Member Info for Wigwammer

Thanks mig, if someone has high conviction about the trial results of an early stage bio then sticking to their guns may be the right thing to do. But Buffett’s contention would be there are more reliable things to hang your hat on - which is why he has little history in this part of the market. And anyone who thinks the interim data over the next 12 months isn’t going to be critical in terms of progressing mrx and materially driving the share price direction is living in cloud cuckoo land. My guess is most readers have the requisite brain cell required to realise this. ATB

Why would anyone commit to holding a stock for 10 years, when the trial data to decide whether the technology has value or not will be known over the next 12 months? Biotech has been of little interest to Buffett.

Injecting the tumour with bacteria? Are you sure?

Apologies, but inject the tumour with what? The idea with 4d is that the bacteria trigger a response - they do not directly attack the tumour.

What are you on about, wisened one? I’ve been in pharma a very long time and this one has a whole stream of results coming out this year that will determine where it goes. Whether the technology works or not, it isn’t going to take years to find out.

Slift - I don’t think it matters that the report was compiled before the start of the investigation. The point that matters is that PFC hired legal help and forensic accountants to examine the relationship with Unaoil, and reached a conclusion that was wrong. That incorrect information was then passed to the SFO, and they knew even back then to reject its conclusion. It is odd to say the least that an internal and forensic study of the data pinpointing Unaoil missed something that the SFO could see externally even then. At the time, the SFO concluded PFC were not cooperating, and I can’t recall anything from the SFO since then concluding they are comfortable with their cooperation now. PFC have changed a few things, but no confirmation from the SFO yet that enough has been done.

Reading back the rns, can’t see where I read 2018. Old and tired and eyes blurring I think. Will look again tomorrow.

Slift - cooperation is about giving the SFO the information they ask for and making sure it’s accurate. The SFO did not ask them to undertake an internal review, and the subsequent information reported was incorrect. Providing incorrect information the SFO did not ask for is not to anyone’s benefit, and.probably contributed to the SFO’s view they were not cooperating. To confirm that PFC was not an organisation likely to change for the better of its own volition, the wrong doing evidently carried on until 2018 as reported in the last Lufkin RNS. The CEO stayed on. So in terms of key aspects of meeting the “cooperation criteria” - inaccurate reporting of information, repeated wrongdoing even after the investigation started, ceo remaining in place throughout... objectively - it’s not pretty.

Slift - I get that. But one of the conditions for getting a DPA is cooperation. Consider PFC’s actions since the SFO confirmed their investigation... Sending them an internal report claiming there was no wrongdoing, when there evidently was. And consequently allowing the wrongdoing to carry on right up to 2018. All overseen by the same CEO they originally questioned. Perhaps enough has been done since 2018 to satisfy the cooperation requirement, but as I state - the company have done themselves few favours and I can see why the investigation has dragged on.

I’ve looked a bit more tonight and notice two things. 1) Petrofac changed their legal advisors in 2018. They dropped Freshfields who had conducted the internal investigation and gave it to Simmonds. It looks like they accept - and they have to - that the initial internal investigation was a dud job. 2) The Lufkin charges relate to actions taken up to 2018 ie recently, and ridiculously in the knowledge that the SFO were investigating at the time. At first I took this negatively - they haven’t cooperated, their internal investigation was a dud, the wrongdoing carried on. But now I think - if the broader organisation and senior staff were really complicit, would they have allowed the wrongdoing to continue even AFTER they had been interviewed by the SFO? Had they wrongly just trusted the report by Freshfields, and consequently dropped them the second it emerged they had not done a thorough job? .. still feels like a DPA is the probable outcome, but they have not done themselves any favours.

Mate - if you found that article enlightening, then your decision was based on nothing but luck. A coin toss. Congratulations!

If you both found that article enlightening, I can only assume both your actions - buy, sell, whatever - are done on a wing and a prayer. Cos ya can’t have done any research!

A shocker! A killer! = 5% of backlog. Doing some research can avoid you getting mugged. If the shares recover to £3 you won’t be ecstatic cos you got out at 120p instead of 95p!

Jeez gaz. Assumed you’d done some research. If you found anything new in that article you can’t have done any research at all!

“ADNOC killed it”... ADNOC was 10% of revs, 5% of backlog. Drama queen?

Easy response... it’s all old news that was already known. Hope that helps.

Wrong!

Lol. You appear to be the expert in self hype and factual misrepresentation around here, so I guess the sheep is you. Atb :) .... ps good to see ark’s $3000 fantasy target isn’t having the desired effect pre market.

You didn’t say future pricing, and anyone with half a brain cell can see it it. Your quote in full “Okay fine, it's a software company valued at more than Microsoft with no real market presence to match apple, Microsoft or other top software companies....” You now additionally claim you rode Tesla to $880 and sold. Nothing like some hyped unproven bwollox to add to your factually incorrect post!

So did the internally funded Petrofac investigation fail to identify that Lufkin was involved?