ADVFN Logo ADVFN

We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.

Trending Now

Toplists

It looks like you aren't logged in.
Click the button below to log in and view your recent history.

Hot Features

Registration Strip Icon for alerts Register for real-time alerts, custom portfolio, and market movers

FGN Futuragene

89.00
0.00 (0.00%)
Last Updated: 01:00:00
Delayed by 15 minutes
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Futuragene LSE:FGN London Ordinary Share GB0031791782 ORD 0.5P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  0.00 0.00% 89.00 - 0.00 01:00:00
Industry Sector Turnover Profit EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap
0 0 N/A 0

Futuragene Share Discussion Threads

Showing 1226 to 1246 of 1600 messages
Chat Pages: Latest  52  51  50  49  48  47  46  45  44  43  42  41  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
01/9/2008
11:20
Next stop 12p? Maybe I'm getting a little carried away....
mcsean2164
01/9/2008
11:13
Holy bannana shakes!

Someone has actually bought shares!!!

10:08 7.00p 25,000 £1,750 Buy O
09:59 6.75p 25,000 £1,688 Buy O
08:25 7.00p 5,160 £361 Buy O

First trades in about 3 weeks!!!

mcsean2164
03/8/2008
16:26
I wonder if there is any chance of takeover action here...as you say they can be bought for a song.

No body seems that interested so far...

red ninja
02/8/2008
20:51
Woiw, share price from bad to worse....


Anyone going to the AGM?

The AGM will now be held at 9.00am on Monday 11 August
2008 at the offices of Fox Williams LLP, Ten Dominion Street, London EC2M
2EE

Won't be able to make it with work committments but it would be great to get some feedback from someone attending.


Market cap now £2.37 million, maybe we should buy the company outright? 10 investors, £237,000 each?

mcsean2164
26/6/2008
14:17
Thanks also for that mcsean :)
leadersoffice
24/6/2008
12:48
Thanks for the update ...
red ninja
24/6/2008
11:08
Had a chat with Mark A. Pritchard, Non-Executive Chairman, today. It was a big relief to talk to someone who someone who sounds like he knows what he's doing.

He sounds really professional and was able to give a really good summary of their current status and where they are going.

They have three current sources of revenue. You'll have to bear with me here because I just scrawled down what he was saying and am not sure of the spelling.

1. Suzanno paper and pulp.
2. Genetic Dairy USA.
3. Targeted growth, (soy and corn).

They are carrying out paid work for these guys.

I then asked him about China. He said they have the following

1. They're working in a 50/50 joint venture with the Institute of forestry on Eucalyptus strains. If successful they will get 50% of the revenue stream, bearing in mind the institute of forestry plants the whole of China, this could be a good thing.

2. Secondly they're considering cellulose to ethanol, which is said to yield 300% more biomas than current methods. I'm not fond of this ethanol sh*t and believe it is the wrong way for the planet but I'm it's going to be used a 300% improvement in yield is probably worth invetigating.

Mark said he was also disappointed by the current share price and believes it does not represent the current value of the company. He believes the share price is being dragged down further by the litigation by dismissed former CEO Bruno Ruggiero. He says that Bruno has lawyers working on a commission basis and that his claims are frivolous.

Definitely feel better about the company but would like to see these details in black and white in the next annual report before I relax!

mcsean2164
10/6/2008
17:27
it is... but not as disappointing as the current sp!
mcsean2164
05/6/2008
12:55
Its not encouraging when they cannot find the time and/or will to reply...
red ninja
04/6/2008
16:46
I've sent the following mail to Futuragene, hopefully it will elicit some kind of response!

Dear Sir/Madam

As a concerned investor I have written previously requesting information on proposed future revenue streams.

Having received no response I am writing the same email to reiterate my request for information. As I noted previously Futuragene has yet to generate any income excluding that generated from interest on the capital it raised from its flotation.

Can you please answer the following questions?

1. Where do you see future revenues coming from?

2. Do you have any clients in the pipeline?

3. Do you have any particular companies in mind to whom you can sell your technology?

4. It's interesting to note your relations with China but how can you prevent them from using any of the technologies you jointly develop? Do Futuragene have any patent rights?

5. Do Futuragene have any business plan and if so can you supply it to me?

I look forward to your answers.

Regards,
Sean Mc

mcsean2164
10/5/2008
01:41
can fgn fill the gap? probably not, but i've bought my lotto ticket!
mcsean2164
10/5/2008
01:40
Apr 17th 2008
From The Economist print edition

Food prices are causing misery and strife around the world. Radical solutions are needed

Getty ImagesPICTURES of hunger usually show passive eyes and swollen bellies. The harvest fails because of war or strife; the onset of crisis is sudden and localised. Its burden falls on those already at the margin.

Today's pictures are different. "This is a silent tsunami," says Josette Sheeran of the World Food Programme, a United Nations agency. A wave of food-price inflation is moving through the world, leaving riots and shaken governments in its wake. For the first time in 30 years, food protests are erupting in many places at once. Bangladesh is in turmoil (see article); even China is worried (see article). Elsewhere, the food crisis of 2008 will test the assertion of Amartya Sen, an Indian economist, that famines do not happen in democracies.


Famine traditionally means mass starvation. The measures of today's crisis are misery and malnutrition. The middle classes in poor countries are giving up health care and cutting out meat so they can eat three meals a day. The middling poor, those on $2 a day, are pulling children from school and cutting back on vegetables so they can still afford rice. Those on $1 a day are cutting back on meat, vegetables and one or two meals, so they can afford one bowl. The desperate-those on 50 cents a day-face disaster.

Roughly a billion people live on $1 a day. If, on a conservative estimate, the cost of their food rises 20% (and in some places, it has risen a lot more), 100m people could be forced back to this level, the common measure of absolute poverty. In some countries, that would undo all the gains in poverty reduction they have made during the past decade of growth. Because food markets are in turmoil, civil strife is growing; and because trade and openness itself could be undermined, the food crisis of 2008 may become a challenge to globalisation.

First find $700m
Rich countries need to take the food problems as seriously as they take the credit crunch. Already bigwigs at the World Bank and the United Nations are calling for a "new deal" for food. Their clamour is justified. But getting the right kind of help is not so easy, partly because food is not a one-solution-fits-all problem and partly because some of the help needed now risks making matters worse in the long run.

The starting-point should be that rising food prices bear more heavily on some places than others. Food exporters, and countries where farmers are self-sufficient, or net sellers, benefit. Some countries-those in West Africa which import their staples, or Bangladesh, with its huge numbers of landless labourers-risk ruin and civil strife. Because of the severity there, the first step must be to mend the holes in the world's safety net. That means financing the World Food Programme properly. The WFP is the world's largest distributor of food aid and its most important barrier between hungry people and starvation. Like a $1-a-day family in a developing country, its purchasing power has been slashed by the rising cost of grain. Merely to distribute the same amount of food as last year, the WFP needs-and should get-an extra $700m.

And because the problems in many places are not like those of a traditional famine, the WFP should be allowed to broaden what it does. At the moment, it mostly buys grain and doles it out in areas where there is little or no food. That is necessary in famine-ravaged places, but it damages local markets. In most places there are no absolute shortages and the task is to lower domestic prices without doing too much harm to farmers. That is best done by distributing cash, not food-by supporting (sometimes inventing) social-protection programmes and food-for-work schemes for the poor. The agency can help here, though the main burden-tens of billions of dollars' worth-will be borne by developing-country governments and lending institutions in the West.

Such actions are palliatives. But the food crisis of 2008 has revealed market failures at every link of the food chain (see article). Any "new deal" ought to try to address the long-term problems that are holding poor farmers back.

Then stop the distortions
In general, governments ought to liberalise markets, not intervene in them further. Food is riddled with state intervention at every turn, from subsidies to millers for cheap bread to bribes for farmers to leave land fallow. The upshot of such quotas, subsidies and controls is to dump all the imbalances that in another business might be smoothed out through small adjustments onto the one unregulated part of the food chain: the international market.

For decades, this produced low world prices and disincentives to poor farmers. Now, the opposite is happening. As a result of yet another government distortion-this time subsidies to biofuels in the rich world-prices have gone through the roof. Governments have further exaggerated the problem by imposing export quotas and trade restrictions, raising prices again. In the past, the main argument for liberalising farming was that it would raise food prices and boost returns to farmers. Now that prices have massively overshot, the argument stands for the opposite reason: liberalisation would reduce prices, while leaving farmers with a decent living.

There is an occasional exception to the rule that governments should keep out of agriculture. They can provide basic technology: executing capital-intensive irrigation projects too large for poor individual farmers to undertake, or paying for basic science that helps produce higher-yielding seeds. But be careful. Too often-as in Europe, where superstitious distrust of genetic modification is slowing take-up of the technology-governments hinder rather than help such advances. Since the way to feed the world is not to bring more land under cultivation, but to increase yields, science is crucial.

Agriculture is now in limbo. The world of cheap food has gone. With luck and good policy, there will be a new equilibrium. The transition from one to the other is proving more costly and painful than anyone had expected. But the change is desirable, and governments should be seeking to ease the pain of transition, not to stop the process itself.

mcsean2164
10/5/2008
01:40
well after years of standing on the side line, I've finally bought in.

What turned me on was all the recent talk of food shortages. 100 million people facing starvation due to ethanol, food grants and the credit crunch. Drought, salt & thermal resistant crops could be the way forward as advertised by FGN. Admittedlt they don't make any money but I suppose sentiment could change and the company is still fundametally the same as when it floated except (hopefully) it has years of (useful) research.

There's not much further to drop but there's a long way to the top.

A lot of the hype was started by the economist

mcsean2164
19/4/2008
14:51
It looks like you're not wrong.

Last shares traded were 10 days ago. Note the sale of 20 shares on that day....

Time Price Volume Value Buy/Sell Type
08-Apr-2008 11.50p 538 £62 Sell O
08-Apr-2008 11.10p 20 £2 Sell O
08-Apr-2008 12.00p 10,000 £1,200 Sell O
08-Apr-2008 12.70p 380 £48 Sell O

mcsean2164
18/4/2008
16:02
Everybody knows this is a dead duck
abadan2
15/4/2008
16:30
Everybody asleep.
jmillskeel
02/4/2008
17:23
There would have been a time an annoucement like this would have added 15 20p to the share price! Now it barely moves
leadersoffice
17/3/2008
18:35
Sent a mail to these guys asking them where they see future revenue coming from.

No response...

It funny because the only listed income in the last annual report is interest payments on their capital!

mcsean2164
28/12/2007
22:21
This was always going to be a disaster. All the deals Leo Knifton does in his shells involve placing a huge over-valuation on the shell and vastly overpaying for the business that is acquired via the issue of shares. The business will be hard to value and, by the time it is seen to have little value, Mr Knifton and his associates will have pocketed a few million pounds and will be trying to find the next suckers.
abadan2
19/12/2007
14:58
I am guessing the previous board of directors has sold the secrets and classified research materials in on the black market. With such a high security breach, the company has let down the shareholders and will struggle to install confidence in the future clients.
centuryplayboy
18/12/2007
19:00
down, down, down, down.... da, da, de, down...

What a company! Surely they have something to release to the market. Why aren't they in negotiations with the Chineese and selling them drought resistant crops?

mcsean2164
Chat Pages: Latest  52  51  50  49  48  47  46  45  44  43  42  41  Older

Your Recent History

Delayed Upgrade Clock