Netscientific Share Discussion Threads

[purple11] 08/11/2016 12:24

but theres little interest.

[purple11] 04/11/2016 09:45

big buys rolling in

[blueball] 30/10/2016 08:02

Looks like he has been well rodgerised on MRS lol.

[runwaypaul] 28/10/2016 15:05

seems YASX has just been graciously rodgered in MRS too.

quite a losing streak for someone with such 'market savvy'.

[che7win] 26/10/2016 12:39

More mouths to feed at the table.

[che7win] 26/10/2016 08:13

That research never came, I guess the market is worried about the high costs, near term losses and possible dilution if cash burn continues.For that, the company needs a high share price, but usually the people running these types of businesses are academics and not money people...

[yasx] 25/10/2016 21:29

Only those who do not understand the proposition will be worried. I, on the other hand, know better...

[loveandmoney1] 25/10/2016 13:56

the gracious chap stands with trousers and underpants around the ankles.

[che7win] 22/10/2016 17:58

I don't get it or the market doesn't get it or both?When is the next fund raising?

[yasx] 21/10/2016 21:06

As I pointed out last week, (but Chewin the plum doe snot get it), funding will not dilute equity in NSCI but will dilute the stake held by NSCI in the various portfolio companies depending on the nature of the funding. Chewin really has not looked beyond the ticker symbol.

Without giving away a bit of the stake, how on earth does he think these things end up generating hundreds of millions in revenue?

Chewin is the chap who ignored all geopolitical and management risk and backed Botting the dud by buying Tethys at 50p and failed to note my reservations. The guy ought to come with 'L' plates.

[yasx] 21/10/2016 21:02

Chewin seeks to skew the metrics - Proaxis is just one of the companies within the overall Group, and Netscientific have only invested a million pounds in it and retaiin around one half of the stake in it. What Chewin fails to point out is that this alone is projected to generate £273 million net profit within a decade. What multiple ought to be ascribed to that at this stage? Well, say no more, it really could be one of the most stellar investment propositions out there.

[yasx] 21/10/2016 20:54

I would ignore Chewin - he is as thick as viscous custard, and fails to even understand how the Group is structured, far less the minutiae of what is going on within it.

[yasx] 21/10/2016 20:53

Gostevie63,

It was all ensconced behind a veil of secrecy - but, it was plainly clear that Azima was either booted or left in a manner hardly harmonious.

Remarkably, even though Azima leaving was supposed to lead to amelioration of the process of delivering value(price appreciation for stakeholders), it went the other way. But, the company has since taken great strides and is now at a point where things have statrted to come together. The market looks ahead, and the portfolio of companies are shortly set to deliver revenues or provide visible pathways to the same. that is not priced in.

[che7win] 21/10/2016 14:56

Thanks timbo,
I don't get it, this looks dead money for years to come, I don't have the patience to watch endless fund raisings without a good chance of successful outcome.

Slide 23 - another 5 years to get to £6.5m profit for Proaxis - assuming success.
How much dilution (equity or ownership) before then?

It's a 6-10 year horizon here.

[timbo003] 21/10/2016 14:36

The slides from the NetScientific Proactiveinvestor presentation are now available:

[che7win] 21/10/2016 12:35

What happens if they have to raise capital, probably at discount to current prices?

Another £15m needed soon 33% dilution?

[gostevie63] 21/10/2016 11:31

I also attended the meeting and had the chance to chat with Ian Postlethwaite (along with timbo003) afterwards.

I would endorse all of timbo003's comments, especially IP's knowledge of private equity investment companies and VCTs. (To be honest I don't understand a lot of the scientific stuff myself so can't really comment on that.)

Of the four companies that presented, I felt that NetScientific were the most impressive, so started to have a look at them this morning with a view to perhaps making an investment.

One thing that stood out to me was the early involvement of Farad Azima and Peter Thoms of NXT infamy. That was a big red flag to me although both have now gone and, judging by the tone of the RNS at the time, Azima left suddenly and without any ceremony. Can anybody point me in the direction of any background information to this please?

Oh, and the free drinks and canapés were very nice. :-)

[runwaypaul] 21/10/2016 08:16

is that the detailed report?

a few lines of bullish puff?

disappointing.

[yasx] 21/10/2016 08:08

Re Angle - that Company was overvalued by a substantial amount - several years ago I produced a detailed assessment and declared it then (with the price at 90p) to be grossly overvalued. I described that level as a price that would never again been seen. It did indeed mark a top and the price has always remained below it. the nuts like Mr K took me on, but, I guess they now regret it.

[yasx] 21/10/2016 08:06

Timbo,

It is virtually impossible to provide any sort of meaningful NAV at this stage since many of the parts of the group are at an inflection point and monetisation for several is fairly imminent - that will alter the dynamics. I will explain this in my report.

As for funding, you are right that several parts of the overall Group received funding as well as additional investment some time ago. What I hope to see by the end of the year is that at least one of the parts will be the beneficiary of third party funding/investment, and that will provide a potential valuation for that part at the time. I suspect just one of these plays will underpin the entire current market cap when announced.

This is not a play to hold for a week, but those getting in now will look back and think they had stumbled upon a considerable opportunity and seized it.

[timbo003] 21/10/2016 06:33

>>>>yasX et al

My notes as posted on the Angle thread are copied below, I will add that I was impressed with Ian Postlewaite, he seemed to be quite well up on the scientific and technical aspects (for a CFO). In addition to discussing NetScientific business, we also talked about private equity investment companies and Venture capital funds in general and he seemed very well informed in that area too.

NetScientific look cheap to me on a sum of the parts basis, they appear to trade on an unjustifiably large discount (circa 50%) to their (estimated) net asset value. As with nearly all other investment companies I would expect them to trade on a discount of some sorts (maybe 20 - 30%) but not 50%.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From the Angle thread


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.

[yasx] 20/10/2016 19:02

Well, if you glean anything useful, you might as well let us have it - but, I am certainly not interested in banal presentations and ebullient twaddle from Exec Directors. Tat is their job, whereas I am here to make money. The latter can only be achieved by having oozing sagacity, far less soaking up overly optimistic drivel from those keen to promote their offerings.

Those attending such events ought not to look for things to be positive abut but reasons to avoid investing. I suppose one must consider putting on the Defendant hat and assuming this to be a legal case requiring a degree of scrutiny. The idea should be to look for weaknesses and flaws in the thesis that this is a good investment - only then can one be sufficiently persuaded to tuck in.

[timbo003] 20/10/2016 10:30

>>>>>yasX, such events are for free food and drinks!