We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Perhaps, I was a bit hasty in my comment, not too big a decrease.
They said at 25 January 2021 BlackRock Inc.'s holding in the Company on a voting and capital basis is 3.02% (2,132,372 shares) on their last TR1.
I think Blackrock must review holdings in an investment forum regularly.
Ok, what about NCYT?
The price has dropped.
Well what are we expecting?
It isn't clear, we think there are some amazing signs but we do not have enough information to model what their market penetration is outside the DHSC relationship that is currently under negotiation and confidentiality.
What do their plans say?
They haven't projected forward.
Ok, so do we have enough blind faith to carry at our current level or are we a fund manager, manager in this case being a verb?
this debate on whether or not there may be a placing shows how trust in what management have said and what is happening in the company remains damaged. lets face it, a tweet on it, or others matter like production rate or what is happening, from the person who says he gets inside information from SP Angel would carry weight when they should be able to rely on the story from the company
Guys - it is like we all share this vacuum. the BB & others show some dedicated personal quests undertaken by some against all odds to pull what they know together & we actually marvel and celebrate some, out of the vacuum we each feel, don't we?
I can't Polymerise a Chain Reaction & I hope none of us would want GM deflected from the stuff he is doing, lets hope for finance to up its game to make stock holding less of a roller coaster. IMO this would also help strengthen NCYT's dealing with other businesses on a collaborative basis. There must be activities in genomics or mutation research where our NCYT & its customer base in 150 countries is in a position to deliver monitoring available from few others at a standardised quality.
Would a big pharma deploy its resources to deliver this precious information because of its importance? Or would they have a team on it, a team sheet system for those seconded or drafted into it, proper resources for review & training leading to a control over their effort in terms of time & expertise and no doubt a fat invoice paid by a health organisation/authority or government. What are we betting NCYT currently do - the most fantastic work because it is right do it & perhaps receive something without proper consideration of its rare value or real opportunity cost?
They had consultants in back last year, think they were involved with scaling up production & wonder how far they went /or not to explain this sort of thing.
This is why companies put out guidance for expectations and models can be built so investors identify a valuation and the parameters it is most affected by. The numis & SPA valuations use their usual template but have to jump to a SP on a hybrid basis because they can not measure parameters for future trading. We should be able to say a likely scenario will be sale of x number of instruments will require x reagents, support & do that for each product line & market.
IIs are obliged to reduce exposure to stocks can just can not be specific about their metrics & all this up & down nonsense follows.
It is a bit like say Georgie Best's approach to football - nevermind about the simple stuff, training or diet or psychology, injury management, health, or anything else, results on the pitch will speak for themselves. Let brilliance shine through, until it doesn't.
NCYT should just get the boring but sensible planning, measuring & reporting of business metrics out there like other companies do.
Love the message from Acacia about them wanting two of their lot to be appointed to the Board to bring expertise to investment decision making.
Their self confidence defies credibility.
Acacia obtained their shareholding from buying Woodford's medical portfolio which also included SNG. Acacia chose to hold Arix but sell SNG at 35p ahead of the Phase 2 trial results in July that rocketed the SNG price to 240p. Without intending disrespect to Arix, how much poorer could Acacia have shown their judgement to be? They received a gift & got rid of it.
tech - you are right, they have been exceptional & it has been an exceptional period but it is worth pointing out how other businesses handle SP volatility as it helps build the SH base that best suits the business. People talk about "becoming mid cap", this stuff about what the market looks for in terms predictability from their investment is background on what could be done & leads to thinking how NCYT would structure their business going forward in terms of production, sales, by product, client, perhaps sectors, geography, acquisition & growth strategy while safeguarding their innovative R&D skills
To respond to rcdm's point about what NCYT could have to offer to reduce share volatility,
There would be less volatility if the market had more information to go on to predict how sales are going. It would be helpful to have a plan, in mid & short term and the non confidential information about business development as we go along even in general terms - We plan to be able to build x instruments, supply the world with x or y etc so at least a measure could be built up. The company has referred to 150 countries, some information concerning Romanian sales came to light on twitter yesterday, but we have no basis to estimate volumes of sales & growth so
collectively we have to "walk the plank" with 40-50% price drops between rerates. This situation does not help the company in managing its shareholder support, including IIs, as there is an incentive to buy & sell or short because of the price undulations we can expect without rerating RNSs.
I agree with Shearclass's view with a twist.
Confidence in the underlying SP value would not need to hinge from the financial & trading updates if there was more evidence of what sales values might be from track record, production information or comments. I have had to remove a line in my revenue forecast model for instrument sales based on negotiations being underway although we all could be fairly certain NCYT instruments have a market (if they were not taken up by the DHSC)! I estimate figures for reagent sales as my YE2020 revenue model came close to the YE update figures but estimating the other non DHSC revenue to the 150 countries is unreliable.
I've convinced myself that there will be an RNS on Monday 29 March & not before as the 28 September contract has a maximum limit on its extension of 6 months up on 28 March & the other key date on 28 Jan neatly falling the day before our 29 Jan RNS.
It would be helpful to read the redacted version of the contract made available by a footnote of the Bidstat tender notice
https://atamis-1928.cloudforce.com/sfc/p/#0O000000rwim/a/4J000000kEFW/0a.XEpAnsXhWLPDFwBk_JAjjG7TOqEVnG58sfxOiFmw
The RNS 29 Sep uses understanding & meaning of what was discussed but the redacted contract has legal definitions. there is not a big difference or any misinformation but the legal dates fit the RNS pattern.
Commencement date was 28 Sept, RNS released 29 Sept
Contract term was set for 4 months with two one month options available to DHSC and a need for 8 weeks written notice for termination so the "expiry Date" is defined legally as 28 Jan, RNS released 29 Jan commented.
We all want to know about "Phase 2" given the guide of 700 instruments at stake according to the RNS 29 Sep. Phase 2 is mentioned in the legal contract but only in passing. the RNS also implies that there could be an extension of 10 weeks whereas the contract makes 2 x 1 month extensions available to a final date 28 March (presumably).
IMO, often wrong, the RNS was vague about negotiations underway because the "shape" of future procurement was not set in terms of a procurement order, more machines could be obtained under the contract in place & its extension along with reagents needed to keep testing going. i.e. they did not need to say anything until 28 March when a new contract will need to run from.
I basically agree with Porky's timing except for a couple of days and bet an announcement will be made on Monday 29 March & not before. The radio silence before will be important for DHSC approval protocol & because from the DHSC view more than one supplier may be affected what it needs for the next NCYT contract to be approved.
A contributor called Poidster made the point earlier today that hospital resource managers call NCYT kit off a central procurement rather than placing an order by their hospital budget holder to the supplier (via the NHS procurement portal) which supports a need for a central procurement contract. He said, a local manager "just calls off" what they need for NCYT PCR tests but they have to order LFTs from their local spending.
Porky is right on how the tender generated revenue - its sale of kit, support & reagent delivered up to a maximum limit not just 406m whacked out on a bill.
Agree, Vadim had time to answer & Zak was open to what he had to say for a change.
My take was that the market will split between better tests to check you at/into places, proper variant categorisation for medical purposes and indicative/reassurance test. The split of testing cost between public & private sector was pertinent to us & the bit about testing having a different place in society. NCYT seems well placed to support the health sector need, Winterplex seems inspired for that & to go into higher risk commercial settings like nursing homes, boarding schools?, ships, prison and perhaps work places depending on situation & LFTs.
the contract announcement back in April in Zimbabwe didn't raise the SP from memory. I recall thinking that it went down like a lead balloon as we were all focused what might happen in France.
a really good business can leverage possibilities where everyone else missed them.
I wonder now whether this 150 country thing isn't very forward thinking as eyes into the global progression of mutations.
I have a note saying NCYT had to deliver $25m worth of covid testing in Zimbabwe from April. With hindsight, imagine sending some very close support to deliver the contract and keep tabs on the progression of the virus. This company might, if we knew more about it, be an excellent source of information for the global research of mutations.
Does that seem a) possible & b) even more incredible than their delivery with the DHSC.
Could they be positioned for a global impact through their role in mutation tracking or is that over the top?
K is right again IMO.
MMs can & do work to fill orders but the landscape changes when expectations of the business move on.
PIs are at a disadvantage with IIs in having less access to information but we can make up with vigilance & discussion.
We haven't heard much about Zimbabwe since it was announced.
Imagine it might have been a prime position to monitor for variants from as are the other 149 countries business is apparently done with
jungla - y, good point, could lots of reasons. I was accused of deramping for mentioning it before so the possible positives weren't aired. Back then, I took it as broadening its relationships for production or collaboration as the legal text mentions "partner" as well as institution or a venture capital fund in the sector.
Isn't it interesting to think of the cash NCYT has now compared to the the scarcity it faced trying to fund their valuable research? 14% on convertible loan stock was probably the best deal even when shares issued on conversion of loan notes are presumed to have been offloaded before the value of the work was recognised.
Y, lost myself !
A) Significant shareholders:
RNSs say NCYT aren't governed by City Code, they are on French Code.
They don't seem to announce every %age change.
Reasons for that belief:
There are changes that have not been RNSd - like what happened to Negma, L&G build up.
I don't think Camberley has access to enforce notification of changes.
Financial websites seem to collate info that they can't find in usual process (RNSs) so disclosures lists don't all agree
Financial statements for Ncyt do not disclose a list of significant shareholders as statements prepared under UK law would do which means the auditors in France don't have to test a disclosure back to the company's share register (& company secretarial function).
My Conclusion - take II holdings with a pinch of salt, holders may be off the list, believe the ones that change more but Blackrock seem reliable.
B) Potential for hook up with large institution (someone mentioned AZN)
The EGM back on 7 Sep gave the directors permission to issue another 20% of shares at a 20% discount on average SP in previous 5-30 days to a "preferred shareholder" which is an institution, financier or business that has been in the sector.
My view: the way could be open to could hook up with AZN but perhaps that resolution is only for issuing a placing to a Fund Manager at a discount if they wanted - don't know.
Richard Leonard, a fund manager for Trium says something about it in the clip below about 34.00 in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv0Tt9V-r8E
They might have been asked for it in the past but did not have the power written UK companies usually have. Remember NCYT had to borrow at 14% or more to do their work during 2019 & had to doubled the shares in issue as they developed their superb expertise.
GL! KR
up one day, down the next & we don't have production metrics or any measure of demand to work scenarios of a model out
Couldn't buy last night, can see why this morning
Proportion of II holdings depends on history & expectations for businesses. Traditional dividend stream producers are quite highly owned & could be 90% comprising many holders (each under 30%). I suspect PIs are not as conscious of Vatel & L&G because they are not on some financial web sites. Those web sites seem to source information from RNSs and information they get from organisations themselves. I don't know their access to share registers in France (open to public inspection in the UK with annual opportunity to double check to disclosures agnst audited financial statements. Ncyt takes care to warn us that it is not registered under the UK City Code - see footnote copied from 1 March RNS which is on all share related RNSs - read final sentence.
I'm guessing we get RNSs on Blackrock because they churn them out for all their holdings but note the absence of disclosures on L&G, Vatel & the fate of shares held by a crowd called Negma. The stream of RNSs showing shares issued to them in conversion of loan facilities came to 20,620,245 shares at 30 Jan 2020 or 35% of issued capital at that date (& over usual ceiling for a take over bid under Uk regs of 30%) without a single notification of a reduction, although, don't panic, they've gone apparently. (perhaps selling at 2019 - Q1 2020 prices).
I agree about hook up thought concerning AZN. I believe a resolution passed in the EGM back on 7 Sep (No 16) granted permission for the BoD that has not yet been used to issue 91 shares to an institution involved in this business. I'll copy the text below if I can fit it in.
RNS 1 Mar 21
"The total number of ordinary shares in the Company is 70,626,248. This figure may be used by ... their interest in, the Company pursuant to Article L. 223-7 of the French Commercial Code and the Company's Articles. The Company is not subject to the disclosure guidance and transparency rules made by the Financial Conduct Authority under Part VI of FSMA.
Sixteenth resolution (Delegation of authority to the Board of Directors for the purpose of issuing ordinary shares
of the Company and/or transferable securities giving access to the share capital of the Company, with cancellation
of shareholders’ preferential subscription rights in favour of specific categories of persons) ... in accordance with Articles L. 225-129 to L. 225-129-6, L. 225-135, L. 225-138, L. 228-91 et seq. of the French Commercial Code,
1. Delegates to the Board of Directors, with the power to sub-delegate, its power to decide to issue, without preferential subscription rights, (i.e. to us).... capital increases that may be carried out by virtue of this delegation,
immediately or in the future, may not exceed a total nominal amount of 941683.31 euros (i.e. nominal value of 1 share is 1/15 euro so 941x15 = 14,125,250 shares or 20% of shares in issue currently) at .... para 7....a maximum
discount of 20% weighted average SP previous 5-30 days.
This isn't a deramp btw, its just relevan