Member Info for ERV1

good morning you, hope you've recovered - must be 6 weeks now? Well 104 pages and comparisons with the previous produced a lot of notes from observations, this is condensed and focusing on one aspect and the primary objective of the business. It is stated in the reports that it will continue to be loss-making and it can be read that that they are giving themselves up to 2 years to become profitable. It's stated that they've done an 18 months forecast from the 24th May 2019. We know the value of the cash in the pot and we know what was spent in FY19 on admin. Hence, hope becomes a must, as we all know the alternatives - and so do the BoD.

£2.9m invested in scalability (and all that that entails) then you'd be expecting big scaling wouldn't you? Target of 3,500 isn't aligned to big is it, 124 pm falls short, unless the ARPA increases? It becomes: unless and until, and all remains to be seen as to whether the cost of the acquisition together with the investment in scalability really does actually provide a return for the equity shareholders.

Hope you're being treated well today, have a good one.

from a spot the errors/application of true or false stance.

Reference the RNS October 2018 - Acquisition of Swipedon - highlights and rationale - it was stated that the LTV:CAC ratio was 11, CAC NZD 609 LTV NZD 6,700. In the final accounts LTV:CAC is stated as 5.5x.

Can either of these ratios be true? What is the average life of a contract at Swipedon? If the transitioning is to an ARR/MRR business then one would hope the importance of calculating correct ratios is understood. 18 months forecasts have been prepared from 24th May 2019 during which time the company will continue to be loss making, if the ratios used in the forecasting are incorrect then the losses will be greater and/or the loss-making period will be longer. Further, the "correct" methodology to calculate the CAC should include for wages/salaries and not simply marketing and sales costs.

A target of 3,500 c/m's within the timeframe as disclosed ... if you set a low target then the chances are you will exceed it. If you state that a business is growing at +100% pa in your highlights and rationale then how does in excess of 2,000 become 3,500? Should the target not be well in excess of 4,000 including for churn?

It is implied that the hope is to become profitable in 2 years, to do so as an ARR/MRR business, in order to sustain the wages/salaries bill then the customer base requires massive growth and/or a greatly increased ARPA. Furthermore, the hope to become profitable in 2 years becomes a must, if the cash outflow remains at current levels, does it not?

Additionally, in future reporting - for transparency - the use of ARPU, ARPA, CAC, LTV and all other terminology used in ARR/MRR business, there is a requirement for accuracy based on actuals. Given that the major players in ARR/MRR world disclose such figures openly for transparency, then minor players should do the same. As to not do so, raises the "who is trying to kid who" question. Should it really be for the investor to apply "true" "false" and "if" to monetary statements/reporting to determine the truth or not?

A ratio of 11 or 5.5 or what?

Or could it be something like £85 cost to acquire a customer on a £39 pm contract ... length of contract unknown - GP margin unknown - salaries included or excluded (unknown as to whether taken into account in determining the true CAC using the correct complex method)?

All just based on a few observations ...

I thought you had gone on holiday, then I hoped that you weren't ill ... but neither, just more mad "naughty step" world stuff eh?

Good to know that you are OK.

tj2 and callydog, not had the opportunity to scrutinise the accounts in full yet, but zoomed straight to wages/salaries/remuneration versus revenues to establish fact. callydog, a total change of strategy doesn't make it an up and coming imv, as this isn't a new BoD, starting from scratch. All of these people with "expertise" appear to have massive problems in managing the admin/overheads - evident across a wide range of companies on the AIM. Just makes me think "will, or when will they ever learn?" That wages bill based on the those revenues, just would not/could not happen in the private sector/unlisted/real world. It remains to be seen whether the change of direction will be successful and whether they can make a real profit, as on the current wages/ salaries versus revenues they are a long way off. callydog, like you I remain sat on the loss - mental w/o years ago - would like to inject positivity, can't right now, but will wait and see.

Good to read others with similar views. 55 average, last buy at 62, will add on any "silly dips", collect the divis en route to circa 80p. Did it without the divis way back, so they're a bonus this time around.

jl5006 re 13:45, elaboration would result in removal or in dot dash

.. ..-. .. .-- . .-. . - --- . .-.. .- -... --- .-. .- - . ..- -. -.. . .-. - .... . -.-. ..- .-. .-. . -. - -.-. . -. ... --- .-. ... .... .. .--. - .... . .--. --- ... - .-- --- ..- .-.. -.. -... . -.. . .-.. . - . -..

good question lti. Posed with a clear and unambiguous choice, I suppose it would depend on their interpretation of National Sovereignty - would it not - given that it is the main point of issue? But then, given that choice, they'd also need to understand the differences between the meanings of a whole lot of other vocabulary used by the EU before deciding. Linguistics to the fore.

Banks in Spain charge an annual fee, per debit card on a personal account - currently 28 euros per card at caixabank. They also take a quarterly maintenance payment and a quarterly operating commission, all on personal accounts that are in credit, have no overdraft facility and that do no pay interest. So you are effectively paying the bank to hold your money. Fixed fees and charges at some banks, Barclays Spain used to apply variable charges and fees dependent on number and type of transactions. Interest under different guises Wids.

Love_You, are you a junior research fellow wholly funded by the university? Are you working under supervision? Within your behavioural economics research what, if anything, have you learned about opportunity/ies? You mentioned 1000 people being given £35k in order to determine an outcome etc. etc. What about giving 1000 people the same opportunity/ies and learn what the outcome of that would be? Real life opportunities. I may not be able to help you with the £35k example, however I could help you from an opportunities focus, based on real life, in the world of work, learned over many years. Without knowing the extent of your research, a lot of your posting appears to be very negative, I'm struggling to find positivity, and in the real world that in itself hinders progression.

Do you have an ultimate goal in life, as in what pathway are you following in order to achieve? You read like a lost soul at times, so I guess what I'm asking you is "is there not a better way to approach your research, as I'm not altogether sure that these forums will give you the answers?" Your 20% haircut proposal on £75k of cash in the bank would be a definite non-starter - for most of society - as that is far from the "real world".

Where or how do you actually carry out your research and how much of it is taken from actual?

Just taking a break from "giving back" in the real world.

Oxo42, as you'll appreciate I get you and your humour etc etc together with your open and honest opinions/views, in much the same way as I enjoy the total input from virtually all contributors - it's what makes the world go round. I believe the internet was founded on the freedom of speech. If a.n.o./s overstepped the mark the other day in whatever occurred, then it would be for a/the moderator - in their remit - to remove the a.n.o./s posts. It seems rather childish to remove what surely must have been circa 90 - 100 posts on the basis of a few, imo. As global politics are impacting on the markets, then it is quite simply counter-productive to banish political chat - in total - from a stock market forum, especially a banking forum. Clearly two sides of the coin are understood, yet blanket bans are ludicrous.

Does how many lengths of our pools we swim daily have relevance to Lloyds? LEVIS will get that ... When I'm on several hundred a day I'll let LEVIS know and he can disclose his personal daily achievement.

Be what you believe in ... never more true in these times.

If you want to do Lloyds and the bank counter, I have a story ... Young female manager, acquainted with my family, overstepped what was "the mark" back at the end of 2000 and made a call to a member of the family to inform that father had been visiting the bank daily and making huge withdrawals. Father had dementia, guess what was happening? So had the lady not overstepped the mark, I couldn't have brought it to a conclusion. One person can make a difference, a group can change history. The "mark" back then, is I believe, no longer. One of many "real life" tales, hence the "do you need help?"

Furthermore, open and frank discussions without inhibiting, are for the good - in the real world - are they not? Would any of us be where we are, had this not been the case historically?

stated "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Clarity in one short sentence.

The founders of the sum total of entities that now form the Lloyds group, would not have been inhibited in their freedom of speech.

In the increasingly moderated world of free speech - that is counterproductive in many instances - are you able to condense whatever it is that you are advocating for, within your posts, and explain the impact - or otherwise - on Lloyds?

Did you not know? Lloyds only on this forum, GC for the rest, is how the LSE moderators wish it to be.

Personally, I would prefer to read the many intellectual posts made by the knowledgeable and respected contributors who inhabit this space, than from one who reads as non persuasive in their "what reads as muddled thinking/without clarity posting.

The advice has always been to not put all of your eggs in one basket. With a well-balanced p/f nobody should lose a shed load. If you do lose a shed-load then work hard at getting it back using different strategies for different investments. Lloyds has served me well historically and I believe all 2019 buys in the 50's will meet the purpose for which they have and are being bought. There's always premium bonds - with their restrictive limit - should you wish your/some of your capital to remain intact, for rainy days.

Number 10 is related to political (sarcasm)... and unlike the London coffee houses of the 18th century where the main rules were no spitting on the walls or fighting, this modern day version on the LSE forums doesn't allow for free speech. In the 18th century London coffee houses ANYONE was allowed to walk up and join in your conversations. There was no moderation or the inhibiting of arguments as it would have been totally counterproductive. Thing is there's a lack of consistency in the application of authority and the inhibiting of free speech.

Boomer, membership costs savings apart, she doesn't do future, fear of the unknown sets in as it can't be extracted from a text book or an article can it?

"Let's leave the board for Lloyd's investors." then can't help herself at 11:03.

The champion of the non persuasive argument never fails, so opt to change the wording to suit. Not unlike pointless exercises in using total electorate percentages for comparison.

Thanks Investrip, it was your being generous bit that raised the question, as I believe AH was looking at achieving 30% in his previous statements.

The true tangible is for the future once the stranglehold is fully removed. In much the same way that the expert forecasters/predictors got it all wrong when Leave won, there is no point in predicting or forecasting the true tangible for the future, as it needs to be proven to be real. More to the point is the extent of the intangible to this country while this stranglehold has been growing and allowed to persist. Would you like me to start you off on that? The ghettos.

Can you explain the GP at 35% please?

Another has questioned or made statements to the effect of "how will you benefit from Brexit" or "nobody talks about the benefits of Brexit" or similar

THE objective for all Brexit Party voters is set out with clarity below:

2.3 The Party believes that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (hereinafter “The United Kingdom”) should only be governed by her own citizens and that its governance shall at all times be conducted first and foremost in the interests of the United Kingdom and its peoples and that the only laws that should apply within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom are those wholly made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. To that end it shall be the policy of the Party that the United Kingdom shall cease to be a member of the European Union and shall not thereafter make any Treaty or join any international organisation which involves in any way the surrender of any part of the United Kingdom’s sovereignty. The Party further believes that the integrity of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (hereinafter “The United Kingdom”) should be maintained.

Another wishes to chat electorate percentages when there is little relevance in doing so as the actual numbers determine the winner ... and the also rans. You vote to win, simple as. Pit the Brexit Party actual numbers against any of the also rans actual numbers and therein lays the obvious result. The bookmaker does not do refunds on also rans when you back to win. As you are only allowed one vote, EW is not allowed, so what is the point of adding up the numbers for the also rans?

There is no "yes but" and there is no persuasive argument against the Brexit Party being the outright winner of the UK EU Elections in 2019.

Denial/s just don't work.

Oxo42, quality humour. If she has problems with what she identifies as, on any given day of the week, then she can't expect to be taken seriously with any of her non persuasive arguments. Definitely doesn't subscribe to the Dale Carnegie school.

If some sort of character assassination of NF is on her agenda then she's on a hiding to nowhere in the current climate, on this forum.

It's the likes of Richard Graham Corbett and what he subscribes to and how much he has financially benefitted from his EU allegiance that's more important in the big scheme of the current climate.