We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Agree with risehall,
NCYT superb at diagnostics, clueless on financials. They could invent a miracle diagnostic that gets little economic value attributes to it in this market place as it is hard to fathom what calculations should be. Without guidance from its inventor, it would probably have no traction on SP & might even be lost in a negative SP movement on the day.
They haven't even said for the LFT for example, the reason for developing the test in terms of the demand expressed to them or what the addressable market may be. The clues given to them in those respects have been lost in just getting on with the technology.
Our hope is that someone else provides them a script for them to release that economic value can be deduced from in the form of a contract or the market will be in for a wait until the next trading update to gauge future cash flows for itself.
That BMD could specify the price, timing and amount that was going to be raised in a placing from a contact he had while the company was represented that no placing was required up until the day they released the RNS saying they had done the opposite is as open an example of lack of proper governance as you'll find IMO. & that is aside from SP manipulation.
I sold 30%.
The track record has been on BMD being more reliable than the company and at times telling the truth when the company has made false statements. SH ought to be wary of the poor & dishonest governance of this business.
probably your order : )
1% spread on UJO, don't remember it being that close before, orders must being filled there too
seems so
The market view is accepts the news as good IMO but can not anticipate what profits will flow from it so won't move the SP. So its another nice shiny badge to have while we wait for discovery of the economic value it may hold.
Saw this on AVCT just now, too close to the truth to be funny
https://www.captiongenerator.com/2266511/The-Innova-story
Covid - double checked the RNS for you, its says "convenient use by healthcare professionals or patients in home settings".
Or meaning just that IMO.
I'm pleased AVCT have released an RNS. It is interesting timing. A year and two months after they started & an interesting message. I think they are only saying that Delta variant triggers their existing test as a covid result (great) along with other covid strains (i.e. they aren't scuppered by delta) & not that they have devised a LFT that can distinguish Delta.
I wonder how long it would take NCYT to develop a LFT that distinguishes variants! If it were feasible, surely it wouldn't be on AVCT's timescale!
Lets just hope for sales to kick in rapidly, CE mark for home use, & if possible & commercially beneficial improvement of sensitivity come along in due course.
The difference is between detecting covid (all strains) and being able to detect which covid strains (i.e. yup you have covid, its type A ) I'm unclear whether AVCT can be used to identify the strain. NCYT don't comment on strain aspect for LFT, news being their first one has been developed. NCYT leads the way in PCR detection of variant types & other winter infections eg flu.
GL whatever you do & thanks, I've always appreciated our interaction, your posts & that dataroom of investigation you put together.
https://twitter.com/SimonTh61172309/status/1408366556174860289
at 11.08 today
I can confirm that the water bore monitoring is complete at wressel and the proppant squeeze will start this weekend. Crane onsite and equipment in bound. The ps doesn't take long so hopefully we'll hit a restricted 500 barrels this weekend. All looking good at wn aswell ;-)
Its bound to I suspect.
Imagine going to a place that accepts LFTs
There would be other nationals their eligible on the strength of the LFTs available to them in their countries. We might have got away with showing an Innova, how about other nationals, for example, using cheaper less stringently accredited tests that Innova. Would it be in everyone's interest to require the highest reliability & most formal authority to travel such as a gold standard test & backed by a travel document/reference. Or perhaps have a certain business we are invested in advocate for a quality standard & monitoring regime.
No offense intended to Diane
Don't people realise how different attitudes to Covid have been round the world?
In the East, a LFT would entitle you to go straight to state administered quarantine after you had paid for the quarantine, several proper tests on dates decided by the state & proved you held effective health insurance covering potential infection.
10 million visitors per annum from China to this country in SE Asia are no where to be seen, why might that be? Do people really want LFTs to be a basis for travel? They are discussing opening one destination (on an island) as a holiday in quarantine but would you want to go there?
This is suggestion is more naive than expounding on easy & amicability of settling the dispute with the DHSC & that episode was Diane Abbot-esque
The taint of dishonesty in dealing with PIs is still there, if they have good news & perhaps they have what is the chance of them being open & honest with us. If there is news they are looking for the best way for insiders to benefit - what does Daniel Levy's contact at SP Angel say I wonder
Its getting to be one of those 'hang on until tomorrows' where tomorrow actually never comes
Steve, I posted a copy of the warranty clause on a separate thread. There are two resolutions routes as the RNS indicated. Replacement £19.8m cost (they made 80-75% gross margin so replacement generated £80-100m in sales) or refund i.e. £80-100m. We don't know enough to judge the root of the issue nor what the court or arbitrators may favour but management's guidance, in constraint of confidentiality of the matter, is helpful. Replacement probable, refund possible.
The probability of outcomes are described with 4 grades of likelihood in financial terms, as far as I recall. Reasonably certain is just that, probable more than 50%, possible 25-50% and remote 0-25%. The grades help decisions on what matters are "provided" (i.e. have funds set aside to cover them) and what are disclosed (without provision) or do not need disclosure so readers of the accounts know about them. The accounting principle of "Prudence" recognises bad news more readily than potential good news - so good news has to be reasonably certain of ultimate cash realisation to be included in the accounts, probable good news would only be mentioned but not adjusted but probable bad news is provided & disclosure of possible bad news (which is what this RNS was required to do).
The auditors have reviewed judgements by management, they have discussed & been included in all correspondence & probably met legal advisors so we can have some comfort that more than one person concurs with what NCYT say is the case. On the other hand, the cynical neutral view will be to factor in possibilities until evidence rules it out.
IMO MMs won't see NCYT in a different position from yesterday until the possibility of refund is eliminated so batten down for shorting .
Warranty clause is copied below for ease of reference from contract referenced on Bidstat award notice as a footnote
20200927_Novacyt_Contract_for_Goods_and_Services_Execution_Version.rock_PrimerDesign_Redacted%20(005)_Redacted.pdf
see Clause 12 of Schedule 1 (Key Provisions) on page 17
12 Warranty: (only applicable to the Contract if this box ischecked) [IT IS CHECKED]
12.1 With regards to the Instruments, for a period of two years from date of purchase and with
regards to the Supplier Reagent Kits as per their referenced shelf life, Supplier warrants,
to the original purchaser only, that each Instrument and each Reagent Kit shall be (i) of
good quality and free of material defects, (ii) function in accordance with the Specification,
and (iii) approved by the proper governmental agencies required for the sale of products
for their intended use(the “limited warranty”). If any Instrument or Reagent Kit fails to meet
the requirements of the limited warranty, then, Supplier shall promptly (in any event within
twenty (20) Business Days or such other time agreed by the Parties in writing acting
reasonably) either repair or replace, at Supplier’s discretion, the Instrument or Reagent Kit,
as applicable. Except for the limited warranty stated in this section, Supplier disclaims any
all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to, any warranty of
merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose regarding the Goods. Supplier’s maximum
liability with any Authority claim under this warranty shall be to replace the faulty Goods
free of charge or refund to the Authority the full costs for such faulty Goods paid by the
Authority to the Supplier if replacement is not possible. The limited warranty above shall
not apply if the Authority has subjected the Supplier Instrument or Reagent Kits to physical
abuse, misuse, abnormal use, use inconsistent with the Supplier Instrument User Manual
or Product Insert, fraud, tampering, unusual physical stress, negligence or accidents.
Unused Reagent Kits must be stored according to the required storage conditions as
printed in this product insert and they can be used only up to the expiry date printed on the18
Reagent Kit pouch and Reagent Kit box. Any warranty claims by Authority pursuant to the
limited warranty shall be made in writing within the applicable limited warranty period.