Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Not sure there is a great deal more they can lose here - revenues downs to £3m last year due to the value of the peso but also because the business model there is now flawed. Unfortunate they couldn’t reduce running costs fast enough to keep up with the decline so hence the massive loses that have been suffered. They would have been better pulling the plug and still are in my opinion - another huge drop on the peso and they are in trouble again.
2015: Revenues £29.1m
2016: Revenues £12.8m
2017: Revenues £5.7m
2018: Revenues £3m
From memory of you see section 21 of the final results you’ll see that they are aware of the issues of Argentina being in hyper inflation since July 18 but that they haven’t assessed the consequences as yet.
Staying in Argentina was a stubborn move as a lot of economists have been predicting and reporting on this decline for several years.
More stupidity then interesting - they should have pulled out of Argentina two years ago. Shows the level of business acumen from board on this one.
Actually surprised this hasn’t been pumped following the latest vague RNS from the BOD - think too many people are wary of the nature of the “deals” and “partnerships” that are being struck here.
Still no update on milestones we were previously promised when they did the last cash raise and where did the recent crypto currency tie ups go? No mention of those and how they are going to benefit the company. This company seems intent on deal making with no substance.
Unfortunately, I am already directly invested in this. I don’t hold a massive amount anymore but bought back when this was 4-5p and held (and lost) a substantial amount. I have retained some so that I can rightly have a say at an AGM level and within this board. I have also emailed SB over the last few years with my concerns but he has not been replying to emails as of late. I was quite shocked when I did my research into the accounts last year at the level of renumeration of the directors and it has led me to my conclusions.
With regards to the latest RNS I am just very wary now of the overpromotion of deals and partnerships from this company with no detail behind them. The only comment on revenue being that games are monetised via advertising? Maybe you (KNIGELK) can shed some light on this “partnership” as you seem to be quite close to the company – what level of revenue are they going to get via this deal, if it is a gamechanger like you highlight why are they not providing this detail to the market?
Just a reminder:
2015: Revenues £29.1m / EBITDA profit of £1.1m / Directors remuneration £294k / highest paid director £202k
2016: Revenues £12.8m / EBITDA loss of £0.65m / Directors remuneration £328k / highest paid director £202k
2017: Revenues £5.7m / EBITDA loss of £1.48m / Directors remuneration £363k / highest paid director £242k
2018: Revenues £3m / EBITDA loss of £1.2m / Directors remuneration £325k / highest paid director £229k
Revenue decline and huge losses however directors pay stays the same.
Make of this what you want but if any placement is made then the money will obviously be going to ensure that there is no decline in the directors renumeration.
Motives are pretty clear to me: try and ramp the price up with as many RNS’s which hold no real substance only vague wide ranging statements of “potential”which will enable the raising of further funds via a placement which will in turn secure the directors £200k plus salary for another few years.
How many “deals” or “partnerships” have we seen over the last 12 months but with no substance to them people have woken up to these pointless RNS’s. Company is indeed run for the benefit of the directors remuneration.
Yet another pointless RNS with no substance - nothing on revenue and how this will improve MOS’s position
Let’s put it another way a quarter of the money that was raised in Dec 16... yes 1p of every share bought at 4p back in Dec 16 has gone on to fund the directors lifestyle while the company makes substantial losses.
I also feel a fold is certain here.
MOS’s mobilegaming website is now only getting around 500 visitors or less a day which is pathetic considering the RNS’s they continue to realise highlighting a potential market in the hundreds of millions of people.
Directors are probably worth a pay rise based on this though.
In my opinion this is a lifestyle business run for the benefit of one director and the level of remuneration recieved has completely mugged investors out of many thousands of pounds - completely legal of course because this is aim. I think you would agree highly immoral though.
Where has the reporting on the milestones that we all bought into gone? What’s the revenues per customer in India? Whats the benifit of the Cypto currency deals? No answers to these as they haven’t a clue how to run a business other then how the payroll system works!
I know one thing for sure - with the amount of wages hes rinsed out of this he will be having a very nice Xmas. Directors remuneration has been around £1m over the last 3 years vs losses of £3m. Just think if they had only paid themselves based on performance then they would still have enough funds not to do a placement...
Sole reason why they have kept Argentina going so long is to bring in some revenue so that they can justify paying themselves silly wages.
Utter disgrace this company - run as a company to provide directors extortionate remuneration.
Normally MOS notifies by way of RNS it’s AGM date - I am guessing after the last 3 years of the directors taking exorbitant wages out of the company whilst making continuous losses they didn’t want to advertise it in case any disgruntled investors turned up who don’t get rewarded for failure.
Unfortunately MOS is a share that runs for the benefit of the directors only.
2015: Revenues £29.1m / EBITDA profit of £1.1m / Directors remuneration £294k / highest paid director £202k2016: Revenues £12.8m / EBITDA loss of £0.65m / Directors remuneration £328k / highest paid director £202k2017: Revenues £5.7m / EBITDA loss of £1.48m / Directors remuneration £363k / highest paid director £242k2018: Revenues £3m / EBITDA loss of £1.2m / Directors remuneration £325k / highest paid director £229kI am afraid this company is just run for the benefit of the directors. Revenue decline and huge losses however directors pay stays the same. Same old same old with an RNS that has total lack of info on revenue.
We are getting regular updates because the director wants the share price to rise in order to raise more funds so that he can keep himself in the life he is accustomed to for another year but I suspect the share price won’t stop him from doing this no matter whether it is north of 1p or not. This company has not been run as a business for a while now and unfortunately.
The reason why I am here is that I have a small holding left which I will get rid of over the coming months but I want to hold the directors to account. It’s been poorly run and over promised investors with a complete disregard to keeping us informed on the milestones that we invested in in the first place. Also I am going to keep I’m mentioning the directors pay packet on here for as long as I can because rewarding failure is not right in any industry.
This news deserves a director pay rise!
In all seriousness again no detail on anything here. What’s the split on users between Argentina and India? Does this meet any of the milestones that were set out when the board did a share issue and took our hard earned cash (note we haven’t heard anything of these milestones for a long time)? What does this do to revenues? How long have cool games been on board (RNS contradicts itself on this point)? What is the benefit of cool games being on board (what revenue is this going to bring to mobile streams)? How does this 6 millionth user and the proclaimed ever increasing subscribers translate into revenue and when do mobile streams expect to break even and then make a profit?
Again throwing things at the wall in a hope to drive the share price up so that it’s as high as possible when they do another rights issue in the next couple of months.
Over the last 3 years the directors have taken over £1m in pay for the achievement of substantial losses so why do they not put their hands in their pockets first on a shares issue to show their confidence in the business as at this sort of price anyone with any interest here will get seriously diluted over the next few months.
2015: Revenues £29.1m / EBITDA profit of £1.1m / Directors remuneration £294k / highest paid director £202k
2016: Revenues £12.8m / EBITDA loss of £0.65m / Directors remuneration £328k / highest paid director £202k
2017: Revenues £5.7m / EBITDA loss of £1.48m / Directors remuneration £363k / highest paid director £242k
2018: Revenues £3m / EBITDA loss of £1.2m / Directors remuneration £325k / highest paid director £229k
So basically from 2015 to 2018 revenues have dropped to 10% of what they were but the directors remuneration has increased.
What do I think a fair wage would be. Based on revenues of £29.1m in 2015 vs a wage packet of £202k then revenues of £3m should equate to a pay packet of £30k.
Unbelievable that a company can go on making losses for three years in Argentina and not have the sense to pull out. The figures above suggest the reason being that the directors are relying on revenue to keep their pay packet.
Disgrace.
To be clear from the final results the highest paid director paid themselves over £220k for the year. That’s actually £20k less then they paid themselves last year but HOW ON EARTH is a CEO of a company that has made a significant loss of over a £1m for the last THREE years allowed to pay themselves so much?
I for one considers myself as an utter MUG for investing in a company that rewards such failure.
Roger Parry probably quit because he was uncomfortable for this arrangement but why is the new chairman allowing such payments to go through?
Let me state it again - £220k salary for £1m losses? Incredible!
His wages are a disgrace not crazy - what chairman would sign off on that level of remuneration based on the abject failure over the last few years is beyond me maybe that's why Roger Perry pulled the rip cord and bailed out. I don't know anyone that gets rewarded for failure in their normal working life but it seems to be the trend for CEO's these days that's the sad part.
The simple fact is this needs to be run by someone that understands business but I think that ship has sailed. IN the final results I expect to see the directors wages increase once again against increased losses and a placing looming based on an out of date 'game plan' which promises the world but gets lost within the first few months never to be seen again.
Would like to be wrong on all of the above as I still have a small holding (my only AIM shares left) but it needs a clear game plan based purely on revenue and not on sentimental value from a director that obviously cannot let things go - the losses from Argentina have been in the hundreds of thousands now why on earth MOS keep pursuing things there is totally beyond me!
Just a reminder of one thing to look out for in the final results.
From 2017 Final results:
EBITDA* loss of 1.48m GBP (2016 loss: 0.65m GBP)
Directors renuneration:
The remuneration of the Directors for the year amounted to 329,000 GBP (2016: 328,000 GBP). The remuneration of the highest paid Director was 242,000 GBP (2016: 202,000 GBP).
The highest paid director gave himself a pay rise of 20% between 2016 and 2017 even though MOS almost tripled their loses.
2018 losses vs directors pay?
Anybody any idea what is going on here?
Not being run as a business from what I can see; still relying on Argentina even though the peso keeps falling; India not working and the last six news feeds have been about throwing as many ideas at the wall as possible without any indication on how they benefit MOS in terms of revenue.
Presume we are not going to get any sort of trading update prior to final results? It will be interesting to see how much the directors have increased their remuneration vs the (poor) results though.
How much cash they have left in the bank will dictate whether a placing is imminent but for those of you that remember the last placing they were suppose to be measuring progress against a number of milestones - where did they go? It would seem that they have changed their strategy completely without really informing the market?!