Member Info for Jimmy_Stocks

I do see less and less green filtered messages though, since the expose was put out. Funny that

I had 13 on filter so I don't see any of it. 14 now Intrepid has joined the list of.....

'investors in Admix who are desperate to talk this company down to get a piece of it on the cheap'.

So you choose to ignore either of my points that shoot you down in flames. Good one

Finally filtering him Tred. I couldn't work out whether he was one of the gang over at Adfvn or not either, but I have my answer now.

Shame there isn't an Admix forum for them to all chat together, instead of admix investors constantly populating bidstack forums.

I'm sure everybody agrees that all shareholders are waiting keenly for a new game publisher to be announced. The updated broker note hinted at a biggie, so fingers crossed.

Intrepid on 2 points, I think FM and Sports Interactive was the first publisher they got onboard.

And also testing has been ongoing now since last year. There will be plenty of data (enough to employ data specific roles full-time), and along with these case studies and Lumen research pieces, bidstack don't need to lose their neutrality to get a big agency on board, they already have those. There has been a big uptick in demand recently, so I don't think that is an issue. The issue imo is that there are not enough games (and therefore DAUs) currently in bidstacks portfolio for big agency spend to go across. And these big agencies need big DAU numbers to get trigger deals.

I'm glad they are in charge and not you.

Agreed mart, seems to make sense. Intrepid not seeing the bigger picture by the looks....

Copy/Paste response from poster sectornitad on the bidlievers forum:

I haven't read the clauses closely yet, and legal speak makes my head hurt, but I STRONGLY disagree with the original chap regarding voting against disallowing pre-emption.

If the company is attempting to change the articles to allow the board to issue new shares WITHOUT first offering a pro-rata amount to other share holders then this is an exceptionally positive thing, in my book.

It could well be (and I would really not bet against it) that the company is lining up a single new investor, such as a VC fund, who will:

a) want to invest a substantial sum
b) want to end up with a known percentage of the company

It is therefore imperative that the company be able to issue new shares without offering us muppets pre-emption rights. Frankly, this whole nonsense around dilution is just ridiculous. No one bought shares above 50p. Long term investors should be seriously targeting a share price in 3 years of multiple pounds. Dilution is an utter red-herring. Don't be foolish and cut your nose off to spite your face! It is much more important to get a single, committed investor to buy a substantial chunk of the company, bringing enough funds to easily get to sustained profitability and an investor with status and 'door opening' ability, than to worry about whether a small micro investor's already tiny holding is microscopically diluted.

Think BIG folks. Taking away pre-emption rights is potentially a very positive signal.

Intrepid I have reposted your message there. Cheers

If cash burn is £500k per month (lets say £400k during this period of no travel to exhibitions etc) then where is the logic in spending that resource on chasing what would be PMP deals, when they are working in the background on the scaleability aspect. You know, the one that everybody is here for and could turn bids into a unicorn if they execute it.

They are keeping to the plan. The sooner IAB Gold and all the problems are ironed out, the better for all. Chasing PMP deals for an extra £100k is not why any one should be invested here.

Intrepid - to answer your question about Draper delivering during this time, what I am saying to you is that all the jigsaw pieces are not there yet for bids to fully capitalise on this current situation. This is what they are working on.

And if he does sell any more in Sept then I'll be joining him.

Girdz, I'm answering your question though, with what is hopefully a logical answer. They have said revenues are not significant 3 days ago, so why would they do a TU?

Intrepid, you totally miss my point. Re-read this part, and if you still think he should be breaking his neck for an extra 2-300k revenue at this point, then we will agree to disagree and you can again demonstrate you have no clue what the bigger picture is here -

What real difference does it make in the bigger picture if they do £200k in H1 or they do say £600k in h1 and have thrown all their resources to getting PMP deals through the door (but moved further away from the bigger picture strategy)? They moved away from that to focus on the bigger picture, and rightly so.

The important thing is what the run rate is come Oct, Nov and Dec this year imo, not what the revenues are whilst all the jigsaw pieces are not yet in place.

Intrepid, Girdz, you both amaze me. Did you not read the Results report?

As Hit says, they have advised this only 3 days ago:

'the Board continues to expect that revenues in H1 2020, although higher than total revenues for 2019, will continue to be minor and that material revenues for 2020 will start to occur only in the second half.'

What is the point of a Trading Update, when the revenues are still minor? They aren't aiming for £200k or £400k. They are working through the technical challenges and building up the infrastructure to enable frictionless scalability. This is what investors should be focusing on, how far they are down the track with this.

What real difference does it make in the bigger picture if they do £200k in H1 or they do say £600k in h1 and have thrown all their resources to getting PMP deals through the door (but moved further away from the bigger picture strategy)? They moved away from that to focus on the bigger picture, and rightly so.

The important thing is what the run rate is come Oct, Nov and Dec this year imo, not what the revenues are whilst all the jigsaw pieces are not yet in place.

And I will be joining you in slating them if we are still waiting for new game publishers in 2 months time.

I haven't ticked anyone up for a comment like that. And I don't think you do. Otherwise you wouldn't make comments like this -

'This point last year we only really new of Anzu as a competitor. Now there’s plenty more.
A lot was put on first mover advantage but I don’t think they have capitulated on that. Arguable bids have done the donkey work getting the new ad space recognised now people jumping on the band wagon.'

And what games are Anzu in? Any examples of their tech working (other than the awful screen grab, photoshop whatever the hell it was.)

I'm not getting defensive. Just calling out guff when I read it. Take your own advice and give them two months. You've waited this long, the fun is just about to start.

You make it sound like they were handed the opportunity with FM and Codemasters on a plate. It is business they won and have developed relationships with, 2 more AAA game publishers than any other competitor has managed. And how much better do you think their product will be because they've had the luxury of these test beds?

The answer to the question btw is NONE.

You think another competitor, who in your words is 'jumping on the bandwagon', can just waltz in with an AAA publisher, that bids have been painstakingly testing with for months, and just steam in and take all the business. Based on your comments, you have no clue about the different factors in play here.

Why don't you just sell up and invest in a company that is established, or a company where you at least understand what it is they're trying to achieve.

Gridz what games are these other competitors in?

Of course, keeping an eye on competition is keeping an eye on the basics.

All the AAA games and big developers are still up for grabs. None of bids competitors are in any games of note to date.

I'm not saying that couldn't change but Bids are in advanced testing with AAA publishers (as per the updated broker note on Monday). Not to mention the world class advisory board, who give them access to any game publisher or ad agency worldwide.

I wonder what odds the bookies would give on which in game ad tech group EA are going to form an agreement with?
I would say given the Bryan Neider factor, NoFuchsGiven shirt sponsors to name but two links, bidstack would be the overwhelming bookies favourite. Same with Activision Blizzard.

Lets take Sports Interactive for instance. They say right we've got the Football Manager series that is a great success, we're going to develop the ad tech in game and manage the ad space ourselves, build the relationship with the big ad agencies and collect 100% of the profits, instead of 75%.

So all the development bids went through, all the meetings and relationship building with the big ad agencies, all to find that it isn't enough for these big agencies to get out of bed for. That is why Ads are hard coded in. Game Developers might have already tried to do it themselves and found it can't be done on their own, for reasons I've mentioned.

It needs a collective for it to work at scale, and bids are building that collective to unlock the big spend. The Game Developers need bids just as much as bids need the developers. And the same goes for the brands who want to reach the unreachables. Mutually beneficial, value adding relationships all round, which is why it will work imo.

A key point in my mind as to why game developers can't do it themselves is that as we are seeing, these big ad agencies want scale, and won't get out of bed for small numbers of Impressions or DAU's. It needs the collective of multiple mainstream games packaged up together to sell to the big ad agencies.

This is why the £10m deal hasn't kicked in yet imo. The ad agencies are waiting for more games for the spend to be spread across. FM and Grid not enough, evidently for a £10m deal to kick in. So where does that leave individual game developers? Taking the risk of all this development, when they could be building games, all for not being able to unlock the big spend because their games on their own don't create enough DAUs or Impressions.

The very biggest game publishers might be able to do it themselves with their number of games, EA for instance, but with bids they will be getting 75% of what is likely to be an even larger pie, as bids are collecting the buying power. Is the extra 25% that they'd get worth all the work (and not to mention the risk, needing a long title of games for it to even be considered with the monster agencies). I'd take the 75% if I were them and I think that's what you'll see happen.

Game announcements land before any raise The Ronald

Sorry not just M&A, but Head of Corporate Development and INVESTOR RELATIONS @ Hewlett Packard, with previous DIRECTOR experience with Goldman Sachs (6 years), Barclays (5 years).

Ronald Trump, great name though :D