Yes my application was scaled back so it was clearly oversubscribed. Can't see the shares in my account yet though so don't think I can sell. May just be that I need a more expensive stockbroker lol.
Definitely think it's a very odd call if Nickel is shorting this. Whatever the bear case, there's a huge potential upside here. There are plenty of companies where the downside looks more certain. Of the ones I hold, DBOX could easily go either way as it has little cash and a poor share price performance, equally when I look at things I bailed on stuff like AXM and MDZ and, oh, a thousand others, which have no cash and don't seem to make money and could struggle to fundraise at current levels so need a placing at a lower price. Those are the ones I'd be shorting.
BIDS may not prosper, but it certainly has every chance of doing so.
Nickel you do see a few certainties with AIM placings. This surely isn’t one. The short term trading is fairly irrelevant to the bigger picture. Think Amazon in the late 90s/ early 00s. Or boo.com from the same time. This will work or not, if it works it will be huge. As an existing shareholder I was delighted to back them at the placing to help make this happen. All the best to them.
To an extent, calamari - the business also then has more cash. So you own a smaller percentage of a more valuable business.
I was in sub 3p but have been buying as they've risen - including just before the announcement about the possible placing. Personally I'd happily support a much more chunky fundraising than £3m, as long as they're bringing in the expertise to help ensure funds are spent wisely. The recent announcements suggest theyr'e doing just that. This is a global opportunity. They need to get it right. That's going to be expensive.
Wolf - I have absolutely no clue about the placing price. I assume it will be at a modest discount to market price, at the time they announce it. I do think £2m of cash isn't going to cut it, the recent results announcement included the quote "in the short term the Board intends to prioritise investment in technical developments which will place Bidstack in the best possible position to operate at significantly increased scale". That's a clear sign of ramping up spending. I'd be amazed if they break even at some point this year - indeed unlike almost every other stock I own, I'd possibly be disappointed if they did! Maintaining first mover advantage will not be cheap. I know EVRH has fallen back hugely, but I was in there sub 1p and they similarly raised enough that anyone interested in their technology knows they can't sit and wait for them to run out of cash.
I was half in at 20p and half at 8.7p, so 14.35p on average. Just sold 40% of it at 7p. Can't complain, in old money I was in at 3p and mostly 1p and out at 1.3p so did ok overall.
Will keep an eye on this one but I think it'll tread water this year. They should have raised more cash as a shell, the old loan notes always did look ropey, a point I made when the old board was trying to raise funds at the equivalent of 20p and getting accused of dilution. I'll stop shouting "I told you so" into the void at some point lol.
Meh, can't be masses of economies of scale - Mash made £100k on £400k of revenue. If ALL costs could be eliminated it's only £300k of costs.
I'm torn - having opened with a small position I paid 20p for I've piled in at 8-10p partly because I've long been a fan of the Daily Mash. But leaving them all in the bottom drawer with a high chance of months of underperformance doesn't feel wise, maybe a better strategy is to cut the losses and invest most of it elsewhere.
Yes I agree with the consensus here. I think the problem is that they didn't raise enough cash. The old Polemos loan notes seem to have been sold for next to nothing (which may well be their true value), and the placing on admission only covered the cash element of the Daily Mash purchase and most (not even all!) of the expenses. So I suspect they have absolutely nothing in the tank for acquisitions. The businesses acquired made around £600k a year between them, but there's the plc running costs to come off that. So the current share price is probably 10x profits. That feels fairly full price unless the management team can drive profit growth strongly. Maybe they can - Daily Mash felt like a labour of love more than a commercial exercise. (The app is awful, fine when it came out years ago but not sure it's ever been updated and bits keep breaking.) With no results due until much later in the year (next results are the interims to 30 June 2019 and I guess will include a load of listing costs etc so will be fairly opaque). So if it's ages for decent trading news, there's no cash for acquisitions, and the share price has halved making paper acquisitions highly dilutive, they're suddenly not in a great place.
Hopefully some of my assumptions are wrong here - if so maybe they need to spend a bit of cash on financial PR to help us all understand the potential and get the price up, so they can do acquisitions or a fundraise in a less dilutive way than would be the case at present.
Yes, and more importantly than my own opinion: you can see from the way that the 2nd largest shareholder, who called the meeting, voted against his own resolution 1, that he has been reassured that the chairman is actively trying to find a suitable transaction. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th largest shareholders voted in favour of adding the proposed new directors to the board, so you can see the 33m votes against is pretty much the entire Jarvis nominee account, in other words Riverfort (represented on the board by Nick Lee) and the Share placing investors. Those investors have clearly come in under the expectation of a lucrative RTO in the not too distant future. This has to be one of the best shells in the market. But then, I'm biased, I have a large holding myself!
Socialist your note prompted me to take a look as I'm in Digitalbox (new Polemos) and got a lot of grief for supporting the idea of an eventually-cancelled fundraising at double the current price, others thought that was too cheap to be "diluting" holders. Polemos had TWO loan notes, total value £879k, one to Oyster another to Securlynx their previous potential RTO candidate. Both were fully impaired in the 2017 accounts. Note 12 to the 2018 Polemos accounts (on the Digitalbox website) says the two investments were both sold for "a profit of £65,000" - given the book value was nil this means they were sold for £65,000. Of this £14k hadn't been paid at 31 December 2018. So it's hard to say but looks like it was barely 10p in the £1. So I assume that's what North Bay paid, which might give an indication as to a fair price for the Gun holding in Oyster!
Nicely done destitute. I don't really recall where I sold most of mine - higher than here but a loss, I suspect. Bought more a few weeks before the results expecting a jump and have sold them at a small loss. Not desperately optimistic, feels like if TV Player can be RTO'd that could make sense, but I can't be the only one to feel the current strategy needs to start showing some results to justify carrying on like this. Pity - I used to really like this one!
No idea why you think this means the directors are the only ones who will make money knicol. £300k is roughly the combined drawings of the directors of the three businesses prior to the RTO. So whilst there isn't a cost saving, this level of payment is already in the historic numbers. Looks like it should make north of £500k a year after director fees and can grow. Glad I sold most of mine at the equivalent of 26p but at the current price they seem pretty reasonable. I've added recently. Not my largest or most exciting holding but I think it'll do reasonably well for shareholders from here.
Results out. Pretty much as expected. Huge discount to net assets - but no real reason for that to change short term. Would be good to see some chunky director buys to show faith in the strategy. Or let’s hope they find something decent to do an RTO with.
exstatex - come on, let's have some proper discussion instead of everyone just arguing about whether negative comments are deramping or not. Ok, so assets are 2x market cap - £2m of assets, £1m market cap. So that's a £1m discount.
A year ago assets were £3m, market cap was £2m. So assets were a £1m discount then too. Hasn't stopped investors a year ago suffering a 50% loss.
We can argue about the investments and how well they'll perform. But what's going to close the £1m gap between NAV and share price?
Come on optimist - really keen to get your take on this too.