Member Info for RichTheNewbie

That wasn't a sell. The 60k in the morning was almost certainly a buy. It just gets flagged as a sell because they raised the ask lots (probably to fool people like you :p).

Urgh, great start to that message, think I need a holiday.

It's always going to be going to be prone to be being very overvalued and very undervalued Robbo.

Simply by nature of the fund being in early stage, non-listed (generally), tech companies.

Other funds, which might have a bunch of shares in BP/Glaxo/Apple, are a lot easier to value because the NAV derives from things that you can individually easily place a market value on (by looking up the market value of their holdings).

It's double edged sword, meaning you can benefit by getting a bargain if you feel its very undervalued, and you can further benefit by selling if you feel it's very overvalued.

I haven't got the foggiest what you're on about barwick.....but on the bright side....the ask just ticked up a whole 0.7p to 7.5p now.

So far, by my calculations, I make it 198709 bought, and 209615 sold (as of 14:34).
So less than 11,000 difference in buying and selling, or about 730 quid (ie nothing).
Typical AIM games.

oldmanriver - well that's actually the most logical conclusion! Really doesn't make sense any other way.

Personally I think the last couple of sells at 6.7/6.5p are bonkers and can only be capitulation (and nothing fundamental justifies it).

I therefore firmly believe we're pretty much at the point of capitulation on this graph:
https://media.springernature.com/lw785/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-1-4939-1092-2_1/MediaObjects/183030_2_En_1_Fig10_HTML.gif

not meant = meant

I'm not doing very well this morning am I. Think I may have to triple check the report I write today!

Lol. His dealing costs were probably more than the value of his shares.
I know some AIM stocks are called penny shares but that's not meant to refer to the share price not the total value of the money you're investing!

So yeah, you're obviously correct, in that even without any significant rise in the valuation of anything, the NAV should be somewhere around 12p per share, give or take. I'll go get a coffee ;)

Sorry you said per share. Crossed wires. Too early for me.

Last interims the NAV was £18.4m:
https://investegate.co.uk/fastforward-inn-ltd--ffwd-/rns/half-year-report/201812121252072751K/

Where do you get 12p from?
The last presentation had their valuations at £15.5m, plus £2m for EMMAC, plus remaining cash after placing (which would be £2m plus whatever they had before).
So surely the NAV would be over £19.5m unless they've reduced their valuation of anything.....

I think, if I remember rightly, the remuneration was only £29k in total, in the last annual report (for all of the BOD).
Which is essentially nothing.

Plans can, and do, change.
I'm not saying they will.....but simply that they could and I personally think a buy back would have a much higher certainty of returning shareholder value than a new investment.

They do.
However, if circumstances change, and you have the chance to buy back shares that you think are worth say 15p or 20p (which presumably they would bearing in mind previous buy-back prices).
It doesn't mean you shouldn't necessarily adapt.
They question is whether they NEED to execute plans or in fact there is better value to be had by not executing them.
Without knowing any more than you - I'd personally say they'd really have to be going some to make it better value than buying back at these prices. That's up for them to judge and the proof will be in the pudding.

Yeah, we know they haven't, obviously :p
My point is, they SHOULD restart the buyback at these prices.
Circumstances dictate opportunity.
The opportunity might be more investments (or increased ones) or the opportunity might be a low SP.
Personally I think there's much more likely to be much more opportunity in a buy-back at current prices than another speculative investment which would need to perform miraculously to outweigh the benefit of a buy-back as things stand.
The lower the SP the more valuable a buy-back is and the less attractive a new investment is.

What do you mean they've said they've scrapped it?

Are you just referring to them stopping the previous one? (and therefore could simply just start another)

Considering the previous buybacks were going up to prices nearly triple the current SP it would make a lot more sense to resume at these prices not when the SP is at its highs.

Obviously fine after finals.
I think they can before, with some caveats, ie not holding price sensitive news (but then they should be RNSing that anyway). Or can do it if time-scheduled (so would just have to set out amount to be bought and the dates).

They would still have approval already under resolution 2 wouldn't they?
https://fstfwd.co/uploads/documents/inline/pdf/notice-of-meeting-of-shareholders-dated-18-july-2018.pdf

(they may have it earmarked for other things - but personally I can't think of a much better use of funds at the current prices as it would effectively multiply the returns of all existing investments and any extra investment in something would have to do spectacularly well to outweigh that effect imo)

I don't know exactly what the cash position of the company is.......but whatever cash they had before the placing towards the end of last year, added to £339k from the Vemo sale, added to the £2m from the placing (£4m - £2m Emmac investment).
There should be a decent amount of cash in the coffers which they COULD do a buy-back with.
Personally I think it would be a very good use of funds to start buying back any shares they can, on-market, under 10p, and thereby substantially increase the potential returns from the company if things go well, whilst also having the benefit of providing support to the SP in the short term.
I hope they consider this seriously (or even better....do it immediately).