Netscientific Share Discussion Threads

[keyno] 11/2/2017 16:52

Intuitive then. Same as me. Just wondered.............

[yasx] 11/2/2017 16:52

Escape,

Neither, though I have a robust understanding of both.

Most of my investments are in the oil/gas/mining space, normally largecaps, and normally I am bearish, hence most of my calls are of a bearish tilt.

[yasx] 11/2/2017 16:50

Keyno,

Does Buffett have retail qualifications? Or does he hold qualifications relating to the Transport industry? No, but he has made substantial investments and profits from the same.

How any fund managers or analysts covering mining companies are geologists or mining engineers? How many covering the steel industry are metallurgists? Does Woodford hold medical or pharmaceutical qualifications to enable him to run his healthcare fund? I think you get the point.

It is about understanding investment, not the minutiae of the industry to which the underlying investment relates

[escapetohome] 11/2/2017 16:21

To be frank my impression is Mr Yasx operates in the legal rather than medical / scientific field.

[keyno] 11/2/2017 16:05

yasX: I would be interested to know what scientific qualifications you have or whether your assessments are more intuitive. I bought in here high, always with a view to averaging down if I felt it was "worth it" and if I was being pessimistic. I have yet to be convinced that my money would not be better spent elsewhere and have not bought any more shares here.

[escapetohome] 11/2/2017 15:52

Chuckle chuckle indeed, ishall top up here , a few hundred pounds more!

Yup i trusted the iof crowd too much and got burnt, not badly , now i am cautious with my money and spread my risk.

My iof loss amounted to around £10,000.

Thanks yasx.

[runwaypaul] 11/2/2017 15:48

I trust that is the prelude to the 'robust piece' we have been promised this weekend?

[yasx] 11/2/2017 15:10

Escape,

Some of these portfolio companies are at a very nascent stage, others reaching the point of commercialisation - thus, one cannot reliably value this on the basis of current earnings. For instance, as I explained in a previous post, just one of the portfolio companies is expected to generate some 300 million within a decade.

It is plainly silly to value technology or biotech companies based on existing earnings, since, the majority will have nil or negligible earnings for years to come. NSCI is at a ore advanced stage, but it is still early days. What you need to do is to assess the capability of the projects/assets to generate revenues down the line. In order to do this, you need to understand the products, their advantages, the marketplace, competitors and so on. That is what Woodford has done, hence why he took over 40c of the company at prices of 120p and more. He, like this gracious chap, is taking the longer term view,and I maintain the rewards will be considerable. This is not Iofina, a basket case if ever there was one. Nor is it IDP, selling some fake tan in a few retail stores with no development potential and a price to earnings ratio of about a billion - chuckle chuckle!

[escapetohome] 11/2/2017 14:59

Hello Yasx , which of the underwing companies is bringing in the most revenue right now and what is that revenue?

Some of these underwing companies seem a little wishy washy, perphaps a little bit too much ' jam tommorow ' for the gracious chap?

[elbillo] 11/2/2017 11:20

Keyno: no there are at least two of us.

[keyno] 11/2/2017 11:00

Am I the only one who couldn't give a monkey's about what these two are on about?

[che7win] 11/2/2017 10:14

Here is the sagacious chaps assessment of TPL in case he forgets:=====================================yasX - 01 May 2015 - 11:27:27 - 1218 of 1389Last night I had a chat with a seasoned oil and gas expert - he was discussing the minutiae of Klymene, and, the more he explained the structures, the more I came to the conclusion that Tethys might well be sitting on a substantial gusher, one that alone could be valued at many multiples of the current price. That drill will cost a mere $7mln or so….======================================yasX - 21 Apr 2015 - 10:45:01 - 1096 of 1389I have again reviewed the prospect that is Klymene - although at first one might be forgiven for suspecting this might not yield much, more intimate scrutiny reveals that this could be a stellar prospect. Indeed, given the gargantuan potential, a mere $7mln or so is not a substantial amount to risk, especially mindful of the mouthwatering reward that might emerge if this were to yield even a significant fraction of what might be contained.=====================================yasX - 08 Oct 2015 - 08:47:46 - 1597 of 1907One must consider the potential of the assets and the fact that this might entice existing parties to improve proposals or for the emergence of fresh offers.Yesterday I was considering what Klymene might mean …………... If this monstrous prospect were to yield a mere fraction of what it might be expected to contain, it will indeed be a game changer. Of course, there is exploration risk, but then, which acreage doe snot have that?

[beeks of arabia] 11/2/2017 10:09

Get a room, you two.

[che7win] 11/2/2017 10:06

I apologise to this board, I realise those who don't know yazX don't really give a monkeys about him.

[che7win] 11/2/2017 09:58

A reminder that yazX clings on to Woodfords tail, failing to do some research. He must have had the chart upside down, the momentum is there, just not the right way:yasX - 05 Oct 2016 - 18:29 - 484 of 601 - 0The tremendous thing abut this stock is that it is not yet on the radar of any momentum investors. There was substantial interest from the Woodford fund, but there is no awareness with the broader market participants.The Company is not really building upon the early interest since it would appear to me they are seeking to ensure all the pieces are properly prepared and that the jigsaw is ready to be assembled. It is nearly at that point, and when the market gets a sniff, mark my words, it will give rise to gains, and rather a lot of them.Incidentally, there will be external funding for one or two of the arms per earlier suggestions - quite what the quantum/metrics of any transaction remains to be seen, but even one deal can transform the shareprice and I expect there will be more than one deal going forward.

[che7win] 11/2/2017 09:51

A reminder to readers what others thing of the gracious chaps research:"loveandmoney1 - 25 Oct 2016 - 12:56 - 533 of 599 - 3the gracious chap stands with trousers and underpants around the ankles."

[che7win] 11/2/2017 09:42

Where is the £15m cash this company needs going to come from?

[che7win] 11/2/2017 09:41

Contrary to the sagacious chap, I'm predicting the funding increases from last year and cash haemorrhaging continues.I also predict to the great disappointment from aforementioned avatar (as I've been doing for some time) that the company will have to raise more cash.

[che7win] 11/2/2017 09:36

From my research ( seems I'm the only one publishing research here), I assess the net funding obligation of c £15m at the subsidiary level (down from £18m). I also assess that these financings will need a fund raising and assets will need to be written down for past failures.Along side that, further ownership upside will be limited due to dilution to NSCI from equity release.

[che7win] 11/2/2017 09:33

I have losses last financial year at £14.7m and losses this year forecast at £13.2m.Revenue this year £4.3m and market cap £30m.EPS -20p!!!When are they going to write off Glucosense Yaz, another loss to add to this!

[che7win] 11/2/2017 09:23

I want to see an assessment from you on Wanda customers, who they are and who is selling this system.That is the key, let's see your expertise in answering that one.