Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Revenue for H2 213m per trading update 29 Jan & cash at YE £91.8m.
Someone found a download of transactions >£25k from a FOI request with DHSC up to November showing the following. They say that dates relate to payment but my belief is the reference is a sales invoice date because of precise matching with contract date & what it says about raising invoices as follows - apology for formatting in advance;
Total
NHS Frimley Park Apr 50,520
NHS Frimley Park May 155,770
Jun -
DHSC download Jul 9,943,730
Aug 6,535,267
Sep 1,286,239
Oct 33,322,822
Nov 92,374,175
Dec o/s
0 143,668,524
28 Sep contract 125,696,997
Expect Dec circa 24,303,003
RNS - indicative value 150,000,000
Page 7 of DHSC contract says
Invoices will be raised on a twice-monthly basis on the 15th of each
month (or the first Business Day thereafter) and the last Business Day
of each month for Goods and Services which have been delivered in
the previous two weeks
& about payment (same page):
Following the first two invoices, payment should be made by electronic
transfer no later than 30 days from the date of invoice
• All Goods are subject to VAT where applicable.
but IMO (often wrong) clause included in case VAT is due on some services (perhaps training?) but test kits & machines likely to be exempt on basis of emergency ruling at the time (by EU & taken up in uk).
So - last transaction in download was dated 29 Nov (I assume as invoice date) so Dec sales would be invoiced 13 Dec & 27 Dec. There could be an accrual of deliveries 28-31 Dec invoiced on 10 Jan but ignore.
Payment of 29 Nov invoice due after 30 days on 29 Dec so ought to be in the £91.8m figure at the bank but December sales are probably debts collected in Jan (estimate £24m above) + debts due from non DHSC sales in Dec & those from Nov if collected after 30 days say £6m = £30m (but perhaps they could insist on payment in advance for such high demand product)
Latest update says
Novacyt delivered revenue for Q1 2021 of €83.0 million (£72.6 million). Approximately 50% of Q1 revenue was driven by sales to the DHSC, predominately PROmate™. The remaining c.50% of Q1 revenue was driven by continued growth of international sales and expansion of the Company's private sector testing operations
If PROmate all delivered at least 30 days before 31 March & debt was collected so £36m banked + say £20m of the non DHSC sales. As a rough guess lets say all costs for the sales were paid but are only 30% of sales = £(27)m
the bank would have gone from 92+ debts at YE £30 - costs Q1 (27) + PROmate to DHSC 36m + Non DHSC Q1 sales collected in Q1 say 2/3rd of 36 = 24 : circa 155 : call it at £130m at least.
I contribute this from my workings which may be wrong, DYOR but recognising this BB is not an environment to put more.
GL
The financial statements may have a contingent liability to report at YE that could be a linked to post balance sheet event but any cloud of uncertainty will decrease to the extent they can be resolved, quantified & adjusted for.
More time makes sense. It must be better for them to not to have pressure to report early, set a longer expected date for reporting & release any market sensitive announcement if it is available before that.
We do not know really what the size or uncertainty of what is involved really so IMO our quantifications & speculation about resolution are useful but could be well off the mark.
Lets hope they release financial expectations before that with a business plan & lower the bar applied when announcing business wins if revenue is significantly lower, or find some other way the market can gauge business strength. Its just so ironic to have strong products, sales & presumably pipeline that can not be factored into the SP for lack of visibility when there are great examples around, like AVCT, of commercial potential valued on on premarket/preproduct information.
My own guess on timing noticed 15 May last year.
The circumstances of the legal dispute might push towards more time.
Accounting standards require contingent liabilities to have extensive explanation of their circumstances, potential impact and its estimated likelihood to enable a reader of the audited financial statements to have a true and fair view of performance including those issues that may be indeterminable. The auditors will need latest evidence corroborating views from lawyers.
Accounting standards apply a gradation of the likelihood of outcome that can be helpful for us and for management. For example a business might provide 100% of a contingency (or part of it) that is reasonably certain to crystalise, a percentage that is "probable" (eg if 50% probable might warrant 50% provision of exposure or a bit more), outcomes that are possible need to be mentioned along with those that exist but are not expected to result in an impact. It is helpful in disputes or claims that run & run for the issue to be stratified into component issues before making a big enough provision to be covered and make a clear statement of any issues that can not be determined.
All this disclosure is intended to prevent a cloud of uncertainty & mystery from hanging over a business like we have just now.
Glad it has eased
https://www.griproom.com/fun/10-signs-your-stock-is-being-manipulated
PE & other valuation concepts look to future revenues. We're stumped here if the message is "we don't have visibility". PE isn't applicable in a strict theoretical sense because there isn't a future earning projection to discount for risk, uncertainty & time value of money hence even the company's own brokers apply hybrid valuation methods. I won't express frustration more than & try to stay clear of negativity ... but ... they can do the rocket science that very few can match and fall down on the easy basics. There is an irony that AVCT can be valued because it has a plan but no product or sales track record yet and this business is the opposite, established product & sales record but no plan with the the sales record now tarnished by legal contingent liability that isn't defined even in scope yet.
There is opportunity in potential that is untapped or latent in businesses. IMO just doing the basics would be a great boost to this opportunity.
People often say they can't forecast something when it is uncertain. Isn't that is the point of trying to forecast & why a forecast that is certain is less useful?
Soder, good to read an attempt, not sure what the fall from grace was over & it would help to know in the absence we have of information & adjustment to market expectation of revenue mentioned in the RNS
Most favoured customer clauses - could it be this? how would they fall out so badly, its a calculation of monetary amount which they'd settle wouldn't they?
13 Favoured Customer Provision: (only applicable to the Contract if this box is
checked)
13.1 The Supplier agrees that if at any time during the Term it sells any product, licence, good
or service which is the same as those comprised in the Goods (in whole or in part) to a
Comparable Customer for less than the cost of such product, licence, good or service
included in the Charges, it shall:
13.1.1 reduce the Charges to match the lower price for so long as the lower price is
available; and
13.1.2 in accordance with Clause 13.2 below, refund the Authority the difference between
the Charges and the lower price in respect of its purchases of the Goods with
effect from the date the Supplier began charging the lower price to the
Comparable Customer.
13.2 If a refund is due to the Authority pursuant to Clause 13.1.2 above then (unless agreed
otherwise by the Authority in writing) the Supplier shall, in equal proportions, set off the
total value of the refund due against the next three (3) invoices raised by the Supplier.
13.4 A “Comparable Customer” is any customer based in the United Kingdom or Europe and
who purchase products from the Supplier of the type which fall within the meaning of
Goods under this Contract.
I notice Professor Sir Christopher Thomas Evans was also a director of Lab 21 Limited (now Cambridge Clinical Labs) to July 2014 and its non exec chairman in 2011 having been with the business (which was then a small group of companies) since 2005.
He resigned when the Lab 21 Limited group was acquired by Novacyt SA in 2014 before Lab 21 Limited (but not its subsidiaries) was sold in summer 2019 to Cambridge Pathology BV, under control of Klodian Allejben.
It looks as though Sir Christopher Thomas Evans described himself as a venture capitalist back then & presumably was instrumental in Lab 21 Limited building its group pf activities (by acquisition). Evans is a scientist behind Merlin who owned shares in Lab 21, he also has an interest in Reneuron RENE & a role in developing life science businesses in S Wales for which he has been knighted & received an OBE.
Graham Mullins was appointed as a director in Jan 2008 & kept on by Novacyt as CEO & Anthony Dyer (finance) was appointed in August 2014 as a director of Lab 21 & Novacyt SA (with GM).
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/05382262/persons-with-significant-control
Cambridge Clinical Laboratories Limited (05382262) has two directors Tony Cooke or Dr Anthony Cooke and Klodian Allejben.
Klodian is the person recorded as holding significant control over the company through its 100% ultimate holding company Cambridge Pathology BV, a company registered in the Netherlands. Klodian is a horse dealer according to his filing for his other UK directorship K&D Commerce Ltd (10403691).
Klodoian & Dr Cooke were appointed on 19 July 2019 when the company, then known as Lab 21 Limited was acquired from our very own Novacyt SA along with a net deficit in its balance sheet of £140k and losses accumulated in its P&L reserve of £41m. Losses had been financed by issuing shares at a premium and included writing down the holding values of its subsidiaries before the sale (so they were not part of the sale deal).
Novacyt SA accounts YE 31 Dec 19 explain that 2 non core activities were sold (one of these happened to be the company that changed its name to Cambridge Clinical Laboratories from Lab 21 Limited ( 05382262). see page 12 link below
https://novacyt.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/8650_Novacyt_Annual-Report-2020-EN-Web.pdf
Tony Cooke set Lab 21 up in the first place and returned when Novacyt sold control on on 19 June 2019 to Klodian. The piece below mentions what he wanted to get on with in July 19 including genomics.
https://www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/business/lab-21-becomes-cambridge-clinical-laboratories-and-pledges-to-offer-revolutionary-diagnostic-tests-9091608/
"Returning to run the business as CEO is Dr Anthony Cooke, who was Lab 21’s first employee and worked there until 2013, when family circumstances prompted him to set up a consultancy business focused on regulatory affairs for diagnostics.
“The objective of Lab21 was to bring in state-of-the-art diagnostics and it’s exactly the same now, but we’re going to try and do it for a much wider range of diseases and geographically operate in more territories. With the help of our investors we are looking at locations in Europe and the Far East,” Tony tells the Cambridge Independent.
Why would Cooke leave in 2013 when Novacyt took over and come back when they sold the business on 2019? Because during that time Anthony Dyer (finance) & Graham Mullis ran it, it was based in Cambridge & the bigger parts of the business group were in Dorset. It seems like it was an amicable arrangement, they mention Dr Cooke leaving for family reasons, so perhaps it worked well both ways.
https://www.camclinlabs.co.uk/about-us
The ability Tom Wilkinson for explanation is impressive. I can follow the ideas, I might be able to recount some of them, but the clarity, measure and balance TW had in his presentation opens an entirely more useful picture up.
He said at one point there may be a "few more weeks" before results of the home trial rather than the expectation I had based on last dosing and counting days. I will be looking to buy more if sentiment drops in impatience with reassurance now.
I just wish I had more ammunition to load up with.
who doesn't eh? lol
I was surprised what a mess Chamberlin looked.
Oddly enough, the mess struck me as possibly good news here - with that debacle going on perhaps the market might be more forgiving of BRH for TB having sold 2m.
It seems something bigger is affecting this price & sector.
I've just noticed that gold is up 1% in a day, could that affect it? Could markets be worried about US/Russia tension or something extraneous like that do a downer on crypto?
Bill - your point seems right, a capital gain would be subject to tax & a placing is a risk IMO.
Tax would be assessed on YE 31 March 2021 result & be due for payment 9 months & a day later so 1 Jan 22.
can they switch the feeds to L2 so only sells or buys upload at one instant? It was 100% sells & now all buys, though as everyone says we don't know the size of the sale going on in the background & whether it is a director.
denny 100% agree, RNS implies NASDAQ only to me.
Companies can distribute many classes of assets, dividends in cash the most obvious but also assets like investments such as these in a limited company incorporated in the UK or somewhere else which may or may not be listed. The fact that the shares are distribute is not evidence that the shares are listed on the LSE or anywhere else.
think i'm stuffed with a tax issue if it is only US listing, hope it is not.
do we have an idea of the value attributed to the distribution?
the trouble IMO is that discussion of NCYT have made with such passion it has clouded what can be said to the extent that we are at £4 today when this board was targeting £54 less than two days ago. & even mentioning this discrepancy may have me classed as a deramper with someone on cloud £54 telling me to trot off when actually I'm heavily invested and didn't set stop losses at the drop as I see this as a LTH.
B2H, yes, think so, you are right, unchecked boxed not relevant. I got it wrong. It looks as though the first part and schedule (including KPIs) were drafted specifically for relevant discussions from a proforma that they add with "X" in some sections not others. I
What the hell can they be liable for if test kits were acceptable & machines delivered on time unless it is machine performance/usage issues & why couldn't the RNS be more specific? Its quite clear they would have had regular KPI reports, monthly & 2 weekly meetings on performance, so how could they have been negotiating at end of Jan if it has ended in a dispute?
Rant over with apology to all.
wilson - thanks, I don't spend as much time as I might reading stuff here.
I've read the redacted version of contract available as a footnote on bidstat announcement https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2020/W47/739312011
There aren't any staff transferred or managed between parties - each do their own staff & performance. The contract is structured for delivery to be reliable with warranty function & regular meetings to manage the relationship. We can see from the download of sales transactions available from a FOI request that there was delivery by NCYT in Oct & Nov was huge. Reagent has a shelf life & there is provision for DHSC to return stock to Primer Design.
There is a KPI section on page 86-88 but it is wholly redacted. Oddly enough p87 had been actually been replaced on when the original was uploaded. They had monthly reports on KPIs within 7 days There is a section on consequences of falling short on KPIs - I wonder how they could do miss KPIs if they delivered huge numbers of kits without function issues. Perhaps the issue is about machine delivery & their function.
The Authority’s right to claim damages
3.4 The Parties acknowledge and agree that if in the event performance of the Services and provision of the Goods by the Supplier continues to fail to meet the KPIs following implementation of a Remedial Proposal, as well as its right to terminate pursuant to Clause 15.4 (Term and Termination) of Schedule 2 (General Terms and Conditions), the Authority may claim for direct damages incurred as a result of such compromised performance in accordance with Clause 13 (Limitation of Liability) of Schedule 2 (General Terms and Conditions)
There is an interesting clause under Exit and Service Transfer that Primer Design shall, within three (3) Months after the Commencement Date, produce an Exit Plan based on the principles set out in Schedule 12 for the orderly transition of the Services from the Supplier to the Authority or any Replacement Supplier in the event of any termination or expiry of the Contract
& Primer Design is free to release its capacity earmarked for DHSC to other customers only after 8 weeks after the agreement failing so they must have been constrained most of Q1 in what they could sell elsewhere.