Member Info for wyndrum

Afternoon all: Van when you say (correctly), "... we had h1 numbers only +6.8% and we had January figures which were up % wise but still not big numbers. So that's only coming up to 4 months of sales we don't know about." it went on to say below:

"Current trading

The current trading includes one month of activity with SCHURTER.

· Billings of A$321,000 in January 2025 is an increase of 62 per cent versus January 2024.

· Bookings of A$281,000 in January 2025 is an increase of 27% versus January 2024.

· Backlog of A$1.2m as at 31 January 2025.

· Book to bill ratio of 0.88 as at 31 January 2025.

· Cash at bank as at 31 January 2025 was A$5.0m."

It highlighted the relative huge jump in the first month with Shurter. I would guess that that 68% would increase as an on going comparative, as more buyers become aware of the product, plus with the new suppliers taking the product makes me expect a material improvement.

I am not sure legally what CPX have to tell the market about sales revenues? for instance 3 good months could be followed by 3 bad months. Companies don't give a running commentary. thats why they have 2 TU's per year to allow the market to adjust/reset their expectations.

Big one-offs like the recent headset announcement don't include any figures for that reason, but the implication is it could/should/will be financially important in the future.

Anyway, hopefully they won't disappoint.

Thanks Nlgb, for clairyfing.

As you may know (or not) I think "social media" has been one of the biggest mistakes of science/countries/ on the 21st century. I would ban it.

(How do you know this BB is read by more people than I think or indeed you?)

You also said: "Are they day-traders who may want to buy in a dip or shorters just wanting it to come down which is at the direct expense of others? Or other more sinister motivations? " (What is this sinister motivation you refer to?)

So if you want it to go up that would be at a shorter's expense wouldn't it? There is no over arching morality to this. People buy in the hope it will go up and they will profit, shorter's hope it will go down so they will profit.

another quote: " Consistently negative posters’ motivations are more opaque than consistently positive (potentially over-optimistic) posters."

Are they? in what way?

I have been pretty consistent as new news has been released "negative" on this stock simply because I feel it has more chance of falling than rising. what is opaque about that? What is opaque in a negative stance on this stock when it has been in a downtrend for years and has justified that stance?

(I know you are not targeting me specifically but you are with your general description, describing me.)

Where ever money is concerned you will get unscrupulous people trying to rob them of it. I get and agree with that. But which stance on here has been correct?

The never ending positive posters who (lets be generous), simply believe at some stage the SP will rise but have been wrong for years and MAY have influenced others to buy and therefore lose money, or the ones that took a negative stance but have been proved correct and potentially saved people money?

It just seems to me a bias on all these stock BB's that anyone taking a view of a downward move is ridiculed, insulted and generally inferred to have ulterior motives, but people who expect to rise are in fact virtuious.

Its crazy: its just abetting slip. It for me always confirms what a HUGELY emotional trip most small PI's are on when they buy a stock.

Always bet what you can easily and comfortably afford to lose, and always have a system in place where you preserve your capital.

Its so easy, its laughable, yet very few have the emotional resilience to do those 2, so simple things.

If you are referring to me Nlgb could you say so and specifically what you think I am doing that is wrong?

(I have been cautious about this stock since it became apparent to me that the LFT looked to have failed. The SP was 256p)

So please if you want to discuss the stock and why I hold the views I do or if you think you have an insight into my personality, by all means post away.

But reading your posts you are making a number of assumptions that have little or no justification and as a result come to a poor and incorrect conclusion.

Just one example. You seem to think that it is "sinister" that some one takes a view that the stock is over priced and more likely to fall than rise. This on a stock that has been in a down trend for years. Because the reality confounds your desire you assume you have been tricked by sinister forces as though talking about AVCT can alter the data, results and funding issues. Is that what you are saying?

Bit of a chart break out, next stop 4p. (unlikely to be in a straight line though!)

So, we are back to BP having no idea about AVCT... ok, lets go with that....

My best guess is that the NDA will not allow numbers & revenue to be disclosed as that would affect future negotiations for sales to other companies.

So it will be words like "inflection point , material, transformational" etc. and maybe new guidance on income, but I think that may be swerved as everyone will get their calculators out.

So come the actual results and then the new income revenue and profit within that statement it might offer a clue as to what we CPX have achieved but by then I imagine there will be more new contracts so it will be harder/impossible to see what this company originally paid CPX for their tech.

My guess is (I do a lot of guessing!) they will or already have drive a hard bargain knowing the doors it will potentially open for CPX globally and this is their reward.

MM, I reckon it will be sooner than that. Oct is simply the scheduled launch. The reveal could be any time before then.

The only (main) reason I can think of not saying it now, is that its actually production timelines that are still being ironed out. Thats why it is "scheduled" for October launch.

It could be CPX producing enough capacitors in time for then or the Conglomerates own set up making that deadline. Once all the pieces are in place for production and a firm date is approved for launch then we will hear. (imo, dyor etc)

Van, we both seem to be on the same page regarding all things CPX!

Personally I think whoever the company turns out to be (given its implied size), it becomes irrelevant how that particular company could further incorporate CPX's tech. The fact that they will have decided its the "right" solution will open doors to every other mass producer to at the very least look at CPX, but more likely buy their tech too.

No one can predict the future so all it is for me is, what's more likely than not to happen. I think it more likely this design win will translate to an order and then the ball is rolling for CPX.

I think also it is worth highlighting that apparently AVCT have had a few private meetings with a group of PI's over the years, giving more detail to them than the general market (us!), causing a fair amount of chagrin here when learnt about.

Yet what has the result been?

If anyone is still in any doubt, you really do not want to listen or put too much weight on what any directors say when giving forward guidance in loss making companies.

I get invited to a few events where you can talk to the directors first hand. I never go, ever. Whats the point? (Whisper.."I say, Wyn, best dump these, its going to be a bit messy later this year..." Hardly going to happen is it? So, all you will hear is how great everything is and most people's (PI's) ego's being what they are, they somehow think what is in fact a public event, is somehow getting inside knowledge and makes them feel as though they know something the market doesn't and they go out and buy feeling all clever and important.

imo, you learn more lessons from losing money than making it. Once you learn those lessons, making it becomes much easier .

Well, my read its all or nothing. Either the design win fails to make it into production, or if it does then its across the whole platform.

I am not sure why, having won the design of the component, it would not then be taken forward into production, Likely it was out out to tender so the Conglomerate want this tech in their platform, so my read is, the last bit is negotiating the price with CPX. When done, that's when we will get the numbers, revenue and company revealed. (imo, dyor etc etc)

I'm inclined to give the AVCT BoD the benefit of the doubt. Even going back to AS's time. Its hard to raise money. The underwriters are not like us. They don't gamble. Ice has always laid the emphasis on the science pulling AVCT through.

He is right in that. The fact that it hasn't to date suggests to me (and as you know, for some time), that the science is not as good as many here think.

That's why there are no deals so far, no buy out, why BP wants to wait for more data (end of Phase 2), constant falling SP, funding concerns, CEO replacement, BG sell, slow recruitment on financial director, switch of emphasis to "new" pipeline, etc etc. None of that would have , and be occurring, if in fact the science was the game changer we have been led to believe.

Anyway ,fwiw, I think a raise is coming and I think it will be below what the consensus here is now coming round to expecting.

Coxy, : "Both have no number or value stated. They could both be for a few hundred pounds. No one knows"

I am all for being conservative with what companies announce, but when CPX state "The engagement, currently under commercial confidentiality, will involve the integration of CAP-XX's supercapacitors into the customer's next-generation headphone platform." and that is a multinational Conglomerate, it is not likely to be for a few hundred pounds , is it?

Jes, I am not sure how much notice an auditor would take of an NDA if it is just an outline with no specifics or legal guarantees of funds arriving.

AS for letting major investors know whats going on. NDA's don't go on this long. Plus they can drop hints etc. For instance CC said vaguely deals were being considered and approaches had been made. They could flesh out that a bit more privately without breaking any laws or confidences. Again, as examples. we are told from time to time in the news, certain people have NDA's with various organisations when being paid off. So we don't know what has been said or agreed but we are aware of an NDA in place.

Again here, specifically, the "NDA" theory is always wheeled out to explain silence as in fact lots of big stuff going on behind the scenes. That has bever proved to be the case yet. Silence, unsurprisingly, has always to date shown out to be a lack of positive news.

Will this be different? who knows, but I am not holding my breath.

"We’re all in the realms of guessing, but we do know that Avacta is a lot less leaky these days"

Er...well, only if they have news that they have kept quiet....what if there has been no news to leak?

And while I appreciate the scenario you outlined with the ever convenient NDA (which has never happened to AVCT to date), you would have thought somebody might have mentioned it to BG before they sold or is it just an auditor thats get the special treatment?

Could always be a good old fashioned tree shake? might be clearer as the day finishes

Watching, why won't you answer my question on how you reasoned the price was being manipulated?

And my point chris was that my down beat assessments have been proved to be correct.

There is no virtue in balance if the weight is all at one end.

I am guessing like the rest of us. The difference I take with a few others here, is that I don't infer silence and a lack of positive news as a sign that that is in fact going on in the background and will be revealed surprising the market. I understand it is a possibility, but I think unlikely.

Historically has that ever happened with AVCT? no. Has silence presaged bad news? yes. Has AVCT ever licensed a commercial product from any of its tech? no.

All of this can change going forward. I just don't see any evidence of it presently.

Is that balanced enough?

Cinders, welcome aboard. Apology accepted

How's my track record so far in being "balanced" chris?

It all hinges on what news is to be released next week. Its not going to be about the trial per se because all that news has just recently been done on posters etc.

It could have an update on p1b I suppose but given the length of time to release the p1a data (which is crazy), suggests to me it will only refer to patient enrolment and so far so good but obviously it could be more. (and maybe it will be to support the SP. However the market largely ignores future promises as they are not in the gift of the BoD to deliver.)

So 1:1 RI, yes, I agree thats pretty extreme but for me as this deteriorates it becomes in the realms of possibility.

How about this ice:

1:1 RI at 10p would raise £27m enough to finish off P1b.

Possible?