focusIR May 2024 Investor Webinar: Blue Whale, Kavango, Taseko Mines & CQS Natural Resources. Catch up with the webinar here.
I'm back on simply because I've had a better few days - do I need a,doctor's note to return? And there has been a couple of posts to which I could respond.
As a DB specialist perhaps you'd like to tell us what Microsoft's acronym 'SEQUAL' stands for?
If you can't understand why you should be concerned about a company that has to pay ramping sites to get its own reviews published instead of being chosen to be reviewed by independent business news sites, you really shouldn't be investing in shares. Everyone can be lucky sometime but you need more than luck to make it in the long run.
The bit you 'forgot to just say' was that Align Research themselves add a note to explain that they receive payment in Black Cactus shares from the company to write and publish this 'review'
Thank you Teasy, that's very kind of you to say so. It'll take a little time to get back to speed but I'll look into a couple of thoughts I noted earlier.
I think if LSE board admin had any issues with my existence they might have mentioned it to me. I've had no messages or questions from them. The first three or four days when I didn't post were because I had a bad flare-up so I wasn't able to do anything worthwhile. Then when I got back online I just thought about the level of gratuitous insults and thought why bother exposing myself to all that. So yes, I suppose you can all cheer up about the fact that hounding people off can work. Anyway, having posted the true state of the US end from their own SEC submissions, the UK super-entrepeneur and billionaire investor living in a two-up-two-down in East Ham, the incestuous Black Cactus network the total lack of any development capabilities at any of the companies involved and the farcically incompetent attempt at minting Bitcoin which showed their complete lack of knowledge about it, I thought I'd done enough for a bit.
Thanks for the analysis, oneandonly. However, those numbers appear phenomenal given that (a) the project was supposedly entirely in the hands of someone with many years expertise in not just the general field but the specific algorithms which are, in the implementation described, several years old and should be perfectly straightforward. As I explained from personal experience, any doubts about its viability ought to have been plainly obvious well in advance; if the coin mining technique was indeed to have used a GPU array the very high electricity consumption and slow speed of coin mining should have been calculable long in advance. I still feel there's much more to this than meets the eye.
Black Cactus Inc SEC filing Dec (accounts to 31st Oct. referred to in my last two notes). https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1575345/000116169717000554/form_10-q.htm
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the sole means of income generation for Black Cactus Inc., who signed a licence concerning block-chain and related technologies granted to MSG, was the mining of Bitcoin using the (obsolescent GPU cluster) hardware worth CAD$ 350,000 to be leant to them. My understanding is that this mining was to be run as a business under the corporate and domain name of BitReturn and that the income generated was to be used to pay the amount owing in two tranches of $200,000 Be $150,000 during a spell of two or three months. Mr reading of note 8 in the December quarterly filing is that neither of these payments have been paid and they are now recorded as debts against the company. Can anyone with a background in accounts proper look into this, as it appears to me that this BitReturn scheme, of which I was more than somewhat sceptical at the time, is rapidly falling apart. And as it appears to be one of the core cash-raising activites of Black Cactus Inc. One has to wonder what its future will be.
Euclid, do you really have no curiosity at all? When you find a group of companies, from various countries around the world, all with trading histories of virtually nothing, with asset values of the likes of $3 in spite of existing for several years, all suddenly start adopting each others names and agree contracts to provide each other with services not one of them has ever openly traded in, do you not find your interest just a little piqued? And, even though you'd never even heard of any of these companies for more than a week or two before, wouldn't you find it just a little curious that people who had their own money invested in one or other of these companies were not only uninterested in being shown these facts but were actively, insultingly hostile to anyone showing them the truth? Personally I find the whole thing most intriguing, especially the millions of pounds appearing out of nowhere and completely transforming the balance sheets of officially dormant companies. And I should have thought that anyone whose money was at stake would be especially interested. At least for me it's just a way to relieve a really boring time. With nothing financial to gain or lose, the worst that could happen is, if there really is nothing unusual going on, I might have had more enjoyment re-reading Nessa Carey's book of "The Epigenetics Revolution", which is much better than her follow up on 'junk' DNA, which is far too dumbed down. A shame, I thought she was going to turn out to be a really good author on genetics.
Well at least Black Cactus Global inc. (the US company providing MSG with its licenced technology) has recorded rather more financial activity in its December quarter than in the March quarter I reported earlier. March 2017 Total Assets $3 Total Liabilities $105,721 December 2017 Total Assets $167,981 Total Liabilities $885,438 The biggest difference appears to be paid in capital of over $2 million taking the accumulated deficit to $3,364,538 from $202,577. Over to those who like following the trail of where money comes from, goes to, and why.
For those who consider it impossible that someone might do research simply because they want to help, consider the words of Donne. No man is an Iland, intire of itselfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod be washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Manor of thy friends or of thine owne were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee. In this context, for 'death' read 'financial loss'. Some of us, just some of us, happen to believe in words like these. Happy new year, and the best of luck.
Oneandonly, ironically I wasn't convinced about leaving out the B6 bunker fire out of my account of the Titanic. My reasons were simply that (a) its role in the sinking is under such dispute, given the number of other factors involved, not least the general quality of the metal used and secondly, a mistaken iden5i5y on my part. I mentioned I'd need a few tablets earlier and when I replied to your message I honestly thought I was responding to Tony. Now as you may have noticed, he's not best renowned for responding to my posts with the most open of minds. In fact, he pays no attention whatsoever to any fact that may be revealed, he just responds with amalicious as hominem attack. I must seriously apologise to you, as this is what I was expecting, for whatever inexcusable reason. I've found your posting history to be entirely polite, reasoned and responsible, and I have no possible reason to expect anything but the most polite and reasonable answer from you. I've admitted elsewhere that my strength is in abstract research and analysis, and that I have very little applied knowledge when it comes to turning the outcome of such research into investment decisions. Iwould be the first to admit that, if challenged to an investment runoff of, say, £100,000, while I might well get off to a good start on the research, you would soon best me hands down on the financial outcome. And no, I wouldn't be prepared to put this to the test! However, if the competition was to read and produce an analysis of, say, 25 complex research papers on a whole range of subjects, none of them my speciality, I'd feel pretty confident put up against almost any of the investors who Let on these boards. This isn't arrogance on my part, it's a comparison of their behaviour over a year or more.
Dave, it was my lack of familiarity with SEC filings and similar North American obligations that lead me not to refer to this statement when I found it, but I presume you take it at face value. I can read a UK balance sheet, where one has to read between the lines to guess at bad news, because there's no obligation to be too explicit. However, I was surprised to see blatant statements like "we hire an exec director to work 20-25 hours per week", "we signed a Letter of Intent to market a successful computer game for two months but didn't sell a single one" or "Total initial assets $10; Income over next two years $0". In short, even though Envoy's 2017 accounts show a company with losses of around $150,000 and explicitly stating zero income I couldn't believe that was the real situation. Do we have a group of Special Purpose Vehicles and, if so, why trade to no purpose whatsoever? Frankly if they really wanted income they could make more money hiring a couple of OAPs to clean toilets five days a week.
"Those who are invested have made their decisions" Don't you understand that any sensible, real investor continually reviews his investments in response to any new facts? No doubt if you'd invested in the Titanic and received the wireless transmission "CQD Titanic hit iceberg" your response as an investor would have been "La la la can't touch me" and done nothing whatsoever until your money disappeared in a puff of smoke. Your attitude just doesn't make any kind of sense. Well, happy Christmas everyone. Enjoy your day.
CP22, regarding a couple of other points you've made, I have certainly never acted on the assumption of any greater intellect or knowledge regarding investment decisions than any of you on this board; far from it, I 've specifically stated that, while my background has involved a great deal of research and analysis, I would never extend any conclusions I reach to suggest how or whether anyone should invest. The posts I've made on this board have been about facts and my interpretations of them which nobody else seems to have looked into or mentioned. If you have, in fact, already found out about the things I've posted but simply don't think them relevant to your investment decisions, or they are indeed new facts to you but you disagree with my conclusions, then fair enough; you know far more about investment decisions than I do. I have no reason or desire to expect you to think otherwise and I don't have the slightest cause to disagree with any decisions you make or opinions on the company you might express. The only difficulty I have is when a board member's sole response to any fact I discover is not to give the slightest consideration to facts or interpretation but to post personal insults and completely groundless accusations.
Tony, perhaps you would care to tell me how posting six messages between breakfast on Friday and dinnertime on Sunday night equates to "posting non-stop". You would gain far more credibility if you tried to maintain at least some remote connection with reality. I see, though, that even by Friday the couple of people posting in your support during the week have given up on you. Feel free to post my IP address and compare it with Dave's and anyone else's.
CP22, investors are continually exhorted by other investors to "do your own research". However, it's frighteningly apparent that either no such research is done or, if it is, it's simply ignored. Having no interest in shares, but a strong interest in researching all kinds of subjects and seeing what conclusions I can reach just as an intellectual exercise and way of passing the time I certainly wouldn't have any remotest interesting working for Milestone even if I were medically able to. Feel free to ignore any conclusions I reach but I'm sure you can appreciate that I'd be concerned that people who advocate the importance of research make a pointed issue of uncritically supporting every last word of RNSs and articles which support the share price, while automatically deprecating any research which doesn't wholeheartedly support the support the share price. Such completely uncritical acceptance of research makes the research itself completely pointless. I am, of course, accused of the equivalent by opposite bias. This simply isn't the case. The conclusions I draw are not decisions I've made in advance, there are what I draw from the facts presented. If, as an example, the company say BitReturn use the latest, most effective form of digital currency mining that's ever been produced, yet their technical document describes a system of GPUs electrically consuming many, many kiloWatts, invented and in use eight years ago, and long since superceded by dedicated ASICs hardware using a few hundred Watts I can hardly be considered biased for concluding their technology is badly sub-optimal. Scepticism is sometimes an entirely neutral conclusion.
And now Dave raises the question, what in Heaven's name will recording artists be doing, using BitReturn for its specific purpose, which is to mine digital currencies? Are they song-writers or stand-ins for central bankers? The whole thing is just utterly bizarre! And if they're to be bankers, how are they going to compete using coin-mining concepts six or seven years out-of-date and which will send their electricity bills through the roof?
For "companies where electricity is cheap..." read "countries where electricity is cheap enough..."