Member Info for LowiePete

Even if nothing happens to the page in terms of editing or update between now and Jan 1st next year, the copyright date on that day will show 2022, so I assure you that the copyright date has no immediate relevance. The text on that page could have been last updated in 2018 for all we know...

The 2021 copyright update is a simple PHP command that shows the current year number without human editing intervention. I've had this on my own site for several years now. So, the reference has no immediate relevance...

Seems that everyone is simply whelmed by this "news".

Last week, commentators were predicting the SP to never see 10p again. Does that still hold true now that it's gone more than a tad south? I hope not!

All the while this share is under 5p it's a steal and under 10p a bargain. I've said that as someone who has bought his fill and very happy to LTH. I never dreamed that I'd get to my present holding, so I'm not going anywhere. So, I'm happy to do a bit of diversifying into other future tech, like the IoT.

my 26.55 trade was among a whole host of other buys, so, it was actually a sea of blue with few red ripples

Is the talk of FB pulling out of Europe a load of hot air? The idea of tying hardware, Portal and Oculus, to a singular piece of data-sucking software for it to function turns me off. I won't bother...

I did a little top-up to achieve a personal goal - surprised to get them at 3.85 :)

Has anyone yet received information giving a timetable of future events?

I suppose that because we minions have no impact on the done-deal decisions that we'll not be invited to the SGM, but even so it has had no date announced to keep us in the picture. I assume we'll be issued with the minutes, or some form of documentation. Am I wrong?

It's all very well that some have (substantial?) amounts invested here but that doesn't entitle MVR to leave us in the dark as their machinations' progress. There are all sorts of implications for investors, not least Napster's continuing position on the Nasdac, or not. I've been a long-term supporter of MVR but I find that, like its news service, its investor relations are extremely poor. Am I alone?

They're pledging just 10,000 VAL shares... Is that a typo?

Hmmm, else what value per share are they anticipating by the 2021 AGM?

Good thinking M ;)
Perhaps we could have a black friday sale @ 16p - that would help my APS no end. I'd just spend the same and buy a larger stake. I'm in for the longer haul but just need to adjust my averages... :)

So, the "measly" 15 quid a month becomes a total waste of money; looks like it's a better bet to invest it...

With regard to IHT, don't you need to have been an investor in an AIM share for 3 years before the IHT exemption applies?

I too use the Iweb/Halifax platform mostly because it's only a fiver a trade, so if (when) I change my mind, it isn't too painful. Even so, trading fees can soon add up!

It's a pity that the BBC can only find an AM clip where he's almost apologetic for MVR. Time his publicist gave someone a call to put that right. It might have helped convince the reporter to close his piece with a bit more optimism. This shows that there's still a mountain to climb, especially as there was nothing said about new and exciting tech, beyond the clunky viewers.

Anyway, good on the NT; get 'em young and rely on pester-power ;)

It wasn't a "comment" - it was a question. Nothing at all to be suspicious about!

that's "vested interest" --- d'oh

Do you guys think that MVR won't be allowed to fail from here, simply because there's now a wide spectrum of vested interested parties?

I can imagine that a number of other LTHs are quietly despairing, and from a certain point of view they have every reason to be. Before you turn away, I've not jumped into the mistimouth camp, not by a long chalk! However, when you consider where EVRH was at its 2015 launch, with an SP hovering around the 18p mark, and compare that to the achievements since that make MVR the company it is today, why is the SP not reflecting the interim advances and now not hovering around the 40p to 50p mark at the very least?

Those of us who have done our due diligence, research etc., rather than those who should not be allowed anywhere near an AIM share, are allowed to wonder when the manipulation will stop, as it surely should! I don't have any feelings over MMs making money, but I'm beginning to draw the line when that happens _only_ at the expense of LTH investors.

It looks like MVR are going to concentrate on being a "live show" provider as an alternative to where they were pre-CV19. That gives it clout in a direction that few could or would have envisaged earlier in the year and it's another reason why the MMs should now let the share float at a more realistic level. For the rise to be less than a penny on this latest news is just shocking and it confirms in my mind that it'll only be a bidding war to buy the company outright where the SP will reach levels that LTHs have invested for. Quite when, at least rather than if, now, is still anyone's guess, but it won't be for some while I feel.

Are the rules on AIM so loose that the MMs could drop a spanner into those works too?

...that the only time that there'll be an upward impact on the SP is when potential suitors of a bidding war start to show their hands? Goodness me, just look at the progress and worth of MVR since its 18p SP heyday. There's just no comparison! I don't get this idea that just because MVR gets more users / subscribers / bods aboard that any, let alone most, of them will also become investors. They'll probably be too busy hungrily looking through the back catalogue for the next gig to enjoy.

This weekend is the opportunity for MVR to do some of what it had intended - to add acts and performances to its unique library. As I have said all along, it won't be until that library can properly sustain a user base that MVR will gather SP pace. So, 70 acts in a weekend is healthy, but it needs many more yet. At the moment MVR cannot be compared to any other streaming service, simply because its miniscule library doesn't bear such comparison. It certainly cannot stand on its own!

It'll be highly paid marketing gurus who will know when the tipping point is imminent and then there will be no holding back! Except for FB, there is a raft of probable suitors, so it's only a matter of building the library. Of course, there is another possibility, in that MVR markets itself as a provider of only live shows, simply squirreling away those performances for a rainy day. Would this approach be sustainable? It'll be interesting to get feedback from new users on this point. Are they ending up excited by the potential or disappointed because there's little else to pique their interest? That's the dangerous bit that can backfire.

Either way, my belief is that we need to be patient, the bidding-war is some way off. The SP has been held down for a very long while now almost no matter what has been offered, so do some squirreling away of these shares while they're still so cheap.

GLA

I wonder how MVR are going to record big-name artists dead long-since in VR? I don't believe the technology exists to convert existing 2D footage and would it be worth all the work?

The reality is that compared to Spotify and other music streaming services, MVR's library is beyond miniscule, and that is the main reason they have not yet "gone big" on getting their name out there. Without the CV19 intervention, there may have been enough new material gathered from the 2020 festival season to consider it, but only just. Why does this aspect of releasing have to be explained over and over again. Without a decent size library to fall back on, MVR could be seen by new users (who don't have any grasp of the business) in the same light as 1-hit wonders and that would kill both the tech and the company. In marketing terms, going too soon can be worse than going too late, but either are bad!

As ever, patience and allowing the company time to respond on the hoof are key. It'll happen...

I have to chuckle at the self-importance with which we're warned that the accounts will show X amount as a loss. Those with a seeing-eye will know that the greater majority of this "loss" is actually cost of investment into new recordings. The actual value (as opposed to cost) of the recordings is in their future money-making potential, so not really a loss at all. The idea that somehow the company is going to fold because of these losses, or that these expenses are not necessary, or even that its a reason not to be investing here, is, quite frankly a bit too simplistic or plain absurd.

It's amazing how people pick up on half a story and just blow it out of all proportion. If it wasn't worthwhile investing in MVR then the vigour behind the recent £12M inflow was just a figment of everyone's imagination. The stock in trade of this company is its recordings library and it will rise or fall on the sustainability of that resource. There won't be any big buyers out there ready to pounce until the library becomes self-sufficient, at least big enough to satisfy ongoing demand _after_ all the free-stuff has been experienced. Eventually, live shows will draw the people and (bigger) money in, but unless the library can satisfy their ongoing enjoyment, there is a huge risk of a negative backlash. It's the main reason why there's reticence over exposure too soon.

So, if the library production costs are shown as losses, even 10M quid's worth, there'll still be around £20M with which to strengthen the library for a further year or two yet, even with no income at all. In that time, despite CV19, there should be some sort of subscription model in place, some sponsorship deals struck and some advertising revenue to boot. All this while MVR relies on the recording artists and their fans to spread the word for them. What we don't yet know about is how the big players will deal with their current involvement as investors.

Whatever, it's still not a bad company to be invested in, is it?