Plant Impact Share Discussion Threads

[mthead1968] 10/1/2018 11:21

Glen, I think we all know the answer to that question. And I see little prospect of exiting here at anything much beyond the current m-cap.

The management team decided on a strategy which has failed, and is now pinning its hopes on convincing the bigger players that what has failed to be commercially viable on soybeans will miraculously work when applied to other row crops.

Institutional investment cash has dried up. They are no longer willing to back this company. And I wonder if there is any industry player, yet alone more than one, who would be prepared to risk the many millions required to prop this up any longer.

Time is running out. These muppets best have something up their sleeves, if not we could all be cashing out at Zero.

[wan] 10/1/2018 07:51

I note that Veritas is back on Bayer's main (opening) page (it had slipped off and you had to navigate through several pages to find it) -

[wan] 06/1/2018 09:02

The following news release caught my attention for several reasons;

Arysta is entering the Brazilian soybean rust market and applications in other important crops, with certain premix formulations. I have previously looked at Isagro and they are (in my interpretation) a larger version of Plant Impact (revenues of circa 150 million Euro's), with a key strength centred around Research and Discovery.

ARYSTA LIFESCIENCE TO ACCESS ASIAN SOYBEAN RUST MARKET IN BRAZIL WITH NEW FUNGICIDE FROM ISAGRO

CARY, N.C. and MILAN, Italy (4 January 2018) –

Arysta LifeScience, a Platform Specialty Products company, and Isagro announced today they have finalized a long-term commercial agreement to distribute Isagro’s Fluindapyr-based mixtures for use in soybeans and other row crops in Brazil. Fluindapyr is a new, patent-protected proprietary active ingredient that has been shown to be highly effective in controlling Asian soybean rust (ASR) when used in certain premix formulations.

Soybean growers in Brazil have been battling Asian soybean rust since it first appeared during the 2000-2001 growing season. In 2016, the total fungicide market for soybeans in Brazil was around US$2.1 billion at the dealer level, of which about 95 percent was for Asian soybean rust control. Approximately 100 million hectares of soybeans are treated for ASR in Brazil each year.

“New treatment options are needed for Asian soybean rust in Brazil,” explained Paula Pinto, Vice President Global Portfolio Management, Arysta LifeScience. “With the addition of Fluindapyr-based mixtures to our portfolio, we come one step closer to becoming a premium one-stop-shop supplier to soybean growers in Brazil.”

Arysta LifeScience also is planning to market Fluindapyr mixtures for other uses such as corn, dry beans, wheat, cotton and coffee.

“This agreement will significantly contribute to a broad distribution of new mixtures, based on this important active ingredient discovered by our company,” stated Giorgio Basile, President, Isagro. “Arysta LifeScience is an ideal partner as they are already well-positioned in the Brazilian soybean market based on its existing portfolio of herbicides, insecticides and seed treatment products.”

Isagro will submit the regulatory dossier for the first mixture based on Fluindapyr to Brazilian authorities in the first half of 2018.

Arysta release -
hxxp://www.arystalifescience.com/eng-us/news/2018-news-media/arysta-lifescience-to-access-asian-soybean-rust-market-with-new-fungicide-from-isagro.html

Isagro -

On revisiting Isagro, I also noted that Gowan USA (a global agriculture solutions business) has material stake in Isagro, via a 49% share in a holding company that ultimately control Isagro. I also noted that Gowan Crop Protection Limited (Gowan, an affiliate of Gowan Company, L.L.C.), has an office at Rothamsted Research in Harpenden, England where it manages its growing business in the UK and its international operations. This in turn made me look at what other interesting companies are on Plant Impact's door step -

Rothamsted Research, Centre for Research & Enterprise tenants -

[wan] 04/1/2018 07:19

Cerrito...I don't get your point!

Plant Impact's Third Quarter Trading Update, 19th June 2017 and their Full Year Trading Update & Potential Capital Raise on 17th July 2017 outlined the backdrop quite clearly.

However, the reason for Bayer's reversal on the revised and agreed Purchase Plan, in my opinion, is not nearly so clear.

On another note;

AgFunder has reported cautious optimism regarding an increase in acquisitions for 2018, during which I still think others could outmanoeuvre Bayer -

Agtech Exits: 2017 Activity Generates Cautious Optimism for 2018
JANUARY 3, 2018

No longer distracted by consolidation and the ensuing M&A transactions, this could be a signal that the large strategic players will have more time, and money, to pursue more exits in 2018, according to some industry insiders.

“We’re starting to come out of the winter storm of all the consolidation,” said Armand Lavoie, managing director of investment banking firm Kirchner Group. “You’re seeing Bayer and DuPont, and even Syngenta, coming out of the woodwork and starting to look at acquisitions.”

Acquiring innovation is a typical strategy for companies across industries and the large ag companies have been relatively quiet compared to other industries such as healthcare, agreed Matt Crisp, CEO of ag biotech startup Benson Hill Biosystems and an ex-venture capitalist.

“I anticipate we see a lot more activity next year all over the place — small and large deals and more exits throughout the value chain. We know organizations will want to buy additional innovation. It’s not uncommon in other industries and our space is no different,” he told AgFunderNews

Full story -

[cerrito] 03/1/2018 22:49

PIM were on the ball doing their placing on July 26 one day before the Bayer Q2 conference call.

[wan] 03/1/2018 08:48

Staying with Bayer, but indirectly as they are planning to (or thinking they can) launch Veritas in cotton for the coming season -

January 2, 2018

Cotton Acreage in Mato Grosso expected to increase 15.8%

Author: Michael Cordonnier/Soybean & Corn Advisor, Inc.

Cotton prices have bucked the trend recently in the commodity world. While the prices of most agricultural commodities continue to be lackluster, cotton prices are general quite good. As a result, farmers in Mato Grosso are expected to increase their cotton acreage in 2018/19. The Mato Grosso Institute of Agricultural Economics (Imea) is estimating that farmers in the state will increase their 2017/18 cotton acreage by 15.8% to a record high acreage of 725,600 hectares. The cotton production in the state is also expected to set a new record at 2.85 million tons.

The final production of course will depend on the future weather during the growing season. Most of the cotton in the state is planted as a safrinha crop after the first crop of soybeans are harvested. Safrinha cotton planting generally occurs in January and early February with harvest in July and August.

Full story -

[wan] 03/1/2018 08:44

Cerrito...Arguably and as I allude to, I think we are witnessing the results of more than just the effects from the Brazilian market.

Bayer can say want they want about what is causing the situation, but it is cutting little ice with me! As you can see from what I highlighted, according to Bayer the situation had stabilised and underlying demand was good and growing, with a return to steady growth forecast for 2018.

Obviously any of the newly formed mega players e.g. Syngenta, Dupont etc could be running the rule over Plant Impact, but other very well resourced, but smaller players could be interested too. If you take a look at the likes of Albaugh for instance, they had $120.1 million of cash on hand as of September 30, 2017.

In my opinion, Some of the more nimbler players (including perhaps Syngenta) could now outmanoeuvre Bayer whilst they are wrapped up in regulatory negotiations/issues regarding the 'potential' purchase of Monsanto.

More regulatory hurdles/demands for Bayer (which I think are imminent) will make Bayer look ever more closely at the $2 billion reverse break-up fee clause payable to Mansanto, so I am quite pleased we have an accelerated process!

[cerrito] 02/1/2018 23:55

Thanks for your work Wan and as a holder I hope your optimism is justified though I am more pessimistic than you.
Interested to read your resumes of the Bayer conference calls which did spell out the situation pretty clearly. In some ways I have only myself to blame as I did not organize myself to listen to them: my congratulations to those who did listen to them and sell out of PIM.

[wan] 02/1/2018 14:17

Whether Plant Impact's historical biological insecticide TGT-101 (Bugoil) is of any interest or value remains to be seen, but I note the following recent article (where an essential oil also gets a mention) suggesting growing interest beyond the niche/horticultural market -

AHDB Agronomists' Conference: Biopesticide opportunity
News
29 Dec 2017
Marianne Curtis

While biopesticides have so far mainly been used on horticultural crops, a reduction in conventional pesticides is likely to see them used more widely on broadacre crops in future.

Full story -

[wan] 02/1/2018 11:14

Glen...Communications between the two Companies leading up to this, would mean that both parties knew what the result would be, and hence we got the RNS, so your question to the BOD has effectively already been answered!

One of my points, which I did intimate at previous to this situation (and due to other constraints and commitments I could not follow it up adequately), was that PI's Research and Development Platform and Pipeline Presentation, initially announced and widely disseminated back in August, appears to indicate that there was already a change occurring in the relationship with Bayer.

Whether the need to explore strategic options were borne out of frustration with Bayer (due to Bayer's focus on the Monsanto acquisition) and the arguably pressing need to reduce our exposure to one large player (and potentially getting a lot larger!), or a change in Bayer's strategy (or indeed the greater risk of such), remains to be seen. But clearly the BOD were active, as opposed to torpid or "in some sort of trance with Bayer"!

Most investors understandably wanted to see a reduction in the exposure to Bayer and Veritas, and we will now have to wait and see what options come out of potentially moving away from a future (and timescale) that would have been dominated and dictated to by Bayer. Without Plant Impact being acquired, it needed to happen, but it was never going to be an easy task and I believe we are now witnessing that fact!

However, the Management have a lot of previous experience in dealing with complex and demanding situations much bigger than this within the agricultural world. Ultimately the BOD are custodians of shareholder value, and selling out for a derisory offer based on a market cap of £6m would hardly be described as providing good shareholder value. And I am confident they are both capable and actively striving to achieve something much better!

Currently we have actively interested parties looking at various options, including potentially buying Plant Impact, so it is far too soon to assume we are short of options that will realise better value than where we are today. One assumes that in any regard we will get the option to vote via a General Meeting -

Excerpt from the AGM Notice

Resolution 10: General Meeting – other than AGM – 14 clear days’ notice
The Directors wish to continue to have the flexibility to call General Meetings (other than AGMs) on 14 clear days’ notice. The Directors do not expect to use this power unless urgent action is required on the part of the shareholders. The authority conferred by this resolution will be proposed as a Special resolution, and if passed, the approval and authority given shall expire at the next AGM of the Company or (if earlier) on 15 March 2019, when it is expected that a similar resolution will be proposed.
(END)

If you hold your shares via a nominee account/broker and you want to vote at meetings, the following link will explain how you can do that -

Nominee Accounts
ATTENDING AND VOTING AT GENERAL MEETINGS IF YOU ARE IN A NOMINEE ACCOUNT

[glenglen] 02/1/2018 09:33

Happy New Year to all.
Wan - I take in all you say and will admit I am neither qualified nor wanting to make any comments - what will be will be moving forward.
However, your leading paragraph stating that Bayer were cognisant of how the current situation would impact PI stands out and I feel duty bound to enquire from the BOD of PI if they were aware of the impact Bayers decision would be? It seems to be a little late (let alone rich) to say they are looking at alternatives - over the last few months it would appear the BOD were in some sort of trance with Bayer. Whatever the reasoning the BOD cannot simply say "oh we are here because Bayer did a dirty on us". Their duty was, and remains, to the company and not Bayer.

[wan] 30/12/2017 10:04

Following on from the above;

There is not much doubt that Bayer were cognisant of how the situation would impact upon Plant Impact, so are Plant Impact just collateral damage, or are we staring at the result of some hard-nosed negotiating, with Bayer now also in the running to buy Plant Impact?

In theory, the on-going negotiations could see Bayer reconsider by re-agreeing to the revised purchase plan (especially given their intention to launch Veritas in Cotton), and arguably we could be back to the "somewhere in between" in share price terms, with possibly no funding required. Albeit that the situation highlights the need to move away from being so exposed, but this might be another very good reason for the Boards actions!

A plausible outcome from the current situation, if Bayer fail to meet the minimum purchase requirement, is that another player in Brazil could effectively get what is arguably regarded as a Bayer product, Veritas, by the back door so to speak, which is an option one assumes Bayer will not find very palatable.

As I said previously, it's hard to believe that PI's products and pipeline is of no interest to Bayer (they plan to extend Veritas into cotton), but if Bayer has changed strategy, or the Monsanto purchase has changed the dynamics, or at least pushed things much further out i.e. years of being tied up with integration and divestitures etc, this might go some way in answering my second question about the need to explore commercial expansion opportunities, not to mention the reason for where we are now!

With certain parties already interested in buying Plant Impact it's clear there is interest in Plant Impact's R&D efforts and indeed their existing products, certain products with peak annual revenue potential of $120m - $240m in just soybeans and wheat. Plus, with the further confirmation that PI's technologies can be extended into other important crops, this must surely be piquing further interest.

Currently PI would sit very nicely and indeed very comfortably within companies that are not currently 'consumed' with making a large acquisition e.g. the likes DowDupont, Syngenta or Arysta (Arysta already has stake in Plant Impact) to name but three (and not to mention a raft of smaller, but still relatively large players). The current situation may give Bayer's competitors, especially those who have already completed large acquisitions and regulatory approvals, a window that would not have otherwise arisen.

If we assume that the likes of Syngenta or Arysta can absorb PI's research and product development within their own 'existing' research capabilities, then that effectively makes PI look even more attractive from a revenue/earnings perspective, not to mention a more direct route to market/higher product margin.

I note that Syngenta have their largest R&D site in the world located in the UK, employing over 800 people, it is Syngenta's largest site for new agrochemical R&D and product support.

Key activities include research into discovery of new active ingredients, new formulation technologies, product safety, technical support for their product range and seeds research. The site houses a number of centres of scientific excellence, both chemical and biological, that support their worldwide R&D activities. It is also a key centre for R&D collaborations.

Readers might already be aware of a distinct connection with Syngenta via the previous roles of key personnel within Plant Impact. Indeed the most recent arrival, the new CFO, also comes from Syngenta.

So, I find it quite plausible, one way or another, that something materially above the current market cap of circa £6m can be achieved and hopefully, significantly above the current market cap, listed or otherwise!

[wan] 30/12/2017 07:13

Apologies in advance for the long post!

I have a few particular questions and thoughts that have predominantly been on my mind of late, and what follows is based on a combination of my own research, conclusions and assumptions.

The first one is perhaps obvious, 60p to 6p! How did we get here?

The second point/question; Earlier in the year the Board initiate a project to consider alternatives to extend the Group's recent R&D advances and further support its commercial expansion. They stated that the strategic project stemmed from recent research success identifying new crop enhancement chemical molecules and formulations which could - in combination - improve soybean yield by more than 15%.

Given the original development agreement with Bayer, where Bayer get exclusive first rights of commercialisation over Plant Impact's current and future pipeline of products for soybeans throughout the Americas. Why did the Board initiate the strategic project and present their R&D Platform and Pipeline, which included products for soybeans, to the wider world?

Are we to assume then that Bayer are not interested in such products (which is not my understanding), hence the Board initiated the strategic project, or are there more complex issues at play here (behind the scenes) with conflicts emerging regarding Bayer's strategy/purchase of Monsanto?

And finally; is there a way back to the share price highs of 60p, or at least to somewhere in between?

On the first question and in my opinion only, we need to take a look at what Bayer said and then did!

Due the the well publicised issues in Brazil, in Q2 Bayer undertook extensive in-channel stock evaluations to arrive at what actions and indeed what financial provision would be necessary to rectify the situation, and subsequently in July, Bayer also agreed a new purchase plan with Plant impact for the coming 2017/18 season.

What Bayer said 27th July 2017 regarding Q2 (excerpts) -

Substantial decline in sales and earnings at Crop Science

Second-quarter sales of the agricultural business (Crop Science) fell by 15.8
percent (Fx & portfolio adj.) to EUR 2,163 million (Q2 2016: EUR 2,518
million). "This decline is mainly due to significantly higher provisions for
crop-protection product returns in Brazil," Baumann explained. At the end of
the harvest season, regular stocktaking revealed high channel inventories in
the Brazilian market, requiring measures to be taken to normalize the
situation. The high level of channel inventories was caused by weaker demand
due to significantly lower insect and fungal infestation levels, while
inventory-building among distributors remained at a high level. Excluding the
EUR 428 million decline in sales in Brazil, business at Crop Science was up
slightly year on year on a currency-adjusted basis.

EBITDA before special items of Crop Science declined by 52.2 percent to EUR 317 million (Q2 2016: EUR 663 million), in particular due to the situation in
Brazil, where Bayer recorded a substantial negative impact on earnings in the
amount of EUR 355 million in total. This figure included EUR 173 million in
provisions for product returns, EUR 53 million in impairment losses recognized
on receivables and EUR 56 million in inventory write-offs, as well as EUR 73
million in other effects. Excluding the Brazil business, earnings were up
slightly year on year.
(END)

In short, Brazil was the thorn in Bayer's side and the main issue!

What Bayer said 26th October 2017 regarding Q3 (excerpts) -

Third-quarter sales of the agricultural business (Crop Science) moved ahead by
2.7 percent (Fx & portfolio adj.) to EUR 2,031 million. Crop Science achieved
gratifying business development in North America and Asia/Pacific, where sales
rose by 9.8 percent (Fx adj.) and 7.4 percent (Fx adj.), respectively. Sales in
Europe/Middle East/Africa and Latin America matched the prior-year level. "On
the positive side, we were able to reduce provisions for product returns in
Brazil, which shows that the measures we have implemented to normalize the
situation in Brazil are taking hold," Baumann said. In that country, Bayer had
to establish provisions in the second quarter due to unexpectedly high
inventories of crop protection products.

EBITDA before special items of Crop Science decreased by 3.5 percent to EUR 307 million in the third quarter of 2017. Lower selling prices and a negative
currency effect of around EUR 20 million stood against an increase in other
operating income, a decline in the cost of goods sold and a decrease in selling
expenses. Positive effects in the mid-double-digit millions were recorded in
conjunction with the accounting measures taken in the previous quarter in
Brazil.
(END)

So, apparently the situation in Brazil was improving, which the conference call for Q3 also appeared to confirm (excerpts) -

Question from Richard Vosser, JP Morgan;

could you just go into a little bit more detail around the demand dynamics you’re seeing in Brazil and how you see the picture for Brazil for the rest of the year and, potentially, actually, for the rest of the markets in Latin America and beyond?

And then, finally, thinking about 2018, again for Crop, it seems as though the recovery in the Crop market probably won’t occur in 2018, so could you give some colour on expectations for your part of the Crop business in 2018?

Answer from Liam Condon, Bayer;

So, thanks, Richard. I’ll refer to the question around demand dynamics for Brazil and outlook for 2018. I think it’s really important to note that, as we had highlighted in Q2, there is a disconnect in the crop-protection market in Brazil between sell-in and sell-out – what is actually consumed in the market. And what we have seen is that there has been, for some time now, too much stock in the channel, particularly related to fungicides and insecticides, whereas, on the consumption side, there’s relatively robust demand, and this is in the region of single-digit growth that we are seeing on the consumption side. You’re not seeing it in the sell-in numbers, simply because the stock levels are so high.

And this was the reason that we took quite significant measures in the second quarter – financial measures – to address the overall issue. And with that, we’ve combined these financial measures with a lower sell-in for the year and, ultimately, this should lead to a normalisation of the situation for our stocks. And I think what you will see going forward then in Brazil for 2018 is, basically, a balance between sell-in and sell-out, with robust growth in Brazil, because we know consumption growth today is robust and it’s forecast going forward to remain relatively robust. But again, we just have this disconnect particularly on the fungicides and insecticides, due to various issues in the past.

Overall outlook for 2018, we will continue to forecast for the slow return to growth. This will be based on, basically, all regions. We are expecting growth in Latin America and further growth again in North America and APAC, and probably a flattish Europe.

Question from Jeremy Redenius, Bernstein

Hi, it’s Jeremy Redenius from Bernstein. A few questions, please. First of all, I read that you’ve had price reductions in Crop Science in Brazil. I’m wondering if you could talk a little bit about the nature of those price reductions.

Second, I’m just looking for further observations from the Crop Science business about 2018. I think one thing I’ve noticed here is it sounds like Seeds has done particularly well. Did that also include, let’s say, seed-treatment sales, which might be a positive indicator for 2019 because farmers are looking to invest to protect their seed more so than you might have expected them to otherwise, or is that just simply buying seeds earlier?

Answer from Liam Condon, Bayer;

Yes. Thanks, Jeremy. The price decline in Q3 was mainly driven by our Crop Protection business in Brazil, as you can imagine. And in Brazil, this price decline is, to a large extent, directly connected to the channel de-loading programme that we have. And the way that works is we have it basically with the provisions that we have built, and we could either take back stock or, if the distributor wanted to keep product, we could negotiate new payment terms. If we negotiate new payment terms, then, of course, you have to take the current price lists and not price lists from that past.

And given that there’s been quite a significant and unfavourable movement on the Brazilian real versus US dollar foreign-exchange rate and our price lists are always fixed to the US dollar, this automatically leads, basically to the fact that the stock the distributor received in the past would be overpriced from today’s perspective. And then we simply have to build in that you get a technical price decline then through this stock novation.

However, for us, overall, we see it as a much more beneficial effect because, in essence, we take back less product and we have less logistical costs involved, less write-downs, and it shows confidence that the distributors are confident that they can actually get this product onto the field. So, overall, it looks like very ugly pricing, but there’s a positive connotation to this overall.

On the 2018 expectations as well, going forward, as you said, we’ve had a very strong Seeds business this year – double-digit growth year-to-date – and we note from other competitors that their Seeds business has been doing also pretty strongly, and this is our expectation that that sets a solid base for further growth next year. The issue that we’re seeing with the sluggish or low or declining growth in Crop Protection is largely related to this channel-inventory issue in Brazil, which we hope will be cleaned up in the current season, so that we would be back to what you would classify as normal growth from next year.
(END)

(all Reports/excerpts available here -


What I read into all of this was that fungicides represent the biggest issue, declining over 40%. And subsequently the complimentary selling of Veritas alongside Bayer's fungicide would therefore impact Veritas accordingly, in this case also pushing up inventory of Veritas in Bayer's channels, but Bayer had worked out what was necessary to rectify the situation, in fact reducing some provisions in Q3 that they had made in Q2!

However, after agreeing a new purchase plan with Plant Impact and just 7 weeks after reporting being able to reduce provisions and forecasting a return to normal growth for 2018, Bayer say that "given its well-publicised challenges within the Brazilian market, it will not be able to meet its commitments within the Purchasing Plan, as it needs to further accelerate its destocking activities." Which does not add up in my book, unless Bayer go onto reverse what was stated previously!

So this area will make interesting reading when Bayer report their full year in February, because I am not sure that that much has changed, with both Bayer and Plant Impact reporting (stocking issues aside) continued growth in demand. And thus I don't think any blame lies squarely at Veritas alone. And with Veritas making up a tiny fraction of Bayer's overall sales, it makes it even more difficult to understand Bayer's actions.

What I did note during my research was that, although the lower pricing of products that Bayer saw in Brazil was very heavily dominated by their provisioning effect, generic competition was, as always, another factor (that got a small mention).

Given the backdrop of low commodity prices, and given that generic fungicide, insecticide and herbicide producers tend to benefit during periods of low commodity crop prices, as farmers switch to cheaper generics to cut costs. So one does wonder if such players might have at least exacerbated Bayer's inventory issues, and perhaps they will also curtail Bayer's destocking efforts. (In 2016 generic producer Albaugh was one of the companies that grew the most in the Brazilian market for pesticides - it jumped from 1.5% to 2.4% in share, while the sector had a decline of 1% in sales.)

With Bayer apparently having the stocking issue in Brazil under control it does not get us any closer to understanding why Bayer reversed their agreement on the revised Purchase Plan with Plant Impact! So we have to assume there are a number of factors playing out here (in front and probably mostly behind the scenes). But on the face of it, Bayer's actions are arguably the main reason why we are here and arguably the relationship between the parties appears to have taken on a different context!

Which brings me onto my remaining points/questions.

More from me later.

[wan] 28/12/2017 08:55

Looks like we will get an amendment for the Arysta disclosure announcement as they appear to have used the issued shares from 2016 to arrive at 5.6%, when they held the same amount of shares as they do now - 4,560,530, but the percentage declared should now be 4.82% (not 5.6%, just in case some one thinks or suggests they have reduced!).

[buywell3] 22/12/2017 17:54

Which is why when you invest in Small Caps

It is the CEO in who you are putting your money on

A good CEO can make things happen

What I am saying is the CEO and his experience/track record is more important that the small cap company itself

For example if a new CEO is appointed here

I might become a buyer depending what his plan is

With the current incumbents ... the chart tells me to make other plans

[glenglen] 22/12/2017 12:11

Unfortunately I cannot believe, with the catastrophic fall in this company that the BOD were unaware of certain matters which are fundamental to its, and any company's success - cash flow.
Whether the products work or not is a moot point - why was everything so upbeat in the past and now, lo and behold, silence
Pull the other one BODs

[mthead1968] 21/12/2017 13:48

Just a shame it doesn't improve it enough.
IMV DYOR etc etc

[wan] 21/12/2017 13:30

And btw, Fortalis improves the performance of fungicides, but not in isolation to one foliar disease!

[mthead1968] 21/12/2017 13:15

wan, it's not implied. It's the way I see it.
You believe what you will, I am not concerned about that.
Fact is we set targets and failed to meet them, by a very long way.
You or I do not know what future sales may be ahead (if we continue trading).
My guess is as good as yours. There will be due diligence being carried out, and that's where the future of this company will be decided. Best hope whoever is carrying out the due diligence is wearing the same rose tinted spectacles as you are.

[wan] 21/12/2017 12:36

Mthead...I have to take issue with you regarding your implied suggestion that Veritas is a failure. It's currently the leading soybean biostimulant in Brazil.

Furthermore, just about every company that sells inputs into the Brazilian market was affected by the now widely reported backdrop and likewise Veritas was also affected, but not because of some failed experiment!

[wan] 21/12/2017 12:24

Obviously Veritas does make up part of the forecast, but it also includes products that are nothing to do with Bayer.

[mthead1968] 21/12/2017 09:46

wan, the forecasts were made on the assumption that the take up of our soybean product would be at certain levels. These forecasts were the basis of the planned arrangements with Bayer. There has been a massive shortfall in sales, despite all of our and Bayers efforts. It is likely that a part of the reason for the overstocking situation is down to a significant level of non-reordering.

cjac39. I will just ignore you, because you obviously know little or nothing of the cause of this distress. I guess you are just here to make a punt on the possibility of a successful outcome. Wan, for all his misplaced optimism at least knows something about the situation.

[wan] 21/12/2017 09:30

mthead...The forecasts I quoted also exclude certain other products in development. The forecast are from pages 41-43 of PI's Development Platform and Pipeline Presentation (August 2017) -