Member Info for Mitch984

"Didn't mention Blockchain!"

....but CTEA do - in every RNS.

Let's not get over-optimistic about the upcoming trading update. Yes it will be good as regards production. However debt will not decrease to any great extent in this update - that will start to show through in six month's time.

TLW had a very good trading update on 28 June, and their share price went down. ENQ's update on 24 May was also positive - but again the share price fell.

It could be that the PMO update this week just reminds the market how high our debt is. However even if we see a small decline in the share price, it will only be temporary. Everything is looking good with PMO, and the RBC Capital Markets upgrade this morning may well be the first of many.

What you seem to be missing Cannyladdy is that if CTEA does "monetise artists work" it will be for very small lesser-known artists. The big artists are all signed to record labels and get 99.9% of their download/streaming income from equally big boys, like Apple and Spotify. Those big artists and labels are not going to be interested in a new kid on the block with zero financial backing that might at best bring them in 0.001% of what they get at present.

If there is any feeling that the current big players (Apple etc) are screwing artists and labels on their download and streaming royalties, then those big boys will add blockchain to their current technology to reassure the artists and labels. The artists definitely won't ditch iTunes, Spotify etc and lose 99% of their income just to try something new and unproven.

So that only leaves minor unsigned artists to sign up to any new CTEA technology. But then why would they when, if they have any decent fan base, they can make their music available through iTunes or Soundcloud anyway - and reach millions more potential listeners than they ever could through their own CTEA powered website or platform. OK CTEA may sign a few independents to their technology, but income to CTEA will be negligable.

Blockchain technology will not stop download piracy or unrewarded streaming, and that is what the failed tightening of EU copyright laws was attempting to do.

I have 30 years of experience in the music biz, and my experience tells me CTEA will not make any significant income from this industry.

Anyone have a view on Tullow's quite positive trading update today and why it resulted in a 4.6% decline in their share price? I always consider TLW, ENQ and PMO to be ranked together by the market because of their debt, so was surprised to see TLW drop so much. It concerns me a little when we are all eagerly and optimistically awaiting the next PMO trading update. There has been zero comment on the TLW board, which is strange.

I have to agree with this. If we were getting anything close to positive news on Friday, we would have seen at least some small rise in the share price. I know we are under the radar, but not so far under that the share price would decline in the "big news" week.

It will come, but as ShrewdDude says - not this week.

Its obvious from the share price that nobody other than us long term holders has any optimism about the contents of this week's RNS (if it comes). I'm still very optimistic, but something isn't right - and its gnawing away at me.....

That has always been my main concern. There have never been any shortage of sellers, despite the small free float. I also just do not understand why anyone would sell at this stage, or indeed at any time in the past 6 months, with the huge potential seemingly coming to fruition. Unless its a seller that knows something that we don't.

C'mon guys. There is nothing wrong with having a contrary view posted here. Nothing is a sure thing, including Zioc. There are many many positives, all excellently researched, but the share price would not be where it is if this was a certainty to multibag. There are many of us here who fully believe in Zioc and are long term holders, but I think its only fair and correct that newbies to this board are able to read a cautionary view occasionally.

Yes, many thanks to MM - great work. One thing that has always concerned me was where the daily/weekly sellers were coming from, as all on this board seem to be here for the long haul. However MM's exercise does seem to indicate that there are enough shares not in sticky hands (Forum members and directors) to cover the sales:- Directors (inc their trusts) 124m Forum member (increased from MMs figure to cover non responders) say 50m Shares in "true" free float 109m It seems to indicate that even one institution coming in with a million quid buy (not beyond the realms of possibility once we get a little more clarity) would substantially move the share price much closer to where it should be already.

about what they were worth; should read above what they were worth;...

Hopefully the overly-positive posters here will now learn. Release vaguely positive RNS, share price rises, dump more shares immediately at 20% about what they were worth before the RNS. Wait another couple of months. Repeat. This is about the 6th time this has happened in the past 6 months - and none of you, other than Dave, appear to be able to see through it.

"Delivered on deal" - with who, and relating to which artists? The lack of detail is concerning. There are some very minor artists as support acts at this summer's racecourse gigs - and the agreement will be direct with those artist's management, not with Ticketmaster. "Delivered on revenue incoming" - absolutely no mention of expected revenue. If the artists are not major (and, if they were, they would have been mentioned) then this agreement will not generate more than a few thousand quid to the two companies. If this was a true game changer there would be much more detail in the RNS. Not just unverifiable waffle.

MM. Thanks for that link. Definitely a solid explanation for the past month or so. Prior to that I personally think Artemis have continued to sell down their holding since their "drop below 3%" TR1 in November. As puzzling at that is, I guess we will never know the reason for that. We are not far from the end of June update deadline, so hopefully everything will soon be a lot clearer.

..."i couldn't understand why anyone would sell..." That has been my big concern for a while. Since Artemis started unloading their shares 8 months or so ago, there has never been any shortage of sellers - despite the small free float. Who is selling? If its still Artemis and/or the original float shareholders, then why? They would/should know far more about Zioc's potential than us private investors. Some of the sells could be explained by day traders or short term private investors, but - in my opinion - there has to still be one of the big holders selling at every opportunity. Everything appears to be coming together and the potential is justifiably huge - but the constant sells (and therefore the low share price) concerns me.

Kr1ck makes a very good point. However I think I'm correct in saying that even accumulating via a bank proxy would not avoid a TR1 having to be filed if the holding exceeded 3%. The only TR1 that has been filed in the past year was from Artemis in 11/17 when their regular selling reduced their holding to below 3%, so I think we can safely assume that no new large shareholders have come along in the last year. With the potential of Zioc, that surprises me somewhat.

"Give it a rest! We've taken our positions and will await the outcome. Which doesn't explain why Investment Trusts haven't been buying into ZIOC if the future is so assured. Too low Mkt. Cap. is the usual excuse but that's nonsense." That is the ONLY negative or concern that I can see. Why aren't the big boys in here? I just don't buy the "under the radar" explanation. And before I get attacked, we must allow negatives to be mentioned on this board to offset the positives. The negatives for me are the current low share price and the lack of interest from the big institutions (both are connected of course). It also concerns me that there is never a shortage of sellers. However the fundamentals of ZIOC are so strong that my concerns are most likely totally unwarranted. But we should not stop people expressing their concerns so any newbies to this board and Zioc can read something other than "certain multibagger", "millionaire maker" etc etc

Yes, this board has got very toxic of late - worse than at any time I can remember. However we must accept that it is a discussion board - postings cannot and should not be limited to the positive. People with concerns or questions should be allowed to post without being personally attacked. In my view, I don't think anything anyone posts on this board has any effect on the daily share price, so I'm not sure if anyone is actually a successful or failed ramper or deramper. So why attack them as such? As we all know, everything is in place here for very positive, perhaps even massive, gains in the medium to long term. The only thing that doesn't equate with me is the current share price and the fact that there is never any shortage of sellers. However when I've raised that in the past, I've been attacked as a deramper. I'm in the hole by quite a large amount on Zioc, but do not mind as I'm in this for the long run. If that qualifies me as a deramper, than I obviously have misunderstood the term. In summary, let the posters who have questions and non-positive comments have their say without the personal attacks. It doesn't mean they don't understand the basics of this share and its potential. But this is a discussion board - and opinions should be allowed to vary.

Definitely Feb 2016 as Tom says. This link takes you to the dated page:- http://www.crbc.com/site/crbcEN/companyNews/index_95.html?ordernum=1 4th item down.

Miner - and where did I say I was doing any "research"? I was asking a question and seeking an opinion. You might want to ask how Degsy and Afric can give an intelligent opinion and response to my question, whereas your reply is "bog off". Your response is exactly why so many interested parties and investors can't be bothered to contribute to this forum - which may of course suit you, as for some reason you do not want to read anything that doesn't support your rather naiive view of "BOOM". Perhaps you should stick to twitter or advfn.

Minor - so why is it YAWN to ask for an opinion on why the share price is where it is and why Artemis were (and as far as we know, may still be) regular sellers? Nobody, including you, knows how many additional shares Artemis may have sold since their TR1. My question anyway is not solely related to Artemis. Its more speculating where the sellers have come from to support the buys. I'm sure you would agree that non-institutional holders like ourselves would be crazy to sell with the massive potential we have discussed constantly on this forum - and I'm not sure non-institutional holders collectively hold enough shares anyway to have supported the buys over the past six months. There has obviously been no shortage of available shares - otherwise the price would have risen. So who are the regular sellers? I'm not knocking anyone - I'd just love to have a rational explanation that would remove the very small doubt I still have about my investment. You may think that is "YAWN" again - but I have read every post on this forum over the past 6 months, and I have never seen this discussed before.