Optibiotix Health Share Discussion Threads

[loungeact] 17/7/2017 18:00

Awwwwww TT can’t stay away, can you Princess? He keeps coming back to save us all! Hahaha!

[elrico] 17/7/2017 17:59

Uhm...I think I called Michaelmouses out on more than numbers, and did accuse him of deception, lies and pretty much asserted he did not apply any rational thinking, logic and asserted he is afraid of the bogeyman.

I see the man in his mirror can't keep his word, even for a few hours. Back again after stating his goodbyes, with the same warning, same traits, same antics and same tactic. I wonder...!

[siennadelekat21] 17/7/2017 17:42

I agree bobdown... I think just another 2 - 3 of these agreements (even smaller ones as RNS'd today) will turn the tide for the share price for the better. People (or IIs) will start to take notice and see there is actually a business here and that the industry is truly starting to recognise there is value in these strains etc..Sienna

[talkingtrade] 17/7/2017 17:42

The blind shall follow the blind into the abyss.You have been warned!!!

[1bokke] 17/7/2017 17:29

Well, for the first time I have to take exception to one of Elrico's posts... Genuinely astonished that you said that maths is not MM's strong point, why I ask myself have you limited it to just maths when there is also common sense, deductive reasoning, simple research oh and the most basic which is..the truth. Apart from that, I really enjoyed the post.

[elrico] 17/7/2017 17:07

Good luck with that, Loungeact. Perhaps someone can come up with another username, one that he cannot assert is filtered and compile a list of questions from today's posts for his attention....if nothing else, it will kill his filter excuse stone dead. I'm not suggesting Michaelmouse will answer any of them, indeed not, it will merely serve to prove my point and that of everyone that posts here, he is a liar.

[loungeact] 17/7/2017 16:48

Mickeymouse - I've asked you this before and you ran away like a little girl unable to respond. You say OPTI is years away from 'decent' revenues and profits. Can you DEFINE how much is 'decent' in your eyes?

[hutch_pod] 17/7/2017 16:41

Elrico - many thanks. That makes sense :) Had a quick look at the annual report and SBTX doc too, and can see the logic of deriving £1m pa running costs.

[bobdown2] 17/7/2017 16:33

finances took a step forward today not back..best not look back as the next deal will improve the picture yet again..this fixation with today's revenues should take a back seat as we watch the contracts get signed and the revenues stream in. But do not take my word for it, look at the rate of increase of the r.n.s statements..still quite a few of those 30plus companies still to come !!

[michaelmouse] 17/7/2017 16:29

QS99 - Filter them. Vile creatures that they are. Nobody needs this scum in their life.

Your post suggests that haven't improved.

I started this thread in March last year, so we're already nearly 1.5 years into when I told them that decent revenues and profits were years away. Still a long way to go yet. Ridiculous market cap.

SP was about 70 odd pence then and has gone nowhere in that time. Actually down to be accurate. Still much further to fall.

[lukead] 17/7/2017 16:24

haha, some evil twisted being is sat in front of the screen all day long, no sooner had i posted my last post than a thumbs down appeared, a split second after posting, very speedy my little friend lol

[elrico] 17/7/2017 16:23

Hutch - I think slarty is confusing PLC costs (running the company) and manufacturing of strains. The company costs of c£1m pa is post my guesstimate of not including SBTX. I cannot get a cost for manufacturing of strains. However, given we have been told the cost base remains flat even as sales and supply of strains increase, we can, with a degree of confidence assume the PLC costs, incorporating the manufacturing process is included in the ball-park £1m pa. Either way, it must be negligible in the grancd scheme of things.

[lukead] 17/7/2017 16:21

QS99
17 Jul '17 - 15:51 - 1661 of 1663 0 1

I have said enough, GLA

DO YOU WHAT YOU SAY THEN AND BUZZ OFF, I PASTED THE IMPORTANT BIT OF YOUR PREVIOUS POST

[slartybartfaster] 17/7/2017 16:12

Hutchpod, investor presentations indicated plc costs were around 85/100k pa before skin ipo. Perhaps some else can confirm these?

[hutch_pod] 17/7/2017 16:08

Thanks Elrico. It would definitely be easier to understand if both royalty and revenue figures being mentioned were post (3rd party) manufacturing costs. Then the P&L could be thought of as sales revenues less running costs.

Sorry, is the c£1m pa cost figure a ballpark for the manufacture of (a lot of) LP-LDL?

PS I might well be getting confused on existing product royalties, but tried to keep the points more generic.

Cheers

[elrico] 17/7/2017 16:00

Q - TRY doing some research. Better still, read the article in the sane threads header. It CLEARLY explains why no revenues guidance YET. It's not a difficult concept to grasp, it just needs logic applied.

Michaelmouse - You keep hiding under the covers when I post if you like - we all know your ego forbids you using the filter, it is merely a opt out function because you are sick of being made to look foolish by my hand.

[neftanikoff] 17/7/2017 15:42

A naturally superb post Elrico. I should think the more these fellow numpties TT and MM write the more stupid and emotionally disturbed they appear to everyone. A right couple of crackpots who have been hurt in the past and are hellbent on a warpt form of revenge. I can not see any other reason for their constant repetitive nonsense in posting here on a share they do not own. I hope all posters on ADVFN see them for what they are.

[elrico] 17/7/2017 15:41

Hutch - I think you may be confusing existing product royalties. Sacco have an exclusive license to manufacture and supply LP-LDL, in Europe in return for 50% of the profit with a minimum price per kilo to secure against discounting. To answer your question, I believe the royalties are post costs, though costs are minimal, c£1m pa. I think the margin is almost 100%. I don't how much of each strain can be manufactured, I asked and was told to do one, we ain't giving you this info :)

SOH won't give away detailed info on royalties as this gives too much away, of course. If I was to have a guess, I would wager the deal with HLH Bio yield c15% margin because OPTI are only providing LP-LDL to an existing product. Again, no idea what guarantees OPTI have provided HLH in terms of supply line.

I'm a little confused with SACCO's roll, because the original agreement was for Europe wide. Last I check, New Zealand was somewhere near Australia. Geography has never been a strong point.

[michaelmouse] 17/7/2017 15:39

No idea what the trolls are saying, but common sense tells you that they don't want to release figures for the interims until as late as possible because they're shyte. The figures for the full year will be equally shyte.

In the meantime, they are releasing RNS statements that no longer have an impact on the share price because they lack any clarity on the important financial details.

Tin hat anybody. Fundraising is inevitable imo.

[malreid] 17/7/2017 15:35

That 7812 and 7840 are mine - the 30000 buy might explain why I couldn't buy them in one lump!