Menu
Close

Today's RNS

lse:fum

#81

Aren’t we all dancing to LOAM’s tune?


#82

Sorry guys, but talking about last year’s bonus awards has rekindled my anger. Last year’s open offer relating to the directors was stated thus:

“Certain of the Directors of the Company have indicated their intention to subscribe for new Ordinary Shares in the Subscription” (that’s nice of them!) ………. and the following shares were taken up:

James Barder - 357,142 @ 7p = £25,000
Angela Hildreth - 142,857 @ 7p = £10,000
Ken James - 285,714 @ 7p = £20,000

Lo and behold, bonuses were awarded to the above despite achieving absolutely nothing and one could argue that bonuses should only be paid out of profits anyway, otherwise it’s just shareholders’ funds raised. Bonuses awarded:

James Barder - Gross bonus of £44,107, approx. net after tax, etc = £25,000 (coincidence?)
Angela Hildreth - Gross bonus of £44,453, approx. net after tax, etc = £25,000
Ken James - Gross bonus of £36,953, approx. net after tax, etc = £20,000

And the “independent” directors said this:

“John Clarke and Jonathan Freeman, the independent directors for the purposes of the Subscription consider, having consulted with the Company’s nominated adviser, N+1 Singer, that the terms of the Participating Directors participation in the Subscription is fair and reasonable insofar as the Shareholders are concerned.”

What do they mean “fair”? It’s basically the shareholders’ own participation which funded the directors’ participation!

I invite anyone to defend the above action as not being “dodgy”.


#83

Evening Tony

I would suggest you’re very much focused on the finance end of the business when you suggest they’ve done ‘nothing’.

On the finance side, though somewhat chaotic & very diluting, it was completed. I agree that it’s very difficult to justify Angela’s bonus given she’d just joined and the finance end was ‘dicey’.

However, 2 things: Firstly, don’t under-estimate the sheer amount of detailed work that’s required on the ‘chemistry end’. This is one of the most highly regulated industries on the planet so for a company as small as FUM to be (potentially) on the cusp of having its first New Drug Application (NDA) approved is very admirable. Add the fact that it’s a potential blockbuster (ie anticipated peak sales of $1B pa), makes this (to me) a ‘wow factor’. Name another start up that had a blockbuster as its first NDA.

If FUM were a large well established Co, with deep pockets, then the level of criticism they’ve received for some of their ‘business decisions’ would be well warranted. However, when you tot up the total FUM will have spent (under the large assumption that MED does indeed end up a blockbuster ED treatment), and you will deduce its super cheap compared to what a large Pharma typically spends on average for the same. When you have deep pockets you can afford to hire high end ‘brains’. When you don’t, you have to make do as best you can with the resources you have available.

So when you bear all the above into consideration, are the bonuses and salaries excessive?

Also, don’t forget, that when JB was personally answering investors Qs by email, he was often doing it at ‘out of office hours’.

Now add the potential of the pain portfolio and the Dermasys into the pot, and we really have lots to sing about (in my opinion) all achieved on a shoe string budget in comparison to the norm.

Personally I’m happy if the board have a lot of shares in their ownership as it will help ensure we all want the same ultimate conclusion.

Just my opinion on JB & the team. GLA


#84

Remember Barder’s family own a major part of the company + some in his name, it used to be a lot more until the dilution, currently on the site there is:
RA Lamb|4.68%|
WT Lamb Investments Limited|4.49%|

I think that makes it above 10% inc Barders stake, I’m sure this is his main priority.

With already this amount invested which is millions, I don’t care what he does with his 40k bonus.


#85

fx2452,

Mr Barder already receives a very generous salary for what he does (or doesn’t do). The bonus he received appears to be DIRECTLY connected to the placing. I think FUM is becoming one of those nasty AIM companies fleecing the shareholders. Just my opinion. I expected better of Mssrs Clarke and James, but Mr Barder ……… hmmmm ……….


#86

I think I better take a break from here.

I’m increasingly becoming anti-FUM - dodgy bonuses, punchy numbers “lies” ………

I don’t want to see this BB descend into an hysterical leave/remain Brexit type argument. I’ll wait for funding clarity and take the discussion from there.

All the best


#87

Yes Tony I think that would be wise
I can give my views on why the bonuses were paid and why I think it was the right thing to do (at the time given the circumstances) but I can do so on another day once you’ve calmed down.

Have a good weekend


#88

Tony, it’s been a long journey. Take a break, but not too long, as we’ll miss you on this board!


#89

Please can you all challenge my logic on the 80% staying on. Like most, I saw this as positive. However, if you don’t know what dose you had or perhaps you had placebo wouldnt you stay on?
If it did work, you might stay on believing you had a lower dose, to see if things got even better.
If it didn’t work, you would be tempted to stay on in case you had placebo (and a good portion would have),
So compelling reason to stay on regardless of your outcome.


#90

I think that’s very good logic Emtee and I certainly haven’t thought of it like that.

Even though I’m out now I thought the 80% was positive but like you said no one knows if they’re on the placebo and if it didn’t work you’d think you were on it so you’d stay on.


#91

I’m not disappearing altogether, fx2452, as I still value ALL opinions on this BB and there are many well respected posters whose views interest me.

I will, however, restrict my own posts as there is nothing worse for shareholders with (in some cases) a significant investment having an ex-holder bashing the stock.

I’ve made my reasons for selling clear so I won’t repeat them.

PS - I don’t think any kind of bonus should be paid, Aberdeen, for a loss making bio-tec which is looking to raise funds. It’s simply not the right thing to do.


#92

Hi Tony, Sad fact of life that this is the AIM (Amoral Investment Methods) and the same is repeated from company to company. I recently took umbrage with the Aminex board for destroying the sp and then filling their trough with free bonus shares.

It irks that we place hard earnt cash in these companies and see directors enjoying freebies. The stock market is not clean … but there are profits to be made still. I just wonder how much more we could make if all directors were unscrupulous.

However, I’m sitting with a beer looking at the Med so it is not all doom and gloom.


#93

From having a quick look at AEX:

Aminex Board of Directors 1.46%

They don’t give a sh!t about the share holders / price whilst holding such a low amount of shares, they just want the company to survive as long as possible to take home an income, JC + MV taking home $674k split, companies like this are un-investable from my opinion.

Equally if Barder + his family didn’t own what they do, I wouldn’t of EVER invested in FUM.


#94

Lombard reduce their holding again today looks like they’ve played a very clever game and people fell for it.


#95

Mark, I agree.
It’s trying to figure out how LOAM are going to play it from here on in. And of course there may be other, unexpected, RNS(s) before the results are announced.

FWIW, I think you and Tony have done the right thing. You both committed large sums of money at great risk. If you’ve exited with profit, good for you.
Looking through this list is pretty sobering - https://www.investegate.co.uk/CompData.aspx?code=FUM&tab=announcements - all the way back to Admission to AIM.


#96

It’s absolutely pointless trying to second guess what others are doing

IMHO , do your own research and then stick to your decision.
Keep calm and carry on.


#97

I’m fine agreeing to disagree on that one, as LOAM are able to skew the SP by their actions alone.
The TR-1s since January show their approach so far.

But, you’re right also, I don’t know what they plan to do next.


#98

Latest Investors Chronicle write up on FUM:


#99

Any chance someone could post the full write up?

Cheers!


#100

Yes, agree Aberdeen that it’s pointless trying to second guess reasons for others buying or selling. We’ve lived with it re Lombard now for the best part of a year. They bought over 30 million shares for 7p and are understandably cashing in on a fair few - I get that. In fact the SP has done exceptionally well in this Lombard headwind. And I’m surprised it’s progressed since the interims. I thought it was a poor update - I must be missing something.

The biggest worry for me was not “why” Lombard are selling as such, it’s now that FUM have come out admitting they will most likely need a fund raise and the chance Lombard would step up the selling. I was hoping a deal post Phase 3 Part 1 would provide the funds - it might still happen I suppose.

I was also hoping some kind of milestone payment re TPR - however, this not only looks unlikely but I still think TPR has hit a major problem - whether it’s Thornton & Ross or the product itself remains to be seen. I thought Dermamax might have been a possible trade mark for TPR, but today the application has been withdrawn:

https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00003378304

On the subject of the fund raise, the true cash position at the end of June taking into account the £3.5 million trade payables was about £3.5 million. £3 million was mentioned as the outlay up to then on Phase 3, but I thought the total Phase 3 Part 1 cost was £6 million. I stand to be corrected on that. Which would mean cash resources being extremely low when going into the fund raise which they’re leaving until after the trial results are released - IMO they’re leaving it very late. I would have thought raise funds NOW whilst the SP is at least at a reasonable level. Saying it all depends on how good the results are seems to be taking a bit of a risk.