Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Larsh - I think it is probably very simple why this happened: Avacta/Mologic did not follow up on the supposed submission by their contractor on May 10th with a basic check that it had been done correctly and left it too long before looking into it - hence 18 days lost. It's not rocket science -just implementation of basic commercial risk mitigation procedures.
What happened is , it took 18 days for Avacta / Mologic (the company / Partner company) to check and resolve that a contractor carrying out critical business on behalf of the company / Partner undertook that business right. And, in the context that the Avacta CEO stated that the submission had been made on may 10th and explicit commercial sales promotion would following within "coming days" (of May 10th).
The RNS incudes :-
"In the meantime, the Company has continued its discussions with distributors and customers for the AffiDX® antigen test and does not anticipate that the error will cause a delay to first commercial sales of the product". This can surely only mean , there are no specific sales yet lined up? If there were sales lined up, the delay from 10th to now and the next few days would already have been a £ loss. Evidence mounting this is a shambles?
whether Mologic is third party or second party or even first party (if they are a "Partner"), ..still niave trust in the contractor appointed to make the submission. (Who appointed the contractor, Mologic or Mologic and AVacta jointly ? ).
No fault in communication. They've told of the mistake. The alarming thing is it took them 18 days to realise that it had not been submitted properly and get it resubmitted. Didn't anyone think to check sooner? It doesn't fill with confidence. Niave trust in third party.
Just caught up on the interview. Whilst the CEO generally reassures of the company's confidence in its claim with the EU, his general style, [low, rambling] coherence and whingy-focus are possibly an explanation of why his company is not already doing much better than it is. Hopefully he and the company can get their act together better very soon but, it's already been a long wait.
..it looks like "in coming days" can now be added to the Avacta CEO's lexicon of timing terminology that seems to have a different meaning to what the vast majority of the 'rest of us' might assume is meant.
Still, by any stretch of the imagination, "in coming days", stated on May10th 2021, can not mean much longer than May 21st 2021, even in Avacta CEO timescale world, surely? ( I assume he hasn't got his years mixed up again! Since his original forecast of a product for summer 2020 has tuned out to be summer 2021))
And , some will say it's out of his hands, the delay is down to nothing more that MHRA admin. but, a CEO should know what the 'third party' risks are and should make statements carefully in that regard. (Though of course this is AIM)
But, here's hoping the CE is confirmed very soon and sales follow swiftly -as it sales income that is the real test for where the SP may go.
..agree there's been a degree of 'pulling wool' in the previous RNS 's in that they were over-confident.
Did the company, or investors here, really think the EU would just roll over and it would be easy!
For me , the most important thing this company can do is get its marketing act together and win some decent contracts for its products - irrespective of the distraction of the EU legal challenge.
It's this are of lack of marketing / contract wins that is most disappointing., especially relative to the current Covid and environmental platform of opportunities.
So, the CEO is right up against his committed CE mark progress deadline again!
I wonder what a Bookmakers odds could be on Avacta successfully meeting his within-April date?
Track record suggests tight odds on another failure.
Or , did he mean April 2022?
I hope the £545 M is right - that would be fantastic but, - and sorry to dampen - doesn't that calculation assume all profit is to Avacta? The manufacturer, distributor and sales parties dont take any cut?
I think the underlying point is, a CEO should know that there are things that might cause delay and he should factor them in. His indications of outcomes have been poor / misleading. Have Avacta achieved a single one on time?
A rare contribution to debate from me ...
Like many on this board I would like to feel more trust in this company's leadership and scruples ..but, giving them benefit of doubt, perhaps they don't want to reveal that they're already producing masks because it might weaken their commercial negotiations with customers? (That is, already having a pile of masks to get rid of might lower the price? ) Just a thought. However it might just be that they still haven't got the 'machine' commissioned! Possibly because they've not been particularly competent all along about the logistics of this?
All, I skim but don't generally post on this board, because the conversation generated by posts always seems more about whether a post is a 'ramper' or 'deramper' than it is about genuine information and opinion exchange. However, having just trawled the BBI website, I cant find a single mention of Avacta or Affirmers other than the news release of 6th August, announcing a partnership with Avacta. No equivalent of Avacta's 23/11/20 RNS. BBI especially list reagents on their website but don't include any mention of Avacta or Affirmers. This all seems odd and ,not encouraging to the hopes of Avacta coming good with its LFT? Though I guess there's not much specific detail on the BBI website about what BBI are doing within the rapid test (antibody) consortium work either. Maybe this is evidence that things are not as rosy as AVactas2 3/11/20 "delighted" RNS would have it? However, despite growing concerns of non-delivery of Avacta's promoted mass antigen LFT, I'm taking the risk and holding as it still might come true. And, I keep telling myself, I originally bought for the cancer treatment possibilities of affirmers.