Buy
Sell
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Alliance Pharma Plc LSE:APH London Ordinary Share GB0031030819 ORD 1P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  -0.10 -0.15% 65.20 459,165 16:35:24
Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price
65.20 65.60 66.00 64.20 64.20
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology 163.21 18.16 1.37 47.6 352
Last Trade Time Trade Type Trade Size Trade Price Currency
17:53:37 O 3,286 65.20 GBX

Alliance Pharma (APH) Latest News

More Alliance Pharma News
Alliance Pharma Investors    Alliance Pharma Takeover Rumours

Alliance Pharma (APH) Discussions and Chat

Alliance Pharma Forums and Chat

Date Time Title Posts
17/1/202314:44Alliance Pharma pays Dividends1,795
21/8/201816:36A Canadian Stock Worth Watching1
11/6/201809:21Unexpected-
07/11/201615:35Alliance Pharma plc1
15/7/201309:15ALLIANCE PHARMA – 2005 Strong Riser611

Add a New Thread

Alliance Pharma (APH) Most Recent Trades

Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type
2023-02-07 17:53:4965.203,2862,142.47O
2023-02-07 17:47:3665.2012,6398,240.25O
2023-02-07 17:47:2965.1924,86416,209.59O
2023-02-07 17:47:1465.205636.51O
2023-02-07 17:43:4565.339,4716,187.21O
View all Alliance Pharma trades in real-time

Alliance Pharma (APH) Top Chat Posts

Top Posts
Posted at 07/2/2023 08:20 by Alliance Pharma Daily Update
Alliance Pharma Plc is listed in the Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker APH. The last closing price for Alliance Pharma was 65.30p.
Alliance Pharma Plc has a 4 week average price of 58.70p and a 12 week average price of 34.30p.
The 1 year high share price is 122p while the 1 year low share price is currently 34.30p.
There are currently 539,385,132 shares in issue and the average daily traded volume is 1,144,178 shares. The market capitalisation of Alliance Pharma Plc is £351,679,106.06.
Posted at 17/1/2023 14:44 by kalai1
Alliance Pharma plc, the international healthcare group issued an unaudited trading update for the year ended 31 December 2022 this morning. The Group delivered see-through revenues of £172.0m in the Year (2021: £169.6m), up 1% on the prior year. Excluding sales from ScarAway™ and the US rights to Kelo-cote™, both acquired in March 2022, like-for-like see-through revenues declined 6% at constant exchange rates. Underlying profit before tax is expected to be slightly above £30m, in-line with the November Trading Update. Free cash flow was £15.8m (2021: £30.2m) and, following the US Acquisition, net debt increased to £102.0m at 31 December 2022. Valuation looks attractive following last year’s share price correction with forward PE ratio at 10.1x, lack of share price momentum is perhaps the main cloud. APH looks a smaller pharma name with growth, value and quality all decent. Not a bad addition to a portfolio for the medium run. BUY...

...from WealthOracle

hTTps://wealthoracle.co.uk/detailed-result-full/APH/646

Posted at 28/10/2022 19:54 by simon gordon
Hello All,

Just taking a look after seeing Chelverton mentioned they were adding in their September update.

The big red flag looks to be the price they paid for the menopause product, $110m and sales are sinking and they are having to spend hard to reboot the top line. Is it a patented product which has a moat? Looks a clanger on first read.

Cheers!!

Posted at 22/9/2022 23:35 by blackhorse23
I don't get it's mcap , far too high .. good stocks out there like CURY (LSE) mcap 700m , revenues 10.1 billion , dividend yields 8% , share buy back 75m , APH not near any of those numbers but mcap 350m ??
Posted at 20/9/2022 20:39 by wba1
Just a few points;

That APH acquires niche medicines in no way precludes it selling on rights and no court would see that as unusual, especially when a company has done so on other occasions. It is perfectly normal commercial activity. The onus would be on the CMA to show any other motive with evidence.

Either the entire board are complicit in a cover up or there are no side agreements which can be evidenced regarding the disposal and pricing of the drug. If the former then the problem is much worse than we think. If the latter then the CMA case is built on straw.

It really is worth looking at the L&G/Prosser case. In essence the FSA found mis-selling of financial products but based that on no more than rumour and similar (evidenced) cases in the industry. It was that lack of solid evidence specific to the case which caused the hugely embarrassing defeat for the FSA. This is a similar situation unless the board are misleading us.

I agree that the conflation of on course for full year forecast and timing of some restocking orders is a concern, although some assurance comes from the comment about orders received in July.

I think this is one which will affect the share price for the next 12-18 months, but some recovery is likely if full year forecasts are delivered.

Posted at 05/9/2022 21:50 by winnings1
I reckon the appeal court will judge against APH because APH will have
to explain the sale of a niche medicine to an 'unscrupulous' outfit whilst
APH specializes in acquiring niche medicines,collects niche-medines for
its portfolio of niche-medicines.


.

Posted at 02/9/2022 15:15 by wba1
wad collector;
I think your analysis is sound, but I expect this to progress to the Appeal Court if the CAT appeal is unsuccessful, although that would need to be on a point of law. In the FSA/L&G/Prosser case it was the judges in the High Court who applied a proper judicial requirement for solid evidence to throw out the case and criticise the FSA, so I am optimistic that the specialist judges in the CAT will apply similar standards.
In terms of company value it is difficult to see why this is having such an impact. Underlying performance seems to be robust (and we will be even clearer shortly with the results) and the great thing about APH is free cash flow, which is exceptional. I would be more concerned about the Chinese exposure than this case in terms of value and, even there, regard it as manageable given the broad product and geographic base. As for KPMG; it is legitimate for there to be a difference between an auditor and a company in these specific circumstances. That is much more worrying when the reasons are opaque. I am sure you are right about the market being uncomfortable with all the noise around this issue but, at some point, it will clear. But I can imagine this stretching into 2024, especially as the CMA are attemting to impose exemplary punishments for refusing to admit guilt. It all smells more like the US legal system with the innocent forced to plead guilty to avoid the death sentence.

Posted at 02/9/2022 14:39 by wad collector
The massive price rise in buccal prochlorperazine to the NHS was outrageous ,it suddenly went up about 700% for a few yrs and this year has gone back down by the same factor.
The CMA press release in May19 damned Alliance as conspiring to pay the competitors through its distributor Focus who paid a share to the competitors between 2013 and 2018 , fining APH £7.7M.
That appeared to be the end of the story apart from the appeal against that fine which will be heard early next summer. So the Disqualification Order trial will only be heard if the appeal is unsuccessful and it includes the CEO and director John Dawson .Though the latter resigned in 2019 from APH when that story surfaced.
If the APH statement is correct and

" Alliance out-licensed prochlorperazine to a distributor in 2013 in return for an agreed fixed transfer price. Since that time Alliance has had no involvement or control over, and did not benefit from, the in-market pricing of the product, which is entirely managed by the distributor."

then the case should be thrown out, but I guess it depends on how the CMA views the independence of the distributor company and whether the agreement was legal.
So it will hang over APH for another year, and possibly result in disqualifications of CEO and another ex-director as well as the fine.
APH also changed their auditor a month ago as KPMG were not happy with the way the fine was accounted for last year, that doesn't look good either. No-one here commented on it.
The market clearly doesn't like it.
So if you are confident that the company is innocent then it is a good buying opportunity.....

Posted at 02/9/2022 09:23 by wba1
It looks as if the regulator is attempting intimidation in revenge for APH challenging them. I trust APH will take this all the way and that Butterfield will seek damages from them if and when APH win the case. It is an almost carbon copy of the FSA tactics against L&G and Prosser years back, when the FSA were exposed as utterly incompetent and prepared to sanction companies with no evidence of wrongdoing.
Posted at 03/4/2022 16:39 by wad collector
Strong looking share price graph, and some niche products. From a UK perspective the Nizoral brand is well placed bearing in mind the pressure for the NHS to not prescribe these borderline drug/consumer products. The Over The Counter alternatives are not well known and the brand name is strong.
The other main products also have solid market positions , though I am a bit sceptical about Amberen menopausal vitamin pills . The only logical non-hrt medication is Vit D / Calcium and there are cheaper alternatives, though there will always be people willing to pay for an apparent specific treatment, like all these nonsense symptom -specific nurofen brands with no logical distinction. I guess it is also in the American market where you only have to look at the number of vaccine sceptics to realise that selling them vitamin pills is not about science.

Posted at 04/2/2022 09:21 by wba1
winnings1; no, that is not the question. Many similar arrangements occur across the industry for a variety of reasons. The question is whether APH made the arrangement with knowledge (either explicit or reasonably anticipated) of the activity of the distributor and benefitted from that activity. APH have been clear that they received no financial benefit from the pricing so only the former applies. This investigation falls under the cartel/anti-competitive behaviour function of the CMA and requires that APH be a participant in the behaviour. The only way I can see this being possible is if the CMA claim that APH entered the distribution agreement knowing of the pricing activity and were able to extract some benefit up front as a consequence (given that APH have made it clear they did not receive subsequent benefit). I can find no reference suggesting this is the claim of the CMA.
Alliance Pharma share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange
Your Recent History
LSE
APH
Alliance P..
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

Log in to ADVFN
Register Now

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20230208 03:46:21