Member Info for allforprofit

I have posted an an analysis of what today's announcement means for investors on the ADVFN board, where it is safe from deletion.

My commiserations to all QBT shareholders.

Daffy, Be rather careful about taking these announcements at face value. The 'we' in the passage you quote refers to QBT. The announcement states that 'we' [QBT] will not have to 'split any future recovered sum with any other party'. The uninitiated reader might be forgiven for failing to appreciate on reading that unqualified assertion that 10% of gross recoveries (without any contribution to litigation costs) are payable to Gardin.

Count your fingers after shaking hands with Gardin.

No miker. I am predicting that the results will be trumpeted by QBT as a success, even though they will probably not lead to deals and commercial roll out.

This will continue to be a 'good progress being made, jam tomorrow' narrative.

Remember, it is coming up to three years since we were told that the tech was ready for commercial roll out, the lawyers for QBT and an [unnamed] customer were working to finalise contract terms, and Vlad was brought in to head up a sales drive. That fizzled out (without explanation). Then revenue by y/e 2024 was predicted, and came to nothing. On current announcement, we are not yet quite so far advanced toward commercial roll out now as QBT was said to be in 2023 and 2024.

History does not repeat, but it does rhyme, so they say ....

It should not be assumed that the 'results' will necessarily be simply pass /fail, or that even if they are declared to have been successful. commercial deals will follow as night follows day.

Experience tells me that success will certainly be claimed, but very likely much of that claimed 'success' will be said to be identification of areas where further work is required. This can may well continue to be kicked down the road with Gardin continuing cheerfully to whistle 'jam tomorrow' for a long time yet.

An interesting insight into the way LSE operates this morning. I intervened in an exchange between OSD to say 'You have to give US best on this one OSD. Gardin attempted a board room coup at LAC (employing some pretty dubious tactics. The intended victims responded (with the utmost propriety) by calling a meeting at which ALL the directors would be subject to re-election by the shareholders. Gardin resigned ahead of the meeting.'

Surely the past actions of the CEO as a director of another company is are a legitimate subject of discussion? Apparently not, in the eyes of LSE. The exchange of posts on the subject has been expunged.

Interesting about the goings on at LAC, Phmx. I did not know anthing about LAC, but reading your link prompted some thoughts on the set up at QBT and in relation to the Sipiem litigation whch I have posted on ADVFN (1knocker).

It is not worth the labour of posting anything beyond humourous asides here, as any serious post (whether pro or con) will draw down a campaign from one faction or the other to have it removed . LSE policy being what it is, such campaigns generally seem to succeed.

Tough for Gardin if QBT has to hand back the artwork. He will no longer be able plausibly to invite the girls up to his bedroom to see his etchings.

The silver lining for shareholders is that he will have more time and energy to devote to making the 'methods' work.

OSD, didn't I say that you should stick with your trusty semi-diesel? Add a soupcon of olive oil to the fuel, and the characteristic exhaust puffs would have shown to perfect effect, and stolen the show. Never mind, you were in the parade, and got round afloat, and that is what counts. Do post a reference we can click on to see it.

Phimx, other companies can match , and even excel, QBT for capital raises, but none (so far as my fairly exhaustive research has revealed) even comes close to its unbroken 25 year record of annual losses.

Forget the scriptures. Be guided by Einstein, and his law of relativity. That law says that everything is relative (or something like that).

The further your QBT holding falls, the better your other holdings look - even the red ones.

Thus a QBT holding brings (relative) joy to any investor, so long as it does not quite go tits up. History suggests that it will continue to languish, but will avoid going tits up so, as a LTH, QBT has a role in every investor's portfolio. There is no other share which has languished so long, or made losses across more different business enterprises, or raised and lost capital on so many occasions, without succumbing to multiple failures and going tits up as QBT. A quarter of a century and counting.

There is no other share which even comes close. For a quarter of a century QBT has brought (relative) reassurance to investors looking over their holdings and concluding 'Well, compared with QBT, everything else I own does not seem to be doing too badly'.

As a minor tweak, I counsel holding QBT in your virtual rather than your actual portfolio. That way, you get the benefit of the (relative) reassurance without the monetary loss.

Usersteve, the outcome of the bondholders meeting is a foregone conclussion. 62.5% are committed to b=vote in favour.

The question for ordinary shareholders is: Why? what i oming down the pike? De-listing?

Yet another reason (as if there were not enough reasons already) not a time to have more money in QBT ordinary shares (I will refrain from saying 'invested' in QBT ordinary shares) than you can comfortably afford to lose.

Usersteve, you did not need to consult ChatGPD. You could simply have read my post. My explanation was a lot more concise, and was directed to the specific issue of the rejected QBT application.

Your interrogation of ChatGPD demonstrates two things (a) the limitations of generic answers provided by ChatGPD and (b) how little attention followers of BBs pay to anything (including even the answers to the very questions perplexing them) posted on them!

You might care to reflect on (b). You are spending a great deal of the time the Good Lord has granted you on this earth posting here. Is it time well spent? Does anyone take any more notice of your posts than you do of the posts of others?

The Us patent office rejection is not the end of the road. It is akin to a provisional conclusion. QBT can either (1) seek to satisfy the patent office that the provisional conclusion is misconceived or (2) revise its application to circumvent the problem identified by the patent office. It sounds as though QBT accepts the patent office conclusion on the application as it stands and will adopt course (2), by narrowing the application. Whether a narrower application will avoid the 'already in the public domain /not noel' objection remains to be seen. Perhaps more significantly, would a patent narrow enough to avoid those problems afford QBT any significant protection? Gardin's earlier statement that QBT is looking into non-patent protection of its IP as a 'trade secret' suggests (to the cynical) that it does not have much hope that a patent, or at any rate a patent in terms which will provide adequate protection, wil be granted. To the eternal optimists, it will show that everything in the garden is blooming, as QBT has two irons in the fire.

You pays your money and takes your choice.

PS The ship I saw had three methods of propulsion, Sails, paddle wheels and a. screw. The crew were being drilled. When the mate yelled 'method A' the crew rtrisr to runn up the sails, but the halyards jammed.. When he yelled 'method B', they engaged the paddle wheels, but they did not y=urn. When he yelled ' method C' they engaged the screw , but that did not turn either. He told me not to worry though, as a cardboard box with some essential bit had only been delivered last week, and had been sent to Milan University for advice as to how to open it. He was confident that would do the trick, subject to some 'three stage' process, which he couldn't really explain, though I assume there must be one process for each of sails, paddle wheels and screw.

I did ask whether there were any lifeboats, and he said no they were unnecessary, the ship had been around for a quarter of a century and had sunk several times, but it had always proved possible to refloat it.

Mea culpa, OSD.

I must have been looking at the wrong ship.

The one I saw, the pumps were going flat out to keep it afloat, the chief engineer was saying that he was almost out of fuel to keep running them, the Captain was telling him (as he trousered this month's instalment of his vast annual salary) that there was no money to pay for fuel, and what little money there was had to be held back for his annual performance bonus (for never arriving late at his port of destination (certain to become due again this year, as after 25 years, the ship has yet to leave harbour on any of its projected voyages). I did see the purser giving away brochures, but he told me that no passengers had bought tickets yet, which was disappointing as the owners had been certain that tickets would be selling like hot cakes as long ago as the second half of 2024. He also said the lack of ticket sales was probably just as well, as none had actually yet been printed. Some problem with trademarking the design, i think he said, but his explanation was difficult to follow.

From what you say though, that can't have been the good ship QBT I was looking at..

Wot? No sermon this week?

Is the Revd suffering a crisis of faith?

It doesn't sound as though he has lost faith in the boat, so it must be QBT.

I have posted the message for you twice Sharetalk, in case you are still sober and find difficulty in reading anything which you do not see double.

Sharetalk, read my post 417 on LSE. Do it before you open that second bottle of the day. If you have no satisfactory answer to the question posed (no QBT 'bashing',no attack on any poster just a question, politely phrasaed - you know, the sort of question you delete on your thread and ban the poster for asking) you won't need that second bottle to have you wetting your pants tonight, though you may want to drink it anyway when yopu think about the implications for your 'investment' in QBT.

No need to thank me. Helping you and others is its own reward. 'Kindness, Courtesy, and Consideration ' are my middle names, but I don't use them in my posting handle as that would make it unduly long and cumbersome. And Jamerson would take for ever trying to spell out such a long word.

Sharetalk, read my post 417 on LSE. Do it before you open that second bottle of the day. If you have no satisfactory answer to the question posed (no QBT 'bashing',no attack on any poster just a question, politely phrasaed - you know, the sort of question you delete on your thread and ban the poster for asking) you won't need that second bottle to have you wetting your pants tonight, though you may want to drink it anyway when yopu think about the implications for your 'investment' in QBT.

No need to thank me. Helping you and others is its own reward. 'Kindness, Courtesy, and Consideration ' are my middle names, but I don't use them in my posting handle as that would make it unduly long and cumbersome. And Jamerson would take for ever trying to spell out such a long word.

So, Miker44, how do your conclusions mesh with the 2 year extension of the bond redemption date, the reduction in the bond conversion rate from 3 to 2p, and the removal of the bondholders right to redeem on a de-listing?

Does that sound to you as though QBT has no thoughts of de-listing, and is is confident that within weeks (or at worst within months) it will have a proven product, customers signed up and others queuing to sign up, a share price many multiples of 3p, and no problem at all refinancing the repayment of the bonds in December this year, either by issuing new bonds or a capital raise at a huge multiple of today's price (which won't be necessary of course because if the SP rises way above the conversion price the bondholders will convert their bonds for equity) ?

Phimx, exactly so. The shareholders can take no comfort from the protection they might expect from non-exec directors independent of the CEO.

It is typical of BB amateur investors that they pay no attention to changes in the financial structure of the company, but devote their energy to arguing about what a cardboard box might contain!