Member Info for IntrepidInvestor

Hi Jabbarba.
That is really helpful.
If I am not mistaken, I think Rio’s point was that, again, there was too much ambiguity and not enough clarity in the RNS to confirm how independent the research was and how old or whether it was a repeat of previous one. That’s the issue with that point. Maybe it is new. It would have been much better if the RNS said something like
“Research carried out on 10th April 2020’ and ‘was funded by XXX’ etc etc.
It just seems to have Drampers fingerprints all over it again, ‘sleight of hand’ expert that he is.
Intrepid.

Hi Jabbaba.
I’m not short.
Please accept that there will be very few if any shorters at these lows. Traders short at the highs and buy back at the lows.
This thing has drifted lower on PI sells of their original holdings and the issues of funding, revenues and trust. All shorters will have closed their positions by now. And possibly be long (hence the price edging back up)
But at least we are debating things rather than getting all personal and aggressive. That must help us, surely.

Hi Girdz.
Great link. Thanks.
We are in truly strange times.
It seems the G20 have decided no business should fail during the pandemic.
The bigger question is therefore; how is all this going to be paid for and what will that mean to markets for the next couple of decades.
My money is quite literally on gold.
Intrepid.

Hi Girdz.
That is one way of looking at it, for sure.
What the last few weeks has shown me is that, currently, anything is possible.
Intrepid.

Hi matebmth
I’ve not heard that yet; that the government might back start ups due to the pandemic.
I’m not sure that civil servants are the best allocators of resource in competitive capital markets; but these are weird times so who knows?
It would be fantastic for BIDS employees if what you mention could happen. Their jobs would be secured for a while.
It would be less beneficial to the shareholders as we’d be diluted to the point of no return (a bit like RBS shareholders in the credit crunch). I cannot see any Whitehall mandarin or any politician giving 2 hoots about us shareholders. We are always the last consideration in any of this. It’s about jobs and tax savings (in the form of not having to pay benefits out) , not shareholder returns. Well, at least it used to always be. Again, who knows now?
Intrepid.

Hi JimmyStocks.
No problem. Sorry you find things confusing.
I run my companies very light in the ‘employee’ stakes. We contract out, in the main. So, we cannot furlough contractors and the few employees we have are being paid in the normal fashion.
Any business that can demonstrate it meets the criteria of CBILS can apply for a loan thru the accredited lenders. We meet those criteria.
Hope this clarifies and clears your confusion.
Intrepid.

Hi Jabbarba.
I am long BIDS, but only 5% of my stake pre ‘founders share sale-gate’.
I’m taking what I believe is a legal stance. The criteria for CBILS is clear and I think it disallows BIDS, as written. Whether Parliament intended to exclude BIDS specifically or not is, again, a bit irrelevant. But they are excluded. Whether some banker ignores this fact is the question.
Don’t worry though, they will raise more funds now. It’s just about dilution. There’s a bit more on dilution in AIM stocks in an article in this weeks ‘MoneyWeek, if anyone is interested.
Intrepid.

Hi Yatak.
I guess my understanding of the meaning of the word ‘realistic’ is the problem here; as it seems to differ from those of you arguing this fairly irrelevant point. If is suits you all, I’m happy to concede the point about ‘realistic’ , so long as you all concede on the sub-point of it’s irrelevance.
Does that work for everyone?
Anyone wish to debate any of my other points in jabberars useful list?
Intrepid.

Hi martbmth
I was responding to jabbarer’s point about advertising in stadium-style games. They all seem to have the adverts around the playing fields.
That I can relate to.
I’m not sure I’ll ever relate to a ‘shoot-em-up’ game in any post-apocalyptic world (at least I bl00dy well hope I won’t).
Intrepid.

Hi Girdz
I completely agree that targeted adverts make more sense. My point is that Jabbarer was arguing it is more realistic. I counter that it is not more realistic as it does not happen for the crown at live matches. Ergo, it will feel a ‘bit’ wrong, so less realistic.
One day, I am sure we will all see ads tailored to us individually, particularly when the glasses I know are under development at one of the major players are perfected and widely available for less than £100. Those spectacles/glasses will bring augmented reality into the mix, which will mean everyone wearing them will see their own, adjusted, reality, with adverts in the street and at matches. Aimed solely at the wearer.
We are apparently only 5-10 years away from that according to my friend involved in that project.
Until then, this BIDS-style advertising cannot make a game more realistic.
All this said, it’s hardly the leading bullet point proposed by Jabberar so its a bit telling that this is the point he wants to drive home/defend against mine; it suggests a weak case on his part.
Funding, or it’s likely imminent need, is the vastly more important issue right now.
Any debate or RNS that points to this no longer being necessary is what we all want to see.
I, for one, can’t see BIDS getting cash from the CBILS fund set up by the government. As they are effectively still a start up, it would be wrong.
I’ve 5 profitable businesses that meet the criteria and I’m being told I have to prove repayment is probable in the cash flow forecast, which must be based on past proven income streams.
My gut feeling is that some banker might overlook that need for BIDS; but if they do, I think it will bite them personally in the ‘arris later if BIDS defaults. It will only take one other creditor/shareholder to question why that bank lend money under the scheme and there will likely be an investigation; similar to the ones at RBS et al for their actions following the credit crunch.
I would not lend if I was the banker.
And I don’t think BIDS should get any CBILS funds as it will deprive other, more deserving businesses of those funds.
Intrepid.

Hi Jabbs
There is already ‘in game’ advertising in most games, but it’s not been dynamic/selected for the individual. Instead it is pre-organised to the game, not the gamer.
And what is ‘more realistic’? If I go to an actual stadium to see a match, I see Advertiding around the pitch, that is NOT selected for me, but for the crown en-masse. That’s the real world. So, how can advertising selected for and seen by just me be ‘more realistic’ than the real world where I see the same advert as the other 40000 people in the stadium? Clearly it can’t and won’t. So, actually, this programmable, tailored, in game dynamic advertising cannot be more realistic than the real world. It will feel, at a sub-conscious level, a bit ‘wrong’ because I will be seeing adverts likely linked to my latest online searches or simply because I am Asian, female and 25 years old, living in Hoxton. That’s not (currently) the real world.
Intrepid.

Ran out of space; last point below.
21. £10 million advertising contract. BUT STILL NO REVS. THEREFORE CONTRACT = CHOCOLATE TEAPOT CURRENTLY. EFFECTIVELY A ‘ZERO-HOURS’ CONTRACT AND THE PHONE ISN’T RINGING TO ASK US TO COME INTO WORK.

Intrepid.

Hi Jabberba
I notice you have re-posted the same bullet point list several times so, for balance, I hope you don’t mind my putting my opinion next to each one. I’ll put my comments in CAPITALS for ease of identification only; it’s not me shouting.
Cheers
Intrepid:

1. Disruptive tech. (Up to 11x more effective). BASED ON REPORT WITH CURRENTLY QUESTIONABLE INTEGRITY.
2. Proven business model. (MG) NO. UNTIL REVENUES ARE GENERATED, THIS ‘BUSINESS MODEL’ IS DECIDEDLY, 100%, UNPROVEN. THAT IS THE MAIN ISSUE HERE.
3. Happy customers. (UK government) THEY ARE NOT ACTUALLY A CUSTOMER, IF THEY ARE NOT PAYING FOR IT. THAT MAKES THEM A CHARITY CASE OR A PR EXERCISE. BUT NOT A CUSTOMER.
4. Independently proven. (Lumen research). WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT REPORT IS GENUINELY ’INDEPENDENT’. SEE RIO’s COMMENTS.
5. Best board advisors. AGREED. BUT NOT ENOUGH OF THEM HAVE PURCHASED SHARES.
6. Happy gamers.NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN BY THIS? IF YOU MEAN GAMERS ARE HAPPY WITH THIS NEW TECHNOLOGY BEING IN THEIR GAMES, HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS? MY RESEARCH I CARRIED OUT BEFORE THE LAST PLACEMENT HIGHLIGHTED LOTS OF GAMERS DISCUSSING HOW TO REMOVE THE TECHNOLOGY. THIS POINT WAS DISCUSSED AT LENGTH AT THE LAST AGM BECAUSE DRAPER MADE THE COMMENT THAT GAMERS WERE HAPPY WITH THE TECH. SEVERAL OF US IN THE ROOM JUMPED ON HIM AT THAT POINT TO SAY “PROBABLY NOT THE CASE”. MORE LIKELY GAMERS JUST GRIN AND BEAR IT.
7. Management with skin in the game NO. ‘SKIN IN THE GAME’ REFERS TO PEOPLE HAVING THEIR OWN MONEY IN A PROJECT. THE FOUNDERS BOTH PUT A LOT OF TIME INTO THIS PROJECT AND LIKELY PUT MONEY IN; SOME INDIRECT VIA NOT EARNING WAGES, SOME DIRECT TO PAY INITIAL COSTS. BUT BULK FROM INVESTORS. ALSO THEIR SELLING £300K SHARES NOW MEANS NO SKIN IN THE GAME.
8. Happy advertisers. WHERE IS THE PROOF. BIG ASSUMPTION THERE ARE ANY ADVERTISERS, HAPPY OR OTHERWISE.
9. Growing market. AGREED.
10. More realistic gaming experience. NOT SURE EITHER WAY.
11. Ability to reach target audience. AGREED, BUT ONLY IF THE GAMERS ACTUALLY NOTICE THE ADVERTS. I REFER YOU BACK TO RIO’S COMMENTS.
12. Greater advertisement attention. DITTO POINT 11.
13. Greater advertisement recall. DITTO POINT 11.
14. Massively scalable. AGREED AND THE MAIN REASON WE ALL INVESTED.
15. Hugely profitable. WTF. SERIOUSLY. WTF!
16. Greater affinity to product placement. NOT SURE WHAT YOUR POUNT IS HERE SO CANT COMMENT.
17. Opens up new opportunities/revenue generation. CLEARLY, BY THE DISTINCT LACK OF REVENUES BEING THE KEY ISSUE HERE, BLATANTLY INCORRECT. THERE ARE NO REVENUES.
18. Multiple contracts in place. WHICH STILL HAVE NOT DELIVERED ANY REVS. YET. HOPING THEY WILL ONE DAY.
19. Codemasters increase inventory and renew 3 year contract with Bidstack. BUT STILL NO REVS. NICE EVERYONE CONTINUES TO KEEP THE FAITH THOUGH.
20. Covid19 recession proof. DISAGREE. UNTIL REVS PROVEN I STAND BY MY PREV COMMENTS MOST ARE SLASHING BUDGETS CURRENTLY.
21. £10 million advertising cont

I’ve held OXB for a few years now. I see them as a ‘picks and shovels’ style company in the gold rush that is biomedics
They will make money regardless of who owns successful or unsuccessful IP/patents. No brainer to me and have increased nearly 300% since first purchase.
Intrepid.

Hi.
Does anyone know the reason for the move up today? I’ve heard SMS was waxing lyrical about automated in-game advertising, but I’ve not seen the source.
Glad I topped up with this years ISA before latest moves up.
Intrepid

Hi value finder
Thanks for your posts. All useful.
However, I disagree with you when you say NCYT can go back to 10p. No one can now erase the coved-19 affect from this share. Even when the world moves on from SARS-CoV-2, goodwill for NCYT will remain in the form of a premium in the SP. the key question is, “how much”?
I cant see this share ever going below a £1 again, and it it does, some big pharma will buy it for twice that.
Best wishes
Intrepid

Hi ade1234
If that conclusion bothers you, then can I recommend you hedge and buy some AVCT. I did.
Kind regards
Intrepid.

Hi SocialistB
Yours is an interesting and thought-provoking point............. in theory.
However, it’s been proven time and again that only private markets can truly deliver innovation; governments can’t.
Even in wartime, it’s the private companies that deliver the solutions and reap the rewards (of receiving orders/money whilst the whole economy is being centrally controlled/manipulated and therefore being starved of the same).
Only free enterprise, with its creative destruction and associated asset re-allocation will sort this virus out; not Boris Cummings taking it over..
All the best
Intrepid

Hi gggg21.
That’ll be a yes from me.
Intrepid.

One of the panelist’s on Question Time has just asked why the government isn’t taking the tests needed from the “accredited UK company that is saying it can produce 1m tests a week”. Everyone, including the government bod is saying we must ‘test, test, test’.
Intrepid.