Member Info for jointhedots

Not a lot to be said here - hence my silence over the results which were OK but just left us waiting for more confirmation of growth.

Though on balance I think the decision to abandon hybridium is the correct decision- how incompetent to have bought the business in the first p[ace, waste money and management time a developing and rebranding the business.

It's like MeetingZone MK2 - a complete waste of shareholder money in order to disguise the poor progress in other areas. They have surely wasted well over £50m in total and got personally wealthier whilst doing it - it's a disgrace IMO. If they had not bought Hybridium to hide the failings with MeetingZone then we might have cleared all the bank debt by now.

So now we are laser focused on the Cloud offering - but they have failed to gain traction fast enough (root cause of problems) in that area as well - if we are laser focused than that surely means the development of a Cisco version is dead as are all the other opportunities areas which the company said were growing even faster than the Cloud services.

Like everyone else, I'm not going to comment regularly on this when the management gives no real insight on how the company is doing or it's real plans - we must just wait to see how the cloud offering grows.

I've no intention of selling my shares, have essentially discounted them to zero value as they are worth a fraction of what I paid for them - the main regret I have is that the CEO's are still IMO bleeding the company.

For those in at these low prices there is the potential to easily double your money or lose the lot IMO, it's a one trick pony now.

It really doesn't matter who the partner is as long as they are: committed to accelerating the project, if there is a cash payment and the scale of their aspirations (10s of thousands of barrels/day rather than a few thousand). The last thing we need is a major that parks the project in their asset portfolio for years whilst COPL are forced to sit and watch - the TERMS of the deal are critical not the partner.

All will become clear soon, whilst our recent demise has IMO been down to inept decisions by our management and failure to increase production, the most telling error has been the ludicrous bond arrangement which allows them to trash the SP and profit from it - bondholders shorting companies is a well known tactic and should have been mitigated not facilitated - in our case they don't even need to short to profit - lets hope the CEO signs a better deal with the new partner, he's certainly had plenty of time to consider potential pitfalls.

All we need is a GOOD deal with a premier league outfit.

I suspect that if sales vs.buys were reported correctly it's likely there were more buys - MM's have worked a blinder taking 10% of the company's markets cap off for a few thousand quids worth of trades.

The 500,000 plus sales reported this morning where actually balanced and probable the same trader maybe simply moving a holding - its not credible that sales of 250000 a few minutes after another sizable trade where given a better price.

But it created a narrative and the mood for the day, I have a viewpoint that MM's love the push the SP to an extreme (preferably lower) as they gain control/ reduce risk and encourage trading- it's actually surprising that buyers came in afterwards - no panic selling anymore.

Probably explains who sold in the news about the accounts though - our own senior staff trashing the SP to gain financial advantage - you could make it up.

Is interesting for who is not on the list - has Steve Flavell, co-CEO not taken his up or perhaps not been issued with any.

Also the suggestion that they sold a large proportion of them to cover tax, looks ridiculous as the CFO sold all of his and holds bugger all in terms of shares (no commitment!)

Monica69 - I really don't recognise your reasoning for your viewpoint.

The company is undoubtedly troubled and that is reflected in the poor SP, but they have money, the backing of wealthy shareholders and contrary to your assertion they have something to sell and an increasing number of companies are taking up the service and crucially not becoming disgruntled and swapping it out for another supplier - in fact they are adding additional services .

Are you saying they are being duped into buying an imaginary service - if you bother to research you will also fill Loopup holds it's own in comparison with best in class services.

You didn't bother posting to pour cold water on the gyration downward but feel conpelled to protest an upward movement.

I believe the result had two main downers, the asset write-down and the impending loan settlement both of which have been sorted out, the first by taking a non-cash hit and the second amazingly cost and penalty free, a great endorsement (confidence from the Bank) as they don't take additional risk cost free and know much more about the company's prospect than any of us.

I suspect yesterday was simply a relief rally when the realisation that the company is not in imminent danger landed - they now have another year at least to sort out the business and it is actually a much bigger business and cash generative business than last year.

It's very noble of you, but don't worry yourself too much about shareholders.

Always in the background to do their best to rubbish anything that might spell an improvement in fortunes.

Their efforts, and to be frank anyone attempt to drum up positive or negative sentiment are now a waste of time - those that wanted out are out and those left are more resilient than be influenced by scaremongering.

If the bank had been concerned they would have demanded a capital raise as a condition of the extension - they always (ALWAYS) look to minimise their perceived risk - they don't care in the slightest about shareholder value just having sufficient security to safeguard their position.

So it's fair to assume the company is operating within covenant and performing financially in a way which provides confidence - there appears no pressing need for a capital raise but for every company there is the possibility.

Today is likely the time of maximum pressure with disgruntled sellers - now they have offloaded the news they can start to rebuild.

What really bugs me about companies like this is that the directors don't feel the pain and often benefit from failure with allocations of cheap shares - if they are not sacked then all bonused should be stopped and salaries relieved downwards - not staff, just executive directors and if they bu**er off.. Good.

Shows the company is still trying to hide their huge mistake in buying MeetingZone and there incompetence in integrating it, auditors having to tell them to recognise their error and write it off shows their effort to cover up their mistakes. The directors not being honest is the story here - not the money which was only notional

Notwithstanding that at least one (preferably both) CEO's should have been sacked years ago, the disclosure is a surprise only in the fashion in which it occurred - surely no one really thought that goodwill accounted to anything other that a number in the accounts.

Now they can get on with the business without it being dropped on up next year as a shock when hopefully a turnaround is supported by strong evidence. The loan extension provides comfort that the company has a future and also that the problem does not go deeper - if so the Bank would demand repayment of the loan and impose penalties.

Maybe, but I wouldn't worry too much about manipulation now, the SP has already been manipulated to peanuts, any more and we'll be paying buyers to take the shared]s off our hands.

The big issue now is the refinancing of the debt - shouldn't be a problem if they deliver profitable operations in the coming months - but nevertheless it's a drag. The fear will be that the deal will include an element of capital raising (lenders often demand it to mitigate their risk) - so logically those that will provide the money will want a cheap SP and as a consequence the chance of a rise prior to a settlement are slim, unless they produce some surprise good news. None of the sales I've seen recently suggest a big player is buying / selling.

There were no surprises in the results and it's good they are now behind us and they had little impact on sentiment which is already trashed.

I've been trying to see growth trends, CLOUD ONLY, for some while and it looks like ARR is growing by 50% every 6 months equating to a factor 2.25/annum.

That is really impressive compounding though clearly it will tail off - it's just a matter of when. So IMO operationally things are looking good - we could just do with some surprise positive news.

Thanks - they appear to be trying to look like trailblazers - the budget has surely constrained them for the last year or so, but now they have for higher revenue perhaps they'll start up / restart some PR/sales initiatives. Like an up to date customer story or two.

Apparently, are still developing their software and working with smart technology.

I just read a new atricle about a new AI products that companies are using to help develop coding quicker, theres a quote from Loopup in it:

"Working smarter
“I've used it already – generating Powershell scripts and pernickety Excel formulae. It saved me so much time,” says Mark Evans, IT director at Tillia Homes. “ChatGPT has allowed me to ‘work smarter, not harder’.”

Chris Stanley, VP of network operations at Loopup, has had a similar experience.
“PowerShell scripting using ChatGPT has helped my teams reclaim a lot of time, definitely working 'smarter' just from this one example, it's also great to use for policies,” he says."

At least they are not stagnating, the product was only released at the end of 2022.

Also I noticed if you Google search Loopup they are now described as a "Collaboration Company" - what is that and when did they change - does it represent a more to expanding services?

That's also my position, well down and no intention of buying more, there is just no faith in the current directors - no matter that an objective analysis of the prospects suggests a major change either going belly up (raising capital) or having a major growth spurt, no one is interested.

With a market Cap of just £5m after shareholders pouring in 10s of millions of pounds and probably in excess of £100m in total only to lose their shirts, one trade today and no one posting on the BB for 2 weeks, it is not hard to deduce this company has a serious credibility problem.

It is astonishing that the SP has crashed after the company acquired a huge chunk of business, supposedly very profitable business, that has resulted in a projected profited of £1/2 million. Yes EBITDA profitable (even with the unexpected higher one off year end costs they highlighted ) See below, they turned a £1.5m loss at half year to £1.0m at year end - that's surely a major turnaround, essentially / obviously resulting from the increased turnover from the new business with an improvement in Cloud revenues.

From update:
"FY22 Adjusted EBITDA1 loss in line with market expectations at approximately £1.0 million (H122: £1.5 million loss; FY21: £1.2 million profit)"

Clearly the Cloud expansion effort has swallowed up any available cash and more for the last couple of years, if the Cloud business starts to generate a profit (and it should soon)or even simply stops being a drain - then the company should turn in a respectable profit for 2023.

Notwithstanding the woeful and over-compensated CEO's that have got their claws well and truly embedded in this and won't do the decent thing and resign - this company could enjoy a dramatic turnaround, not to the dizzy height of £4 to £5 it once enjoyed, that's lost for ever, but easily above 10p.

monica - nice to have you back, the BB is crying out for a troll that can't even be bothered to do research to find negatives.

Remember to up the pressure if the SP starts rising.

Poker - yes, that's one of the sad side effects of CEO's failing shareholders - they often score big on it and on occasion take full control of a company. Lets not forget Steve sold around £1,000,000 worth of shares as I recall at well over £2/share - that buys a lot of shares at 3p, neither is really using their own money. just recycling their benefits I presume as well as lucrative salaries they expect a big return from shares eventually

I accidentally pressed a button that led me to brokers recommendations for Loop and I don't think any of the comment now, but back in 2018 Numis had a buy recommendation and target of £6/share - how on earth have they managed to drive the SP to 3p and shamelessly both (CEOs) keep their jobs and full salaries. The target based on the information they where providing the then was 200 times the current price What an achievement.

So though I believe the RNS confirms the company has most likely turned a corner and has a bright future, I will never be a fan of the CEOs.

Good news for a change, but a strange update IMO.

Revenue was expected to be below expectations as of the Dec 2021 update - and in 2 weeks to end of year it improves to finish up in line with market expectations. They provide an Trading Update and I think for the first time don't advise of current performance (Q1 position update). No current cash position either. IMO that means they are saving information, hopefully good to have a separate impact.

Also how can 2023 performance only provide a 25% increase in revenue when PGI potentially alone delivers 4 times the impact of 2022, and the cloud ARR provides the current year start figure of at least £1.8m and any added contracts in 2023. I think they have severely underestimated the potential and more to the point they have done it to allow them to claim success against market expectations. If we cast out minds back, I recall they said they couldn't estimate 2022 due to uncertain customer sign up rate - now they can do 3 years - really!! Those future performance expectations are carefully constructed now to claim any performance that should challenge a growth company with a decent CEO.

SP should be a lot higher based on the RNS, except without a current cash position or confirmation of adequate cash some may still fear a capital raise

This RNS largely draws a line under 2022 and also gives base line figures for the company to claim outperformance against. As I said in my last post the current cloud revenue run rate should be around £2.5m - even if it's half that the growth the market will now react positively.

I take the view that everything they say is carefully considered so the inclusion or absence of information means something.

The company more than doubled minimum contracted revenue run rate in 6 months to December from £0.8m to £1.7m, impressive. From the Dec RNS it looks like if successful that run rate will maintain that trend with over £2.5m for end of march. It's a combination of new new customers and now significant additional rollout (compounding).

If they could maintain that rate through 2023 that provides for revenue run rate rising in 18 months from June 2022 at £0.8m to December 2023 at £7.6m and at the end of 2024 at £35m

The trend is there in the last reported 6 months, though I seriously don't expect them to maintain that growth it is very much possible, and I do think they could put in an impressive performance if momentum is maintained.

The company appears to have shed some key sales/support staff over the last year, now they have the significant new revenue from the legacy business and a decent Cloud revenue stream they can perhaps accelerate the Cloud business growth as the said in the last update.

Things are actually looking up and the trends are improving - but as Pokerchips said "progress cards down on the table", then we can perhaps get to a decent SP rather then priced as a basket case.

There really is no interest in this apart from a few die hard's.

Only 1 trade yesterday, when we are awaiting news - there is no anticipation or even fear from the market.

As I've said previously the new customers they transferred marks a massive change for the company, the existing revenue tripled at a stroke, yet the SP dropped - it dwarfs the Cloud revenue, running at £1.7m + (most likely £2.0m) as at December update and now if growth has continued on trend running at between £2.5m and £3m

I took a look at the revenue trends and it is so difficult to quantify operational performance, we are only just getting enough number to see a general trends.

I believe they should be reporting annual contracted base revenue of no less than £2.5m if they genuinely achieving major growth the business- we'll see

If so, revenue will have tripled in about a year - if that trend continues we are looking at significant revenue and profit. As long as they don't change the reporting metrics again the annuals should allow us to see genuine trends.

Mc - I find myself fully agreeing with you as well, this is turning out to be a very agreeable day.

Loop is far from dead, if I thought otherwise I wouldn't waste time posting.