Member Info for Bfdinvestor

Omg that is just comical

1.5bn dollars revenue, 1.5lbn dollars net debt

Why do you bother Bon Scott

Chaebol, why would I ask Enki a question about a link you posted?

The judgement you posted, which you say is the 36m dollar contract, relates to a contract that was signed in 2019. The 36m dollar contract the GST RNS references is based on Nvidia kit that didn't launch until 2023.

Maybe you can clarify the contradiction

A fair few biggish buys now and very few algo trades.

Still no news on the massive trades the other week.

Surely it's too late now for them to have been sells from existing large holders

So southcoast what you are saying is, in essence, you only post here to counteract a load of delusional ramping.

Perhaps you could show some of these supposed ramps?

Perhaps you could do a simple piece of analysis to show how the number of positive posts on this board exceeds the negative. You know as well as I do it's not true

Perhaps if you are simply countering delusional posts, perhaps you could explain why you feel the need to start so many negative threads?

If you don't think there are shorts operating on this board, perhaps you could explain why there are so many posters who only post on this board and only post negative content? It should be easy given you are one of them.

What confuses me, however, is this.

GST RNS refers specifically to AI ran on specific Nvidia chips and processors. These GPU's didn't launch until 2023

If the link provided by Chaebol is the same contract then these two things are contradictory

So if we accept that the link that Chaebol provided is in fact the Semnet/Ypsilon contract , there are several points.

The contract seems to originate seven or eight years ago.

Semnet carried out the work with a co-party but not to a satisfactory standard in some elements

Costs were awarded against the co-party by a court but not against Semnet as the contract had a binding arbitration clause.

Arbitration went against Semnet on a majority decision, at which point Semnet tried to argue the judgement. The SICC has judged that they had no grounds to do so. So they threw out the appeal.

We don't know the quantum of costs awarded against Semnet but the only assumption can be that they weren't made clear during the acquisition, hence the latest arbitration.

It would appear that either the GST BoD mis-stated the 36m contract in the RNS as it appears to be far older than suggested.

The most likely scenario to me is that the selling directors gave a far rosier view of the appeal outcome as part of the sale process.

It therefore doesn't seem that sufficient due diligence was carried out as part of the acquisition

It's not a good look

What does boohoo have? Dr evil Dan on LinkedIn.

A massive billboard campaign for Boohooman as a starter

Chaebol

So Semnet is recruiting new staff, two of the original four directors are still there, the business is trading and the BoD expect the IPO to go ahead when arbitration is resolved

That sounds like a business that is working its way through an issue not one that is falling apart.

Cyber security is only going to grow

Funny how Semnet has fallen apart and is now in arbitration.

In what way has it fallen apart Chaebol?

There are issues arbitration but to the best of our knowledge it is still trading and the BoD still expect it to IPO

Strange Kat I remember a lot of constructive debate about the contract, with the summary being it was likely multi year with a lot of hardware

I certainly don't recall you being an outlier or a pariah in that debate.

I also don't recall any Comms saying the valuation of Semnet for IPO purposes was based on one contract.

I certainly don't believe the partner organisation is that stupid. Nor is there any indication that the IPO won't progress once arbitration is finished.

Cyber security is only going to become a more critical industry

What doesn't seem to change sadly is your willingness to post BS to try to get yourself a cheaper entry

How do you understand and give an opinion on Semnets finances then?

Because in the real world I work as a change director so I know how IT contracts work

I'm not commenting on Semnet's accounting policy, I'm commenting on how the contract would be most probably structured and therefore why it wouldn't impact the accounts.

If you never own something you don't have to account for it.

Chaebol, Comms from Tim communicated on here.

I've never looked at Ypsilon accounts or how rvate companies in Singapore prepare accounts

Over here there would be a change in balance sheet assets, but I'd guess it would be depreciated over 5-10 years. There is also the option that the hardware was leased over 5 years so it wouldn't show up as a block in the P&L for Ypsilon either

Lloyd/Chaebol

From communication at the time, the vast majority of the large contract was apparently hardware. Which as I posted at the time won't show up as revenue in Semnet accounts as it will be passed on at cost or with a very small brokerage fee.

So there won't be a year when Semnet accounts show anywhere near 36m

Stupid mouse, judging by the quality of that post I'd guess you were very good for the off trade last night

Mouse the chance of arbitration taking 18 months are about the same as you ever posting anything useful

Why do you think there would be anger southcoast

After all, the vast majority of posters here are like you, in that they have zero investment and seemingly even less in their lives.

So I would have thought the prevailing emotion would be unalloyed glee.

If it happens, which I doubt.

Oh southcoast is just hurting at being called out for lying again.

He seems to feel the need to lash out every time it happens.

It's a bit strange that he doesn't see anything wrong is consistently accusing other posters of having an unbalanced mental state

What more can be expected of somebody who posts hundreds of times a month on a board where they have no investment.

If he spent more time researching than attacking, then he wouldn't post half the stupid stuff he does.

Imagine trying to compare the finances of a business encompassing all the Debenhams labels with just a third party market place business and expecting others not to see through the stupidity.

He also doesn't seem to realise that there will be lots of other people overheads in the £29m of admin costs associated with the market place business.

But, once again, it's to be expected

Chaebol, no sorry they haven't disclosed the amount.

If I was to guess, I'd say it was in the 1-6m area

I've already explained it

2023 referred to staff for all the Debenhams brands

2024 referred to just Debenhams market place staff

Either you are immensely stupid or just trying to post misleading information

Go and actually read the accounts.

You will see that 2023 includes GM costs because it is based on the Debenhams brands.

2024 doesn't because it is purely market place.

You really need to give up embarrassing yourself

Okehurst ordinarily I agree with you about GMV.

It's a key metric going forward.

Just not in the context of this debate, which is all about southcoast deliberately creating a false narrative by comparing brands revenue and staffing to market place revenue and staffing the following year