focusIR May 2024 Investor Webinar: Blue Whale, Kavango, Taseko Mines & CQS Natural Resources. Catch up with the webinar here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Thanks Bouncy. I share your frustrations and agree they have to put up.
Yeah, ok, agreed...if somebody has "one foot in the grave" (another common saying over here for 'they're about to die'), then "you'll be long gone" would not be a very kind thing to say.
We will have to agree to disagree old bean. In my experience Software companies grow and scale faster than nearly all traditional companies. The internet allows these type of companies to scale unrestricted like nothing else. I guess I've let frustration get to me (that last RNS tipped me over the edge) as I can't see any good things that Brian has done - I've heard plenty of good things - come out of his mouth that it - yes - but I haven't actually SEEN any good things - like written down on paper - like on a Balance sheet! I assume you know the fable; 'The Boy who Cried Wolf' Well surely Brian only has one cry left now? You gotta believe me when I say this - I hope you are right and my misgivings are purely down to frustrations from watching this company deflate over the last 3 years. I really didn't think the company was participating in such low quality ads as it had been, we were continually told that Blinkx dealt in the 'Premium sector' of online advertising and I swallowed the party line. They have cleaned up their act considerably now, but no doubt damage was caused. I hope they are now (finally) on the right track and if they really think they are this time - then it's time to put up or shut up and that includes a share buyback.
I suppose it depends how soon that time is approaching on one's horizon. If it were deemed (by the recipient) to be reasonably close, then the comment could be interpreted as a cruel taunt. If it wasn't meant that way, then I accept it could have been meant in a general sense. Horsey just seemed a bit blunt. I'm not sure how old Pensioner is, but he seems to come across as a decent sort, even though I don't agree with some of his viewpoints.
BDC I do not agree with you. You always express yourself in a positive manner and that is fine. First of all with any software company it is important to have a plan. This cannot be firm but it is necessary to try to keep the business on track. This is rather like planning in chess. You know what you want to do but cannot predict what your opponent will do and you have to remain flexible. Blinkx started off as an advertising company, switched to a search company then moved into basic advertising and now is positioning itself as an advertising exchange company. Before BM there was no clear plan and under BM there is. Things take longer to achieve in a software company than simpler companies. If we take Arm Holdings as an example, Simon Segars stated recently that the products being sold today were developed ten years ago. ML had a significant shareholding in Blinkx through Autonomy and his personal holding, say around 12% of the company. I would be surprised if he did not use his position as a director of the company to influence the direction and I would be surprised if SC stepped down of his own accord. With regard to share buyback. I know of one company which was told by what is possibly the largest software company in the world, that if they did not strengthen their balance sheet then the large company would terminate their business relationship. The smaller company had a share issue, raised capital and everything is fine. There is no good reason to buy back shares.
Trader, I am afraid you may be correct, but I hold out a tiny glimmer of hope you're wrong. Tiny and diminishing daily.
We will all be six foot under by the time this crock makes any money. The only reason to invest is to make money. I think some people might have forgotten that. Ten years in and Blinkx still does not know how to make money. Those are the facts in front of you, like it or not .
Pension at 11:14 below: I don't see why your walk down history lane would bring about any insults. I found it quite accurate, including your editorializing. (I found your editorializing especially refreshing, to be honest.) What happens from here is what concerns me. Given the state of the competitive landscape within which we operate, I have little faith in current management, but will give it a chance with the few remaining shares I've got left. Bouncy, We are two continents separated by a common language. I don't know how it's treated over there, but over here telling somebody "you'll be long gone before X, Y or Z happens" (Or "you'll be 6 feet under before that happens") is a very common saying, with absolutely no ill will intended. Over here it is not considered the least bit mean, it's just a widely used expression, using a bit of hyperbole to make one's point.
Not the full script but it would suggest they could do it even in a closed period as long as done through a broker independent of company. You are right 2 months.
With more and more listed companies operating extensive share buy-back programmes, many are starting to take advantage of a relatively little known provision of the Listing Rules which enables them to continue to buy back shares during close periods. This update looks at how these buy-backs are done and highlights the key issues for the listed company. Background Paragraph 9.2.7R of the Listing Rules (LRs) provides that a listed company may not deal in its own shares at a time when, under the provisions of the Model Code, a director would be prohibited from dealing. For most listed companies, this means each of the two months preceding the announcement of their preliminary and interim accounts. This prohibition is repeated in LR 12.2.1R. Effectively, this means that companies cannot do share buybacks during those four months, except by the methods mentioned below. LR 12.2.1R, however, permits companies to make purchases of their own shares during a close period where a buy-back programme is managed independently of the company. The relevant exemption is in LR 12.2.1(2), which applies if "the company has in place a buy-back programme managed by an independent third party which makes its trading decisions in relation to the company's securities independently of, and uninfluenced by, the company". Many listed companies have either been unaware of or unwilling to use this exemption, although this is starting to change (see below). Trends So far, broadly two methods of effecting independent programmes have been used. The first, which has been relatively little used (examples are Vodafone and Next), has seen the use of complex derivatives programmes written by the company's financial adviser as a hedge against the repurchases undertaken. The aim of this has been to lower the average repurchase cost as well as permitting buy-backs during close periods. Because of the nature of these arrangements, specific shareholder authority is needed. Although a number of these schemes have been marketed, they have so far been little used; it remains to be seen if they will take off. The second (more common and far simpler) method is merely to give the company's broker an authority, prior to the start of a close period, to continue buying shares during the close period. The purchases will be effected pursuant to the annual buy-back authority passed at most companies' AGMs in the usual way and therefore no new authority will generally be needed. The downside of these independent programmes, however, is that - by their very nature - companies do not have control over them. Finance directors need to be happy, therefore, with the authority they invest in their broker before entering into one of these programmes. Issues The documentation involved in the second method is relatively simple, the main one being an agreement between the company and its broker, confirming the broker's authority. The key issues
I think closed period is 2 months isn't it, so they probably are in a closed period. But would that stop them announcing the intention to commence a buyback once the closed period finishes with the publication of the results? In any event, they could get everything ready to announce a buyback at the same time as the results are published. With a whole month to play with they might even be able to get a decent ambiguity-free press release together. The beauty of commencing a buyback in the month or so before the AGM is that they won't run out of ammunition in a hurry - they have the existing authority (approx. 40m shares or 10%) which runs up to the AGM and then they should get the authority renewed at the AGM.
There has been a lot of talk recently about share buy back. At every AGM they get the vote to do this. They have it now so should DO IT NOW. If we cant buy back shares at this price we might as well wither and die. The only exception to this is when they are ion a "closed period". Don't know if they are in this now. Generally a month or so before full results are known.
The comments regarding your extinction prior to Blinkx making any money were uncalled for and mean, I don't share or condone those comments. However, I think you give the Mgt team too much credit for what has essentially been an 8 year shambles. Your choice of words is interesting - You go on to state that Myths were developed inside Blinkx. What is a Myth other than a fabricated lie? I guess it's 'The way you tell em'. ML was never involved in the running of Blinkx and Kath Rittweger left before the company even floated on AIM, she doesn't really warrant a mention. BM may have recently made some changes for the better (only more time will tell), but it's all too little too late. He's a low league CEO who fumbled the opportunity given to him. He's been in power for 4 years now - and look where we are! If we are indeed - finally - in as good as a position as Brian tells us we are now in - Why not start a buy back?
Its two arms and legs not arm and leg , and two feet not foot. Just helping old boy ! Aaaah, the schools of yesteryear have a lot to answer for. If you keep talking long enough, you will convince yourself that you are right concerning your investments. Sure BM had a hard job, but he also has a hard job telling the truth and that is why the markets don't trust him or the company to deliver !
Numbers produced by dishonest people do 'lie'. I do not want to post at length as it just attracts insults, particularly from the yob who has two arm two leg, two foot and no brain. However to understand what is happening you have to understand the history and the people involved. The latter is best done by talking to the people directly. Blinkx was founded by Kathy Rittweger with SC., Kathy becoming CEO. She had a marketing background and this was the direction she was pushing the company. The technology was mainly from Virage which had been acquired by Autonomy. ML decided he wanted to sell Autonomy and also Blinkx. So Kathy was paid off and the marketing focus was abandoned. The myth that SC is a genius and Blinkx had the world’s most advanced video search engine was developed. There were no buyers. The next option was to try to sell the company as an advertising company. They had worked with Zango from about 2006 and were well aware of the dubious practices employed. It got into trouble and in 2009 its assets were acquired by Blinkx. They also started acquiring miscellaneous companies so the myth that they were expanding could be created. ML commented on how surprised he was at how little he had to pay for companies with significant sales. However he was buying mature businesses which did not fit into a long term strategy. His strategy was short term. Still they could not sell the company. Burst was bought and PVMG for its management. Notably Sandy Demitroff and BM. Burst was loss making. ML and SC knew BM from the days when they were negotiating to buy MIva which I think was 2008. So when BM took over in mid-2012 he had a hotchpotch of businesses with much duplication and lacking coherence. The real value was in the people. I do not know if you have been involved in such a situation but it is a daymare. If you move too quickly you lose a lot of the people and value. Managing businesses in many locations is time consuming and spreads management thinly. The objective of the company is mobile video advertising and not much of what BM inherited was geared to this. It is a big job to rationalise such a set up and at the same time build a state of the art ad exchange. BM stopped buying companies other than those which advanced this line of business. Instead he increased expenditure on internal development which can be seen from the R&D figures. The ad exchange revenues carry a high margin and are ‘core’ and these appear to be increasing at a high rate. The costs of rationalisation will soon work out of the system. The step change in mobile video advertising will come with the introduction of 5G. People talk of this happening in 2020 but I think it will be slightly earlier. Perhaps some one could expand on how 5G will impact the company.
Perhaps we are at the start of an even longer long game. Lets assume that Brian is in fact putting together an eco-system that works and makes profit. d Cash in bank starts to increase and people "start to believe" the sheep come back and the share price rises substantially. That's the dream. Reality may be a bit further off. I still harp back to My travel later to become T.C.G. A company at the time with a large amount of debt but with something people want. That went up about 20 fold. This is a company without debt. Surely to God it must have a future. ?? I live in hope ( which is being severely tested ) But come on Brain. Get a bloody rabbit out of that hat.
Ah right. So quite s major flaw in their measurements.
Uksteveg you are more than likely right about the figures having no relevance to the SP because if they did we would be multiples of where we are now. But at last AGM Brian and Dan both said that the quantcast figures are the ones to use and are what the company are using to measure their success on He is hoping it translates into revenue sooner rather than later.
I get the distinct impression that these figures are open to various interpretations and are inconclusive. They certainly have no bearing on the sp and don't seem to be taken too seriously outside of bb's.
iR is backup to 11th place now https://www.quantcast.com/p-59TntzuqummDw Strange though Brinkx was up 1000% last month and 1000% this month to so is that 1 million% in two months? Did start very low starting point only 549 people
Has anyone ever wondered why he still sits on the board or what he does, why we never hear from him any more and why he bailed ship to join Balderton private equity? Do you think Balderton, as a savvy tech investor, always wanted to give itself an option to buy Blinkx by having SC in their ranks. I wonder whether the relationship between BM and SC is difficult and only BM's options at 50p and determination to stay as CEO would stop a deal being done? I wonder if BM would think of himself above shareholders? I wonder if Balderton have ever talked to Tosca or the Board? At the current share price the shareholder pressure to make change must be overwhelming. My gut feel is that we must be at the start of the end game, whatever that might be?
To add to your excellent post. Not only is the SP at bottom but 95% of our cash is stateside and at $1.42 it makes even more sense to bring some over. ($1.55/60 has been the recent range). It adds another 10% to the equation. Why can't they just do the right thing for once?
9 years as of 22 May, 2016. But who's counting? Actually, I was in long before then, ever since Virage in 2000. So, it can be said it's closer to 16 years. Shows you I really know how to pick 'em, eh?
Yeah, maybe you're right and you've not been patient enough. After all it's only been 8 years or so... I don't read or post here much either, just needed to have a bit of a rant after reading that pathetic RNS. I'd even take a merger with YUME, but please oh please don't let BS Brian run the thing...
After all these years I find I am so fed up I'm numb to the whole mess. I don't feel much of anything except a sense of resignation. I used to read all the posts on here all the time. Now I rarely read any of them. I've pretty much thrown in the towel. Perhaps I've not given it enough time.