Member Info for 1GW_

I've put some posts on the advfn board about what's happened. Bonney appears to be a go-to Viex trouble-shooter. So I think you can read this as Singer/Viex pretty much taking control. Viex got into a proxy battle at Quantum, and nominated a slate of directors including Singer, Bonney and Mutch, all of whom are now on the R1 board. So if you view them as effectively Viex nominees, then 1 more would give them numerical control of the R1 board. Which is pretty good (for Viex) when they have only 5% of the shares and (it could be argued) were actually paid a premium (through the terms of the YuMe acquisition) to come on board. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/03/viex_quantum/

For completeness, a link to trustnet's assessment of the other co-manager they identify. https://www2.trustnet.com/Managers/ManagerFactsheet.aspx?personcode=00000326DW&univ=O

Lombard Odier is an interesting one. They announced at 5.3% (3.7% shares, 1.6% derivative) as of 27th June 2017. There was then no official holdings notice, as far as I can see, until the recent one declaring 10% (8.9% shares, 1.1% derivative). From data in various third party reports (FT, Barrons, Bloomberg) as well as the fund factsheet (Janus Henderson UK & Irish Smaller Companies) and the 13-F filings for YuME (Lombard Odier interest), it looks to me as though LO played the arb and sold down their R1 holding, buying YuMe after the merger announcement. They then must have bought R1 fairly big post-merger to get up to 10%, perhaps taking a good chunk of cogefi's along the way. In terms of the track record of this fund and the manager, I'm afraid it doesn't appear to be particularly good (note in particular the FE Trustnet brutal assessment of the manager), although now both fund and manager are part of Lombard Odier rather than Henderson. I am assuming here that the recent R1 purchases have been made through the same fund/manager rather than elsewhere in Lombard Odier - but I think that won't be entirely clear until the end-May fund factsheet is published. https://www.janushenderson.com/ukpa/fund/221/janus-henderson-uk-irish-smaller-companies-fund https://www2.trustnet.com/Managers/ManagerFactsheet.aspx?personcode=00000922MA&univ=O But, great to see that LO retains confidence in R1 as an investment, and I see it as a much-needed antidote (for us longs) to the more depressing news of Cogefi apparently abandoning hope and selling down significantly in April (having changed their fund manager) and Manek being forced to close late last year.

Strictly, the margin comment is on slide 22 of the Crest 24th January results presentation "Robust Margin Delivery". "Delivered 40bps underlying margin growth in 2017. Margins becoming more challenging as sales price inflation eases but build cost increases continue" ..."Operating Profit Margins at the upper end of guidance - 20.3% for 2017. Margins expected to moderate towards the middle of our 18% - 20% range"

Strictly, the margin comment is on slide 22 of the Crest 24th January results presentation "Robust Margin Delivery". "Delivered 40bps underlying margin growth in 2017. Margins becoming more challenging as sales price inflation eases but build cost increases continue" ..."Operating Profit Margins at the upper end of guidance - 20.3% for 2017. Margins expected to moderate towards the middle of our 18% - 20% range"

cyber - perhaps getting a bit o/t for the TEF board, but Crest's stated growth objectives are around the top line aren't they? Specifically �1.4bn revenue in FY19. They used to have a unit volume target as well (4000) but I think that might have been dropped. On margin, in January they guided to "margins expected to moderate towards the middle of our 18-20% range" , mentioning hpi decreasing and cost pressure increasing. Now they've moved that down to the bottom of the range. I have asked the CEO (ex CFO) about margins directly at at least 2 AGMs and he has consistently maintained the line that 20% should be an absolute maximum on what it is reasonable to expect to earn. But of course analysts see the 20% track record and build it into their forecasts, which leads to disappointment when it does fall short. Personally I do rate Crest management, but I accept that's not a universal view at the moment.

Third time lucky? I've sold the rest of my TEF holding this morning. I will probably invest the proceeds into Crest, which is my only housebuilder at present. Hasn't been a good trade (so far) with my first 2 tranches (November and March) but hoping for a bit of relative mean reversion eventually.

Glad it's not just me that tracks these things Brassneck. I agree on most of those numbers with only the last one being out by more than 1c. For that last quarter (4QFY18) my difference calculations give $3.35/cpm. And if you look at Y0Y % increase in pricing for the last 4 quarters of that sequence (on my numbers) it reads 68%, 82%, 20%, 87%. Unfortunately you see much more disappointing numbers if you look at YoY fill rate changes, so R1 really needs to work out how to maintain (or increase) pricing while simultaneously increasing the fill rate. I agree guidance is likely to be the most important aspect of the results as far as shareprice impact is concerned. I could easily believe that it was Singer who forced through that comment attributed to Ted in the TU about FY19 performance believed to be "fully in line with current consensus estimates in market". If so, then I would expect him to push for something similar, but perhaps with a bit more granularity, in the results. Of course if we're really the same poster as our very own Clouseau contends then perhaps not surprising that we agree. More surprising that we don't have exactly the same numbers, although perhaps that would just be a clever ruse to try to throw the inspector off the trail.

"At first he refused to correct it" Seriously, you want evidence of that? How very tedious. OK, with numbers being the advfn post numbers: 7140 - 21st April, 16:42 - your original misleading post 7141 - 21st April, 16:53 - me pointing out your error 7142 - 21st April, 17:25 - your reply "LOL...Oh dear..." "Why should anyone believe you..." Now at this point I would say you had already refused to correct it. 7143 - 21st April, 17:36 - me asking you formally to correct it and including the FCA words about market abuse 7145 - 21st April, 18:51 your reply "oh dear, I expect you want an apology from all the blinkered posters who regularly post lies and misleading posts...lol" Another pretty clear refusal 7160 - 22nd April, 15:02 My post pointing out that you had still not corrected your post, commenting on your own thread warning about "confidence tricksters" and suggesting you had lost any moral highground you might have hoped to occupy 7161 - 22nd April, 15:26 Your reply saying that you noticed I'd pointed out the FY/CY confusion to loaf as well but hadn't formally asked him to correct his post. You said I was "full of BS and a hypocrite" Then you asked me if loaf was a "good mate" of mine and suggested that was "easy to see". Finally you asked me if I posted as Brassneck on lse. Refusal number 3 I would say, wouldn't you? 7162 22nd April 15:55 My reply. "No I don't post as brassneck..." I suggested you were disappearing into the amoral swamp with this reasoning. "But instead of just correcting it and moving on you argue that's unnecessary because the poster that caught you out didn't require someone else to change one of their posts." 7162 22nd April 16:07 Your reply "of course you don't...it's so obvious...same underwater posters on here and on lse...lol You're such a BS poster,..." [i.e. refusing to believe that I don't post as brassneck] Refusal number 4 And so on. At some point (and it must have been at least a day or 2 later I think because I did check from time to time, you finally deleted the numbers from your original post, although not the assertion "compared to their F4 projections a HUGE MISS on their own forecasts" which is in itself a contentious statement to say the least since their was no F4 projection for R1 for FY18 on page 89 of the document (which you referenced) or, as far as I can remember, anywhere else in the document. And as for your implication that you weren't actually aware when you wrote the post that the numbers were for CY rather than FY I'm afraid that's simply not credible in my eyes. It is pretty clear how closely you follow the threads and so I find it very difficult to believe you hadn't seen my posts pointing out the CY/FY issue to loaf and to at least 1 person on the LSE thread I think.

In a nutshell, what do posters mean when they suggest inconsistencies between STT's postings on RhythmOne vs his postings on Totally? Consider the following 2 examples: STT on RTHM (post 7140 on his advfn thread): "compared to their F4 projections a HUGE MISS on their own forecasts.. $311m, $30m EBITDA..." Note the use of calendar year 2018 projection numbers from the F4 to imply a big miss compared to FY18 (i.e. April 2017-March 2018) actuals STT on TLY (on his TLY advfn thread) �The cash of �11m against the current mcap of just under �15m� Note this implies that an investment in TLY should be relatively low risk as most of the market cap is actually sitting there in the bank in cash. But he fails to mention other current liabilities which reduce the net current asset position to just �1.7m. Now the misleading nature of both those posts has been pointed out to him (by me). At first he refused to correct the RTHM one but eventually, after further prompting, he did quietly remove the numbers from it. The TLY one still sits there unedited today.

I have no problem whatsoever with admin checking whatever they feel they need to about me.

Oh the joys of bulletin board world. Since stt and bmac were talking about my posts on a third party bulletin board it seemed appropriate to respond talking about myself (i.e. my id on the third party bulletin board) in the third person.

STT - did you also notice that 1gw asked you where your moral compass had gone? That it appeared you were using the coins system to hide posts that were embarrassing to you and equally apparently spending your own coins to promote your own posts, posts which actually were misleading if not downright defamatory to him?

STT, did you notice if 1gw confirmed that out of around 30 stocks in his portfolio, R1 was still his biggest holding even after the sale? Did he perhaps say that most of the value was in 12 stocks that were each between about 3% and about 6% of his portfolio, but that R1 was over 12%? Did he point out that he had admitted to buying more at 220p even though it was already then his biggest holding, and that he subsequently went on to buy still more at 162p? Or that he then let that 162p purchase ride all the way up to 220p before selling?

Wow! True colours showing over here then. Ramp city. You talk about interesting things microscope, don't get bogged down in this investment analysis malarkey.

bluefish -I think that's quite likely (i.e. that they have the marketable securities as well as the disclosed cash balance) but we won't know for sure until we see the full year results I think. I did ask YuMe directly about the marketable securities after they published their 3Q results and I came away with the impression that they didn't expect to have to sell the marketable securities to meet the cash commitment in the merger agreement. And if you look at the net cash element in the cash bridge for the YuMe acquisition it seems to fit with YuMe having generated a bit of additional cash between end-3Q and completion - i.e. going from the $28.6m cash & equivalents in the end-3Q balance sheet to the $32m merger commitment and then slightly beyond - which I think wouldn't be out of whack with prior quarters' operating cash generation, especially given calendar 4Q should have been relatively strong.

Reads well and it's good to see "slightly ahead". Bullish on rent to buy. It looks like they've left an opening for those who might be so inclined to see a "warning" on planning delays though, so interesting to see where the sp goes.

Nice open. So the steady progress reported seems to trump any disappointment at the lack of (sports direct deal or education sale) rabbits out of the hat.

Perhaps they're hoping to nail down something to report on "further developing the commercial supply arrangements" with Sports Direct. It's over a month since they announced they were exploring the possibility so it wouldn't be unreasonable to hope that negotiations should be close to conclusion by now.

Bmac, the $30m proforma adj Ebitda for "2018" in the F4 was for calendar 2018, not for the fy ending 31st March 2018. For fy18 I think we're shooting for about $15m adj Ebitda, ie the original "consensus" number, on the basis that some delay in realising Radiumone synergies may be offset by a contribution from YuMe. The cash, equivalent and marketable securities will be a key number. The contractual Yume "cash" number excluded some marketable securities that were on the YuMe balance sheet iirc, so I'm hoping we got a bit more than the contractual number and then get the marketable securities as well.