Member Info for katstrangler

Ah, well... it said it offered cloud services so... there's an apology due!

so... apolgies!

Bfd, i suspect you're talking about the future... i don't think the results will show anything like the profits you're suggesting. and, as i said, if the Semnet deal is so sweet, who is the company that say they are paying 9 x the last total revenue for one contract when they don't have any... thing? but a lot of GST shares wil be issued to 'finance' the deal?

hmmm. ..

Funny how you 'don't care' about the company's cv? i'd be concerned that, like the spouse having major holding in Semnet, that there might be another 'connection' that might be a Russian doll connection.

And, because the leap from annual turnover of £4.2mill to a contract for £36mill is astonishing and, one would like to think, be evidenced by the company who have signed the contract and stumped up the cash? They have no records of... anything!

It's unlike you to show such indifference to a valid question, esp. if it might throw into question the contract? perhaps because you've staked a lot on that contract... and that's fair.

so, who are they, that they do a fairly outrageous contract with a company owned partially, by interested parties?

it should be easy to ascertain how this company can fund such a contract, no?

I trust folk here will turn detective and trash my query about the quality of Ypsilon as there was, frightneningly buugger all i could find, beyond having started in 2018 and being based in Singapore.

frankly, rings a few bells.

(but i'm just stirring the pot...)

...not so sure.

considering the Semnet contract is the big flag-waving revenue generator, according to those here, it looks suspiciously empty of any presence that i can find on the web?

... it took them 4 years to launch a company website and there's still nothing on it! and no mention of GST...

https://www.ypsilontechnology.com/about/milestones

Apologies. i meant 'utterly opaque'...

Https://www.ypsilontechnology.com/news

i think the question is (as ZED discovered, to their cost) statements about contracts with companies where, when an investor researches the company reveals nothing about them or their 'audio products', that have no news on their corproate website and so is utterly transparent as to ownership or their ability to pay for security when they look like a shell company, as far as company profile can look... dubious.

so, if GST are so confident about that contract, maybe they could furnish the market with info about who they are and what they do?

Peronal opinion is that the sp is still finding its feet as a pre-revenue generating company with potential. i just note that, with the added euphoria of an sp that multbagged from IPO price to 32p it got massively overbought on the promises (that repeatedly failed through 2023) and the warrant holders all took advantage of retailer enthusiasm that they were 'partners' in a boutique mining success and trashed the sp as it fell while retailers kept topping up on the rns that might actually come good.

at 4.6 it was obviously too cheap to be true but it took the fundings (plural - still not explained the earlier placing for the road!) and the physical roadworks to realise that the wheels were back on the track.

now, difficult to asses what is fair value for the road completing but, as the 40p warrants are now priced at 10p and we're still promised that the new shares won't be issued until company is satisfied (whatever that price may be and who those investors were) i would guess that 15p would be a good price for resistance or the conversions might be... convered!

after 15p, i figure it'll need actual revenue and the start of profits to get back to last year's 22p and better. but that will take all the predicted events to materialise, without interruption.

then, assuming that 2024 is the run that 2023 should have been, i can see 40p by end of year.

but still lots of hurdles to jump without crashing to the ground.

Fair point.

tbh, i have him/her and most of the rampers filtered so i don't see the interaction but, having 'enjoyed' the group bullying...

speaking of 'engaging'... i looked back through the tweets on @LSE_GST and noted only 4 official tweets from the company since Jan. All of them were just the rns'...

that doesn't feel very 'exceptional', does it!

Probably holding a grudge for all the crrap that anyone with a slightly different opinion about the company faces?

have a think about the thousands of posts promoting the company and the current sp.

They have holdings at 2p.

It looks painfully like looking for a scapegoat for the falling sp!

Nm

What's tiresome is holders implying their financial 'braveness' for holding on, instead of 'wetting the bed'. it's a bit childish to say people protect their assets on what they see might be a reversal. feel more like an excuse for getting caught out.

investing isn't about name-calling or showing off your financial muscles by ignoring what's possibly in front of you. taking a defensive stance until there's clarity would seem to me, to make perfect sense. yes, the news might drop at any time but that's the risk of holding or or selling up until... atm, i'd say those 'bed wetters' will use the cash they've saved to buy a new mattress.

there'a nothing wrong with making your cash safe as there's always another chance to invest whereas your capital shrinking isn't great. but if you believe it'll come good at some point, then... but less of the steroid financial courage! there's nowt brave about seeing profits shrink.

Nm

Nm

Yes paid lots of stamp duty on CRTM a few days ago...

(i'm only half joking about that... but would b v content if it showed the intention... )

Apologies. it's easy to forget the facts as posted... and it's not really my job to trawl through the posts for verification.

that said, the point you made, that the contract was a cumulative contract stands... and, as such, the profit from it pa wouldn't be quite the size it would be on a £35mill contract over one year.

so, while my point stands, apologies for getting your timeframe wrong.