Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Plant Impact LSE:PIM London Ordinary Share GB00B1F4K366 ORD 1P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  +0.25p +4.17% 6.25p 6.00p 6.50p 6.25p 6.25p 6.25p 45,564 08:00:00
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Chemicals 8.1 -4.1 -3.8 - 5.91

Plant Impact Share Discussion Threads

Showing 3826 to 3849 of 3850 messages
Chat Pages: 154  153  152  151  150  149  148  147  146  145  144  143  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
23/1/2018
08:41
I take it you mean the same sort of collaboration agreements Carillion was signing in the lead up to their demise. Of course it's business as usual, that's the least we should be expecting, and what they are being handsomely paid to do. It doesn’t remove us from the dire financial straits we are in though does it?
mthead1968
23/1/2018
07:31
Indeed, as I stated yesterday, despite the current situation, PI's developments are not standing still and neither is the business! Today we have another collaboration that grants Plant Impact exclusive development access and a licensing options.
wan
23/1/2018
07:20
I take on board all of the comments on here and yes I'm concerned with situation. However if the situation is that bad why would companies sign collaboration agreements now, similar to the one announced this morning??
bigglesbingham
22/1/2018
19:10
keep up the good work mthead The PIM chart says it all
buywell3
22/1/2018
18:03
mthead...I thought we might hear from you, even though you couldn't give a toss about my conclusions/thoughts! I am sure most readers, myself included, realise that under the 'current' situation, which is subject to change, sales of Veritas to Plant Impact will not occur until the current Bayer stocks are sufficiently depleted (sold by Bayer), but what you or I don't know is to what degree that situation is progressing. What is clear though, is that Bayer are actively marketing Veritas, so that means they either don't want to be stuck with what's in the channel, or they don't want to lose exclusivity (possibly both). If Bayer lose exclusivity, any remaining stock in Bayer's channel would not necessarily mean that an alternative appointed distributor cannot sell Veritas. Recall that PI own the patent, brand and registration rights to Veritas, which would ultimately mean that Bayer could no longer sell it! In my view, the most likely outcomes are a new partnership (possibly even with Bayer), more than one resulting partnership, the Veritas brand and business is purchased by Bayer, or a sale of the company at a significant premium to the current share price. We are indeed probably not far away from finding out!
wan
22/1/2018
16:59
Wan - You have completely ignored one very, very important point. There is already £ millions worth of stock currently in the channels. There will be no more sales of Veritas until this situation ends, and it won't be ending until after time runs out for PI. Bayer are unable to shift it and Albaugh won't be able to sell any Veritas until all the Bayer stock is depleted. In my view, the most likely outcome is either administration or selling out cheaply to a venture capitalist. The company did suggest a resolution of some kind by very early 2018. I guess we must be close to that now.
mthead1968
22/1/2018
16:10
A few more thoughts; Bayer very recently described Plant Impact as their partner. Clearly Bayer have an agreement and option of first refusal on Plant Impact's products in development for soybeans. So are they distracted by the Monsanto acquisition and the situation in Brazil (including waiting for Brazilian regulatory clearance for the Monsanto acquisition), or are they really prepared to walk away from a promising pipeline in soybeans, or do they actually want more exposure to the other products in development, including exposure to the possibilities of Plant Impact technologies extending into other major crops? The cause and consequences of the current situation are well laid out, but I cannot believe that Bayer would not be interested it getting access to most of what Plant Impact is developing, and certainly Bayer's previous commentary would suggest they hold Plant Impact and their research capabilities in high regard. Recall the details of the agreement from 2015 - This agreement supplements the August 2014 agreement between the parties, whereby Bayer markets Veritas(R), a product developed by Plant Impact which improves the soy plant's capacity to fix pods and fill grains at critical growth stages. This newly-announced agreement extends the initial period of the Brazil Veritas(R) agreement to ten years and also grants Bayer CropScience exclusive first rights of commercialisation over Plant Impact's current and future pipeline of products for soybeans throughout the Americas. Bayer will make payments to Plant Impact of up to $9 million, of which $3 million will be paid initially and up to $6 million paid against various milestones. The terms for the ultimate commercialisation of new products will be agreed between the two parties at a later date. (END) My understanding is that there are both development milestones and at least one first commercial sales milestone. From Plant Impact's most recent AR - Revenue recognition on initial fee income In the financial year ended 31 July 2015, Plant Impact received an initial fee of $3m which is being recognised over a five-year period, being the term of the Product Development and Commercialisation Agreement signed with Bayer CropScience AG. Over the term of the agreement Bayer CropScience will make additional payments of $1.5m upon the first commercial sale of a new product as defined within the agreement. Upon receipt of two additional payments, the term of the agreement will extend to ten years. The initial fee income is currently being recognised over a five-year period, but is reviewed annually to assess whether the development programmes are sufficiently progressed to trigger two additional payments required for a term extension, at which time the remaining initial fee income will be recognised over the remaining portion of the ten-year period. Management judges that the development programmes are not sufficiently progressed to trigger the term extension, and therefore the income continues to be recognised over a five-year period. (END) However, the current situation does not mean that the development of Plant Impact's product pipeline is standing still, but it does mean that Bayer's actions has ultimately resulted in other parties running the rule over Plant Impact, its products, along with getting detailed information and access to the development stage of various products. Some think that Bayer are simply no longer interested in Plant Impact, but given that Bayer are big enough to walk away unaffected and relatively unimpeded by the consequences, this line of thought does not stack up. As I suggested previously, I think we are witnessing the effects of some hard-nosed negotiating on both sides, and therefore both sides will need to yield, albeit Plant Impact stated "The Board believes that a revised, mutually agreeable contractual arrangement would be preferable to a termination of BCS's Brazilian rights and is actively working with BCS to find a way forward." In my opinion, Bayer would probably prefer, at the very least, to keep their option of accessing Plant Impact's current and future soybean products across the America's (the existing agreement). But given that Bayer have proved, via trials, that Plant Impact's technologies can be extended to other crop's, in this case Veritas in cotton, they must surely be thinking beyond soybeans. Interestingly, the agreement between Plant Impact and Bayer appears to be for only soybeans and dry beans, and extending into cotton appears to be a departure from the original agreement; From 2014 - The commercial partnership foresees the addition of the Veritas(R) product to Bayer CropScience's product portfolio in Brazil for the exclusive marketing of the technology in soybeans and dry beans beginning with the 2014/2015 growing season and continuing thereafter. (END) The subsequent and additional agreement with Bayer CropScience in 2015, to develop yield enhancing technologies for soy cultivation, does not appear to have changed that! So, one assumes that Plant Impact must have agreed to the extension into cotton, but is it possible that that was in return for the previously revised 'and agreed' purchase plan with Bayer? Recall that previous to this situation (where Bayer has reneged on the revised purchase plan), Plant Impact and Bayer were exploring contractual amendments which would enable higher volume product strategies and integrated commercial offers to growers. Or does it imply that there is a thaw in the situation, with Bayer at least striving to meet the minimum volumes 'before' 31 March 2018, 'before', when they could also lose exclusivity? OK, Bayer appear to have the upper-hand financially (although their strategy is leaving a lot to be desired!), but I also note that Plant Impact appears to have defaulted back to the 'existing' distribution agreement with regard to the minimum volumes, which suggests there is a clear, and arguably confident, ultimatum to Bayer of use it, or lose it! - "However, the Group is the sole owner of the intellectual property in Veritas(R), including its trademark, patent and registration rights, and in the event that BCS does not meet its minimum purchase volumes under our existing distribution agreement before 31 March 2018, Plant Impact would have the option of immediately terminating BCS's distribution rights and appointing alternate distribution partners." (END) That brings me back to the fact that Veritas is marketed and regarded as a Bayer soybean product in Brazil, which now also includes Veritas for cotton.......so thank you Bayer for extending and growing the Veritas brand! Either way (Bayer retaining or losing Veritas exclusivity) and strictly in my own opinion, I am not seeing the downside to the business that some are implying, nor I am seeing an appropriate valuation from the market, but I appreciate what effect uncertainty can have. It's not inconceivable that if Bayer lose exclusivity for Veritas for example, that Albaugh, Plant Impacts most recent and new partner in Brazil (and/or another large player), could offer Veritas for sale and thus effectively get easy access to Bayer's established Veritas users/customer base. Furthermore, Albaugh could market Veritas, which is compatible with most fungicides and insecticides, to a much wider user base i.e. alongside many more fungicide offerings! I appreciate that for the above to happen we also need to resolve the impending cash flow situation, but one would assume that another player could make a forward commitment to stocking Veritas for the following season, thus paving the way to additional financial solutions. In my book, there looks to be more than enough on offer to compensate those, willing and able, to throw their hat in the ring (partnering or purchasing Plant Impact). Not to mention Bayer making the necessary purchases and/or buying the Brazilian Veritas business!
wan
20/1/2018
07:09
Staying with branding, PI have highlighted the perfect way to meet growers in Mato Grosso and discuss Veritas. This was during a two day event (Thurs and Fri this week), Dinetec, at the Bayer stand and of course presented as a Bayer product. As I have been saying, thus Veritas is regarded as a Bayer product, which despite the setback, a lot of growers have been using/adopting. https://tinyurl.com/Bayer-Veritas Perhaps Bayer will be interested in buying the Veritas business in Brazil, perhaps our relationship with Bayer will intensify 'beyond' Veritas?
wan
20/1/2018
07:06
Mthead, The only reason Argentina was discussed was because you incorrectly stated there was no ASR there (I note you have now changed that)! This is the first full season of Fortalis sales in Argentina as a Plant Impact branded product, clearly the market in Argentina is somewhat different to Brazil, and I am not expecting huge sales from there at this stage. It will be more a case of an establishment of the business, not to mention the ongoing trials for other products, as it is likely to become a more important market to PI going forwards (being the world's third largest producer of soybeans).
wan
19/1/2018
17:06
Wan, the likelihood of us doing successful business in Argentina is very slim indeed. You seem to have forgotten that Bayer pulled out of a joint marketing aarrangement of Veritas/Fortalis in Argentina. Then we sacked our much heralded Commercial and Marketing Director and announced a change in sales strategy. All of which tells me that the market in Argentina will be a very difficult one for us. In addition, there now seems no mention of selling in Paraguay. The reasons behind this are all to do with the limited uplift in yields and very low margins on soy. I couldn't give a toss what conclusions you come to, you will never have an argument that holds water as far as I am concerned. And in any event, I am not wrong about ASR in Argentina. It quite simply is not much of a problem, most especially when compared to Brazil. For Rust to take hold, it requires hot, and humid conditions - The crop is grown mainly in regions in both Argentina and North America where those conditions just do not exist. It's worth me repeating, as you just seem to be refusing to accept it - talk about conditions for growing this year's crop is completely irrelevant. These muppet directors have trashed the company, pursuing a failed strategy and run out of time. Anybody doing any due diligence with a view to baling this lot out will be considering these things in the same way that I am.
mthead1968
19/1/2018
16:34
When corrected you instantly move onto another subject, I am sure I am not the only one to notice that! I am fully aware that dry weather is hurting Argentina soybeans, and although the planted area may shrink, it's not yet exactly the disastrous picture that you imply - Soybeans late last week were 94.3% planted according to the Buenos Aires Grain Exchange - January 16, 2018 Benefits from Weekend Rains not uniform across Argentina https://tinyurl.com/Argentine-soybeans January 18, 2018 Buenos Aires Grain Exchange said Argentine farmers had planted 96.7 percent of the total area planned for 2017/18 soybeans nationwide. https://tinyurl.com/Argentine-drought To confirm, you are wrong about ASR in Argentina!
wan
19/1/2018
15:00
Mthead...FYI, according to Argentina's National Institute of Agricultural Technology, Asian Rust on soybeans was reported for the 'first time' to have survived the winter in the country in 2017. So far, Asian Rust in Argentina has not generated as much losses compared to Brazil, however, it is present and the risk of spreading will be a concern.
wan
19/1/2018
14:42
I am not ignoring that possibility, and hence PI announced accordingly! What I am highlighting is that the backdrop has at least improved compared to last season, and if the channels are clearing sufficiently it may enable Bayer to reconsider, especially with cotton to follow on from soybeans. But in any regard, All sales volumes will count towards the Veritas business/brand, which might prove to be an important factor for those considering buying part, or all of the business. Recall from the AGM trading update; "Notwithstanding this recent development, we are continuing to work with BCS in the field in Brazil, to build the Veritas(R) business. Campaign activity is underway for the 2017/18 soybean and drybean growing season. The expectations of both ourselves and BCS are for good grower adoption of the product."
wan
19/1/2018
13:44
And to amplify Mtheads last line "...insufficient cash to continue in operation and the company will be insolvent"
glenglen
19/1/2018
13:08
Wan, what you are choosing to ignore is the fact that there is a significant amount of product already in the channel. This will be drawn down first, meaning no income will accrue to PI. There will most likely be no sales of Veritas in this quarter. And by the time the next quarter comes along, we will have insufficient cash to continue in operation.
mthead1968
19/1/2018
13:00
glen...It's not irrelevant. The root cause of the current situation was a significant reduction in Bayer's fungicide sales which would have had a notable effect of Veritas sales. Of course soybean prices will have some effect, but last season the climate and growing conditions in Brazil was near perfect, which did not help matters. What I am highlighting, is that it is different this season. A farmer faced with yield losses through Asian soybean Rust of up to 80%, which would be far more financially damaging from not using fungicide, or indeed choosing not to include Veritas, which would help increase the efficacy of the fungicide and improve yields compared to not using Veritas. The soybean season is still in full swing and the cotton season just starting. So any improvement in sales may become 'fully' evident until the window for applying Veritas on soybeans has closed (probably by some point in Feb), however, the extension by Bayer into cotton will extend the season for Veritas.
wan
19/1/2018
11:59
Glen - not sure if my last post answered your questions fully. The price the farmers get for their soybeans usually only just covers the cost of growing them, and historically they make very little profit (Soy prices are at a current 4 month low). Because there is a real problem with Rust disease, most notably in Brazil, they have to spray quite regularly with fungicides. Bayer is only one of many companies selling these fungicides. Of course, every time they have to spray, it costs them money, and this eats into whatever profit they may make at the end of their season. Veritas is being marketed as something that will help the fungicide to work a little better, and possibly give them an increase in yield of around 5%. This is where our problem is. The farmer has to decide if the extra cost of using Veritas is worth it. Basic economics suggests that such a small potential increase in yield will give them enough incentive to apply the product.
mthead1968
19/1/2018
11:34
Glen, Veritas is not being sold to cure the Rust problem. Fungicides are needed for that, and they are used very widely on Soy crops in Brazil. (Not in America or Argentina where there is only a limited problem because of the different climate). The application of Veritas is said to improve the effectiveness of the fungicide, but is in no way necessary. In fact, there is so little margin for the farmers it is more likely that the application of Veritas is seen as being not worth the cost of applying it. Hope that helps explain why the information Wan keeps posting has only a very tenuous connection with PI. In any event, it's all irrelevant as you suggest, as without an influx of cash, the company is going to fail.
mthead1968
19/1/2018
11:17
Wan - this is all good to hear but not doing anything positive for PI. The problems the farmers in Parana, Brazil, wherever have a problem with soybean rust (and bugs to boot) and as I understand it PI have a solution (or do they?). Assuming they do why are the farmers not spraying PI's product(s)? From what you say the rust problem has quadrupled - why have sales and usage of PI's product not done the same (regardless of whether the sun is shining or not)? Farmers are preparing, you say, for a 3rd spraying (with what?) and are being recommended to spray every fortnight (once again with what?) There is something missing here and perhaps it might just be that PI's product(s) do not work? Perhaps an improved backdrop in Brazil is factual but why at this stage will PI only now possibly benefit?
glenglen
18/1/2018
10:33
There are 6 Plant Impact trademarks obtained/secured in Brazil - Veritas: Obtained on: 06-10-2015 Meliora: Obtained 06-10-2015 Tempus: Obtained 16-08-2016 Fortiori: Obtained 16-08-2016 INSYNC: Secured 22-06-2017 FORTALIS: Secured 27-07-2017 Obviously my First point is further confirmation that Plant Impact indeed owns the Veritas trademark (as well as the intellectual property in Veritas(R) and registration rights). Veritas is marketed in Brazil by Bayer as a Bayer product, but obviously Veritas is at risk of being marketed by a Bayer competitor. Registration of FORTALIS (version 2 of Veritas) provides food for thought. INSYNC also provides food for thought, which is interestingly described in the specification as a chemical additive for fungicides. https://tinyurl.com/brazil-trademark-search As I said recently, given how the fungicide market is evolving and growing in Brazil, I would prefer not to have an exclusive agreement tying us to one fungicide manufacturer (unless it was a company changer). However, it's possible, or at least in part, that Bayer could achieve that, as I note that they have teamed up with UPL and are promoting/offering two fungicides in order to offer a multi-site fungicide application strategy - BRASIL AGAINST RUST FOX AND UNIZEB GOLD IN THE SAME DIRECTION AGAINST THE ADVANCE OF RUST Asian Rust can seriously compromise soybean crops. In the face of this scenario, FOX and Unizeb Gold begin an unprecedented joint action to promote Resistance Management. https://tinyurl.com/Fungicide-Resistance (I highlighted previously that Veritas was included in Bayer's points promotion, which is referred to in the above link).
wan
18/1/2018
09:43
And in the meantime let's not forget the Share Price - 5.80pence from what was once 60 pence. When it was the latter this company was by all accounts "going places". Somewhere between then and now the full story has not been told imo. As Mthead says - we need cash now and all the talk of Veritas being used/might be used/whatever, not to mention Bayer might have a soft spot for PI and are trying to help PI out is simply BS. Are we in the same scenario as Carillion perhaps? It would appear the warning signs were there but conveniently ignored... When share price goes back to 60 pence let's talk then - but I agree that whatever can now be done is far far too late.
glenglen
16/1/2018
14:38
And like I said, IT IS TOO LATE TO MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE.
mthead1968
16/1/2018
14:27
In Plant Impact's Annual Report, it states that Veritas was successfully integrated into the Bayer Cropscience range. As I highlighted previously, would Bayer care less that Veritas (regarded as a Bayer product in Brazil) could end up being marketed and sold by a competitor - I am not so sure they would find that very palatable! What we do know is that during 2016/17 Brazilian soybean season, grower use of Veritas fell short of the plans agreed with Bayer due the well publicised issues that adversely affected the overall industry purchases of chemical inputs. But despite this challenging backdrop, 4,300 growers actually bought Veritas. In a bad year, that's hardly insignificant! As I said, let's see next month whether Bayer's fungicide sales has improved and then see how sales/useage of Veritas has performed.
wan
16/1/2018
13:32
Wan, your argument might hold weight if the ratio of fungicide sales to sales of Veritas was significant. Fact is we don’t know what that ratio is. The company won’t tell us. And that just tells me that it is rather insignificant. We have struck a deal with Bayer that has failed spectacularly. Sales of fungicide by Bayer are irrelevant, unless we know that ratio, and no amount of your googling will reveal it. The most important point to consider, however, is that it’s now too late to change strategy. Like I said before, time is ticking. And Bayer appear not to care less. We need cash, and we need it now. It won't be coming from sales of Veritas, or anything else for that matter.
mthead1968
Chat Pages: 154  153  152  151  150  149  148  147  146  145  144  143  Older
Your Recent History
LSE
GKP
Gulf Keyst..
LSE
QPP
Quindell
FTSE
UKX
FTSE 100
LSE
IOF
Iofina
FX
GBPUSD
UK Sterlin..
Stocks you've viewed will appear in this box, letting you easily return to quotes you've seen previously.

Register now to create your own custom streaming stock watchlist.

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

P:30 V: D:20180123 10:10:34