied with postulating further theories regarding future sp etc which will be shared with you all when fully formulated . seriously though i am encouraged and i think it is important to try and maintain a positive outlook here as we are i think beginning to see the results of our perseverance over a difficult period which i expect to see reflected in a much improved sp in coming months

bignose postulatory admonition duly noted!

not me guv!

good afternoon to you bignose many thanks for your detailed response much appreciated.

apologies that my figures were not clear.i was taking a very round figure broad brush approach as follows:-
assuming ordinary expenses of say 4m euros (i rounded the figure up from the current 3.5m on the basis that things tend to increase and to allow for some margin) I then assumed FDA application expenses of say 4m initially to arrive at annual expense os say 8m.i have no idea what expenses will actually be involved in the FDA app but they will be considerable i imagine hence the fund raise spectre but of course they will be of time limited in duration over the application period of apparently a few years
given annual expenditure off say 8m I postulated how much more income we would need to give a profit figure roughly equating to a modest p/e ratio of 10 which based on current m/c would require another 6m euros. this gave me a total of 14m euros. Assuming a profit per can of 3.53 euros (which is the figure arrived at from the interims and which you kindly used in your post on interim day) regent would need to sell something in the region of 4million cans

this is all just playing with figures on my part and probably complete rubbish but we actually broadly agree as your latest figures today suggest sales required to break even on current expenses of 3.5m euros of 991,000 cans which if pro ratad up to my figures for expenses and profit produces about 4m cans required

sorry if I've gone on a bit i found you analysis of market penetration very revealing particularly when viewed as you say from the perspective that its early days /limited territories etc Feeling more optimistic now

interesting take curious.you may well be right.i am also now considering bying more for the first time in several years.

good to see a slightly more positive tone to the board this morning albeit understandably tinged with the justified hue of scepticism based on the frustrations and disappointments of the last few years.i also spotted the reference to "a" commercial partner re PRC but i didn't mention it in earlier posts as i wasn't sure whether to attach any great significance to it in view of what might be perceived as a certain imprecision of language in previous announcements.it is good to see that others do feel it may indicate something of substance

sorry that was in response to bignose

just seen your latest post.if we assume net revenue of 3.53 euros per can sales of 4million cans would produce approximately 14m euros.if annual expenses doubled due to FDA costs (and we may of course have a fund raising to cover this in any event) we would still be in profit to the tune of some 6m euros per annum would this support the current m/c? i appreciate i am using simplistic figures but I'm trying to get some general perspective in relation to your previous helpful analysis of population figures etc.the big question is how long could it take to get to 4m sales

matt and bunion i agree entirely with what you say regarding the need to allow time for sales traction to develop and this is why i personally do not think recordati will wish to hold back on progressing their area of involvement.i do think that potential licenses for other areas will wish to see how sales develop before committing to any agreement but this has probably always been the case and we really have only had a very short period and limited territories for the production of the initial figures let us hope that jamie provides some substantive response to bignose's query regarding this

as to the limiting factor being patient reluctance to seek treatment rather than prescriber enthusiasm i am sure this is correct but surely this is the whole point of a marketing campaign.by making the potential treatment seekers aware of the benefits of fortacin and its availability we would hope and perhaps reasonably expect the numbers of men actually seeking treatment to increase over what they would otherwise be without promotion/advertising etc.i appreciate there are restrictions on advertising etc which apertain in certain territories but we all saw the press publicity surrounding the uk launch and then europe and provided we are able to build on this albeit only in small incremental stages it should surely end up producing the relatively small number of actual sales required when viewed in a global context to justify a significant increase in the current market cap.remember regent has a m/c of only £63mi would be interested to see others thought on how many units would need to be sold to justify a m/c of say £100m

Many thanks Bignose for your detailed replies much appreciated.Obviously i was hoping "advanced" might have indicated some more significant progress but clearly this is not the case

Good of you to e mail Jamie.i am sure we will all be very interested to see what he says

i see that i have omitted to address a fourth concern raised by bignose that recordati may now seek to delay the launches for which they have responsibility.he acknowledges that this is just a worry and he is not suggesting that they necessarily will seek to delay and it will be very interesting to see if he gets any response from jamie to his proposed query about this.personally I'm not sure it would be in their interests to delay launches as this would impede the momentum which i think we all agree is necessary to maintain and hopefully increase in the roll out program.im not holding my breath for a reply from jamie but thanks to you bignose for proposing to ask the question

quite a lot to take in from the interims and posts over the last couple of day.i hope bignose will not object if i suggest that he has voiced 3 main areas of concern namely that the perceived poor sale figures will delay any new licensing agreements being concluded for the time being ,that hong kong and Macau launches will be synchronised so that one cannot take place without the other and that revenue is now expected to be insufficient to cover potential FDA application costs so that further fund raising is likely.apologies if i have simplified the arguments a little or misrepresented them in any way.on the first i fear you are likely to be right.hard to see potential licensees fighting over the rights without some indication that there is at least reasonable prospect of significant sales.however i hope that this may prove to be no more than yet another delay on our long journey as even alquemie acknowledges that it is early days and that not too much should be read into the first figures.i do note that in relation to PRC regent state that they are in active advanced discussions with a possible commercial partner.can anyone say whether "advanced" has been used before to describe the state of play
as to the second in response to bignoses question i cannot personally see anything in the express wording of the interims which indicates that synchronicity is necessary or intended.there may perhaps be a hint of an implication to that effect but certainly nothing explicit.bignose if i have overlooked some specific wording which you have in mind please feel free to correct me as we are all seekers after the truth
as to the possibility of a fund raising i think this is very likely.it would i think be very much the norm for a small pharma in these circumstances we can only hope that if one is required the sp will have risen somewhat by then so that dilution will be less negative than at present
having spent a lot of time re reading the interims etc i am now inclined to the view expressed succinctly by bunion in his post at 21.47 on friday.no money fountain but hopefully a solid investment 3.or 4 years down the line.only wish i was a bit younger as after almost 8 years of waiting another 3/4 or more is beginning to feel like an eternity

whilst not part of the mainstream discussions i would be interested to hear any comments on the australian tax dispute.the revenue is claiming 11.85m A$ which is £6. 76m or something like 11%of the current market cap of regent.regent state quite openly that based on counsels opinion no impairment has been made for this potential liability.now i am sure that in strict accounting terms it must be permissible for them to make no impairment if they have an opinion that they are not liable but i also assume that there must be an element of discretion to be exercised by the bod/ceo in arriving at this treatment.Bearing in mind that in all litigation there is an element of risk is anyone else concerned by the absence of impairment bearing in mind that if they lose there would also be costs and interest to be paid.any accountants out there (banned or otherwise) who can comment on my thinking would be welcome.in a spirit of balance i should say i was pleased to see a date set for the appeal hearing.also can anyone say whether the full value
\of the securities over which the charge has been created(principally ventures) are shown as assets in the accounts as i have not been able to work this out.i assume they are as otherwise it would seem to be a form of impairment charge by the back door.i realise that if we were looking at immediate sales which would propel regent to a significantly higher market cap than at present this issue could be regarded as of little importance in the overall scheme of things but i suspect that we are still some way away from that happy circumstance.

yes just idle speculation but would make a lot of sense and generate interest in viewing devices as well1 aimo

involvement of dr mike? very very strange.i do not normally subscribe to conspiracy theories but am very puzzled by all these deletions

bignose id be quite happy with just the last one! .but seriously they are all legitimate areas where it would be entirely reasonable to expect some news /updates .we shall see

the main topic of discussion over the last few days has centred around the absence of a profit warning which according to some analyses (now removed)would seems to indicate some fairly positive income receipts to offset the negative effects of the ongoing amortisation requirements.i have little or no expertise in the accounting area so have no idea if this is a cogent argument or not but its source and similar comments from others here would suggest it is.i am hoping it is the case but with investing things rarely turn out as one expects so its fingers crossed for me until we have actual figures

nice to see flat finish at end of day after modest intra-day decline