Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Draper most definitely needs to get ahead of this and be transparent.
One could argue that if it is true (that is the big if) then it backs up that Bids could be a good business if Azerion are trying to be more than just a business partner. It would seem a fairly grubby thing to do for what it ultimately a small amount of money and one could question whether Bids wants to be in a partnership like that, albeit one that seems to be working on an operational level.
Azerion seem to be fairly cash rich, €35m cash at the end of last year, although I suppose the opposite argument might be that this might be the last chance for Azerion to acquire Bids before bigger beats with more money push it out.
It would also seem a little paradoxical. If Azerion value BIds as an opportunity (i.e. potential acquisition), then are they really going to pull the plug on the partnership unless they think they can pull the rug from under Bids and force an acquisition i.e. buy or bust
It would also suggest that Bids needs to work out what its defences are if Azerion and other predators (?) can get it on the cheap.
You could probably argue that it has essentially re-rated anyway - the share price has held more or less steady despite the impeding mass of new shares...
I think the dilution thing is interesting. Yes we have/will be diluted, but if the share price holds steady/increases, then it really isn't all that terrible.
If we assume the share prices stays at 2.85p (understatement at present) then we have just seen a rise in the market cap of the business. My shares might be a smaller % of the total amount, but in reality I am not being too badly hurt and certainly not compare to 2021 etc
Certainly better for my holding to be worth the same or more than the share price dropping to make room for the extra shares or even worse, they had run out of cash and gone bust.
Ultimately the value of my holding hasn't taken a big hit from this and we can now have some confidence in the viability of the business for another year
Of course I would prefer not to be diluted...but this is probably the best to be expected in the circumstances. I think I was expecting the raise to be at a much lower price
It is also beneficial that they have taken on a strategic partner
Ah Sloany, the reason you don't know what I am going on about is because you don't know about business and investing. That and you filtered me, so I could be saying anything, even how amazing you are and you wouldn't have a clue...
Helx would you mind hushing for a few days, you are clogging up a nice old cosy share chat.
We know your buzz words
1) 1p
2) Dear oh dear
3) Not a businessman/entrepreneur
4) Charity fundraising event
5) etc etc etc
Rinse, wash, repeat.
Bidstack will either gets its funding until profitability or go bust, nothing much has changed there albeit that it still keeps getting that little bit more traction and sales each month
Actually if you want to take a permanent holiday, I am sure that all the other posters on here could schedule a roster to post comments based on the above each day. You can then have a nice rest and focus on something in life that makes you happy. It may do you some good
Whilst some transparency/clarity wouldn't go amiss (and yes that is an understatement), the article is hardly a revelation and the use of stats/facts is fairly misleading e.g. taking years to generate revenue. It is a throw away comment without any context What do they expect of a start-up which had to build the technology and then work with others to create the actual market. The statement could be made of any number of organizations. Now of course we want them to make money as rapidly as possible...
Directly comparing $197bn to $2m is also disingenuous. Bidstack is chasing the IGA market (whatever that size is), not the $197bn gaming market per se. That just tells us the gaming marking is big and therefore the potential for Bidstack to sell to companies in that big market is potentially good. What might be a useful piece would be on the number of eyeballs seeing the ads in the games. How many gamers are there? How many are within the the right target markets, and how many are seeing ads through Bidstack's technology, and what ROI is this giving to the games and advertisers. Not some useless stat comparing $2m to $197bn. It is the same as comparing the entire music industry to the ad revenues of Spotify. Yes it is a big industry and Spotify serve part of it. Great...
Of course investors will be nervous. The broker note is behind a paywall, Bidstack's update was not exactly helpful to say the least (although I appreciate there might be limitations on what they can disclose given that the note is behind a pay wall)
Cash is an issue and it would do no hard for Bidstack to provide some clarity on this, particularly given the nervousness.
Ultimately some will say Bidstack is a dog, others will continue to have significant expectations. If they can keep the lights on in the short-term, then there is no reason it can't make people money. If you don't think they can keep the lights on then sell...
I haven't seen the note, but if it highlighting a step-change in valuation, isn't there also some fairly good news in there also? One would hope that the note doesn't read a long the line of Bidstack is rubbish, but we will significantly increase the valuation anyway.
From the person stuck in the past with all of their comments...
Agreed and a quick look on LInkedIn shows he has gone to Activision to be Associate Director Of Sales
Whilst a few AAA studio's might have the heft to have their own platform and attract advertisers i.e. they have a big enough centre of gravity, there will be a mass of smaller studios that can't. How many advertisers are going to spend an eternity trying to get into smaller studio's games without a broker of some sort aka Bidstack/Azerion.
Also I suspect even with the biggest studios, some won't perceive it as worthwhile and also many brands will also find it a pain to have to go to individual studios one by one.
In other words even if Activision do have their own platform and it is a success, there will be plenty of other fish in the sea
This isn't make or break for Bidstack and as someone pointed out, highlights that others think there is mileage in the area
Aldebaran, what does the timing of bills in H2 have to do with an H1 trading update - even if a bill was paid yesterday or due tomorrow that would affect the H2/end of year figures, not H1. They even state that it is to end of June 2022 i.e. an H1 trading update. It doesn't say H2 trading update + a few days in H2 (PS We want to avoid mentioning a big bill!)
Who knows why they chose today, plenty of other companies are reporting or will report shortly, did they all have big bills to pay? Or are you suggesting that they will announced a raise tomorrow because they are about to blow the lot, won't be able to pay the wages for July and need a panic raise on Monday?
A counter argument could be that they were so excited by the results that they shot them off as quickly as could be?
What would your argument have been if they had delayed and delayed. I suspect you wouldn't have put a positive spin on it would you? Maybe they should check with you what is an acceptable time line - July 15th, August 1st. Aren't the actual requirements within three months? Personally I don't know their psychology well enough to know what game they may or may not be playing.
And as has previously been discussed they were damned if they participated in any raise and damned if they didn't
I'll let others comment on charts, and I really don't get the rest of your comments, it is very easy to make comments such as "lifestyle company", but where is your evidence. You keep lambasting rampers for leaving the station etc, but aren't you essentially doing the same thing
And of course we all want them to be making money and generating cash, that is kind of stating the obvious. I don't think anyone on the board wants them to burn through cash more quickly than they need to, but they are hardly likely to become cash generative if they don't grow revenues and from what we can tell at a better margin to last year. Isn't 160% revenue growth a good thing? What do should they do? Reduce revenues and lower their margins, would that be a success?
Personally my reading of the update would be that they continue to move in the right direction. Would I like it to be quicker? Yes. Would I like them to be profitable and cash generative? Of course. Will they be a success? Maybe, maybe not. Things continue to look better than this time last year, or the year before that, or the year before that. Will they make me some money? Let's hope so...
I wonder if he is a bit panicked using phrases such as "moronic shareholders".
I just don't like people bullying others that's all...
Helx, no I don't think these will be 10p by xmas, but then most of what I would have thought would happen in the world during that last six years or the last forty for that matter hasn't happened.
But I also don't see how it is that terrible or a joke to advertise oneself as an entrepreneur, businessman and farmer. To the best of my knowledge beyond investing all three would be accurate descriptions of him owning a farm wouldn't they?
In fact more so than most people on this board. I am just a salaried jobsworth and I am sure many are.
So where is the joke and it still doesn't explain why you constantly go after him and fail to stick to discussing the share. He and many other believe in the share, you and others don't, we all have our reasons, not of which really warrant personal attacks or snide comments
And I really don't believe his, yours or my comments or tweets are having the slightest impact on this share
Dear oh dear Helx, if one didn't know better, one would think you have a thing for Nigel Hassard. Did he offend you in a past life or are you scared that he might be right? Maybe you just like to bully people? I don't know.
Anyway the snide comments like the one below are pointless. Stick to some sort of constructive discussion on the stock rather than wasting your time with snide comments that add nothing to this board and just make you look childish
And yes I appreciate others do the same thing on the ramping side, however most of that is a direct response to you and your snide comments.
Also I am sure there are other website where you can satisfy and fulfil your needs and desires about specific people. A discussion board on stocks isn't one of them...
I think it does highlight some of the comparisons here though.
Bidstack as a start-up would seem phenomenally undervalued compared to masses of start-ups, given the fact that it is actually starting to monetize its offering. Whilst I would in no way advocate something such as Crowdcube or SEEDRS, take a look at some of the valuations on there compared to where they are in the stage of monetization and then compare them to Bidstack...
Crowdcube and SEEDRS have some (many) companies with insane valuations that are multiples of Bidstack's market cap and yet many don't even have a working product, let alone revenue.
This 75 age stuff. Quick question if 91 year old Warren Buffet took a stake in Bidstack would you complain about the age? What about. 66 year old Bill Gates, he has lots of money, is focused on his foundation and surley must be looking to "retire"
The flip side of your comment Gridz is that yes there might be a few more delays if the standards are delayed a little, but you also infer that one that touch paper is lit, it could sky rocket. So yes it might miss the target due to the standards being delayed a bit, but then it should take off. Of course that isn't what we would like
However, after all of this time, you are being negative based on a delay of a few months. Obviously everyone would love this not to be the case, but it is a nascent industry and getting a consensus can be hard. Getting harmonization is nonetheless critical. This is not different to what '000s of other industries have had to go through.
I am afraid standardization is quite a slow process (lots of vested interests that need to be coalesced into a consensus). Depending on the topic, it can even get quite heated, in a civilised non-LSE chat kind of way.
In the wider world, I think the record is something like 25 years, so a couple more months probably isn't too terrible
If this is the only thing holding back the industry then it is probably in a reasonable place...
Aldebaran, see you you are getting closer to being positive already...you have started using metaphors in your commentary, "one swallow...", next thing you know trains will be leaving all sorts of stations...only a matter of time :-)
I think the trust part is critical and time will tell. The bigger they get the more scrutiny he will be under and I certainly think there is still a case for a professional CEO to come one board. The example that always sticks in my mind is Google/Alphabet with Eric Schmidt.
I am less interested in if he is likeable. I have met CEOs/Execs who are likeable and useless, and others that are certainly not someone I would enjoy a beer with, but were a damn sight better at their jobs and could make the difficult decisions.
I do get some of the concerns over Draper's capabilities, but he did create the thing from nothing, so I think he deserves some slack. Some hype aside, I am not sure if they would have been in a better position with another CEO than they are now (business side speaking, not share price). It is such a new business and in such a nascent area that it is really hard to determine how much more quickly or more efficiently it could have move with someone else at the helm
Guess I must have touched a nerve with poor old Mr Sloane given the post was removed.
Aldebaran on the CEO stuff
- I agree they shouldn't have given themselves a pay rise this year.
- Yes his holding has diminished, but that is due to him being diluted to the nth degree, he hasn't exactly benefitted from it himself. Now yes he has been diluted because they needed cash and haven't/aren't self-funding
- On the listing on AIM. I can't remember the initial market cap, but it wasn't huge and aside from a paper profit at the time, I suspect that he didn't actually make much then. The initial listing benefitted the original crowdfunding investors by a x7, but the company was tiny and had nothing much more than the initial technology and concept
The valuation for the first year was bonkers. It was never worth it at the time. Did Draper hype it? To some extent yes, but it didn't really take much to see that there wasn't much there at the time beyond an idea. I think he just got carried away. I have to admit that at the time, I had effectively written off my investment in Bidstack (when it had been crowdfunded) as I didn't even get the IGA opportunity.
- The amount he made from his later share sale was c.£400k. A nice amount sure, but hardly a massive amount in they way it is being portrayed. He retained most of his stock (and has since lost a huge amount of value on that)
- I also think he has been naïve, particularly in the beginning, but look as his CV, he has never done anything like this before. I suspect it has been a steep learning curve. I also think they missed a trick by not getting a more experience hire to support him
None of the precludes the fact that Bidstack has a massive amount of opportunity and is finally gaining some traction and has every chance of being a success.