Member Info for Ocelot77

Thetruththe. While I appreciate your insight. Taking just one regulated market where Loop claims to be an operator, Belgium, I did a quick search and they are listed. Contrary to your claim.

Check here. https://www.bipt.be/operators/publication/list-of-telecom-operators

I appreciate when it comes to regional networks and SBC's they will not wholly own, rather buy IaaS, as required, although that's not a surprise and typical even of the larger telcos.

Re Andrew, I don't have the data in front of me, but recall he sold a large portion of his original investment when the SP was at it's peak. I suspect despite the recent investment he is overall up. The insight I was chasing, given he was a seed investor and a non-exec he must have a game plan. Your reply tells you can only speculate like the rest of us.

I agree about the challenges with the sales strategy. Though small players can take margin from places big players never would, LU demonstrated that by growing YoY selling PSTN conferencing as the big players switched off... of course this bit them in the end for not starting a parallel activity sooner.

Thanks again for your insight. It's clear you were passionate about your colleagues and their collective potential. It can't be easy being in a business when it gets acquired, with colleagues pushed out. For what it's worth, forum members actively questioned the meeting zone acquisition, the strategy at the time and as prevailed was bad.

Hellohola. Given your insight as a former employee, why do you think the long-term investor Andrew Scott increased his share holding last year? Andrew's past industry investments and career should stand him in good stead to make wise choices, and he had been a non-exec.

Tell us, is this true, LU as a licensed telco in 71+ countries, while the majority of competitors who claim x amount of countries actually get that reach from providers like Bandwidth (previously Voxbone)? IF true then I expect LU will have an operational saving with access to number ranges and the ability to broker PSTN minutes with a much higher margin.

LU focus on only one product, presuming you were client-facing, was this an issue or is the focus a benefit?

What do you imagine to be the end game of the leadership? Are they nice but dim, or calculated with a plan. I find the latter hard to believe because they could have exited wealthy when the SP was over £4.

“Loopup's business was massacred by a trend”

The trend to cease using a dial up audio product rather than video?

LU original product growth was always about winning business from the big providers who were transitioning to VoIP extensions and UC service casting PSTN aside as a bolt on. Their original market consisted of laggards who liked billed per minute audio. It was a fantastic strategy, hit faster than expected by Covid as employees decided to stop using those LU minutes in favour of video… it was always going to happen.

My challenge, this trend while it accelerated, has been on the cards since 2010. My point, why did LU leave it so long to change their business? It’s more comparable to walking into a lions den than an unexpected massacre.

So many product strategy’s pre Covid, could have transitioned and retained much of their existing client base.

As an investor, in hindsight, LU made hay while their competitors better aligned themselves for the future, now today.

Why did LU competitors transition their customers back then, even if they lost the laggards, by build their products for the future? Of course a rhetorical question.

My concern is this. Right now LU are focused on selling a very me-too and basic product. While their competitors are prospering, and adding new and complimentary capabilities.

LU’s survival to be equal, depends on an acquisition, or a very timely and significant customer/partner.

Which is more likely for the survival of LU? Answers on a postcard.

Re CTAP - "first-of-its-kind platform" If I were LU I'd probably say the same. Except I've just googled and the control offered is not actually unique. I am sure like ios vs Android there will be differences, the thing is, the alternatives have a much bigger volume from more customers. Plus who cares about portal features vs code when it's for use by IT admins vs end-users. I'll concede a little, keeping it intuitive helps scale.

Let's cut the ctap. LU survival is dependent on new business. Prospects must have more faith in LU over the competition. Which immediately begs the question, how do LU restore faith? Either there's a plan we're not party to (it might not be in our interests), or the BOD are running on hopium. Either way I don't see the merit of LU being on AIM right now.

If there is a plan, I expect the largest investor has the reigns. He will wait on LU reaching the weakest point, orchestrate an MBO with a new board. Then, take the reward for turning LU around, when by magic the absent contracts will materialise. The warning of this approach will be LU trimming costs, employees.

In my household I am the sole earner, taking a cut I'd have to make changes to how and where we live, a distraction from the day job. My regular costs per month, include kids school fees which are 6k per month, mortgage 2.7k, everything else 3k, and that's before irregular large spending on travel, vehicles, and other investments.

My point, while the CEO's may be privileged I doubt they could forfeit much income without life disruption which would impact their attention to Loop Up.

All said, at this juncture, I strongly believe fresh leadership communicating the strategy, outcomes and what's next, would renew faith for investors, partners/clients, and prospects.

Note most of the roles advertised are delivery and service roles, so presumably required to deliver to paying customers. Must be challenging to recruit the best.

JammyC, when you say Legals/PS require LoopUp for quality, that's exactly the market they grew YoY pre covid. Now its's not relevant, they have told through results since that their traditional PS market has waned (presumably flipping to use other platforms offering UC/video). Also unique pre-covid, LoopUp were serving the PS market with audio, while competitors were turning it off... their new customers were low hanging fruit. So audio alone, which they banked on, was never going to be a sustainable business model. I expect Loop understood the demise of audio, but Covid accelerated the decline faster than they could react.

The difference now, Loop are trying to attract a market among a sea of competitors. The big test, do customers value Loops regulation?

Thordon argues Loops customer base will value regulation because it brings high bandwidth and it's secure... PSTN does not add higher bandwidth or security. A regulated phone service removes control where the PSTN has to route through another operator, it's regulated in part to manage the security and quality, but in truth, it's policing fraud for example re-filing (least cost routing through cheaper networks, often illegally). Terminating calls on IP vs on/off ramping to PSTN, is phenomenally more secure and offers higher bandwidth. IP (excluding PSTN) for the operator and enterprise enables end to end control and for the end user higher fidelity calls.

For certain world over administrations are still figuring out how they regulate VoIP, one clear part is where VoIP passes over to PSTN and it is this declining necessity (just like audio conferencing pre covid) where Loops regulation could offer a service to the many Teams providers.

The Loop opportunity should not be competing to sell teams direct, that's frankly a commodity with few barriers. Loops special sauce is indeed being regulated, and it's a winning strategy, providing they are successful at selling their service to
a few significant teams providers, or many smaller providers.

@Thordon, can you clarify?

"It's regulation that keeps Loopup in the game with Teams" So compared to the next competitor, what's Loops 'regulation' advantage?

"If your [sic] a global player or Legal then you need Loopup." Why legal? what are Loop offering legal, that a competitor is not?

Brochrock, great question.

I imagine the typical poster on here bought in above 70p, 80, and some over £2. I averaged down but still burnt at this stage.

If it's possible to cast aside my bias, yes I would invest now, it's cheap. It's like backing a start-up, considering they have a brand new product and target market.

The business they have moved into has a real market, and they are taking a share of that ready market, which continues to grow (just not fast enough). Loop are delivering from their own infrastructure. From what I gather they don't really offer through affiliates or resellers, so the margin should be good. If they successfully sell through partners into existing large customer bases, financially they will be successful. Building relationships in this sector can take a long time from an agreement in principle, to actually transacting.

Poker I think you hit the nail on the head with this "It is like waiting for the curtain to rise at the Theatre ... is going to be a top notch Broadway performance or a local town Pantomime flop ??!!!""

The strategy of Loop was to sell PSTN audio to the PS sector who valued basic audio with good controls.

Even pre-pandemic, the romance of audio only faded and providers were turning off and overpricing audio conferencing services, but quicker than some customers wanted to ditch the service, especially PS customers. Loop had easy pickings and were able to grow in a declining market.

To digress back to Pokers metaphor, Loop, since my initial investment have changed their show and to a new audience, only able to re-utilise their infrastructure. We have our popcorn and we are waiting, it feels like they keep postponing the curtain.

I don’t think they will fizzle out. Someone would buy them for the customer base first, not suggesting Gamma, but someone like them. I don’t think that’s an immediate ambition to get bought for peanuts. That serves neither the founders or investors.

I still imagine their biggest single backer of all time who swooped in and bought a lot at the recent placing, the Scott bloke, would not do so without an agenda. He’s got extensive telco history and I can’t see why he would invest in a lemon.

I’ve suggested, even when the value was much higher, they could be looking for a MBO, then to get acquired… however this would be an exit strategy through desperation and even then they’d have to turn the business around. Could deals be orchestrated to complete post MBO?

The recent hires, and fuss on this forum over them is bizzare. A senior account director recently appointed in the US and previously in Aus is just a vanity title for a sales person that’s been around. Quite different to a VP or leadership role. I am much more concerned about the senior hire leaving, pushed for being crap, leaving a sinking ship, salaries too much of a burden vs more junior sales?

I am not a conspi******, I have a vested interest for them to do well, but the lack of information drives me to consider what could happen.

What we need to consider last year, they made a major proposition and product pivot. They didn’t become a vendor like a Zoom, it saw them as a competitor as they lost customers to them. Instead they joined the MSFT eco system with a proposition they are trying to differentiate by being a licensed telco in many regions. They must make that latter part pay off, and that’s where I wonder what’s the agenda, how does the Scott bloke and his telco background fit in.

Lemonade I partially accept your point about 5G and Wi-Fi… Loops strategic difference when providing Teams connectivity is their ability to on and off ramp PSTN.

While PSTN becomes irrelevant as the world transitions to soft switches and IP, the regulatory environment will continue to govern communications over IP in many geos. Where Loop are falling short, IMO, their entire focus should be providing partnerships to the Teams providers, rather than directly competing in the fiercely competitive market of selling Teams… many Teams providers have a much larger and complimentary portfolio.

"Lookup staff are a little amateur in their presentation techniques" I am too truly amazed at the amateur production, as a conferencing provider they should be experts at self-presentation.

Over this past period, many individuals have set up their home office beyond webcam with home studios using pro kit to join video meetings.

The content also comes across as patronising, and the experts lack executive presence. They probably should be using a senior salesperson as an anchor, and perhaps bringing on guests to share what they have achieved.

To repeat myself, I think this is heading to a management buy-out, and then later will be acquired. I desperately want to be wrong.

JTD, you're easily pleased! I watched a presentation with the same messaging we heard before, improved only through the experience of presenting the message. Loop have had a Cisco relationship from the first acquisition, then they wanted to turn those webex and video customers into Loop product customers (with comparably better audio control but a not-so-great video and web share). Now Loops latest acquisition returns to the hardware play they previously dismissed, with hybrid onsite and offsite, this needs people on the ground, vans and maintenance of hardware.

"It will be in the coming weeks that the reaction will become clear - not today" I do wish I could share JTD's eternal optimism.

I have invested in telco for 15 years, and worked in CPaaS and it's emergence for 20. Loop have a good engine, but the strategy since the first acquisition has persistently been off. JTD reading your posts it feels you believe positive or negative talk in these forums will influence investment, it won't, that's entirely down to Loop's ability to pull new revenue.

The challenge, Loops biggest differentiator is the pstn, however competitors offer it just through partners. Loop could become the go to partner.

However when it comes to quality, the leap from pstn to VoIP is already huge, we just take it for granted. In equal measures by audio only we are very tolerant of poor quality, how many times have we hung on making a call with a mobile when we should hang up and try with a better signal.

My rambling point, those Teams providers without the Loop differentiation are still serving the same proposition less assured quality for the audio… however in practice the experienced difference is negligible as most communications (80-90%) of large and global organisations is internal, or enterprise to enterprise where Teams calls starts over IP and finish on IP, no PSTN.

Loops traditional service of PSTN audio conferencing without video, where Steve openly shared they were servicing the laggards that demanded simple and basic tools, they grew year on year by taking over the business the likes of BT, NTT and other conference providers were turning off in favour of video.

So where Loop made no secret they grew by winning the tail end of business in a declining market…. Isn’t that what they are doing now, by being regulated in 60+ countries, only the cost and liability of entry is quite high.

I am still guessing a MBO followed by acquisition could be the end game.

Most of the tech and product team are based in San Francisco, it’s no secret just look at employees on Linked In. Also search MH and MBE, he does a lot out there beyond Loop to help young British entrepreneurship.

Stew, I would have to write a lot off. While I fear the worst, I am hopeful the SP will improve. I am finding it hard to believe in their proposition. At this point I am hoping for an acquisition, but no MBO.

They need to talk up the why for the acquisition, how they will use it. They should tap into retail investors that like edtech… they have a ridiculously low SP that could invite a lot of punts. Keeping quiet, that’ll never happen.

Advise for investors? Hold if you have it. Buy if you don’t, but perhaps that’s my bias as an investor talking!

I posted this back in June. Could Andy Scott be the enabler for an MBO. An MBO would no be aligned with shareholder interests.

“Loop are not forthcoming with thought leadership, publically. However, I am very sure the BoD have a plan, they have a vested interest. If the end game is to be acquired before PSTN is absolutely dead, wouldn't they benefit more with a management buyout, which will be a lower cost while the share price is down? More so, if that happened, as investors our loyalty won't be rewarded should their offer per share be below our average opening.“

The acquisition brings little to no IP, they resell hardware and provide install and maintenance, big deal. Many already in this space. Try haven’t added anything to WebRTC that’s I can see, no talk of AV1. I’ve been searching for any unique capability of what they have acquired. Zilch.