Member Info for TheTrotsky

snige, The money supply has undoubtedly increased but it's questionable whether most of that money has actually made its way out into the "real economy". Some money obviously has but a lot of the initial cash injection was used by financial institutions to bolster their weakened balance sheets after the 2008 crash and a lot of the liquidity is still tied up in financial institutions due to their increased solvency requirements. You might argue that furlough payments and bounce back loans have increased money supply but an argument could be made that these payments, for the most part. replaced money that was withdrawn from the market by other means.

I think it's highly debtable how much of the recent inflationary rise is due to the increase in money supply. It's quite clear that markets still continue to be disrupted by Covid (the recent lockdown in China and its impact on the supply chain being a case in point) and are now clearly being affected by Russian sanctions. There were inflationary wage pressures building before the Russian invasion but these appeared to be primarily supply-side related, e.g. a lack of truck drivers, which are being further exasperated here in the UK by Brexit (Brexit may not be the primary cause but only a person who has their head firmly stuck in the sand can fail to realise that a reduction in the available UK worker pool, at a time when there are general worldwide shortages, will only serve to exasperate the problem).

Machismo, If you stopped calling people fascists etc. if they don't agree with you then people might stop telling you what you can do with yourself ;-)

LTI, Anyone who suggests that goods moving between NI and the rest of the UK shouldn't now have any EU custom checks clearly doesn't understand the Good Friday agreement or the NI protocol. Even trusted trader status is not an absolute guarantee that some criminals will not try to ship goods into the EU via NI or vice versa and there is a requirement under WTO regulations for customs checks to be undertaken when goods move from one jurisdiction to the next (there are no exceptions unless they are approved by all members of the WTO). The WTO regulations are deliberately onerous to avoid countries unilaterally weaseling out of their WTO obligations. There is a possibility that the UK could apply to the WTO for NI to be granted special status but the expert opinion before Brexit was that NI would not qualify for special status. The EU is offering to reduce some of the cutoms paperwork (particularly for food retailers) and to reduce the number of checks but it's a Brexiter pipedream that all checks can be avoided.

Sorry Machismo but your position is not actually clear. Stating that you blame the Tories for how the country has been run for the last 10 years because they've been in power for the last 10 years is not a statement of your political beliefs; it's a just statement of the bleeding obvious! Try again.

PS. I'm not a fan of this Tory government and I'm definitely not a fan of Boris but more often than not my disagreement with them is a question of degree. For example, I thought the government was right to introduce furlough payments but I'm sure that was anathema to some Tory voters. Likewise, although I'd accept in principle that immigration needs to be monitored and controlled, I think the government's current policies are poorly conceived at best and bigoted at worst. As for Brexit, I'm not a fan but accept that we have to move on and make the best of it. To that end, I understand why the government wants to amend the NI protocol but again disagree with their confrontational attitude to the EU (the government still seems to be operating under the illusion that if they shout long enough the EU will capitulate and allow total freedom of movement of all goods with minimal, if any, Customs checks - not going to happen because it would completely undermine one of the main raison d'etre's for the existence of the EU and it's not for this or any other UK government to try and bring about the demise of the EU from without).

A bit odd indeed. One would have thought the share price was fairly immune to movements in the US spot price because of hedging. Likewise, if the share price was fairly immune to the prospect of rising volumes, one would have thought it might have been equally immune to the prospect of falling volumes in the event that the delayed reopening of Freeport's Texas LNG plant reduces US demand in the short term. Looking over on ADVFN somebody mentioned that a windfall tax has been mooted in the US previously. Don't know whether there has been any further movement on this subject in the US and, if so, how it might affect DEC because most, if not all, of the additional profits have gone to DEC's hedge counterparties.

Trillsg, Go to the DVRG website and look at "About". It lists Innovenn Life Science, under skin Biome, as providing Labskin certifcation of products. So, it may have been acquired from Venn 6 years ago but the DIVISION is still very much alive and does not (according to the website) trade as Deepverge as you seem to suggest in your post. Innoven UK Limited is a wholly owned, trading subsidiary of Deepverge plc. It's accounts can be found on the Companies House website if you care to look.

Smeeno/Simongatte, sorry to rain on your parade but I think you've mixed apples and oranges and your CY revenue expectations for Innovenn, the division that undertakes the certification testing, are probably significantly overstated (unfortunately).

Firstly, Innovenn does not get paid between £25k and £150k by cosmetic clients to tell them what skin type their new products might suit. Innovenn gets paid to test and certify that their new products won't cause an allergic reaction or such like. The price they pay reflects the commercial risk to DVRG should Innovenn mis-certify their new product. I'm sure that cosmetic clients are also interested to know what skin types their new products might suit but that's a by-product and not the primary purpose. The advantage of the Innovenn's testing and certification process is that it avoids animal/human testing, is cheaper than the aforesaid alternatives and probably offers their cosmetic clients a faster route to market for their new products. As a consequence, Innovenn is therefore probably seeing rising demand from both existing and new cosmetic clients because it allows them to test more new products, or variations thereof, for the same budget spend and also allows them to bring their new products to market sooner but it seems unlikely that Innovenn's new product testing revenues have seen the exponential growth you are assuming.

Secondly, Labskin does not normally need to test a cosmetic to determine what skin type it would suit. If your recollect, in GB's presentations he cites the example of an STC member going into a shop and using the STC app to check whether a cosmetic's ingredients are suitable for their skin type. Labskin, over the years, has built up a detailed knowledgebase that enables the app to tell the member whether a certain combination of ingredients are suitable for their skin type; Labskin does not need to actually test the cosmetic. It therefore seems unlikely that DVRG is generating any significant, recurring revenues from testing cosmetics for this purpose. Indeed, given STC's target audience, it's quite possible that DVRG might offer a product's skin type information to their cosmetic clients for no additional charge e.g. to help generate additional new product referrals, to encourage cosmetic clients to allow their products to be sold through the app, to obtain better purchase pricing or higher commissions etc.

Thirdly, STC is primarily a B2C platform which aims to generate income from membership fees, testing an individual's skin (using the Labskin process) to determine skin type, repeat tests (because skin types may change) and product sales. The number of available products does not reflect Innovenn testing but will, instead, reflect the commercial agreements DVRG has signed to sell product to STC members. Increasing member and product numbers all bode well for future income but the additional amounts for each product are likely to be incrementally small.

As long as Mr G is kept in the style he's become accustomed to ;-) Poor old Mrs G having to suffer alone for her husband's investment mishaps ;-) I'm lucky to get baked beans ;-) Mrs TT rules the roost ;-)

He can have my custard pie any day ;-)

Hi Krusty, I knew something was amiss ;-) I missed the word "Notes" but am still a little bit mystified by the news. As far as I'm able determine from the the latest accounts for the six months ended 30 September 2021, AEWU's property portfolio is held directly and there is no investment in the AEW UK Core Property Fund (and I don't see any subsequent announcement to suggest that they have invested in the Fund since). Ho-hum, no matter

Where do you get 40% from? The results say current trading is up c25% YTD compared to FY21. It's disappointing to see so little growth in relative delivery sales (the increase in dine-in sales is great but it's ultimately capacity constrained - by the size and number of stores - and ulimately will plateau without significant further store openings).

It would be nice to see a significant increase in delivery sales in the forthcoming months. Hopefully, we've cannibalised some of our FY21 delivery sales into FY22 dine-in sales (as we've moved out of lockdown) and the current YTD figures are masking some of the real growth in new delivery sales; working on the assumption that, during lockdown, some people who habitually prefer to dine-in opted for delivery instead and that we are now seeing that trend unwind. For example, if (say) 8m PLN of what would otherwise have been dine-in sales in FY21 became delivery sales and that trend reversed in FY22 then we'd have an (adjusted) increase in YTD dine-in sales of c42% and an (adjusted) increase in delivery sales of c19% (much more promising). I don't think the logic is flawed (I believe that there were still some Covid restrictions in Poland in the comparative period last year, like there were in the UK); it's just a question of how big the swing from dine-in to delivery was last year and how much that has unwound this year.

* an initial yield of 8%

BlahBlahDoh, I resent dumpers mascquerading as "friends". I don't have a problem with people buying at 180-185p if the opportunity affords itself (indeed I was fortunate enough to acquire some of my shares in that range back in March this year). A good company is a good company regardless of price and, given that MNG is currently trading on yield of c8.9%, what's not to like? I don't have a problem with Gary saying that he thinks that MNG is overvalued at its current price (if he can back up his statement) but I do have an issue with somebody saying give me a piece of your cake at "half price" for no other reason than that suits them. It doesn't suit me, so I'm telling him so (as is my entitlement). Get over it!

The sector is out of favour and the bears/shorters are feasting. Personally, I'm gritting my teeth and bearing it. The way I see it the so-called "investor gurus" have been pumping up growth shares for years, justifying higher and higher multiples, but started to do a volte-face around October last year (it's interesting that financial newspapers were still promoting growth shares at the expense income shares early this year). These things move in cycles and I'm sure that the "gurus" will be back to promote growth shares in the not too distant future; the opportunity to keep the pump'n'dump gravy train on the road is just too great.

As regards MXCT, I see them as providing the shovels for the "genetic" gold rush to come and still take some comfort from the subscription in February 2021, before the NASDAQ listing (in hindisght the worst decision ever made). Their keystone investors are highly unlikely to consider any offer below their £7 subscription price and IMHO wouldn't currently settle for less than £10 per share.

Technically Gary is not a new investor; he's a potential new investor if the sp can limbo under his price target. I think we'd all think that 180-185p was a great entry point if we weren't already invested. Beware people wolves carrying olive branches ;-)

NormaStits, How do you see the withdrawl of easy money (I presume you are referring to quantitative tightening - QT - by the Fed and, probably, BofE) affecting LGEN (presumably AV and PHNX as well for that matter)? One would assume that LGEN, along with AV, PHNX and the banks, will be "encouraged" to exchange surplus cash for long dated treasuries/gilts. Given that most of the cash generated by QE never reached the real economy, it's debatable how big an impact QT will have on the real economy. Also, it would seem likely that the new treasuries/gilts would have to have higher coupon rates than the original treasuries/gilts that the Fed/BofE redeemed to "encourage" buyers. Is it going to make a huge differnce to LGEN whether it has its surplus cash tied up in cash or gilts? It strikes me that QT is going to miss its mark. There are indications that consumers are already being forced to tighten their belts and significantly reduce their discretionary spending and that's probably going to feed throough into the housing market of its own accord (affordability). It seems to me that QT at this point in time is going to be a fairly blunt instrument in reducing inflation (it's not going to stop rising food, fuel and energy costs) and is only going to make a bad situation worse. Central banks seem hardwired to try and use any tools at their disposal to try and reduce inflation, even if that inflation is out of their hands to control (stopping the war in Ukraine and normalising relations with Russia - I'm not suggesting that we should normalise relations, I think that ship has sailed - would have a far greater impact). I think the central banks should stick to raising interest rates for the time being rather than risking a handbrake emergency stop; QT does need to happen but now doesn't feel like the right time.

Got to love Market-Dealer and his ilk. One minute he says he's set a buy target at 210p and the next he says these shares will be sub-150p come the next pandemic! One is therefore left to wonder why he's proposing to buy at 210p if he sees them trading around 150p in short order ;-)

To all those who absolutely love this share at a much lower price, go s***t yourselves ;-)

The reality is, come the next pandemic this could be trading at 0p because there might not be anybody left (Covid was a pandemic but that does not mean that all pandemics are Covid and that are current vaccines will be effective). However, the way I look at it, nobody has a crystal ball and knows for certain what's round the next corner. The market could get worse or this could be as bad as it gets (only hindsight can tell us for sure) so you pays your money and you takes your chances.

According to today's AEWU news the REIT has just bought an industrial estate in Wolverhapton for £12.8m with an initial yield. It then goes on to say that the fund had a NAV of £355m at 31 March! Would have been nice ;-)

Not sure I quite follow the logic but Freeport LNG Development LP has just announced that it expects its Texas terminal, which provides four to five cargoes weekly, to be offline until late 2022. Would have thought that would have made NG futures rise unless it means that there will now be a surplus of gas in the US with no means to export it.

Bear, I think you are being selective in your reading. I think that there are more than a few of us who are getting frustrated with GB because he is a poor communicator (enthusiasm does not make a good communicator). If you take the recent ProactiveInvestor presentation as an example one could be fooled into believing that STC has been raking in the money in H1 whereas I think the reality is that STC has instead been building well from a very small base and that it's sales will grow significantly over the next 12-24 months. GB should be rightly proud of how STC is performing but to make STC the be all and end all of his presentation two weeks out from the FY21 results seems foolhardy and no more than a distraction. I'd love to be wrong but I suspect that I'm not far off the mark.

I'm with Glebwhite regarding Rule 11 but I think a few shareholders might be in for a bit of surprise when the H1 results are announced because I think GB has failed to communicate to the market that a lot of the forecast FY22 sales are expected to fall into H2; partly because the new MW production facility only opened for operation in Q2 (and will take time to reach full production capacity) and partly due to the continuing momentum building in Labskin/STC. I believe that H1 sales are likely to be in the range £7-£8m (this would be the minimum needed in my view if we are reach £24m for FY22) whereas I'm sure most shareholders are expecting c£10m. This, in my view, the level of finacial detail that GB falls down on. As far as I am aware, GB has not discussed the FY22 forecasts one iota to date (the forecast has been made by the in-house broker); like last year he's just put in out there (or allowed the in-house broker to put it out there) without any explanation as to how it's going to be achieved and/or the wighting between H1 and H2.

I 100% believe that GB is an asset to the business but I don't believe he should be CEO (should be CTO) because he doesn't understand how to communicate to the market and when to curb his enthusiasm (I can understand why he's excited about the future prospects but too often people think he's talking about the here and now rather than the next 12-24 months).