Member Info for Globex

Agree with that Vincent, up until now he's been able to blag about the company's future prospects to shareholders and it's worked well for him. Trying that same blag with medics is a different matter. Now the tests are actually available to buy, he's been found out where it really matters, the woeful sales say it all. Without proper clinical trials they might as well be selling snake oil.

When you look at how precarious the cash situation is the spending is especially irresponsible. It's despite them presenting multiple uncertainties over its ability to continue in the short term. Any regular business owner who forecasted effective insolvency without intervention would be absolutely bricking it and doing all they could to cut costs.

It then dawns on you why they're being so laid back about it, they know they can just rinse shareholders again.

In the last update, after directly referring to the share price gain and successful placings last year, telling line: "The Directors consider that these developments tend to increase confidence that the Company will be able to access further cash resources from investors in future."

It speaks volumes that from the date of Burrows CEO appointment to today the share price has cratered 72%. Chiefs have resigned over far less. He should be feeling pressure to reverse the catastrophic fall he's overseen, but all we've seen is complacency. It's quite striking that OBD was his first board role in a publicly traded company, now he's CEO, certainly landed on his feet here.

Definitely a lot, 550k yesterday or another way of looking at it ~2.8% of entire supply https://www.coinglass.com/Grayscale

For context their outflows should be viewed as a whole with other ETFs imo, as if someone sells GBTC to buy same amount of IBIT to take advantage of lower fees, net result from our point of view the same. As far as I know ETFs as a whole are still seeing net inflows so it's possible the GBTC story has been given disproportionate attention.

Seriously guys that character needs filtering, this is probably the worst board on lse and that's saying something, amazed he's not been banned

I don't think Moulding cares about small shareholders. It is a shame because he tried to paint himself a kind of david in a battle against the goliath of city/media, but he's not that type of underdog, it's all a facade. He's actually part of that same elite, made hundreds of millions off the same city, he'll be fine either way. The real underdog is like those investors who post here, for the most part just regular people who put in some of their hard earned and ended up disappointed.

Blimey Daz trying to put out fires all over the place here. Give it time and he too will come to see this is not a board to put all your faith in.

Timing of this doesn't sit very well with me, coupled with unambitious targets, being less than 2 weeks before final litigation payment and upside from that we've all been waiting for.

It's hard to deny that on any rational measurement this does looks expensive. Even more so based on what we now know after that train wreck update, and the fact the company have been spending cash like a drunken sailor on leave - to the extent the number of months until it fully runs out can be counted on one hand.

You always have a choice, no need to be fatalistic, just as easily as you bought you can sell.

In same position, reckon we could still see a short term dead cat, but beyond that the longer term picture does look grim

Covid was good for companies like THG, the company's peak share price was literally during a lockdown, ecommerce across the board had an excellent pandemic. Ukraine has been unquestionably terrible... for Ukrainians.

Hindsight is tough in this game, I'm sure we've all been there and mentally moved our goalposts upwards when things get frothy. Solution could be to set a limit order for your target, not to touch it, then hopefully let it get filled automatically.

Rock8 if S4 have been able to reduce any payment it would be that the agreements included a performance related deferred consideration element with criteria that haven't been met. No owners of the bought out firms would willingly offer to sacrifice shares, this stuff is always hardened by contracts.

A small bit of solace maybe for S4 shareholders for all those absolute top of the market acquisitions Sorrell made but dread to think of the goodwill writedowns that are coming here.

There was his introduction to the 2022 annual report, that single page possibly the only break from total radio silence? He did include the sentence below, presumably for comic effect.

"I have listened to Shareholder feedback and have begun to implement positive changes to our engagement and communications strategy which will continue over the course of 2023."

In Sorrell's defence he had other more important matters to attend to this month - a spot of Apres-ski in Davos

They should have just published the actual number - or at least within tighter bounds of say ~£5m - as we know this is no longer outlook but effectively a snapshot as at 31st December. Looks like they were overly keen to stress within guidance after previous misses but in so doing might have just sewn more confusion.

Came across a pretty convincing analyst take that it's possible Rolex may be already flexing muscles post-Bucherer buyout by actively throttling supply of higher demand lines to third parties.

Find it hard to refute. From Rolex's point of view it's a sensible strategy, save best stuff (with highest demand/margins) for their own channels. In a similar way to Nike have gone big on DTC while continuing to supply likes of Sports Direct, but limited to their less premium / slightly off season numbers.

Less dramatic than them fully cutting supply, but more insidious. This is a potential trojan horse where everything looks fine on the surface in sense WOSG continue to sell Rolex. Only external signal would be weaker ongoing numbers.

S4 only has one shorter over 0.5%, it's barely even in the top 100 shorted stocks on the LSE.

It's funny how shorters routinely come up as the boogie man on these boards, often somehow to blame for a company's underperformance. Rarely based on anything as rational as data. The reason these conspiracies are so prevalent imo is they're a form of coping - blaming a mysterious external bad actor deflects from having to look closer to home at what may be poor investment decisions.

The Mail is woeful but nothing to do with Murdoch. Can't really extrapolate anything from these articles about media treatment of uk business as a whole. They're very specific to Mad Moulding, he's only targeted because of the quirky things he says / being a bit of a laughing stock.

Brew Dog has been subject of media attention because of things like this https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-59957485

But there are no equivalent articles for example about the CEO of a regular FTSE350 company that keeps their head down and routinely delivers on the numbers.