Member Info for wyndrum

"$10bn easily ..." " .....I'd be disappointed with a $10bn offer. I think it's worth much more than that. "

So what, ball park £15B? (You realise what the whole of GSK is worth right?)

So given its 30p what will the opening price be tomorrow after all this weekend's careful research due to the new poster presentation?

100%? 200%? more? I mean if its worth a minimum of £10 per share which is 33 times the current SP that still leaves plenty of appreciation to come.

"That’s because you’re still confusing the share price with company success, they’re two completely different beasts. One is driven by real milestones, clinical data, and long-term value creation. "

And AVCT have done none of that to date. When they do, then things will likely change but it won't prove that your gamble now was based on anything other than what it is.

Its not even an educated guess, because we have no idea whats going on behind closed doors.

You place assumption on assumption and pretend they are facts when they are nothing of the sort.

Have you ever once in the history of AVCT made a single prediction that has come to pass?

SP guesses, Trial data releases, loans paid in cash, DX companies bought,?

Have you ever seen bad news coming before it arrived?

LFT failure, extended dosings, CEO leaving, RI's arriving, RI placement price, length of trial II's selling, shorts taken out?

Just asking because if you have been wrong, consistently and without fail on all counts and the SP which means nothing to you (but believe me, it will) has collapsed, then maybe, just maybe, your investment criteria applied to this type of company is not reliable...at all....

No craig, just taking the time to explain to you that you are mistaken and the reasons why.

Again it shows a bias of deliberately ignoring the facts in front of you.

Its your post Craig that makes me laugh. Even though you have been told many times we are not the same person, given our writing styles are completely different (other than a desire not to resort to profanity and insults, which i do from time), the fact that D has mastered the art of brevity, and that clearly he comes across as a thoroughly decent human being, all these facts support that we are 2 individuals, but still you won't accept it.

Is that how you look at your investment here? You have made up your mind and new info will never change it?

(PS: how could we be the same poster when we both posted at the same time commenting on EVE?)

Yet you can still buy EVE mattresses. So the product and the "Mattress Technology" still exists and sells, just the shareholders lost all their money.

It can and does happen. The SP is important and it usually is all about the money.

Who can replace the board? who would you replace them with? how long would it take? who would make the executive decisions in the meantime?

"company fundamentals."

sigh....There are no company fundamentals, other than it has no income and currently nothing to sell and insufficient income to complete the current trial.

It will re-rate, potentially spectacularly, on positive, definitive news. But until then the market has only got the above to go on.

"All those orders, skills and workforce is not going to be just walked away from."

You would think, But there is always the chance that the company could go into administration and the buyer then might get the company cheaper than the current offer. Everything stays the same only shareholders get shafted.

Its just a gamble as no one can see the end game here with any degree of certainty.

"I’m now thinking that AS wasn’t pushed but jumped;"

I never considered that but thinking about it now, you could well be right.

Its a good heads up D, I like to explore all possible scenarios but I was closed minded to that one. It certainly has the benefit of being straight forward. ie it was his choice as he said it was.

It has always puzzled me as to why he would be "sacked" when he was. All the bad news of RI's and CLN loans was long in the past, so why sack him at that time when the trial was delivering the expected results.... unless....your view is correct.

Well, I am very close to that now JFK, I have been selling down over the last quarter as it looks increasingly less about delays to me and more about failure. The only thing that holds me back is that it is such a small rump that it really doesn't matter. Plus there is an element of "what if". What if P1b does indeed prove efficacy (I no longer think it universal), but if some cancers can be affected then the tech will have value and given I have waited 4 years I can wait a bit longer.

Good Luck with that.....

Look, they are aware of all of that and do not have the resource to fix any of what you ask for. And you assume that it works. If you assume it doesn't, then it all makes sense. (whether it does or not I don't know.)

But, they don't make any money. Got it?

This lives or dies on the science and the results from it. I don't enough about the detail of whats going on but the SP demonstrates that over the 4 years the market itself is underwhelmed. This isn't the day-to-day, ups and downs of SP movement and buys and sells.

4 years on the SP is at all time lows (just about). This does not reflect over that time, a breakthrough in Cancer treatment, well at least to me.

If P1A was not definitive and clearly it wasn't, then the expectation or chances of P1B blowing the doors off is, imo diminished.

The assumption a deal is about to be done is baseless. Its a wish based on the assumption that the tech is the breakthrough we hoped for. If its not then there will be no deal.

P1b is, nearly a year after the completion of P1a, still recruiting. Does that sound like a deal is in the wings?

Why have they switched to cancers to trial it on? (all that prep prior to starting P1a, and then at the end they change to different cancer targets? What does that tell you? It tells me that it is not effective on all cancers and moreover, not as effective as expected on their first choices, from the research in the lab. The implication is that it in fact may not work as expected. if thats true then everything falls into place.

Removed CEO, continued funding at lower levels, constantly falling SP over long period, trouble in recruiting directors, extended and missed self imposed timelines, lack of any formal or specific approach from outside.

Woody, It looks pretty bad as to what they have done but ultimately who are you going to sue for the loss, assuming there is is a case? They as individuals will be broke and bankrupt straight away.

Over the years there have been so many cases like this and nothing in the way of justice rarely seems to help the duped small investor.

Well FP, the SP is currently around pre-pandemic lows of 20-30p. so 5 years ago before the trial was even started and before the LFT raised the SP and amid several RI's and dilution and 4 years of trial data, later we seem to be back to square 1...

"the bod shall be removed and this business will skyrocket."

this is the breakdown for me, in the logic.

The business looks fantastic over the last few years so therefore ergo, it a fantastic business still.

However if the results show (and I am playing devils advocate here to prove a point), a much less profitable and maybe loss making business, then why would it sky rocket just because the BoD were removed?

"There’s no formal profit warning, no operational collapse, no customer exodus. The business is still functioning, winning contracts, guidance remains on paper, and there’s been no RNS admitting insolvency or even breaching going concern. That’s the legal line, not your emotional interpretation of sentiment."

I'll say again:

"The FTSE 100-listed group said an initial review called for "material" prior-year adjustments to both its profit and loss and balance sheets for FY22 and FY23, as well as H124."

If you don't know the true P&L including H124, then you have no idea if a profit warning or not is coming when the accounts are finally released. I would say a profit warning is nailed on reading the above.

Everything you say that is ok will only be revealed to be true or false AFTER the investigation.

To keep harping about it being historical is irrelevant until the latest proper audited accounts are produced.

By all means hold but I think it somewhat delusional that you think you know already what the outcome will be.

"The FTSE 100-listed group said an initial review called for "material" prior-year adjustments to both its profit and loss and balance sheets for FY22 and FY23, as well as H124.

Wood stated that adjusted underlying earnings and EBIT were likely to be restated, with the changes principally impacting historical reported performance in its projects unit. Issues were primarily related to legacy lump sum turnkey contracts and the misapplication of accounting standards."

(Disclaimer: I have no skin in this game one way oy another.)

So its not all historical. Some of it pertains to the current financial year. in which case what is the immediate financial state of the company? IF there are illegal practises found then there will be fines and maybe tax penalties too?

Based on those financial reports, investors may want or have cause, to sue the company for the losses incurred?

It is such a mess that I don't understand how anyone here can be "sure" of anything.

And I'm afraid lots of "big" companies go bust when seemingly they don't have to.

How old exactly are you watching?

is that it: "are you still peeing panties"

What does that even mean?

Seriously, how old are you ?

Perhaps if you read it rather than hurl silly petulant insults you might learn something?

Just a thought...

Ice you assume so much its difficult to believe you believe what you write:

"AIM isn’t a fundamentals, driven market, it’s driven by sentiment, volatility, and herd behaviour."

ALL markets are like Aim, its all sentiment volatility and herd behaviour. If it wasn't the price would never move because value would be recognised and the price would only move on new information, ie 1- 4 times a year. And as a result there would be no point "investing" to get ahead of the game. Its little to do with "fundamentals". Fundamentals are simply a human construct based on past examples of comparable companies in similar fields. these metrics that dictate whether a stoch over or under valued vary from sector to sector and the FUTURE value is a guestimate of what is believed most LIKELY to happen.

"He’s come in to steady the ship, keep things tight, and present a more professional, risk-averse front,"

Has he? how do you know that? We don't know the reason the last one left, like we don't know why AS left. No one seemed to jump at the position to be filled, so maybe this was all they could get and it has no reflection on his financial acumen? So not only do you not know the reasons for his employment, but if it was to "steady the ship", what does that even mean? Stop spending money, curtail the trial, sack people? support the SP? Any of that happened, any evidence at all of a steadier ship?

"The word “regrettable” in the RNS says a lot, it clearly wasn’t a unanimous call."

What? Why couldn't the whole BoD agree on a share dilution payment but at the same realise its "regrettable" for SH's to to have to wear it? Again, you simply haven't the first clue yet post such narrow minded views as to be breath taking.

" I feel it was still incorrect, however totally understand the reasons as new CFO in charge."

How conceited are you?! you say he was brought in to do a job, steady the ship, and then off the bat you think (without any knowledge of any part the decision making process at AVCT, that he was wrong.... Wow. (On the other hand it was very magnanimous of you to say you understood why he made the mistake.!)

You simply have no capacity to look at both sides. (Or even acknowledge this glaring flaw in any analysis you do.)

This is the third time the SP has challenged the 33p close. It has fallen intra- day to below 30p so although it is currently on the support line in.

The last rally away from 33p did not go as high as the previous one so the lower highs suggest the bearish sentiment still remains.

the conventional thinking is that the more times a support is tested the stronger it becomes, however the downside is that if that is breached then the fall will be greater through it.

There is also a double bottom at play which indicates that if the support goes then the low(ish) 20's is the target (20-24).

On the other hand if the SP finishes above the support it might be taken as very positive but a break above 42p would need to occur to give confidense that a reversal may be taking the place.

To complicate things a little further, the gap between say, buying at 33p with a 40-42p target is around 25% so some traders may want to have a punt on a rally rather than perceiving a reversal.

The odds are that a fall is more likely as the downtrend is clearly still in tact, but if a reversal is to take place, it has to start somewhere.

Interesting day I think (imo dyor etc)