Senoj,That is a good point in the reduction of the trade...

Senoj,
That is a good point in the reduction of the trade payables. However the trade payables is more meaningful to be read in conjunction with other liabilities and assets rather than explaining the underlying cash outflow. However your differing opinion is noted and respected.

Despite the “abnormal profit” of $12.736m from the GSK settlement, the total equity had only increased by $2.65m that is from $63.3m to $65.95 m

This led the next question – what was the underlying profit or loss?

The headline news of nett profit up 31% to $7.2m although technically correct hides the true picture. In a more transparent report, the head lines should read:

Loss from Ordinary Activities: -$ 5.536m
Profit from Abnormal (Litigation) $12.736m
Nett Profit after abnormals: $ 7.2m

In other words, BTA is making a loss of $5.536m half year loss from the underlying business.

As you are skilful in analysing the accounts, perhaps you contribute objectively to these questions.

1) Why is the weighted average shares used for calculating the basic EPS the same as the diluted EPS? Is it because BTA only deem options that had vested as potential ordinary shares? Put simply is BTA unvested options as non –diluting?

2) What is your view on –
a)Royalty income had fallen 77% from $16.483m to $3.819m
b)Collaboration income had fallen from $9.56m to $6.657m What is even more confusing is that the $4.2m AstraZeneca is reported as “Research Revenue”. From memory, this fee was paid primarily for BTA granting additional territorial rights to AstraZeneca.
c)No milestone was achieved (Zero milestone payment) despite R&D expenses increasing by 36% from $4.656 to $6.339


Port, you are a joke: Quote:"HRV trial cost was a one off... cash burn was above budget".
Tell us how much was the HRV one off trial cost?
Yes, I was previously wrong in accepting another HC poster who stated the HRV trial costs was $15M. From the A/C which the birds are no capable of understanding, it is impossible to tell whether the HRV costs had been incurred, it is suffice to say that such trials usually run in the millions and do not seem to have been taken up in the accounts.