We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bionex Inv. | BNX | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 0.29 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.29 | 0.29 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 12/5/2005 09:21 by abubryn NTV biovex.com takes you to their site with news etc.The thing with bnx is that they have already made an investment and have £3m funds so that covers them agasinst the new legislation I think. New rules say minimum £3m must be raised and investment must be made within X months of float i think. |
Posted at 11/5/2005 08:19 by one for the money AbubrynAgree they look good on paper but they seem to be a bit stuck at the moment (and have been for some time). Cheers 1-4 (BNX holder) |
Posted at 25/11/2004 12:28 by one for the money Just to get the thread moving....tick up this morning.(A BNX holder) Cheers 1-4 |
Posted at 14/9/2004 22:46 by saturn5 Well I hope Bionex do better than Bioprojects (Jim Slater) which is getting nowhere. The spread on BNX is terrible. |
Posted at 11/5/2004 16:39 by colonel a Some rough calcs.BNX put in £1.5 mill to ARK, of a valuation of £47.5 mill (header). 3.2% say. When ARK floated they raised £55 mill at 1.33 [41 million shares) Thus the original investors got 85 million shares. That would give BNX 2.7 mill Selling in March they would have achieved at least £1.30 per share. So they could have raised £2.2 million and still hold a million shares in ARK. So if my sums are OK and nothing else drastic has happened to their portfolio. They should have net assets of more than £5.5 million of which more than half is cash or non-volatile stocks. If the results confirm these numbers I would have thought they would trade in the 2.5 - 3.? p range. Well at least I hope they will. |
Posted at 19/2/2004 20:15 by rivaldo RL, no probs - I can afford to respond with equally good grace! I hope you've read my recent posts, as I've already pointed out that I took good profits at lower levels and am happy to ride the rest, AND that I agree there's not much upside here unless the Ark float is a roaring success.I think one of the articles above mentions that none of the major VC's are selling up at the float, though I don't know about BNX. Can't disagree with anything else you say. But the question of what BNX does next is interesting, assuming Ark float and BNX sell at a reasonable price (as I hope they will). They'll be sitting on a huge cash pile, and the CEO has just left for whatever reason. Could BNX be used as a cash shell to reverse something into (maybe one of the other investee companies)? The management are certainly active, and given they've said they're not making any further new investments what will they do with the money? |
Posted at 13/2/2004 09:53 by lizzie ii Barlesby, I am also happy to continue to hold MMD .... and also BNX. I first bought into BNX two weeks ago today, at less than 1.4p, so at current level that purchase has nearly doubled. But I am not selling out yet as I remain convinced that these are a good medium term investment.Why? BNX have gone up on the back of a potential ARK float. But ARK is only one of the good investments made by BNX. It is only a question of time before the market looks at the wider potential of BNX ... and rates them accordingly. So I think that these will reach 5p sometime during 2004 .... but how early in 2004 is difficult to say. But as I said when I posted into the MMD thread .... DYOR. A good starting point might be all those helpful links in the first message in this thread. |
Posted at 10/2/2004 19:49 by a harris you cant equate the 1.5 Million that bnx invested in ark in that way. The money that bnx invested has moved the company on considerably taking them to the verge of a stock market flotation. What you need to do is analyse the pipeline that ark is and has been developing since the bnx investment but thats why we all fancy bnx and the ark flotation. Now CSFB have been appointed to make the study into a flotation bnx remains in an interesting position as the easiest way to gain exposure to an ark flotation. |
Posted at 04/11/2003 10:00 by rivaldo Gmanhi, fantastic stuff - hmmm, "iffy" - a technical term?!RL, excellent stuff as usual. Great digging, but the net result remains the same - until (if or when) Ark floats, answers will remain unclear. In fact, even then more digging will be required, as since BNX apparently owns just less than 3% any RNS on float will not disclose BNX's holding/percentage. A couple of specific points: - I think your cost total of £3.2m is toppy. Add up the figures again in post 1 (from the prospectus) and (allowing for exchange differences) they'll probably come to around the £3.05m fixed and current asset investment cost in the March accounts, less provisions of £358k. - As noted in post 1, I'm not worried about BNX's dilution. It only starts to become a factor at 2.5p, and the point of the opening post was to bring to peep's attention a temporary discrepancy between price and value. - I would love to make a mint, but I'm happy with any profit, believe me! You can now pick BNX up at a valuation of around £2.2m (at 1.4p), maybe much less with a decent broker. Given £1m of cash, an investment portfolio excluding Ark which was valued in the depths of the downturn at around £1.1m, plus Ark, which at cost is worth £1.55m, BNX may be worth £3.6m. BNX may also be worth £5.2m if Ark floats at double BNX's in price. BNX may also be worth £1m if all its investments fail and it turns into a cash shell. So it depends on your attitude to risk. As part of a wider portfolio, and of course at the right price, BNX offers me (IMO) short-term high potential upside and low downside given that cash retention appears to be a priority and that it's highly unlikely there'll be no winners or recoveries from the portfolio. The interims will be interesting. They can't be far away, and will hopefully provide further visibility on Ark and the rest of the portfolio. |
Posted at 04/11/2003 08:19 by russianlinesman Rivaldo and OBR,I have now had a look through the Ark accounts for 2002 (4 Pounds seems a small price to pay for a bit of useful knowledge). As you can see there are 13mil ords, 15mil Ord As and 9.7mil ord Bs. Assuming these all convert 1 to 1 on an IPO (I will come to this below), then Bionex owns just under 3% of Ark. As per Rivaldo's earlier post, Bionex owned 200k worth of Ark at a valuation of 47.5mil pre money, and then acquired 1mil shares from Mountcashel, then valued at 1.35mil. We know Ark has raised money 3 times, 3mil in 1997, 15mil in 2000, and 14.5mil in 2001. It would seem then that Bionex's 200k worth of shares were acquired in the 2000 issue, when MCL invested its million pounds. This is where I get stuck on the valuations. I would expect to be able to match the classes of shares to the funding rounds, but the numbers are beating me at the moment. Assuming the 2001 round was the highest valuation, we can assume the Ord Bs were issued in this round. There are about 10mil Ord Bs which would give a valuation of about 1.45p ish per share for that funding round. This fits with the option exercise prices for the directors, which go from 1 Pound (for those issued in 2000), 1.38 (2001) and 1.48 (2002). So far so good, but this would then lead me to believe the Ord As were the 2001 funding round, valued at around 1.38p per share. However, we know 15mil pounds was raised, but there are about 15mil Ord As. If we assume the original funding of 3 million bought a 30% stake in Ark then, this explains why there would be 10 million ordinary shares. (in fact there are 13mil, so it seems the 3mil pounds bought maybe 25%) In a sense, this is all history, and therefore not so relevant, but there remains OBR's mystery of the conversion price of Ord As and Ord Bs on an IPO. This is not solved by reviewing the accounts. However, there is a clue if you look at note 2. In 2001 Ark expensed its share options, giving a 3mil plus hit to the accounts. In 2002 they accounted for a credit of 1.1mil, being "in respect of share options which have been granted or will be granted at less than fair value". This would seem to imply that the share options issued in 2002 were issued at more than fair value, hence the credit in the accounts. i.e. (still with me?) the options issued to directors at 1.48 were above what was deemed fair value by the auditors. Now, leaping in the dark a little, what this would imply to me, is that the Ord Bs and Ord As would have anti-dilution protection. If the IPO gets away at a valuation of less than a certain price (let's say 1.48p per share, but could be any number), the conversion ratio will be adjusted so that the Ord As and Ord Bs get more than 1 to 1 ordinary shares. Since we don't know what the minimum IPO valuation is, which would enable the rights to convert at 1 to 1, we do not know what potential dilution will occur on an IPO. This will be clear in Ark's prospectus (if they ever get that far). And back to where we were, which class of shares does BNX hold in Ark? If they have the 'right' ones then they will be beneficiaries of the anti-dilution. Maybe they have both ordinary shares and ordinary As. All very murky, and this together with all the director options, means a valuation of BNX's stake in Ark is going to be completely impossible until we get the Ark prospectus. SOME OTHER THINGS Sorry, didn't mean this post to be so long, but.... 1 - Rivaldo listed out Bionex's portfolio (post 1) with amounts paid. This all came to about 3.2mil pounds, yet the interim results are showing carrying value for unquoteds of 2.7mil, with no amended valuations. This can only (presumably) mean that Ark is in the books for 1mil ? 2 - Ark has 19 employees, and yet has 1.7mil of salary costs. The highest paid director earns 300k. I have no problem people earning proper salaries, but until a company is listed I would expect the salaries to be much lower - given they have all these options anyway. It all amounts to a low-risk bet for the employees. Wealthy enough as it is, they get super-wealthy if it comes off. If Ark runs out of money in 2 years, well bad luck. 3 - Despite the cash burn being 6to7mil pounds per year, the implication in the directors statement is that this will be higher this year. Further, when Ark raised its last 14.5mil, it stated that this would see it through 'well into 2003'. Wonder what the cash position is, and just how desperate they will be to get the IPO away (with the obvious effect on valuation) 4 - Not only does BNX have 157mil shares, it has options for another 20mil in 2006 and 20mil in 2010. These are highly dilutive again. 5 - Note that Ark has no revenues at all. When it was Eurogene, it made a big deal about earning consultancy money so it was almost profitable as it was. This seems to have changed and now Ark is using its money to pay some of its directors for consultancy services as well. To conclude from my perspective, BNX will stay on my watch list in case we see a retreat below 1p again, but given what has been said before, especially lack of visibility on portfolio of investments, and all the options which cast grave doubts in my mind on corporate governance, BNX is at least fairly valued. As previously said, I will of course be insanely jealous if you make a mint, but I figure I have learned a fair bit over the last 6-7 years and it is simply head over heart time. |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
