Member Info for RichTheNewbie

Standard AIM agenda.
Share comes near lows and you get someone (often more than one) who tries to scaremonger so that they can buy whilst they panic others into selling.
Nothing new.
I seriously doubt it's anything to do with your dog chilston!
More likely he has a partner in crime who'll nickname himself hedges.

The only thing I'd say is......we know about the FFWD BoD's cannabis links and there's also the Nuuvera in that article.
I wonder if essentially FFWD will end up being offered shares, at a discount, in this new cannabis business, rather than the loan being repaid.

Yeah - so rather bizarre to change your name to reflect the mining business and, immediately after, totally give up on the mining business, and have to change it again!

As I've not got long to read all of that properly (as I'm off to the football shortly).....all I'll say is none of that makes any sense.
We're going to rebrand as Cryptologic to better reflect the business type.......yet......"It is contemplated that, upon and subject to closing of the proposed transaction, Cryptologic will be a single-purpose cannabis company".

doggo and Matador - this is your opportunity to try to put that giant mass of text into plain English. On the face of it it's a mess of nonsensical related party transactions.

No accounting for taste ;)

At least the trading seems to have settled down a bit. Can't help feeling the past few days were simply the millionth reflection of the lack of AIM regulation. With the suddenly inexplicable rise prior to an RNS, then settling back to near where it was before, when the content of the RNS is revealed to be neither good or bad, but indifferent.

The more I think about it, the ideal scenario for me (and I think everyone), would be a LEAP sale for a surprisingly tasty amount, and then commence a buyback programme, to further reduce the free float. The less shares in issue the more impact any good news from any of the investments will have (aside from any immediate and direct impact the buyback would have).

doggo - it’s rare I’ll be on your side for long. Because I’ve got little time for one-sidedness. However, at the risk of agreeing with you again, I’ve got bored of ODONNELL’s garbage and think it’s quite clear it’s just a trader (or traders since they love to type “we”) trying to play the part of a novice and posting essays depending on whether they are in or out to get others to buy or sell.
“They” reliably seem to not seem to understand when things are “buys” or “sells” despite having it explained regularly.
So, bluntly, they’re either too thick to understand these explanations (which aren’t difficult), or they’re playing the fool. It surely must be the latter....Boris is quite busy at the moment.

I was discussing the fall of the pound with a mate today, with regards to it making takeovers more attractive for foreign companies, unrelated to this.
However now I think about it....with the MCAP low and SNG001 looking very promising....it’s surely got to be increasingly tempting for a foreign predator to just make a takeover bid outright (or a domestic one anyway without the benefit of currency discount).
Even triple or quadruple this share price would be a relatively small price to get 100% of it (let alone the bonus proceeds from a LOXL2 deal). Many of the large shareholders (especially Woodford) might be happy to cash in.

Yes. So that's exactly what I said doggo.
Hence my point is that FFWD only get a small uplift in valuation from the raising being at a higher price because their current holdings are low.
It may potentially therefore be beneficial if the raising price (and amount) is low because those shares converted from the SAFE agreement would represent a much higher proportion of the company.
Any future uplift in value of the company, as a result of developments, would then be much more valuable to FFWD.

If I'm wrong or someone missing something, please explain what it is, I just don't see what's incorrect about what I said, or the benefit of the price/size of the raising being bigger, other than the small increase on the existing seed holding.

doggo - the $6m is going to be worth $8m (whatever the size of raising and whatever the price) isn't it?
The existing 400,000 seed shares are going to be the only ones that raise in value aren't they.
So doing the maths it's $8m + 400,000 x price per share in the raising.

Hence my point, we'd logically own more of the company, via the SAFE $6m, if the raising price is low, and size of the raising is low.

What part are you disagreeing with?

I read it but I don't see the relevance.
If FFWD had a large number of units/shares (or percentage of the company effectively) I would understand.
Ie, the value of your units/shares gets pushed up by a later fundraising showing what they're worth, however my point is FFWD don't do they. They've only got 400,000 (worth £548k at last FFWD estimate). So even if that doubles or triples it's not a massively impactful thing to the overall worth of FFWD.
And the SAFE deal simply results in us owning $8m worth regardless of the price.

What are you saying is different?

(if FFWD held a significant amount of Factom stock that would rise in that scenario I could understand that - but they don't)

doggo - for what reason(s)?

(and then shortly after that announce massive deals which see everyone realise it's worth loads) :p

Robbo - but that would result in us getting a much smaller percentage of the company, than if it was at a small valuation, would it not?

doggo - I'm massively confusing myself now.....but isn't this a massive double-edged sword.

We hold a small number of Seed Series shares (400,000 valued at £548k in the last presentation - ie £1.37 per share).

The larger the fundraising the more diluted those shares become.

The higher the price the more those shares are worth but either way might end up in only a marginal gain overall.

$6m is a much larger amount and going to be $8m worth at whatever price the raising is done.

Therefore the smaller the raising, and the lower the price, the higher the percentage of Factom that FFWD will own?

So, in the weirdest possible way, it would surely be beneficial to FFWD for the raising to be for a tiny amount at a rubbish price.............as it'd make their Seed shares temporarily worth less but they'd own a much larger percentage of the company.

Or am I getting even more confused?

Kier - I think you're right and I was confused. Just trying to work through the implications in my head again (probably doesn't help I was on the **** last night at my usual poker night :p).

I may be being a turnip Kier - I understand what you're saying.
Think I need to re-read to check (problem with trying to think, read, and post when I get spare moments at work :p).

So, if you're not with my logic yet, $6m investment at a price of X, if raised at the average rise for the next series, would be 2X, and then there's the 25% discount.
I.e. $6m x 2X / 0.75 = $16m

Yes we do.
If they raise at the same price as last time, $6m is $6m, but with the discount it's $8m worth of shares, as doggo mentioned.
However my point is that the average price rises between funding rounds was set out as I described (although obviously there's a lot of variance and this is just an average taken from a site analyzing it).
My post was just highlighting what Factom's stake would be worth, if Factom raise at a price which has risen by the AVERAGE multiple for VC rounds, and how impactful that would be for this.
Of course it could be at a higher or lower multiple than this (who knows).