Member Info for allforprofit

Its worse than you think Garwood. Some of the posters who are racking up thousands of posts here are equally active on the ADVFN QBT board, posting the same old rubbish time and again.

They use different user names on the various boards, but some are pretty easy to match up. For example Scotwins here is Jameson on the ADVFN board, and OSD is Sharetalk (the pomposity and self importance are unmistakable).

Guesswork (or more curately, wishful thinking. No analysis. Nothing informative. No wonder posters here are reduced to queuing up to 'reprt each other to teacher'.

Maybe I am just out of touch with the 'youf'. In days of yore sneaks (upper echelons) and grasses (lower echelons) were equally reviled. Not a group anyone admitted to, let alone boasted of, being a member of. Is something he government puts in the water, or just a side effect of owning QBT shares?

What are you talking about? I can't remember the order in which I made my points, and thus which was last.

Anyhow , all my very own handiwork!

It seems a shame tha it fell foul of the censor, as I had managed to prompt some serious discussion today - the first for a long time..

I assume my first post will have been deleted too, though I have not looked.

Anyhow, I know now that it is the send ups which meet with LSE's approval. I suppose they are the ones which generate the most posting traffic. That makes a kinda sense, I suppose

I don't understand your post OSD. Removed for incomplete submission? What does that mean, and how do you know why it was removed?

Did you bleat about it to LSE?

As to AI,No AI in any post. of mine.

I actually agreed with much of what you had said, subject to a couple of quibbles to which I shall not now hear your response - who knows, you might have convinced me that there was nothing in them. Now I sjhall never know!

I can't be bothered to try to get the post re-instated.

I guess the moral is that LSE prefers to see posters sending each other up rather than engaging in analysis.

I'll know better next time.

Lets cut out the pointless, and seemingly endless, speculation and guessing.

How about doing the calculations I have requested, for which there are hard numbers?

That will show whether QBT is achieving its objectives (25 years is long enough to iron out any inconsequential blips along the way) and delivering returns for shareholders, and what sort of job Gardin has been doing for the shareholders nd whether he has been worth the price paid for his services. I

am sure we can all agree (it is a matter of record) that Gardin has been the leading light of QBT through virtually all of its multifarious business ventures, and that a company has to make money for shareholders over a period of a quarter of a century if it is to be regarded as a worthwhile investment.

So lets have an end to the speculation and wild guessing, and the pointless trolling and ramping, and have some real fact based analysis.

UserSteve has helpfully drawn our attention to QBT's objective:' a long term strategy to deliver shareholder returns'.

Gardin has been CEO for most of the company's existence, and still is. The company has raised mant millions of shareholder capital, it has delivered 25 unbroken trading losses, and its market capitalisation is now only a small fraction of the equity capital it has raised over the years. Gardin's receipts from the company over that period (in performance bonuses, as well as salary and consultancy fees) runs into millions.

There are many very satisfied QBT shareholders posting on this board. They are delighted with the shareholder returns QBT delivers, they credit Gardin for the success of QBT in delivering upon its long term strategy of shareholder returns, and consequently regard an assertion that Gardin has operated QBT to his own rather than the shareholders' advantage as untrue and libellous.

If that assertion is untrue, it is indeed libellous. The question, therefore is: 'Is it true?'.

The payments made to Gardin,d(irect and indirect by way of consultancy fees for his services paid to his company) are a matter of record in the QBT accounts over he years. In aggregate, they are indeed substantial. That is one side of the issue.

The other is net shareholder return in excess of capital subscribed for the shares of QBT in issue. That will include the 'hope' value of a return on QBT's R&D, which is presumably reflected in the current SP. Could someone calculate that net return enjoyed by the shareholders, please?

It would also be very instructive to see a calculation of the total expenditure to date on QBT's tech, on its marketing, and on the running costs of QBT since it embarked on the venture ,in about 2021,I think. That will tell us the sum QBT needs to make on the commercial exploitation of the tech before it shows a profit on the venture.

UserSteve, thank you for the references to the company accounts. Very illuminating.

QGT certainly gives a whole new meaning to 'long term strategy to deliver shareholder return'.

I don't think anyone can quibble with 'long term'. That said, 25 years of unbroken trading losses run up in a plethora of different business ventures ranging from swimming pools to quantum computing, for which tens of millions of additional capital have been raised over that quarter century, during which time the capital value of the company has shrunk does raise a question or two about the implementation of that strategy, and the competence of the management.

Hey ho, at any rate those statements in the accounts demonstrate that 'Hope springs eternal in the corporate ,as well as he human, breast'.

You too could buy 100 QBT shares and dream of becoming a billionaire any day now, and you would get plenty of change out of a quid.

Dreaming of finding the crock of gold at the end of the rainbow is cheaper, but not much, and with QBT shares you can play out your dream in front of your screen rather than tramping around in the rain.

What's not to like?

PS Correction to my last post. It should have read 'from the saintly mouth of' rather than 'at the hand of' and 'work the oracle', not 'do the trick'.

The LSE algorithm might misconstrue my post as originally written, especially a the Rev's weekend posts WERE a bit 'spicy' . We all have to choose our words carefully these days.

Mikey, I should hve added that it is the same story with Scotwins, wors in fact as he is banned altogether though totally blameless. I think it must a bizarre attempt at even-handedness on the part of LSE.

Its tough Mikey. I can't think what LSE would find objectionable in any of your posts. Its not good for business either. You, selflessly and despite the burden on your time, provided a high proportion of the footfall here.

Walter says the answer is to change your user name.

Personally, I doubt that will do any good. LSE will know who you are, and thus the person behind any new user name you post under.

I can only console you with the cold comfort that the board weeps with you. Our loss is greater than yours. You still have the benefit of your insights, while LSE denies them to the rest of us.

I see that the unhappy fate of Scotwins is becoming a cause celebre.

It has even become a debating point on the ADVFN board.

When will the US VP take up his case? Will outrage at his treatment rival that of the outrage over Lucy Letby's treatment?

Good stuff OSD, and all good clean fun.

You seem to be doing better with A! today than you did over the weekend, when LSE had to step in and deleted a number of your posts about the 'fun' you were looking forward to getting back to.

You seem to have teased out all the alternatives, and will now understand why 'Allforprofit' is the most appropriate.

Nothing from the rest of the rampers yet. In their present unhappy mood they are likely to be having problems coming up with anything clean enough to get past LSE. Never mind, if we get a small tick up in the SP they will become euphoric even if the downtrend remains intact, and may then be able to come up with some suggestions which will be acceptable to the LSE censoring algorithm.

They need to be careful, lest they too suffer the unhappy fate of Scotwins.

Sorry, Walter. As I addressed my post to you I should have written 'Pelion on Ossa' rather than 'evil upon evil.' My bad.

OSD, yes I am akin to my user name.

I agree with you that not every poster is.

QBT holders have been waiting a very long time (a quarter of a century and counting) for QBT to make them rich. It is not really surprising that they are becoming impatient and fractious - in some cases even abusive toward those who have avoided the losses QBT hldershave suffered or, evil upon evil, made profits shorting it. Jealousy is a terrible thing. Better to be a fantasist, and always happy.

I suggest that to cheer themselves up and fill the time (probably a very long time, I fear) while they wait for QBT to make them rich, they amuse themselves and exercise their grey matter suggesting more appropriate user names for posters here.

I have already set the ball rolling with an appropriate new handle for you. Over to the rest of the board now.

Walter, I can read the name but unfortunately my Greek (ancient Greek only) is a bit rusty, so I shall have to stagger on with my life as best I can without knowing what the words mean. I expect I shall cope somehow.

You don't take exception to his 4 girl friends also included in his tally, Phimx?

You are probably right - I expect they are also just figments of his imagination.

Re: my last post

By 'better', i meant ,'more imaginative', not 'more appropriate'.

Those who know the derivation of 'Shangri La' will appreciate that would have been highly appropriate.

Of course you do, OSD. Of medications, most of which you forget to take.

You can't teach an old dog new tricks, Phimx.

Especially not an old dog suffering from Walter Mitty syndrome, which OSD plainly is.

Do truly, or even moderately, wealthy and successful people feel the need to boast (anonymously) about their wealth and success to other (anonymous) people?