Member Info for Bfdinvestor

Daz do you have a link to the satellite or could you say what is showing pls

Kat I never said I thought EUA was over bought. I said it may well fall back. That seems to be the way AIM works irrespective of fair value.

I certainly don't think many people bought based on ramping on that board. Looking at the volume of posts over the past few days it would have been hard to glean anything meaningful at all. Which is the intent of the trolling posse on that board imho. In any event anybody who buys or sells based solely on comments on these boards deserves everything they get. Luckily I believe those people to be very few and far between.

The Semnet contract isn't ramping, it is fact. I try to provide balance by pointing out that it is multi year, most likely three or five years, and may not even have kicked off yet. But to say it is ramping is plain wrong, if it didn't exist it wouldn't have been communicated.

If you look at the drastic fall in volume here over the past few months, the past few days excepted, it doesn't seem anyone is being affected by ramping. What we are seeing is traders acting on a down trend by either looking elsewhere or selling to buy back. As I posted, I sold some myself which I bought back on Friday. I've not got a clue if it's the bottom or not but had the funds and believe that medium term it will be a multibag purchase.

I was one of the few I believe who bought here at half the current price, because I believe in the BoD and the strategy they have created and are delivering.

Kat you really shouldn't comment on shares you don't understand

EUA didn't rise solely on ramping.

In point of fact that board is infested by the worst group of uninvested trolls on LSE.

It rose on a key document being lodged with the Russian authorities. It may well sink back next week who knows.

Wrt GST, maybe you could explain why you believe profit to be important this year, for a company that made a million pound loss on on less than half a million turnover last year.

It would certainly give you more credibility than just repeating the same thing ad museum.or maybe state what kind of profit figure you believe would justify a £16m market cap. Or alternatively provide some examples of start ups that are valued on profitability rather than potential revenue growth. Then, maybe, your contention that revenue is merely a back up for profitability would hold more water.

Kat you do actually make a couple of decent points on this thread tbf.

However you spoil them by this constant fixation on profits and silence and ignorance of actual data.

You should remember that we are in essence a growth start up business. The key strands of the business only started trading in the last financial year. So profit is an irrelevance ATM, especially for a company with a current 16m market cap. What is important for the next few years is the growth and revenue story as that is what growth stocks are largely valued on.

Communications here are decent as far as I'm concerned. We had a full corporate update less than two months ago, announcement of the Semnet completion and an update on Easysend. GST is simply a holding company, so why would they spend on PR. You have no clue what marketing effort is going into the actual trading brands. I'd guess the innovation pathway is subject to NDA, so until we are told otherwise we are still part of it until told otherwise.

The simplest reason for the BoD not buying Garries shares is that they already own shedloads.

Do you expect them to continually mop up all shares that come onto the market?

I bought a few more on Friday as I expect news in the next few weeks and I'd had a particularly good week on EUA. The sp here is plain daft imo

Southcoast the beaten up old van may well have a few more dents in it

Didn't Sam inform us all that daytrade is choosing not to post here?

Sounds 100% possible to me!

First time I've ever agreed with Farage!

Yes when you've driven 20 miles, or paid a fiver for parking, not to mention twice the price of a PLT outfit.

It's so convenient

But tell me Spidey are Zara and H&M two more shares you don't own and have no intention of purchasing

Yes West that's correct

ASOS have a fair usage policy instead of a return fee. But I'm sure they will follow as you say

CJ let's hope they do and they have

Smiller, it should just be standard project management. If they don't have the basics of a plan in place after god knows how many years there is even more wrong with the implementation than I thought

Sinter, thanks for posting.

So it looks like UFO are still working on things that should have been prepared in tandem with the mining licence application

Ian was actually a retired BT engineer.

He seemed to be a lovely mild mannered guy who tried to keep a sense of cameraderie and warmth on here and in his real world life.

I'd far rather he'd stayed posting here than the plague of ignorant and spiteful trolls who have spoiled this board for the last couple of years

Come back Ian, hopefully you are still hale and healthy!

Usual quality of response from the trolls, Hexam must be so proud.

So troll the answer is.... virtually no fashion retailer

Keep embarrassing yourselves tho

Here's one for the trolls.

Name a major fashion retailer that doesn't charge for online returns

Quite funny how little some understand.

This was launched by Boo nearly two years ago.

I'd assume that because it is now being rolled out more widely it hasn't had a negative impact.

Level, it's a UK firm of solicitors, the quote from the lead lawyer indicates it will be pursued in the UK. It's amusing to see they are trying to position themselves as white knights rather than greedy chancers who won't take responsibility for their own actions. Here's the quote

Andrew Hill, partner at Fox Williams, added: “This is a landmark case that will test the legal framework for securities litigation in the UK and the role of ESG factors in corporate governance and disclosure

My takeout from reading the innovation pathway stuff a few months was that if you hadn't moved on somewhere else you would be off the pathway after nine months or so at most.

So id guess it has led to something else.

I'm finding it a little strange that people are talking about the results being poor. We need to look at results in the context of a start up that has never made any money, generated any real revenue and is still in the process of putting the building blocks of its strategy together. It's all about the forward outlook not the results!

And let's not forget about the hundreds of copyright cases Shein is facing

Level firstly there were two QC led reviews, Levitt did the first investigation, so atleast get the basics right.

You still haven't answered the key question. These II's all bought pre 2020 so how will they quantify their supposed loss.

As I said previously read the RNS from 2020, they don't state there wasn't an issue. Them maybe go and read the caveat on the Next website. Nobody can guarantee 100% compliance with their supply chain rules.

Sam for once leave the fortune cookie statements.

You don't find wisdom in a biscuit.

Go and read some of Levitt's comments about how she wouldn't have done it if it wasn't truly independent