The latest London South East Webinar takes place on July 6. Come and hear CEO’s from Orosur Mining, Caledonia Mining, Glantus Holdings and Tekcapital speak. Please register here.
There are matters that will have an immediate effect in this case IMO.
The market has not had independent confirmation of the cash balance at YE. It is significantly different from previous years so sections of the market that have no particular interest in dramas of particular companies rely more on previously audited figures in lists, updating those lists with significantly improved figures will have an impact.
Secondly, financial reporting requires significantly more concerning events existing at YE whose subsequent resolution may have a material effect on the YE position or post balance sheet events that have a bearing on the view shown in the statements than has been released in RNSs to date. The nature, circumstances, implications, risks and managerial view of for example a legal dispute would need to detail. The good thing is that that disclosure needs to be audited. The auditors will have discussed information that management propose to disclose . Their job is to form an opinion on whether it is true and fair and qualify that opinion to the extent that they feel necessary for a reader of the financial statements to obtain a true and fair view.
The additional information accompanied by an independent view can not fail to put a lid on what might be read into the absence of information available to date. This BB has had the most optimistic & one-sided views of how "easy & amicable" a solution might be "expounded" to the exclusion of debate (sometimes justified by their sizeable exposure). Shorters in the real world have taken advantage of the prudence disinterested investors in the market must apply ruling in all worst case arguments in absence of contrary evidence. IMO a lid will be put more appropriately on the issue next week for good or bad but with the balance away from over prudence in favour of positive for LTHs.
Bringing announcement forward a week is also positive IMO as at least the auditors can agree little is likely to change in the dispute with the DHSC to outweigh benefit of a news vacuum in the investment market. We will still need a guide on expectations however for benefit of product announcements to assess their commercial value however.
The Preliminary report from the Joint PHE Porton Down & University of Oxford SARS-CoV-2 test development and validation cell: Rapid evaluation of Lateral Flow Viral Antigen detection devices (LFDs) for mass community testing
explains some background to their role as distinct from the usual approval route
"DHSC Ministers therefore commissioned PHE Porton Down to establish a time-limited SARS-CoV-2 LFD test
development and validation cell in collaboration with the University of Oxford. In this document, we report on the
systematic and rapid evaluation of LFDs over the past three months, which have been used by HM Government
to inform decisions on increasing rapid COVID-19 testing capability in the United Kingdom."
For a Profit before tax 65.2m and a rosy view read pages 1 to 110 prepared unaudited by management.
For the other results read the financial statements between pages 110 to 204 that start with a report to shareholders (like you) by independent suitably qualified auditors as required by law (in case management report results skewed in some way). Page 125 the Consolidated P&L account shows the result for the group on the line - Loss before tax £(49.4)m
Ripe for lift off & arriving at 100p by some date with >200m profit in 2021 or hard slow slog ahead with little progress to report & stuck until some unforeseen hope arrives.
The pick is yours!
The UK assessed LFTs for themselves through PHE, Porton Down & Oxford. Innova was the clear leader out of 130 picked and the top 40 tested when they first reported back in Nov. It would be interesting to check what accuracy stats Innova provided in support of their application if the assertion the the FDA make is para 6 is correct
"Separate and apart from the foregoing issues, FDA further notes that the clinical study data you submitted in your EUA request for the SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test was identical to data previously provided by other manufacturers in their separate EUA requests."
Did they cut & paste the same numbers into what they sent the UK govt?
It would also be interesting to know what role price, scalability of production played in that choice, my point being that we may think of test accuracy as the criteria but the government may have had greater weighting on surety of supply & price than we would think. It looks as though they took LFTs based on existing production & price.
Is the source genuine?
If we have been hoaxed, that is one thing, but if true, how could the government procure such amounts without solid due diligence. I don't get it. How have they made approval of RTC & others so hard to obtain and their biggest choice exposed to claims in this warning from the FDA?
Its hard to believe the government could procure so much from a company without solid evidence to rule out allegations such as these made by the FDA. The DHSC paid Innova over £750,000,000 in... er... one month alone (March ?), I recall the total is £1.2bn to date but may have that wrong. How can that happen without a modicum of due diligence, where £1m in professional advice would be 1/12 of 1 %.
Shearclasslessness's numbers stack up against mine & I share his reluctance to post here.
I must admit disappointment not to have this BB's version of dominic cummings not commenting here for a few weeks if he's gone now. I was hoping to hear whether he'd doubled up his holding at 330 as he promised now that he's disclosed that he was clever enough to have sold out.
We need a financial plan & audit opinion on YE20. Product advances just can not be valued without it, as we have seen this week again. Every effort on this BB to big up the company with positive and censure discussion can not make the difference that normal, basic, financial information would.
Part of the reason for not considering lab escape at the time was "resistance" to Trump ( or perhaps hatred would be a better word) when it should be about origin (& implications for the likely evolution) of the virus.
Promate isn't on the list of what has been paid as its in dispute.
Abbott was paid 67m in March, 3m April
AZN 9m & 2m
Optigene 43m & 23m
PerkinElmer 59m & 22m
Randox 22m & 11m
Innova needs deciphering from a closer look at trading names.
You'd think an agency specialising in regulatory consulting ought to have a review documents before submission to avoid contributing a spanner in the works of its clients like this & I expect an in house regulatory team to ask to be copied into a submission at AVCT and at Mologic.
It looks like a shambles from having too many parties involved, none of them effective AND we are told this was not the only failure to have happened through Mologic's submissions team last week.
The benefit of a known plan, measured goals and predictability is in appeal to good quality II commitment.
I took shearclass's advice & had another look at the SP Angle model in Oct (that recommended a target price of 1,463p).
I was surprised how little impact adjusting their assumptions for YE21 down had on their target price.
The target value counts most on how business will fare in the long term which they measure by a "terminal value" assumption applied at the end of 2025. They assumed the YE 2025 business will continue to grow at 4% which added 817p into the 1,463p target. The years 2022-25 added in 244p's worth and assumed building business away from the DHSC. YE20 & YE21 estimates made up the rest. Heavy adjustment to SP Angel's YE21 assumption would only bring their target price down to about 1,300p provided their assumptions on replacement business are achieved.
Naive question perhaps but if the DHSC has accepted & can use PROmate, why won't they need supplies of reagent test kits going forward as their stockpile is used up?
Another observation - what poidster says usually makes sense for me but I can be wrong, so I am interested in how other react. The fact that the tread was removed this morning suggests puts his suggestion out as the front runner in the explanation stakes.
The piece on regulatory issues around testing vaccines is apposite. China tested interferon beta between mid Jan & mid Feb, proved its effectiveness & has no doubt added to its armoury for public health. They did that in 2020, if we are lucky, SNG may be in the same position about two years later & pleased.