Member Info for BouncyDeadCat

Pensioner, I also think it was a case of waiting for one of its competitors to become cheap enough to buy. Out of all of its competitors Yume wasn't a bad choice and I was happy for them to acquire it even if the timing wasn't ideal (investors being restless after so many acquisitions in quick succession). Tubemogul would have been a good purchase if it hadn't been bought by Adobe. Tremor Media would make a good add-on at some point in the future.

You're always looking to use the negative connotation in relation to R1. Why is that?

stt1, There you go again... When it comes to companies - 'Spending cash' and 'running out of cash' are two different things and have different meanings - and I know you know that - you little scamp :)

I for one am glad Rhythmone are finally spending their cash pile. What use is all that cash just sitting on the balance sheet? May as well spend it on something that's going to generate EPS for shareholders :)

stt1, I'll make this brief because it's all getting a bit boring... yes but, yes but, yes but... 1). It wasn't a question, at least not to begin with, they rarely are questions with you, you try and insinuate failings through the articles you post. It may eventually become a question once you latch onto something, but first you put up the FT article and then tried to insinuate that R1 had no defence for Domain Spoofing when it has. The question over R1 having implemented the specific IAB ads.txt initiative is a slightly different issue than whether they have Domain Spoofing protection as part of their RhythmGuard software, although you'd imagine they have or are at least working on the implementation of ads.txt (it's a very new initiative brought about through the IAB) R1 are one of the very few IAB certified companies, so they have committed to the rules and guidelines set out by the IAB - I imagine R1 as a company will evolve its practices under the certified guidance of the IAB. They know the initiative is coming as they promoted it as a good thing through one of their tweets. 2). Make or Break / Must Win = Semantics. 3). Taking out a bridging loan doesn't mean you don't have enough cash. You obviously don't know much about these type of loans, so let someone who's had one educate you on what they're about. I bought a (chain free) house and plot of land. The house I was selling had sold but the buyer was in a chain so I had to wait for the chain to complete before I received his payment. I took out a bridging loan to 'bridge' the purchase payment on the new (chain free) house until I received the payment on the house I sold. Does this mean I had run out of cash? Of course not. It was the cheapest and easiest way to secure the purchase of the property that had a lot of interested parties looking at it. The bridging loan R1 are using to purchase YuMe is an almost identical scenario. They will get capital back (to pay back the bridging finance) from YuMe as soon as the purchase is made. It's a condition YuMe signed up to when the deal was announced.

stt1, I don't think anyone minds or cares if you hold a contrarian point of view or post articles. I think it's your agenda they take issue with. I don't buy into the conspiracy theory that you're a paid deramper - but you definitely have an axe to grind (for whatever reason). You latch onto any perceived negative you can find and push it as hard as you can until you're either proved incorrect or 'not correct in reference to R1' or 'maybe correct, maybe incorrect, but there's no way of proving it'. In the last couple of days alone you have; Tried to insinuate that R1 is one of the Adtech companies that doesn't have an answer to Domain Spoofing. Made a case that it's make or break for R1 as a company because it is suing DataXu for none payment of invoices and DataXu have counterclaimed (par of the course with defendants in the US). And is a case which you cannot produce any facts or evidence for. Now you're trying to suggest R1 may run out of money - again, based on very little information or facts. You find what you perceive as a negative article online and then you repeatedly post it here up to 10 times. It is this constant latching onto whatever 'perceived negative' you can find or cling to that weakens each and every one of your posts - as your agenda is clear for everyone to see. I don't just want to read positive posts and it's important to see all the angles and problems this sector is facing, particularly around fraud, I just don't need to see the same negative article posted 5, 6, or 10 times. It would give you more credence if you just posted the article once and if the negative article doesn't mention R1, don't try and implicate the company by association.

Risk. The trade will have to factor in what price the new YuMe/R1 SEC shares will trade at on day 1 of conversion.

Prepare to be disappointed. Blinkx have continually stated that they don’t give forward guidance. I also noticed you didn’t answer any of Wouterius’s questions. Actually, none of the anti share buyback brigade have given any arguments that hold up to scrutiny. Buying back shares once you’ve proved growth and profitability is what one refers to as ‘missing the boat’. You want to secure value by purchasing shares on route to profitability, not once you’ve got there (the share price will be multiples of what it is now and there’ll be no value to gain). Of course you need to be sure you’re going to get to there before making the commitment. The problem with Brian giving any kind of upbeat statement on the 17th May is that he’s got a credibility issue. He’s the CEO who cried wolf, so the market is going to have trouble believing him again. Rather than waffling on about the integration of front-end turnkey solutions and other blah blah nonsense he should just say ‘we’re on our way back to growth and profitability, we are under-valued as a company and have therefore earmarked $10 million for a share buyback program’. Before handing the microphone to Dan and Ed to complete the rest of the Conference Call. Knowing the little about Brian that I do, I’m not sure he is capable of saying something so unambiguous and succinct as the above, but I’ll settle for something more convoluted but with similar meaning. A buyback is a very effective way to increase shareholder value. In 6 months, if we aren’t any further along the road to growth/profitability than we are now it’s game over anyway…

"If the company were to buy back shares it would temporarily raise the share price. This would be seen as a selling opportunity for many frustrated shareholders. Mass selling would result and the company would be left with less cash and a lower share price. With fewer shares there would be greater volatility. This is the ideal scenario for the shorters to return." Now THAT is a short term view. What you are essentially saying with your undertone logic, is that you have no faith that the company is going to do as it says and earn any profits and that shorters will come back in and take advantage and we'd be left with a company that has less cash and thus is worth less in a sale.... but the Mgt team have told us they are now on the road to profits and when this happens the share price will rise significantly. It's better for the shares to rise with less shares on the market, as what you have as a shareholder will be worth more. Ah, unless you don't REALLY believe what they're telling you Pensioner ;) If Blinkx truly believe (knows) they are on the road to growth and profits they would actually welcome shorters coming in and driving the price down as that would allow them to come in and buy stock at cheaper prices. They wouldn't buy all 40 million shares the day after the announcement, no, they'd buy them over the course of the year. With the company stepping in and buying back it's own stock at opportune moments, it would actually benefit price stability, not make it more volatile like you suggest. Ultimately, a buyback is a statement to everyone - Shareholders and Mr market alike - Blinkx - who knows its business better that anyone else - regards itself as being fundamentally undervalued. It would also finally draw a line under the 3 miserable years we've just had to endure.

I don't suggest a buyback for the benefit of some short term price spike. In fact I wouldn't want too much of that once (if) they announced they were going to go ahead with it as I'd want them to mop up as many shares on the cheap as possible. The rational is that they believe what they're telling us - the company after the restructure is now primed for growth and profitability thus they are going to take advantage of an undervalued SP and plan to increase shareholder value via a buyback. If they really believe they have what they say they have then this is a very good opportunity to take advantage of an undervalued share price. Reducing the free float will help shareholders achieve greater value once the company starts reporting profits as some of the slack is taken out and what's left is worth more. It's not a short term stance I'm taking like Pensioner suggests - it's quite the opposite actually.

We will have to agree to disagree old bean. In my experience Software companies grow and scale faster than nearly all traditional companies. The internet allows these type of companies to scale unrestricted like nothing else. I guess I've let frustration get to me (that last RNS tipped me over the edge) as I can't see any good things that Brian has done - I've heard plenty of good things - come out of his mouth that it - yes - but I haven't actually SEEN any good things - like written down on paper - like on a Balance sheet! I assume you know the fable; 'The Boy who Cried Wolf' Well surely Brian only has one cry left now? You gotta believe me when I say this - I hope you are right and my misgivings are purely down to frustrations from watching this company deflate over the last 3 years. I really didn't think the company was participating in such low quality ads as it had been, we were continually told that Blinkx dealt in the 'Premium sector' of online advertising and I swallowed the party line. They have cleaned up their act considerably now, but no doubt damage was caused. I hope they are now (finally) on the right track and if they really think they are this time - then it's time to put up or shut up and that includes a share buyback.

I suppose it depends how soon that time is approaching on one's horizon. If it were deemed (by the recipient) to be reasonably close, then the comment could be interpreted as a cruel taunt. If it wasn't meant that way, then I accept it could have been meant in a general sense. Horsey just seemed a bit blunt. I'm not sure how old Pensioner is, but he seems to come across as a decent sort, even though I don't agree with some of his viewpoints.

The comments regarding your extinction prior to Blinkx making any money were uncalled for and mean, I don't share or condone those comments. However, I think you give the Mgt team too much credit for what has essentially been an 8 year shambles. Your choice of words is interesting - You go on to state that Myths were developed inside Blinkx. What is a Myth other than a fabricated lie? I guess it's 'The way you tell em'. ML was never involved in the running of Blinkx and Kath Rittweger left before the company even floated on AIM, she doesn't really warrant a mention. BM may have recently made some changes for the better (only more time will tell), but it's all too little too late. He's a low league CEO who fumbled the opportunity given to him. He's been in power for 4 years now - and look where we are! If we are indeed - finally - in as good as a position as Brian tells us we are now in - Why not start a buy back?

Yeah, maybe you're right and you've not been patient enough. After all it's only been 8 years or so... I don't read or post here much either, just needed to have a bit of a rant after reading that pathetic RNS. I'd even take a merger with YUME, but please oh please don't let BS Brian run the thing...

Ha. I'm sure you're as fed up with EBITDA as I am.

I'm not sure what kind of progress you think Brian has made other than the progress he's told us he's made (and we all know that can't be relied upon as 'the truth') We sure can't see any progress in the numbers. Numbers don't lie. People do.

Although I considered it as one of a few options, This is the first time I've strongly advocated a stock buyback. If Mgt won't commit to a buyback at 17.5p what chance has this company got? What statement are they giving to us and the market? They must believe the future value of this company (because shares are a purchase of future prospects) is really only worth a paltry $97 million dollars!!! Because that's what we're sat at valuation wise - nearly half our annual revenue! Jeez, if our dim-witted CEO can't see the glaring opportunity to clawback some of the float when the stock is valuing the company at less than a hundred million dollars and he's sat on a cash bundle that he's declared 'wont be spent on anymore acquisitions', then he's more of a dumb ass than I first thought. Yes, we need strategic flexibility, but if he really believes we're going to see growth from here on out, put $10 million down and try and take 40 million shares out of circulation. They'll still be left with $50-60 million to be 'strategically flexible'.

No because Tosca wouldn't have 'intent' in such a situation. As they would be 'passive' in such a situation, I think they could quite easily get around the rules (which are long and loopy). Even if they did have to sell a smidge, they'd be far better off as the SP would rise with the reduced float. Blinkx either need to commit to a Share Buy Back or re-issue some of their cash pile back to Shareholders - They owe us big time and I for one have run out of patience with S.Brian Mukherjee. He's taking too long to turn this ship around. Where did they get that cash pile from in the first place as they sure as eggs didn't generate it from profits?... Oh, that's right.... They got it from their Shareholders. It's time for them to start giving something back.

Needs to be done now. 10% at least

According to BM we've had a 'Transformational Year' every year for the last 3 years! Sometimes you have to stop blaming the 'industry' for your lackluster performance and take responsibility. I for one am already tired of his mantras. You don't hear Tim Armstrong (CEO of AOL) moaning that the industry around him is changing - No - He gets on with adapting to the changes in a timely manner - He's dynamic - He see's the changes coming down the pipeline and he positions his company accordingly - BM is an 'after the event' guy. He's just not cut out for CEO IMO.