We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
That is what you are...a liar... you MO is always to post like mad on a share and ramp away..yet.. you claim in the case of the QBT one you remained blissfully silent... your posting history tells the story plainly.. have a nice day :)
"Been busy with QBT where I bought in at 79.50 before close Fri and did over a bag and a bit today - but what do I know!"
anyone who believes that lie deserves to lose all their money ... you can't help yourself you are just a liar looking for a bounce trade and ramping it like your life depended on it.. !
I was going to re-invest my divi from yesterday back in again as usual...not this time thou on this spike. it would be a great shame for another UK decent business to get bought by overseas capital. Race to the bottom for UK commerce and so the trend continues..
Hived off..
Mr Draper never put his own money into anything, he put yours and other investors money in his own pocket. Even from the early days of Bidstack ltd he awarded himself a big stake on the reverse take over and prior to that secured money from the crowd funding rounds back in the days of physical road side ads that also didn't work. He has made a cool million or so off this company in wages and shares so it is no loss from him. There is no illegality here, it is all legal, and AIM or the stock market as a whole is not about ethics or integrity; the opposite in fact.
there are always stupid people and these people fund a lifestyle for a lot of other people...
Simple answer - draper secures the tech on a three year licence deal ...this company de-lists in which case the licence still stands but the payables become a grey area if this company goes into liquidation. in simple terms there is a life raft leaving but Mr Draper wants you to believe he is still the captain of this ship.... seems to me he is holding oars already ...
The lesson I learnt with this chairman and his CEO was with Wey Education where he successfully de-vested the over reach of global ambitions of the previous board and slowly turned the business around. I was critical of him at the time and told him so but he proved me wrong and took the business to another level before selling it at a premium.
The same is happening here but this business has always been his main interest. The gross margins are impressive and his careful use of capital to grow organically is not to everyone's taste but the board are a class act and even the reduction in growth projections for H2 are matters beyond their control . In short I've bought more and I learnt to trust the directors here..IMO of course.
No the move would not have reduced debt but consolidated it in a bigger entity. The only problem now is the lack of investment capital to make new deals which may be a slight concern but for me, the strategy is a good one and it's a staple of my PF for this reason.
What you view as positive RNS' the market perhaps sees as lack of progress.. The re-reimbursement codes should have been sorted in Q1 that was their target and it was missed. Lack of sales and falling cash levels are another concern but the fact that they are now cutting all necessary spending says a lot to the market.. lots of great tech doesn't make it to market first time and given that polx don't all own the IP; the CTO representing Duke University licensed the core of it complicates things more. If this goes under the University can't lose as they own the IP which they can license out again whereas polx only have patents on the delivery system. Traders dream here but high risk given the desperate place the company is in with funding when trying to market as product. It should be a high spend period not a cost cutting one; therein lies the problem.
Shpunken, It is easy to dismiss a narrative you may not like but PYUECK appears to have made some valid points. One cannot argue that the lack of any new sales in the last two years, it speaks for itself. The pandemic provided a research boom into respiratory medicine and on the back of this the company had lots of attention which has now, for any number of reasons faded or stalled. One could also argue that the commissioning budget timescales for health care in the US may have caused delays in orders or, that the lack of cost centre reimbursement provision until very recently made the case for sales far more difficult.
The lack of sales could be indicative of a whole host of things; including a lack of interest in it's present form or a adverse reaction to the risk of placing orders with a company that may risk going under..who knows? all we know is how the market sees the risk and currently values the company. It is unfair to claim it is a short agenda because it doesn't suit your narrative. He/she is at least providing a basis for the debate. These boards are so toxic sometimes