Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
eastenderboy - great point, y might be right, thanks.
I was also trying to suggest that when the contract RNSd on 29 Sep was being considered it was based on forecasts that will have changed. The figures 300 and 700 were guesses that would be different now. There may also be other tests, more or fewer than the DHSC might have assumed back in mid Sept so there is a natural reconsideration point.
Perhaps 300 were deployed & perhaps the DHSC has called off more from the 700. In any event, there would be hitches, improvements and differences in specifications for the parties in a contract of this size to work through. It could be that DHSC moved away from reliance on the role it first envisaged for NCYT or the opposite. It will certainly have a differences in configuration of its testing requirements.
We can be sure testing on March 19th required from the NCYT machines is very unlikely to be nil so a negotiation has to be in place & presumably with enough notice for each side. NCYT might well have other clients that would take the machines that have been deployed and those from 700 contingency that DHSC may not require.
There have been some huge figures published on Government tenders web site of tests & testing equipment procured. My guess (often wrong) is that NCYT as a small organisation may have had teething problems with equipment that it delivered but will have significantly out performed larger suppliers in responsiveness and flexibility. How many of them would make 700 machines available as contingency in a national emergency? So, my rosy view is that the 10 weeks extension to Phase 1 is underway without having to be RNSd & a high proportion of 300 machines will be extended from 18 March if not more than 300.
I think he is talking about Phase 1.
There was a fixed term agreed of 14 weeks followed by an extension of 10 weeks at option of DHSC.
As a guide the P1 fixed term would be up to 7th Jan (if supply started 1 Oct) and extension to 18 March - 7 weeks away.
Lets guess the roll out was slower than expected although not so slow that the revenue was that impacted & all the machines were in use as the surge of cases was high. NCYT ought to clarify contractually what will happen with machines on 18 March even for some reason the 10 week extension is not notifiable to the market. I think this is the "extension" that teh RNS refers to at the least.
&
No dates give for Phase 2.
I always assumed it would be hard to deploy 300 machines & the additional 700 (under "second phase" would therefore be later) but could that be wrong? Could they have agreed in September that NCYT would make 700 machines available as contingency in case of a huge surge event? If so, it might make sense that the contingency was available at option of DHSC without specifying dates (as the RNS did). How do we know that DHSC have not called off contingency the number that they have needed when & where they needed them? In that case, Graham will have in mind negotiation of their terms from whenever Phase 2 is set to end. Could that coincide with end of Phase 1 or March 18th in illustration above?
NCYT is exempt from the requirement to file TR1s, Blackrock seems to it without having read the notification NCYT makes on RNSs - see footnote on 4 Jan Liquidity & Voting Rights (copied below for you)
But y, agree. lets see what POLR do. IMO RNS IRO DHSC must be due, how can they not extend Phase 1 of contract noted on 29 Sep RNS with 7 weeks to go & infections are they are. I hope GM is guiding DHSC to the additional functionality NCYT could have for the next 6 months & the problems of returning 300 machines (can't happen) in 7 weeks time & retraining staff or relying on LFTs. It feels to me (v personal opinion) & my hope is NCYT will be working closely with DHSC procurement to a) supply more than 300 machines already & b) provide gold standard additional functionality in preparation for next winter & all that may bring.
"The total number of ordinary shares in the Company is 70,626,248. This figure may be used by shareholders as the denominator for calculations by which they will determine if they are required to notify their interest in, or a change to 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.
If that is to me gizmo, I agree. v profession. GM is in the position IMO to negotiate with DHSC what their on going needs for testing will be when the 24 weeks contracted for 300 machines expires in 7 weeks including wider functions using machines already in place. & hopefully have another RNS for us.
RNS today said
"for the contract with the DHSC, announced on 29 September 2020, and the Company is in active discussions with the DHSC to extend this phase of the contract."
I wonder which is "this phase of the contract" they refer to.
I'll copy the words from the RNS 29 Sep. It mentions two phases of contract.
"Phase one" for 300 machines for fixed term of 14 weeks + option to extend for 10 weeks.
"Second phase" for 700 machines at option of DHSC. No start date mentioned.
If phase 1 started close to 29 Sept, say on Thursday 1 Oct, 14 weeks end Thursday 7th so we would already be in the 10 week period (ending Thursday 18th March) under option to extend. Do you think that the active negotiation is to extend the contract by the 10 weeks that we are already in OR could they be negotiating about extending beyond 18th March?
DHSC & NCYT could not have foreseen in September what surge of cases or speed of vaccine would be. I presumed at the time that they could not consider rolling out the "second phase 700 machines" before phase one machines were in place. A start date is not specified. Perhaps the deal is for a guaranteed 300 machines & flexibility given to the DHSC to call on more as the situation requires. Could some of the 700 have already been deployed? & this negotiation is not set in writing because of the fluidity of the situation although GM is pushing for clarity post 18 March (if my start dates are right).
RNS on 29 Sep said:
"Under the terms of the contract, which is in two phases, Primerdesign will supply its products to the DHSC for up to six months. Phase one has an initial fixed term of 14 weeks with the potential to extend supply by a further 10 weeks. This first phase of the contract will involve the immediate deployment of 300 PCR instruments, related kits and support services with a minimum value of £150 million for the first 14 weeks. Based on this initial period, a further £100 million of revenue could be expected for the subsequent 10 weeks, however volumes can be varied up or down subject to certain notice criteria given by the DHSC.
The second phase of the contract, which is optional by the DHSC, allows for the provision of up to 700 additional PCR instruments, related kits and support services, as well as additional COVID-19 products from the Company's portfolio where required. Depending upon the uptake, phase two of the contract could generate considerably more sales than the first phase."
I misread it at first, its only £1m, damn.
KR
Just saw this, award notice from bidstats to Primerdesign (Camberley) published yesterday
pls read for yourself in case I've misunderstood
GLA
PHE_Provision of Genesig® Real-Time PCR Coronavirus CE IVD Kit
Primerdesign (Camberley)
Value: £983,456
https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2021/W04/743833905
lucky job it wasn't a bad presentation
Half year presentation August 2020 - top of page 2 of transcript
"revenues in the second half to be broadly flat with those in the first. We continue to take cost and
cash action, which, when combined with holiday accrual reversal, would benefit the second half.
And based on our current planning assumptions, we expect to meet our covenant at the full year. "
Revenue reported 1,652m
Profit before tax 30m based on trading divisions + overheads but before exceptionals
I can't find guidance figures for YE 20 - so here is an estimate
- lets assume as they say in line with H1 so revenue 3,104 Pbt 60
- less amortisation, GW write downs, systems w/downs etc that came to £(338)m for YE19 or £(95)m at H1 19 - guess £(150)m
- add in sale of ESS effective pre YE for £400 consideration less book value of ESS (assume intangibles nearly nil as acquired so long ago but BS has some value which we can't identify as amalgamated in CBS balance sheet - say £100?) = profit 300?m)
Pbt : 60-150(est)*+**300(est) = 210m profit having disposed of its most profitable remaining business unit
so what should YE21 be values at
doesn't look rosy
-Pbt of 60 will decrease without ESS, *amortisation & write offs may still be going on, with no **300 on disposal of ESS.
Thanks a lot colinfleming
Guys, questions relevant to others on the BB don't detract from the common interest we have here. I don't read stuff that I find tedious or aggressive, I filter it if it needs it but, IMO its better to be enriched by contributions on different angles than quash them. We have been here quite some time & hopefully have much longer to come.
GLA & KR
I was an accountant. I have many trades during the year & it has been trading rather than investing.
For example, today I might consider whether BRH is worth buying as it may rise until news arrives & then sell as some point - i.e. I am not buying to hold for capital to grow LT.
The CGT section on the Return asks for the number of transactions during the year, it would be a number in hundreds so I have thought to declare that I have had a casual income from trading rather (i.e. taxed as income).
I would like to take advantage of the CGT exemption if possible but I think I'm stuffed or is that too pessimistic?
Financial valuation models use P/E ratios for valuation of investment streams such as from listed businesses where the maths of the model require E - the earnings stream to be for ever/in perpetuity. They make adjustments when E is subject to risk, doubts or growth. It is a surrogate for a discounted future value calculations of benefit that would discount fluctuations year by year. P/E becomes a useful guide to the confidence and enthusiasm for that business's potential.
Investment managers have not applied the standard P/E valuation method to NCYT because it has arrived in less than a year with spectacular situation. The track record & steady growth is not there as foundation for an earning stream "E". There is also a question of how long the business will continue, what it's trading horizon is (for the sceptics - who won't use E if testing will cease after a time) nor is the potential for profit growth predictable enough (for optimists considering Winterplex & an indefinite, growing need for testing).
I could not see how numis came up with 1365p, Richard Leonard interviewed by PI World spoke about valuing on "not less than cash at bank + some factor of profit?). The uncertainty and scale of figures have persuaded use of non standard/rudimentary methods like SP will be not less than some factor of cash + profit. I really had too much uncertainty on big figures to set myself a guide of what to be happy with from my model or looking at ShaunP's. Its a lot, don't compare it with a plodding bank or some revolutionary IT tech, decide how long you expect testing to go on for, how well NCYT has delivered to date & whether they will be surpassed by a new approach if you think testing is here for a while yet.
I was sure 300p was low as the SP fell to 250p. It would have been far harder to decide at higher price levels.
GLA
That is right Nelson the dog, they can turn on PR when they want to & would supply news on covid treatment trials outside/separate from the oncology forum tomorrow.
The RNS shows the seller behind the drop.
It is an opportunity or a concern depending on your predisposition to the results.
It is strange how sometimes with shares large holders buy or sell at times that make little sense to PIs.
I still haven't got over the Fund Manager who acquired the rump of Woodford's holdings from Link last summer and had a month's worth of selling, at lower and lower prices, just ahead of the outcome of the Synairgen drug trial. Why wouldn't a Manager not wait to see an outcome like that even if the business was non core or outside the Fund specifications & end up with 33p per SNG share rather than >200p?
agree with neutron, if positive would be massive rise, & if negative - who knows, was expecting rise ahead of news.
looks like SP is fading down, is that filling an order or more appetite to sell than buy?
Look at the P&L, you can find in on the company web site, it shows why CPI hasn't bounced
This is quite interesting, a phylogeny (family tree) of mutations identified of "covid 19" - 4000 could be called "Covid 20" showing the location of the difference identified in the RNA of that mutant & how it relates to previous strains.
https://nextstrain.org/groups/neherlab/ncov/S.N501?c=gt-S_501,69&p=grid&r=country
Viruses have a single RNA strand -
The final genome of sequenced SARS-CoV-2 consists of a single, positive-stranded RNA that is 29,811 nucleotides long, broken down as follows: 8,903 (29.86%) adenosines, 5,482 (18.39%) cytosines, 5,852 (19.63%) guanines, and 9,574 (32.12%) thymines
This is quite interesting for description of structure of virus RNA
https://geneticeducation.co.in/novel-coronavirus-covid-19-structure-genome-and-testing/
What we don't want is instability in the code that makes the protein spike, its method of transmission into another cell, but that seems to be what has happened.
& I wonder why they RNS at all when the listing requirements for NCYT do not require it (in the way the UK City Code does).
& perhaps why we do not know what other II holdings there be.
Quote below from RNS filed Mon, 4th Jan 2021 14:15 on Liquidity Agreement Monthly Update andTotal Voting Rights
The total number of ordinary shares in the Company is 70,626,248. This figure may be used by shareholders as the denominator for calculations by which they will determine if they are required to notify their interest in, or a change to 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.