||EPS - Basic
||Market Cap (m)
Angle Share Discussion Threads
Showing 42851 to 42874 of 42875 messages
|Sv - hilarious - i did have a chuckle!|
|Noisy, overpriced and very plastic?|
|Vortex - the ' dyson ' of the ctc cycling harvesting world.
Come on angle get a wiggle on !|
|If the repurchase is on Thursday we will probably get the announcement on Friday (ie don't be surprised if no announcement on Thursday).|
|D-day next Thursday for share return to AN.|
|The slides from the NetScientific investor presentation are now available:
Here's the one on Vortex|
|I was also there. There was also a question from an erudite audience member about Vortex in the Q&A following the presentation. |As part of the response, the Netscientific guy said that they were behind Angle, but thought that Vortex's efficacy and speed were its strengths relative to the competition (I paraphrase - this is from recollection not notes). He did not go into any detail on this though to explain why.
Also important to note, the presenter was the CFO of Netscientific and had only been in the job for 4 months. His collegue co-presenting was from a different subsidiary.|
|Yes, thanks timbo.|
|Ian Postlewaite (CFO) gave the NetScientific presentation tonight at the Proactiveinvestor one2one forum
There was only one slide specific to Vortex and he concentrated on one of the other investee companies (Proaxis). The slides will be made available on the Proactive web site tomorrow or early next week. I managed to talk to Ian after the meeting and quizzed him as much as I could regarding the NetScientific portfolio and Vortex in particular, honesty got the better of me, so I opted to declare my slight conflict of interest with my modest holding in Angle.
I asked about the NAV of NetScientific and the NAV of the individual components, including Vortex. Ian replied that they hadn't published any individual NAVs, this was because at the current stage it would not be appropriate to use any of the accepted valuation methods to value the individual investee companies (for example: cost, value based on most recent funding round, or sales multiple etc.). The reasons for this is that the companies have received quite a bit of grant money (£16m across the portfolio), the companies had made significant progress since the original investment, they haven't completed any significant funding rounds for any of the portfolio companies and most of the portfolio were pre-revenue.
I asked if they had any internal feel for the values. Ian said that Vertex was probably worth $20 - 30m and the portfolio as a whole was probably worth between $80m and $90m. Netscientific has no debt and nor do any of their 5 investee companies, the market cap currently stands at around £35m.
I asked how far he thought they were behind Angle, he said around 2 years, but they considered that their VTX-1 machine had certain advantages over the competition.
All things considered, as an Angle shareholder I am not particularly concerned as Vortex are a long way behind (they will launch CTX-1 for research purposes in Q1 2017). As an investor who is constantly on the lookout for interesting opportunities in the Medtech / Biotech area, NetScientific are definitely going on to my watch list.|
|Come on now Angle, a penny down is unfathomable in the year when Angle said to all loyal die hards:
"Dont be out of the shares"
|Thanks timbo, you probably already had that on the list!|
|>>>rafboy, will do
|Timbo, any idea on when they think they will be undertaking research sales or clinical sales would be good to know. Thanks.|
|Could you set the fire alarm off at the appropriate time please?|
|Do they have an employee called fraybentos ?|
|I will be attending the Proactive one2one investor evening this evening. NetScientific (Vortex) will be presenting (I don't hold).
I will be asking how they think their machine compares to Parsortix in general terms, any requests for any more specific questions?|
|Agreed Waterloo, the viability of the cells for culture does seem to be a real strength of Parsortix.|
|miavoce, interesting link. Certainly highlights the challenges, however the conclusion seems to point toward the need to maintain viable CTC's, which rather plays into AGL hands!
"These challenges make it difficult, at this stage, to define a CTC culture method to be generally suitable for all cancers or even just for one type of cancer. Based on the above challenges, future research directions in CTC culture should be focused on improving the understanding of the biological features of CTCs, in particular the features associated with the culture ability of CTCs. With this improved knowledge, we may identify the viable CTCs and culture them in the most suitable culture conditions, which allows single or few cells to proliferate and grow into cell lines. Once this is achieved, we can then begin to establish robust procedures for CTC cultures from different cancer cell types and in patients, not only with metastatic cancer and large amount of CTCs, but also before metastasis developed, as long as viable CTCs exist."|
|Apologies if this has already been posted, but maybe of interest.
|Parsortix mentioned in a new publication (from the International Journal of Cancer and Clinical Research):-
If the fact that Parsortix can be used to extract cancer cells from blood was new information, or even close to being new information, then you might have some sort of point. However, Parsortix's capability in this space is now well established fact and the presentation is therefore simply raising awareness rather than breaking new information. Perfectly understandable therefore that the Eppendorf big guns have stayed at home for this one, no doubt to focus on their research. As you will recall the Eppendorf big guns were heavily involved in the early communications of their findings regarding Parsortix.|
|Workshop overview was by Peggy Robinson US President Angle|
|Only because Graham Norton was too expensive.
As long as the presenter has the capability to convey the facts, what does it matter?|