Member Info for TWatcher

"fill your boots"
"Choooo Choooo"

Extremely convincing argument

When traditional funding options are out, previously companies have turned to the likes of lanstead, deals that often involve the the company selling a fixed number of shares month after month to the funder based on a formula that dials in the current month's SP versus a baseline SP. Generally involves the funder selling some/all the shares back on the market as a nd when favourable to do so. If the SP falls then each month the financier pays less for that tranch of shares, if it rises they pay more. Notably, the formula is such that the price paid is less than the market rate.

For even these alternate forms of financing to be agreed, the company has to convince the funder that there will be some opportunities that will result in the SP rising, but often it results in a SP slowly spiralling downwards, with the company getting enough each month to keep the doors open, until some opportunity arises, or the deal expires.

This is likely the type of funding that the bod are investigating, having failed to raise funds via a more traditional share issue. Also a 5p current SP doesn't look great from a potential funder point of view for this type of funding, given they need to get an ongoing discount, and have to dial in a slow SP decline.

they did that long ago under C.K., appears they didn't like the "social" side of social media

"i wonder if the reality might have been that they did not want to spend more cash on the extra data needed for continuing CE mark"

Possible, or just that the ship has already sailed or by the time they get someone to do the necessary study and produce the data, submit it and twiddle their thumbs waiting for an outcome, the ship will not only have sailed, but be decommissioned too.

Makes me chuckle as to how seriously they considered going for USA home use, when they proviso-ed it with costs might make it impractical. Still no sign of that mostly useless professional use status in the USA.

calderkate,
you're right, your questioning got me to consider it again, and the more I'd thought of it, the more I'm certain the £1M received from Alva has also been spent.

This board, that'll need shareholder approval for something soon, that just spued a heap of bad news (cash nearly depleted, screwed up another submission, gov still wants £2.5M, no income expected from covid, which includes DAM BTW), would have been falling over themselves to say that there was £1M one-off incoming not yet accounted for (effectively almost doubling the cash position) if that was the case.

This is afterall a board that just used a £1.2M order from last financial year as a reason why sales did not increase more on a year on year basis. Are we to expect them to, next financial year, to refer to sales figures from this year to explain why the increase is not more.

Do they not know that a year-to-year % does require you to compare last years sales figures to the next ?

Its spin

And in relation to the Alva cash, when we are talking about an existing cash position of £1.5M, if most or all of the Alva cash was still outstanding, which BOD would not say, "cash position of £1.5M, this does not include £1M still to be accounted for from the sale of Alva."

I have read enough ODX RNSs to know that excluded information is excluded for a reason.

calderkate:
"Twatcher- The £1m wasn't mentioned so you shouldn't assume the payment has been spent ,how do we know the payment has actually been paid yet ."

Why are you stating that I assume the payment was spent ? My calculation was based purely on the cash figures supplied by ODX. And then I raised as an unknown whether the cash from the sale of Alva was in there. I did not assume it was, I said at the end "if it has also been burned..."

I hear the CDTA often announce on Thursdays so I wouldn't be surprised.....

:)

1The net cash balance as at 31 March 2022 was GBP1.5m.
On Jan 19th, they stated they current had "in excess of GBP2.5m" of cash. Being generous and taking that as £2.9M, that is £1.4M reduction in 3.5 months, or 400K a month. THey managed to reduce the burn from around £550K a month to £400K a month. At that rate they've got 3and a bit months before they start hitting the credit cards.
I note no mention about the £1M one-off received from the sale of Alva. If that has also been burned.....

2)" However ongoing COVID income is expected to be minimal" . Perhaps this will finally stop people equating covid rise and ebbs in the UK with potential ODX fortunes.

3) "Prior year H&N sales are skewed by a large stocking order worth approximately GBP1.2m placed by the Company's largest partner in China to seed the market in 2021. Excluding this stocking order from last year, underlying H&N sales grew by 54%"

So basically if we didn't get that big seed order last year, our rise would have been better ! Clearly if ODX didn't sell anything last year, the rise would have been truly spectacular !....who are they trying to fool ?

4)"Whilst additional information requested for CE-Mark for self-test for the VISITECT(R) COVID-19 antigen test was submitted prior to the 31 March 2022 deadline, not all of the data requested was available and the Company awaits confirmation from its Notified Body as to whether the available data is sufficient. "

Spin again, in case anyone missed it, ODX just said they failed to meet ANOTHER submission deadline, and this follows their previous fiasco, whereby they submitted data the validity of which had expired.

5)"The Company remains in dispute with the Department of Health and Social Care".
The government has not dropped it's insistence that they want ODX to pay them £2.5M.

re the first proviso was that the board was NOT kept on.

The board said the company needed money, hence the fundraise, but it was not successful.

The fact that the fundraise didn't work out, doesn't diminish the requirement for money. So having had a few weeks now to digest that their original plan wasn't acceptable, the board needs to advise shareholders how they plan to proceed, they just can't take a huff.

good ole Reggie "only half way thru a pandemic....the great unshackling day" Perrin (who has me on filter of course ), can't wait to get to the keyboard when someone mentions my name :)

"I haven't seen ODX quote any other legal advice "

That's cause you've only been around for 5 mins and haven't bothered to backread the RNS's for the company.

Goonerboy "What do you actually think they can announce that can turn this round? "

Kate.....silence

Hedgehog (who only showed up 5 mins ago as a bottom feeder, but is now an ODX expert),

I've quoted the only two occasions where ODX cited "legal opinion" that proved not worth a damn. If you want to ignore that 100% failure rate and continue with accepting ODX's latest "legal opinion" as some sort of reassurance, then go right ahead.

Calderkate...."I wonder why Twatcher has returned"

I was in Florida for a few weeks, thanks for missing me.

...or the same legal advice they had to enquire from to figure out that the contract had actually terminated a month earlier before they asked what the status of the contract was.

"Moreover, no money has to be repaid as the legal advice is very clear, so another false statement."

Is that the same famous ODX legal advice (which they get from a firm of outside solicitors) that they told us that HMG had to provide them with a test to manufacture ?

Ah the old pre-election excuse, anyone around long enough will remember that being used in a tweet by ODX to explain why there was no announcement about the mologic test being accepted by DHSC. 1 year later, it's still not been certified.

the 31st of march is when they have to have it in, then the additional data and "follow-up reports" need to be assessed by whoever it was that took ages before they told ODX that some of their data was out of date and hence not valid.