Member Info for HeadInTheSand

I'm all good with whatever each PI thinks is for the best for him/herself, Dougal.

I should add If your answers to those 3 questions are a resounding "Yes!", then do nothing. If your answers to any of them are "I have some level of doubt", then you might wish to pursue a course of action to attempt to get things clarified.

The EGM chestnut again... There are advantages to a company being incorporated in the CI - primarily revolving around tax and secrecy, I believe. There's next to no obligation to disclose anything a company doesn't feel like doing. Many might opine therefore that the advantages delivered are first, foremost and solely to the company itself, rather than to any Investors therein, who end up having to operate on very limited info. Was to whether attempting to call a clarity-seeking EGM is worthwhile or not? In my opinion, that has to come down to three related but brutally simple questions that PIs need to ask themselves... Looking at everything to do with ABH and CTAG over the last couple of years that you now know to be true, ON BALANCE do you believe in ABH and the company or not? ON BALANCE has he proved himself worthy of your trust? ON BALANCE is he in your opinion both a "fit and proper" person and the best-suited individual most likely to deliver a return on your investment? It's no more complex than that, in my view. And it'll certainly end up being a "best judgement" call involving faith or the lack of it, because the situation is still murky and the evidence scant and certainly interpretable in very different ways. Have I said "Pick your potato" before? Have a good weekend, all.

ABH is getting busy with his updates all of a sudden, isn't he? Fair do's - if it is to be believed (sorry, but one always has to throw that in with any ABH-made statement), then today's statement is indeed potentially more meaningful than the last two pointless space fillers. It just may be that it's most appropriate to view CTAG effectively as a very recent start-up - one with only max 15 or so months of history, rather than the 5 years it's actually had - most of which seems to have been now tacitly admitted as spent chasing the wrong rabbit. However, TBF, there's no point flogging a dead horse - so a change in strategy can't be completely criticised (although having the wrong strategy for so long and raising funding on the back of that certainly can). No matter... to be brutal, we are where we are. However as with all start-ups in which one's invested, clarity on realistic strategy, realistic current financial state of play, realistic projections on potential ROI, how the company's currently being funded and what its realistically projected funding needs are liable to be over the short to mid-term would I am sure be most welcome. Guess what? It's wait and see time. How's that for deja vu?

MTB, my read on that Apr 9th RNS is different to yours. My read is that the bond-holders are going to get a shedload of newly issued shares in exchange for their $557m of 2023 debt - and we'd all agree that's what's been very obviously said, I'm sure. The extra $50m requirement doesn't seem to be covered off in any way by the D4E swap referred to above and would seem therefore to be a completely separate and additional need? Where does it state that the bond-holders are actually going to have to or actually have agreed to chip in extra funding over and above their existing combined $557m as part of the D4E swap? It may well be that I'm missing something (won't be the first time), but I don't see any clear statement to that effect?

It's nice - and surprising - to hear that an AIM Nomad is for once bothering to be a stickler for the rules and regs. All too many times and across all of AIM they seem to turn a blind eye to their overseeing responsibilities and their duty (struggling to keep a straight face here) to protect PIs by ensuring truthfulness and proper practice. It's probably because the current AVN restructuring is both so large and so high-profile.

WO, two things... I agree that the implication is that Solus may with a sigh put its hand in its pocket yet again re the $44m - but I think everyone could do with a bit more than a hint at this stage. Secondly, re your "a step too far" comment, I strongly doubt that this was an active choice for AVN to make. They'd have been compelled under regulation to release that going concern information, given that it's so pressing and so imminent, JMO.

To correct my original post, I meant the issuance of 13.33 x the number of shares currently in issue, thus resulting in currently issued shares then being only 7.5% of the new total number (presuming the D4E deal goes through). However, my question still remains - Scotty, thanks for your views. It's reassuring to know that I'm not the only one who hasn't got a scooby on this just a tad important issue..

Trawling through the Apr 9th RNS, AVN refers to three major tranches of debt, namely:- USD 118.0m on the 2020 bonds, USD 323.3m on the 2021 bonds and USD 557.0m on the 2023 bonds. This is of course not new news. It then mentions again the already tabled D4E swap, exchanging the half a billion dollars or so of the 2023 bond debt into newly issued equity - the 92.5% expansion of shares in issue we all already know about. This presumably leaves the other USD450 million of bond-related debt largely unaffected, but again not new news. It then mentions that it's going to need another USD 50 million of funding by end Jun and land a one-off USD 40 million deal in the same timeframe, if it's going to be able to keep the lights on. Then it mentions the open offer (which will probably be fully taken up by Solus, reading between the lines - because God knows, I can't see any reason for PIs to touch it), which would raise UKP 4.33 million... so call that USD 6.1 million. So... my question is simply this: Where's the other USD 44 million of funding required by end June going to come from (or make that a USD 84 million requirement, if that "infrequently recurring revenue" deal doesn't land)?

Dougb, I'm still all over deja vu like a cheap suit... we'll just have to see. CTAG/ABH needs to do a bit better when sharing press cutting scrapings of vague relevance. I mean seriously, of the 4 paragraphs in that latest update, the first 3 were verbatim copy n pastes from the BBC article and only the 4th was penned by CTAG. 37 words total... with a basic spelling mistake, a basic grammatical error and a nonsensical mission statement. C'mon guys... at least try to look professional. However, Doug, I do have to admit to a grudging admiration for your relentless sunny gutfeel on CTAG, though - for all that it baffles the living bejaysus out of me.

That is a really REALLY stupid update. Firstly, where has Amit commented on the figures? Certainly not in the BBC health news article linked to from the Cloudtag website. Anywhere? Anyone?. Secondly, who writes these updates? "...susceptible to aquire" (sic)? Now okay I'm a bit of a stickler, but at least spell "acquire" right if you don't want to look howlingly amateurish. And it should be "acquiring" anyway, but let's not go there. Thirdly, that is a truly dreadful eexpression of CTAG's mission statement. "...by identifying those who are overweight in advance"? You do that by sticking them on a scales. That's really not what Cloudtag is allegedly all about. Who writes and who approves this cr*p? They need shooting.

To spin or not to spin... that is the question. I actually agree that ABH hasn't done much spinning here. Okay so the way the quote is presented on the CTAG website, it's made to look like CTAG was mentioned in the body copy of the RAE report... ...but it wasn't. It was just number 152 in a 200 strong list of footnote reference examples. In comparison, Fitbit got a mention in the body copy on page 16... however, CTAG's chosen way of presenting this incidental mention can hardly be taken as any sort of grievous sin. What is more of a surprise is that ABH thought such a fleeting and trivial footnote mention - that I'd bet was lifted straight from an online piece of CTAG PR - was newsworthy enough to be featured on CTAG's homepage? He must be aware of the growing clamour from more than a few PIs for clear and verifiable information - so popping that piece of irrelevance up there wasn't IMO tactically smart at all. Cynics would see that as sheer desperation and barrel-scraping - "Is that all the company's got to talk about, FFS?" being perhaps an understandable reaction. In fact I also agree that it's most likely that ABH won't have had the slightest clue about the existence of that throwaway reference, until one of the twitterati faithful frenetically trawling the web brought it to his attention. No harm in that, but if I were someone whose credibility has justifiably been called into question as a result of previous statements, I'd not have chosen to try to make hay with that in any way. Each to their own, though.... There's one last thing I agree with (must be the nice weather - I'm so agreeable this morning). Dougb, I'm also somewhat aware of your history on other stocks and the clearly "bang on the money" smart calls you've made on them. Hence your continuing optimism - or positivity, if you'd rather - on CTAG does keep surprising me too.

Seriously? A footnote probably referenced from a press release?

ShakenBake clearly knows his stuff - but I'd still bet it was a typo, Satellite delivered broadband isn't all over by any means - but it's (understandably) becoming ever more marginalised in developed markets as a means of provision of "standard" connectivity. Therefore satellite broadband needs to find other markets and needs. I'm reliably informed that players such as Echostar and Viasat (who both have substantial businesses supplying normal fixed location broadband) now both see their growth potential in alternate vertical markets - whether it's in-flight, IoT or something else. I'd be prepared to bet a whole ten pounds that the Viasat/Eutelsat JV now doesn't bother putting beams from their next-gen 2020 bird over Western Europe... well, not to deliver "standard model" connectivity, anyways.

That statement by Cloudtag is easily verifiable. Looking at the report by the RAE itself (a 56 page downloadable pdf), the sole mention of Cloudtag is in reference number 152 (of a total of 195 references) in the "References and End Notes" section of the document. Control F is your friend here. The document doesn't actually read quite the way it's been presented on the Cloudtag website. It actually reads like this:- ************* (Page 33) Healthcare and medical devices The security of connected medical devices is a particular challenge, existing alongside the challenges of privacy, transparency, trust and the user�s autonomy. These include both implantable medical devices and medical-grade wearables. The latter often builds on existing consumer devices (152). ************* Then scroll down to the long-list of references (starting on page 46) and on page 50, you'll find number 152 that says:- 152 For example, Apple�s new iWatch 3 has an enhanced heart feature. Startups such as CloudTag are targeting the NHS via medical-grade consumer devices aimed at the health, wellbeing and fitness markets, www.cloudtag.com Newsworthy? Or more irrelevant and misleading puff? Make of that what you will.

Oops .. I was never a programmer. Decision tree in point 1 should read."If yes, go to 2 - else do nothing".

In order... 1. Would PIs like a whole lot more clarity on what's going on within CTAG, whether they've got any chance on a return on investment and whether the company's being run by fit and proper people? If yes, do nothing - else go to 2 2. Do PIs think that clear, concise and verifiable answers to 1 above are likely to be freely provided by the company in a timescale acceptable to them? If yes, do nothing - else go to 3. 3. Are PIs in favour of calling an EGM with an objective to compel the clarity sought in 1 above? If yes, go to 4 - else come up with another idea. 4. Would PIs at this stage support any other resolution contained in any prospective EGM apart from one looking to obtain clarity? If yes, vote in favour of it/them as desired - else just vote in favour of the resolution that solely looks to deliver clarity, and vote as desired against any others proposing regime change or anything else (and that's if they even exist and are tabled)..

...is probably a more cogent comparison - at least in more developed markets. The decision on whether to provide cable/fibre or not is of course completely an economic one - it requires a population density that is going to provide enough take-up to deliver a return. 4G (and leaving aside 5G for the next two or three years) is considerably cheaper to deploy and has both a fixed (premises owners) and nomadic (smartphone users) target market - so it's easier/faster to get a return on a much smaller capex investment. Plus in some geographies (e.g. the UK, there's a lot of government money being thrown at the MNOs for extension of the 4G network to cover the emergency services - as with EE. This is simply going to marginalise satellite technology more and more in Europe. The "providing backhaul to 4G networks" argunet doesn't really technically stand up. Why do I say that? Take a lok at OfCom's recently released USO criteria recommendation document - (the USO is the policy OBLIGATION to provide at least 10 Mbps minimum to every premises in the country). Geostationary satellite technology is specifically excluded on the grounds of latency - ye cannae change the speed of light, c'pn! No getting round that, sadly - maybe with MEO and LEO satellites in the future, but not with any of Avanti's fleet.. Therefore Avanti - and every other satellite operator - is going to (and indeed is) seeing a massively increased churn rate in developed markets - which is why the best target markets are now ones like in-flight connectivity (although that's being quickly sewn up) and underdeveloped geographies with light population densities.(like Africa etc). AIMO.

Control conversation on a BB without having moderator privileges... an interesting if bizarre concept. However I note that you'd like to see silenced opinions that don't match your own, WM. To consider a business plan from someone - anyone - who's not even currently in the frame for any appointment, although maybe mildly interesting, would seem no more than academic and somewhat irrelevant at this stage. Which is exactly why I posed my question above. However of course K27M may answer (or not) as he wishes - as can anyone else, despite what you may wish. And that's beddybyes for me.

Why don't I ask a more fundamental question - that should logically come before any examination of Moss's business plan? Okay bear with me - this question has been asked and answered several times before, but hey, what the heck? Does anyone have any intention whatsoever of proposing that this Moss bloke should be appointed to an executive or non-executive position within CTAG - or supporting such an appointment in any way? If the answer's yes, then please feel free to share the reasons for your opinion - which I then expect would result in an answer to WM's question. If the answer's no, then can we please for the love of God stop banging on and on and on about Moss. (I have to add, yet again, that I still don't see why or how some continue to think that forcing through an appointment of Moss or indeed any other individual to the CTAG BoD could be snuck in under the radar, without all PIs being made aware of such a plan and having an opportunity to vote yea or nay on it...) Anyhow, thanks in advance for your co-operation...