Member Info for The_Paladin

"Check previous Board Changes RNSs.

Simon Shaw only. It appears to be procedure."

You are incorrect. I suggest that you read the RNS, dated 11 Oct, 2023, announcing the departure of John Ward - the company's previous CFO and Board member. The following comment was included:

"Richard Marsden, CEO of Synairgen, said: . . . . . . I'd like to thank John for his steadfast commitment, loyalty and support to both me and the Board over many years. We wish him the very best for the future."

I never thought that I would recommend one of TD's posts. His thoughts just might be close to the truth, given the tone of Simon Shaw's statement, and the absence of a comment from Richard Marsden? The AGM might prove to be more interesting than I had previously anticipated?

Richard Marsden has commented directly in the RNS statements concerning the previous executive staff/board changes. The fact that he has not added his comment on the departure of a longstanding colleague implies that something different is happening this time? Unfortunately, with Synairgen's continued failure to achieve anything of value since the P3 announcement, I doubt that there is any positive news due at the AGM?

There is certainly nothing to get "excited" about here. Unfortunately, this hugely underwhelming update is indicative perhaps of the company heading towards a state of hibernation, or even delisting?

We were all anticipating the announcement of a funded P2 trial.

Dr Monk's departure is an irrelevance to the company. He should have fallen on his sword following the P3 outcome. Together with other executives, he has apparently contributed little of value since then. This is implied in Simon Shaw's statement.

It seems that we are expecting several pieces of information from the company, some of which haven't been announced according to the usual annual sequence:

* Notification of the AGM date. (RNSd on 23 May for 2023)

* Grant of Options. (RNSd on 22 June for 2023)

* Interim statement. (due around 21 Sept to comply with 2023 schedule)

* The announcement of a P2 trial for MV patients. Financial arrangements, and regulatory approval currently being negotiated? Scheduled to commence Winter 2024 -2025.

These necessary procedures seem to be in something of a logjam at present? Could there be a viable reason for this? Could TFG be involved in some way? I have read Spacman's comments regarding an IP auction with interest, as I have entertained similar thoughts in the abstract. In my case, it is more wishful thinking than anything else.

I appreciate that we have been led to believe that there will be an imminent announcement concerning a forthcoming trial. There have been similar statements in the past from which nothing has materialised. I am only too aware that our situation is more precipitous each successive year. The company has estimated a cash runway to January 2026. When staff salaries and the usual expenses are taken into account, the surplus does not allow much to be achieved. In this I am reflecting on what has been achieved during the last 30 months, when the company had a substantially greater budget at its disposal.

This is why an imminent trial announcement is necessary to ensure that the company's journey to bring its product to market continues. Not only that but to bring much needed reassurance and peace of mind to Synairgen's long term investors.

That makes good sense bobfraeberks.

Although, the point has been reached where investors are in need of more than a moderately comforting update from Simon Shaw.

They tried that with the oft quoted (on this forum) recent statement which used corporate speak frequently used by Apple and other major entities.

In a recent statement about Apple Intelligence, Tim Cook said: he is "very excited" about Apple Intelligence, which is the company's soon-to-launch AI platform that offer text summarization, image generation, and other features for iPhone users.

In Apple’s case, there is plenty to be “excited” about and we know that they will deliver a first rate product, as specified.

Phrases borrowed from other companies to try and embellish our situation will no longer suffice. Synairgen needs to deliver a thoroughly planned and fully funded P2 MV trial as specified last June. At this late stage nothing less will satisfy investors.

Semantic

Fair point, although the reinstatement of that shareholding was ultimately to their pecuniary advantage, and to the detriment of other shareholders.

They utilised their position to achieve relatively small gains, without any apparent care in the world that their action would have a severe impact on their long term investors’ shareholdings?

Pure selfishness and greed on their part, in my opinion!

How might potential shareholders feel about being played in this way in the future while waiting for their investment to gain significant traction?

Maximillian69.

That sounds feasible, although it would be selfish of them to destroy market confidence in the company purely for further gain. Additionally, knowing that their shareholders would suffer a considerable decline in their investment as a result of their actions.

This remains a long term hold for me, although my investment here has proven to be far more complex than I had originally anticipated.

Semantic

“how would new buyers have any reason to be put off by sales at say 3p, 4p, months ago when the share price is now 1.3p. It makes no sense”

You have missed the point here. Potential investors at the start of the year would be put off.

Why would the company’s pre-eminent investors choose to sell significant chunks of their shareholding, when, seemingly, the company was making good progress on all fronts?

One of the trends that potential shareholders examine carefully is the buying and selling of shares by significant company stakeholders. TB’s actions at the turn of the year are difficult to reconcile with the consistent progress that has been made by IB in recent years?

It is still puzzling why the share price is at the current level when one considers the positive news that IB regularly releases?

It is equally puzzling why TB, and his family’s company, chose to initiate and sustain a significant share sell off at the start of the year. Prior to that, most investors were anticipating a significant share price rise over the course of the year with IB’s progress on all fronts.

I wonder if TB realises that his selfish actions have destroyed market confidence in his company? The current share price has remained in situ for some time. It will take something extraordinary to initiate a recovery from here!

Ours has been a 30 month period of activity, which has severely depleted the company's capital, without any resulting progress. Our only measure of progress is the company's share price, and this has continued to decline since the P3 outcome.

The company blinded investors with a presentation suggesting that state of the art techniques were being used to plan two funded P2 trials in H1 2024. This proved to be as groundless as each of the previous statements made by Synairgen.

Why is it that they take each successive statement to the wire before changing "strategy"? They don't even state the reasons why their previous "strategy" wasn't possible?

They have bluffed investors with unrealisable plans for 30 months. I fear that unless they deliver something that is actually going to happen, with trial plans, financing, and target dates within the next few months then it will be a case of game over. My aspiration is now for TFG to call time on all the faking and bluffing, and perhaps salvage something from this ongoing fiasco of a company?

“I’ve been occasionally notified about proposed clinical trials in the last two and half years, none of which ever happened.” — Hacked off Synairgen investor.

Your trust is based on statements from the company pmjh.

They have failed to deliver on their last two actual trials, and the subsequent two were “virtual” trials, which were written about but never materialised.

Richard Marsden and his acolytes have played a game of Cry Wolf with investors for far too long. They may have meant well, but have failed their investors on too many occasions. Why should this time be any different?

My aspiration rests purely on an initiative from TFG to rescue something from this horrendous failure of an investment.

This is the same word for word message that we have all received. I sent a repeated request four times, on successive days, before receiving the same response.

It would appear that little has been achieved over two and half years, no partnerships, no planned trials, nothing?

A committed company does not embark on a promising project, and without any further comment, inform its investors over 9 months later that it has decided on something far simpler and that it has no funds available to trial it.

More than this, they will probably need yet another 9 months with full exorbitant remuneration to the leadership group and directors, to get to grips with the abrupt change in direction? Subsequently, they might well inform us that they couldn’t achieve that either, and by the way they have meanwhile used up the company’s capital reserve?

Another question. Why did they employ a CFO and a Financial Controller merely to keep track of their disposal of the residue of the Sprinter capital - mostly on their inflated salaries and other remuneration?

I recall two years ago that the executive member, who was responsible for the Sprinter trial, said on social media that she would be returning to work in August (2022) and would not be responding to any e-mails that were sent to her when she was away. If this doesn’t exemplify the commitment, and attitude towards investors that we have seen from this company over two and half years, I don’t know what does?

As previously stated, why are TFG Holdings allowing these apparently inactive ( or unsuccessful? ) individuals to draw their huge remuneration packages while apparently achieving nothing?

Less than 0.1% of the company’s shares were traded today. There were considerably more shares bought than sold. By far the largest trade was a buy - 95,000 shares @ 4p. Yet the day ends with the share price down by 10.5%.

Sadly, this is where Richard Marsden’s “leadership” over the last two and half years has taken the company. We have reached the point that on a day of very low net trading, the share price is lowered by more than 10% .

This is very discouraging for investors. The company is led by a team who command disproportionately high salaries, and deliver nothing in return. There has been talk about “discussions with partners”, and three trials have been spoken about without specific timelines in recent years. Thus far, nothing whatsoever has happened, with the result that there is zero confidence in those that purportedly “lead”the company.

They do not communicate with investors; this year’s AGM has been indefinitely postponed.

In one year we went from two sophisticated fully funded trials to be conducted within a nine month time span from when they were announced, to a simpler single trial sometime next Winter if the company can arrange the necessary finance?

What is going on here? From the evidence at our disposal, it would appear that the remaining funds from the failed P3 trial, 30 months ago, are being used to pay those disproportionately high wages? There is no evidence of anything else happening? Why aren’t TFG asking these underperforming executives some difficult questions? At least they are in a position to do so, which is more that can be said for retail investors.

Manifesto.

Agreed that the real life scenario you described was indeed a tragedy.

However, although the context of the post that you referenced might be linked to that tragedy, it can only be perceived as poor taste if the aforementioned link was intended? I doubt whether any contributor to an investment forum would have made that link intentionally?

I read it as pertaining to the company’s CEO, who owns and sails a yacht. The link in my view is related to his inadequate leadership and abysmally poor communication over 30 months, which has taken Synairgen to its current position?

All will be forgiven should he oversee an imminent turnaround to our fortunes as a result of a funded P2 trial.

How he and other time serving underperformers in the leadership team have remained in their positions over the last few years remains a bit of a mystery?

“Doc83 is the greatest pumper this month with a whopping > 260 posts, versus my meagre 69.”

Check again! Doc83 has a scarcer contribution of 33 posts on this forum over the same time scale

Thank you jonnyboy33. Your effort with this, and for sharing with fellow investors is much appreciated.

“Talk about what?”

The fact that they had changed their strategy from two fully-funded state of the art trials to a single unfunded simpler trial might have been worth mentioning to investors?

Like others, I cannot believe that they have been working “at pace” for 30 months, and thus far have nothing “concrete” to show for it?

The fact that they promoted their acting CMO to a permanent position with a seat on the Board does not add to their credibility, although some may beg to differ?

It is high time for Synairgen to announce something that is actually taking place! They have dangled various narratives and vague deadlines in front of investors for far too long. On top of that the AGM seems to have been indefinitely postponed this year?

There cannot be too many investors remaining, who believe that Synairgen is a well-led company? The next month or so should inform us as to what happens next ? Given their track record I’m not even sure about that?

To say that Synairgen have kept investors updated is nonsense!

When did they decide to switch their strategy? At the time of the last AGM the company was embarking on two sophisticated fully funded P2 trials using stratification techniques for patient identification. Investors at the last AGM were given a detailed presentation about it.

When we were finally “updated”, the two trials had been replaced by an unfunded simpler trial. Surely this trial could have gone ahead during 2022-2023 when we had more funds at our disposal?

At which point did they change strategy? Surely not nine months later when we were finally informed about the change? Why didn’t they inform us at the time they decided to change? It shows us that keeping investors informed is not one of their priorities.