Ip Share Discussion Threads

[edwardt] 29/10/2020 19:28

Anyone listen in?

[bamboo2] 29/10/2020 09:51

This afternoon 4PM IP Group plc (LSE: IPO) ("IP Group" or "the Company" or "the Group"), the developer of intellectual property-based businesses, is pleased to announce that it will be hosting a webinar on the role that science and innovation has to play in building resilience in health systems. The webinar, which will take place on Thursday 29 October at 16:00GMT, will feature short presentations from Dr Gordon Sanghera, CEO of portfolio company Oxford Nanopore Technologies, and Hugh Lloyd-Jukes, CEO of portfolio company Oxehealth, detailing how their companies have innovated in the battle against the pandemic. IP Group is committed to clear and open communication with stakeholders and attendees will have the opportunity to ask questions as part of the event. For more details or to register as a participant please visit Https://www.ipgroupplc.com/events Https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_8XLGaRCIQu2kx-kks--kmQ

[bamboo2] 28/10/2020 12:23

Moray Wright of Parkwalk discusses the business. Around 130 co's with 30 exits generating a return of approx 25% [since 2009] 16 Employees. Assets approx £325m Https://globaluniversityventuring.com/leadership-series-moray-wright/

[bamboo2] 27/10/2020 14:33

The 290,000 shares the group have in CWR are out of lock-in, so assuming they are now gone, that's another £2m to add to the cash pile. :-)

[bamboo2] 25/10/2020 17:15

Part of report from a while ago... ttps://www.ft.com/content/d4f3f56f-9d0c-4e9f-bc34-1be4c390b212' target='window'>https://www.ft.com/content/d4f3f56f-9d0c-4e9f-bc34-1be4c390b212 ...Privately held Oxford Nanopore, meanwhile, has just completed a funding round at the same valuation as in January’s pre-Covid era, roughly £1.7bn, according to number-crunchers at Numis. When it raised cash in 2018, the group was valued at £1.5bn.  The university spinout strictly specialises in DNA sequencing technology, not diagnostics. But its gene-reading machines have been used to sequence the Sars-Cov-2 virus, helping track its spread. And it has diversified into testing too. On Tuesday listed investor IP Group — which was a founder backer — revealed Nanopore had secured a £113m UK government contract for its LamPORE Covid tests.  Analysts are all excited about a potential Nanopore IPO. Jefferies’ Ken Rumph reckons the company could be worth $6bn. Talk of a float last year was premature, everyone now agrees, since the company needed more time to demonstrate commercial applications of its biotech and that it could earn recurring revenues.  Maybe next year. But then investors have been hoping for an IPO for years. Lansdowne Partners, Neil Woodford and Invesco were meant to be patient backers of the private company. But they have since sold, or been forced to sell, large stakes. IP Group — which was also backed by Lansdowne, Woodford and Invesco — also trimmed its stake. It is now down to 15 per cent.  Nanopore’s investors shouldn’t lose heart. This year’s fundraisings, which set a current price for the group, have been undermined and overshadowed by the plight of its early supporters. Its valuation will catch up with the Covid-19 bump. Investors who can hang in there should. Those who don’t have access to the private company should take a punt on IP Group...

[bamboo2] 25/10/2020 16:38

The sale of CWR means that IPGroup can now focus on Bramble Energy [24.2%] and RFC Power [26.5%]. Both of these constituent companies have team members that originate from the same institution as CWR, Imperial College London. Some were founders of CWR. The companies also share some management. Https://www.brambleenergy.com/ Https://www.rfcpower.com/team

[bamboo2] 22/10/2020 19:24

The successful test of the support line at 80 this morning looks positive.

[bamboo2] 22/10/2020 18:12

cord, I was looking at quite a few different funds this morning and probably got confused. dyor!

[p1nkfish] 22/10/2020 18:05

Will take a look bb2.

[cordwainer] 22/10/2020 17:01

What discount? your link goes to a fund / OEIC

[bamboo2] 22/10/2020 09:44

Pierre and p1nk, have either of you looked at the Invesco High Income Fund? Afaik, this holds approx 11.5% of IPO, and approx 11% of ONT. It pays a dividend of approx 4%, and trades at quite a sizeable discount. I have been looking at it, but need to confirm some facts about holdings, so have been waiting for the the full accounts in the New Year. Comments welcome. Https://www.invesco.co.uk/uk/products/invesco-uk-equity-high-income-fund-uk

[pierre oreilly] 22/10/2020 09:00

pink, yes, only the big investors have some influence over the board. But they are just humans like you and me, and may have varying views just like you and me. I'm not happy when a quid in the company is valued at 50p. The market (probably correctly, for exactly the reasons I've given) values each pound cash in the company at 50pish. Given to you and me, that one pound would actually be worth one pound. Simples, almost magic, and at the same time obvious. Almost £200m cash being valued at £100m, when it could so easily be valued at £200m. (to pre-empt you, I'm not saying all the cash should be paid to shareholders, just a small part of it - the rest to go in costs and small company investments). Not really sure why you think anything I say is strange or even not perfectly sensible. We both own a bit of that £200m, which is devalued to £100m while inside the company, but would be worth the full value (that's doubleish) if we got a bit of it. When they pay it to themselves, they double the value to themselves in expenses, salaries, bonuses etc, so why not treat the actual owners the same? BTW, I see why the board are so content with their cushy easy money high cost if most shareholders roll over like you. Also i wouldn't worry that posts such as these genuine views will depress the shareprice - they'll have zero effect with a positive bias imo. And if the large holders did exert some influence, then the share price would really motor 30/40% in my view.

[bamboo2] 22/10/2020 07:20

Bought a few on the dip.

[p1nkfish] 21/10/2020 15:02

I dont think this will ever line up with your expectations Pierre. I've found it better to fit to a stock than to expect change to fit to me as the holder unless I already knew the change was on the cards. Some deep pockets know the modus operandi and only they can seriously agitate for change. They look ok with it.

[pierre oreilly] 21/10/2020 14:43

My view stacks up if you realise i think it's cheap and that at some stage, somehow, some value will be released for shareholders. I was very positive when i first invested here, and posted so. While the numbers wherever you look are great, i didn't realise the anti-shareholder stance of the basic strategy of the company, nor the dumping of the 1 in 100 companies which actually makes the big time just at the exact point of bringing home the bacon. That's the strategy! Pay for everything until the odd one is about to turn a profit, then sell! You must admit, if nothing else, it's pretty hilarious. I think what is beginning to grind more is the largesse with themselves - ffs, they have the nerve to say 'expenses may seem very high for our company, but blah blah balh' owtte. I live in hope that some of the uber profit and multi tens/hundreds of mill cash ipo is some time soon going to make on nano actually finds its way to shareholders, and not just the directors and managers in bonuses (they are welcome to those if they also reward the owners).

[bamboo2] 21/10/2020 14:23

Pierre, no offence intended, but you'd have to be mad to hold on to a share when you have so little faith. As I have said before, your viewpoint just doesn't stack up! The company have set out their stall, it's your choice whether to buy or to look elsewhere. Why not take up your stance with management? They are very open, and responsive to shareholders.

[pierre oreilly] 21/10/2020 11:30

'The primary use of the Group’s cash is for the requirements of our portfolio companies.' That simply is not true. The primary use - as it should be - is to pay the staff. The secondary use should be to reward the business owners commensurate with the success of the company (which could be zero of course). The third should be the requirements of portfolio companies. Obviously, the requirements of portfolio companies is pretty well infinite (ask any of them) so no cash for staff wages then if that is the primary requirement. This lot aren't even from the 20th century let alone the 21st. They are more akin to some sort of financial social service for nascent companies - something which the government should be. Btw, they are alright jack, plenty of money goes the management's way for all their socialist and charitable words. I think myself as well as all other shareholders are to a large extent getting hoodwinked.

[p1nkfish] 21/10/2020 10:25

Investing on the basis of up-trend and momentum detection can be lucrative. Perhaps IPO need to continue to hold a %, even if much reduced, so long as both are favourable. I can't see doing so being much against the principles of the company and makes sense to have someone with that trend/momentum following responsibility.

[brucie5] 21/10/2020 09:33

Recently bought some back here, because I think we're in a confirmed rising channel, with the ON story being an obvious driver. ON is well advanced, though I'm slightly anxious that the bod will now seek to give it away just as it comes into its own. For which read AVCT, CWR. In fact I'm somewhat depressed to hear about the approach of the company, to sell cos that are on the cusp of greatness and buy those that are merely highly promising, and therefore equally speculative. This sounds more like a lifestyle hobby activity than a business, and reminds me of my own worst decisions around buying story stocks because it feels so good to speculate on how many times they might bag - when in reality, that success is hugely highly evasive and distant. It seems to me that timing in story stocks, is ninety percent of the skill required. It is far more profitable to get in an inflexion point that at seeding - because most seeds die/fall by the wayside. But that is a skill that management here seem to frown upon, at signal cost to shareholders.

[brucie5] 21/10/2020 09:33

Duplicate post.

[bamboo2] 21/10/2020 06:49

Pierre, I just noticed this on the co. website, a transcript from the Shareholder AGM Q&A... Https://www.ipgroupplc.com/~/media/Files/I/IP-Group-V2/documents/investor-relations/Shareholder%20QA%202020.pdf

[bamboo2] 21/10/2020 06:44

FOR RELEASE ON 21 October 2020 IP Group - Investor webinar IP Group plc (LSE: IPO) ("IP Group" or "the Company" or "the Group"), the developer of intellectual property-based businesses, is pleased to announce that it will be hosting a webinar on the role that science and innovation has to play in building resilience in health systems. The webinar, which will take place on Thursday 29 October at 16:00GMT, will feature short presentations from Dr Gordon Sanghera, CEO of portfolio company Oxford Nanopore Technologies, and Hugh Lloyd-Jukes, CEO of portfolio company Oxehealth, detailing how their companies have innovated in the battle against the pandemic. IP Group is committed to clear and open communication with stakeholders and attendees will have the opportunity to ask questions as part of the event. For more details or to register as a participant please visit Https://www.ipgroupplc.com/events . No material new information will be released by the Company during the webinar. Https://www.ipgroupplc.com/events

[pierre oreilly] 20/10/2020 13:51

Pink, yes I know I can sell if I want, you've told me before. But I'm in, it's very cheap for what you get, and I'd probably buy many more if this would give me an income, as would thousands more. The excuse that earnings are lumpy is nonsense, they have the cash to pay for a progressive divi policy for the next 20 years and fund their new prospects just with the cash on the books atm. I hope and expect some large shareholders will at some stage exert some pressure, thinking the same as me.

[bamboo2] 20/10/2020 10:47

Pierre, there are also quite a few other co's that never got as far as listing, before they were part, or totally sold! There was a part sale recently. Spend five minutes looking at the Parkwalk p/f news tab in the header to see how IPO now operate It is interesting to consider how few listings from IPGroup have occurred in recent years. Most of the co's listed on AIM had the life shorted out of them, before they achieved a commercial critical mass. Therefore, I guess there is no sense in listing anything that cannot stand on its own. All of the darlings mentioned above, CWR, AVCT, etc, were reduced to penny shares! Thankfully some of the listed stocks are now in recovery mode.