Member Info for kpmmcentrumsk

No, I am not connected to the company in any way. I am simply private investor looking at the risk/reward from current levels. I fully agree that marketing language does not pay the bills. The only thing that matters now is whether the IBM/Symphony agreement converts into billings, revenue and cash.

I also understand why long-term holders are sceptical after the past guidance misses and lack of clear new business. That scepticism is justified. My point is only that the IBM agreement looks potentially more substantial than previous partnership announcements, but it still needs to be proven in the numbers. So we probably agree on the main test: no new revenue, no real turnaround. Q2/Q3 will show whether this is substance or just more words.

I agree with the main test: no new revenue, no real turnaround. Q2/Q3 will need to show whether this is actually converting or not.

Fair point. Previous partnerships did not deliver the revenue hoped for.

IBM looks potentially more substantial to me because Big Replicate is already in IBM’s ecosystem, there has already been a $6,7m IBN-related contract, and this is now a formal OEM agreement with Symphony embedded and distributed by IBM.

But I agree: it still has to show up in Q2/Q3 billings, revenue and cash. That is the real test.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

I completely understand the history here. The collapse from the WANdisco days, the loss of trust, the missed targets, the staff cuts and the fact that many long-term holders have been badly hurt. I have looked into that history quite carefully, so I fully understand why sentiment on this board is often negative.

For me, this is not a core investment and I am not treating it as a low-risk situation. It is a small, high-risk satellite position with asymmetric potential. My approach is to start with a modest holding and only consider increasing it gradually if the company delivers against clear milestones.

Those milestones for me are quite simple: Q2/Q3 numbers, visible IBM-related billings or revenue, stable cash flow, no dilution, and continued progress toward the FY2026 cash-flow breakeven target.

I also agree that any loss is unpleasant, even on a small position. But the reason I am interested at these levels is that the market is still pricing in a lot of scepticism, while the IBM/Symphony development looks like a potentially meaningful turning point.

So I am not ignoring the risks or the past. I just think the risk/reward may now be more interesting than the current sentiment suggests.

As you say, Q2 is not far away. We should soon have a much clearer idea of whether this is finally turning into numbers or not...

I agree that the individual components of the technology may not all be unique in isolation. Many companies can move data, many companies can provide cloud migration tools, and many platforms now talk about governance and AI readiness.

But I think the potential uniqueness here is in the combination: active transactional replication, petabyte-scale data movement, near-zero downtime, hybrid/cloud neutrality, deep legacy Hadoop/Hive capability, and now governance / AI-ready orchestration through Symphony.

That combination is not the same as simply being listed on a marketplace or offering a generic data transfer tool.

And this is also why I think the IBM angle matters. IBM is not just casually mentioning Cirata; it is embedding and distributing Symphony as Cirata Symphony for IBM Big Replicate. That does not guarantee revenue, I fully agree. But it does suggest IBM sees enough technical and commercial relevance here to make it part of its enterprise data offering.

So for me the question is not whether every single component is unique. The question is whether the combined solution solves a difficult enough enterprise problem for IBM clients to generate real billings. That is what Q2/Q3 should start to show.

Fair points, and I do understand why long-term holders are sceptical here.

I agree that an OEM agreement by itself does not guarantee cash. Ultimately, the only thing that will settle this debate is billings, revenue, cash flow and new customer wins. If the IBM relationship does not convert into visible numbers over the next few quarters, then the market will be right to remain sceptical.

However, I do think it is too dismissive to say there is “absolutely nothing new” here. There is a meaningful difference between IBM publishing a Statement of Direction in April and a formal revised OEM agreement now confirming commercialisation, embedding and distribution of Cirata Symphony as Cirata Symphony for IBM Big Replicate.

That does not make it a guaranteed success, but for a company of Cirata’s size, formal access to IBM’s enterprise distribution channel is not irrelevant either.

I also take the point on past missed guidance and director buying. Confidence has clearly been damaged, and management now needs to rebuild it with numbers rather than words. But that is also why the valuation is where it is. If everything were already proven, the share price would not be sitting around these levels.

So I’m not saying this is risk-free or that shareholders should ignore the past. I’m saying the risk/reward looks more interesting now than it did before, because the IBM/Symphony development appears to be a real strategic step forward.

For me, Q2/Q3 will be the key test. If there is no conversion into billings and cash, scepticism wins. If there is, then today’s price may look very different in hindsight.

Hi everyone,

I’m new to this board, so first of all greetings to all holders here. I have recently invested in Cirata, so I am following the discussion with interest.

I understand the frustration from long-term shareholders. The company has clearly missed targets in the past, confidence was damaged, and I agree that management now needs to prove the turnaround with hard numbers rather than more optimistic wording.

That said, I think the latest IBM OEM announcement should not be dismissed too quickly. Yes, IBM had already published its Statement of Direction in April, but there is still an important difference between an intention and a formal revised OEM agreement. The RNS now confirms formal commercialisation, with Cirata Symphony being embedded and distributed by IBM as Cirata Symphony for IBM Big Replicate.

For a company of Cirata’s size, access to IBM’s enterprise distribution network and established client relationships is potentially very significant. It does not prove revenue yet, and we still need to see the impact in Q2/Q3 numbers, billings, cash flow and contract wins. But strategically, this looks more positive than negative.

I also think the existing IBM Big Replicate relationship matters. This is not a completely new or untested connection. IBM already has Big Replicate within its ecosystem, and the previous $6.7m IBM-related contract showed that the channel can generate real commercial value.

So for me the situation is simple: the past explains why the market remains sceptical, but the IBM/Symphony development suggests the future may now be moving in a more constructive direction.

I am not saying this is risk-free. Far from it. Director buying would help confidence, and the next financial updates are critical. But at around these levels, I can understand why some investors see the risk/reward as attractive, provided the company starts converting this IBM relationship into visible revenue.

Good luck to all holders.