Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
Andrewba, companies are permitted to pay dividends from "profit available for the purpose" which means profits that have been realised (put through their P&L) less losses to date. The last financial statements that have been audited were for the year to 31 December 2019. The results for the year to 31 December 2020 were announced on 29 Jan but they have to be audited. The auditor is appointed by the directors to report to us shareholders on financial statements that the directors prepare. We were told in Jan that a dispute is underway with the DHSC so auditors will form a view on the outcome of that issue as well as the information in the financial statements before they sign their report to us SHs off.
The YE 31 Dec 2019 financial statements are available on NCYT's website. They show the group had accumulated 40+million Euro in losses which meant no dividends could have legally been paid by the top company in the group. All those losses were paid for out of share subscriptions at a premium and went on research and development to have NCYT in such a unique position of skill & organisation when the pandemic unfolded.
The trading update in Jan 21 indicated that profits made in the YE 31 Dec 21 will more than make good the accumulated loss to leave an accumulated profit out of which a dividend COULD be paid. No dividend was announced and no plan to pay one so whatever benefit the Board of Directors may have obtained from the business, it has not been in dividends so far.
My view is that the benefit they have most appreciated has been in carrying a world leading research in their specialist field just when a "black swan"/ wholly unexpected event arrived pushing huge need for their expertise. This BB is receptive to anything other positive statements so I will not express a balanced view on what else they may have not appreciated. It is too obvious to investors outside this BB. GM invested at the price he did in good faith IMO, in knowledge of the business and belief in its future. The unrealised loss he has accrued hurts him as much as any us PI's except he has known blow for blow the circumstances behind the fall, felt responsibility for it and not known quite how to react. IMO he needs our support & advocacy of the professional skills other businesses have that take pressure away from him & his desk, using financial forecasts to manage a business and market expectations of it might be one set of skills for example.
viper - I saw that happening the other day
looks like filling the big purchased turned a small corner, NT to buy on HL now
Purchase of 150,000 just been filled at 52ish from 10.47.
Off the point - but how could Innova tests have been tested if there have only been 9,000 cases notified in China since 1 March last year as reported? During that time their national vaccines Sinovac & Sinopharm have also been tested. There don't seem to have been enough cases to go around. China stopped reporting figures to WHO and they seem to be travel restricted, yet for numbers that have been released it seems mathematically impossible for approval scrutiny compare with elsewhere. There have been 500,000 - 700,000 cases in Chile since 1 Dec as their Sinovac vaccination program got underway, If under performing vaccines are being donated globally you might think prospects for high standard PCR would be promising if the UK government hadn't ordered LFTs approved by the same regulatory regime.
Third parties do not know what to expect if there is a doubt it is prudent to consider the widest implication. IMO any significant change including resolution has a material bearing on the SP regardless of its magnitude +ve or -ve because without it the door to uncertainty is open.
Numbers projections visibility, any clue would do.
They must have some plan somewhere. How would a business make a charitable donation without numbers? Can it be done without any planning? Doesn't someone has to think of the amount to donate and how its timing fits with competing demands on production, don't they? It seems crazy not to give visibility when they must have something.
P3 candidates are more severe but only on 3 or 4 out Hospitalised mild disease of scale (as was tested in P2 trial) (no oxygen or oxygen by mask of nasal prong) not Hospitalised severe disease categories 5-7 from the WHO R&D blueprint scale.
Qd22 - i agree with you.
it has been one of the saddest things to know an effective treatment has been proved that has been bogged down with months of not taking tests further without urgency show clearly as possible for other treatments such as vaccines.
the problem is cost, isn't it? its $3k a go or so not £7. SNG can not be made on a mass scale, perhaps they thought the rest of the world will never afford it so a play for benefit against long covid was more viable in the better off economies
the calls have been poor if vaccines can be tested for approval a week after the US election, this will take another year
that's true but potential is weighted up on reputation & evidence.
today's announcement practically doubles the amount of evidence available from testing & it points to benefits against long Covid in the less severe/more common cases with breathlessness who haven't been hospitalised. This opens up evidence of benefit to a far wider population who may present long Covid aliments at a later date which adds commercial potential
Just to recap what we all are aware of-
Results show SNG is most effect in the severest situations. It demonstrated benefit in Home Trial but not as dramatically as in P2 as symptoms of the HT test population were less severe than the hospital setting of P2- i.e. breathlessness rather than full cytokine storm.
I'm disappointed the SP hasn't gone up but there could be worse reasons for a share price to drop than the disappointment at this! i.e. the drop might be knee jerk by the less well informed selling rather than more knowledgeable investors.
the identification of benefits in recovery of less severely affected patients from long Covid reported from the test seem very positive to me (I might be wrong) thinking about the insurer's view in the USA. I wonder if we'll see interest from IIs building - lets hope so!
GLA
think it was only a rise to close, expect a well planned RNS on a Monday but not this Monday sorry to say - could be wrong
gla
investingnewb -
I looked at the Tr1s and searched for the appointment dates for those directors on companies house records. I found Chatal Freel but not some the others so they may be directors in subsidiary companies.
There are interesting ratios between what they have sold and what they have retained. Chantal has kept 52% of her options, Chris Baker 26%, Andt Start 52% & from the RNS on 22 April Will Serle, Rupert Green & Garry Dryburgh all kept 52% but Mark Cook sold all his options.
The directors I spotted who have not announced sale of their options are Neelan Dhawan (March 21), Georgina Harvey (Oct 19), David Lowden (Jan 21) & Joseph Murphy (July 15). Appointment dates are in brackets.
My guess is Murphy is a non exec without any options to sell, all the others that haven't sold haven't been there long enough to qualify to sell & the other lot have sold up to the maximum possible based on their period of employment.
Options are designed for top dogs to be incentivised by the performance of the company through its SP. Restrictions apply to how soon options make be used and a window of several years offered for the benefit to accrue based on performance.
This information is not popular on this BB.
Why might the consensus of Freel, Baker, Start, Serle, Green, Dryburgh, & Cook prefer to take £22k, £53k, £32k, £44k, £40k, £42k & £74k now respectively as soon as contractually possible rather than wait for benefits of their efforts to raise the SP?
Is it as this BB implies a) or is it worth considering that it might perhaps be b)?
a) tax related - given that tax will be deduced as the options are encashed
b) an indication of their confidence in the upwards trajectory of the SP?
GLA
I emailed the company to find out what the tax implication of the Accustem distribution was in 2019/20.
Any one know?
I imagine TILS deal with the distribution as a dividend or capital reduction so we ought to declare our part of the amount distributed according to TILS books as income subject to income tax like a dividend which sets up a base cost that can be used for Capital Gain Tax when shares are sold.
Does that sound right?
TILS hasn't replied as you might guess.
it went to 580, profit/trades taken, looks like they'll close it on 500p
hope it holds tomrrw, & news blows it higher in due course
IMO the wait for announcement of home trial results is an opportunity.
SP will probably drop with impatience but the time taken is being used to enhance the value of results with analysis
That is 100% right IMO. I do look at it that ay.
If any of us went into a building society or bank and asked what accounts they had, how tempted would we be by one where "they did not have visibility of the likely return"? Its mad (& a great opportunity to invest if you have confidence otherwise)
MisterETrayda has a lovely point about the credibility attached to audited accounts. Well done! & thanks.
The consensus here accepts be that income is as announced on 29 Jan £277m. Many of us have are own calculations of how it was achieved but it is an outstanding point that our investment won't have credit for the £277m until it is audited. We are also on notice of a potential adjustment. An uninvolved 3rd party looking at this investment would pencil in "0" or "?" or "TBA" until the potential adjustment is quantified or defined.
It is 100% certain that NCYT revenue will not be 0 next year but a statement about "not having visibility" opens the door for someone with the job of not making numbers up to enter "0" or "?" or "TBA" again. Future revenue is rarely certain, its inadequate to make no guide - it shows that perhaps they don't have a guide, or they are scientists & only commit when certain. Shaun, Porky & many others here have had goes at what to expect, the company ought to too & they ought to be managing sales effort according to targets. It would really help to segregate lines of reporting & pull the business into a commercial structure IMO.
GLA
Phew, its a relief to go in the right direction
the position RNS'd with the DHSC was perhaps feared the longer time went on but, if there is nothing wrong behind the dispute that we don't know about, imagine the sales opportunity of having had capacity to produced hundreds of instruments from Nov + experience from Phase 1 DHSC roll out.
Sales opportunities seem unbounded with the right business structure & control. Mobile labs are one solution, there could be many so others with different degrees of support/upskilling/embedding/managing tailored to the client. they could take control of testing delivery for some clients with their record of expertise leadership
There is everything excellent about this announcement Porky except the market has to think how much it may be worth.
NCYT would be well served in setting a guide for expectations somehow rather than allowing the market to guess. The risk is the Mcap will be undervalued until actual results remove all doubt. Lets hope their plan or expectation guide comes soon to escape this cycle.
There must have been a business case for changes even conceptually, mustn't there?. They'd decide " to expand by x staff to support service and make probably make y revenue". That metric ought to be useful for managing the teams or components it is made up from & usually could be added to into market guidance.