Member Info for RichTheNewbie

LBInv - that's the real concern.
If they've f*cked up the figures for the Factom percentage. It's either shoddy and incompetent,or deliberately misleading.
Which then means it affects confidence in any other information/figures they put out.
Simply saying the current figure is correct is lame and dismissive and frankly unacceptable.

Sounds rather like doggo is in need of basic education in all areas.

I already did contact the company on Twitter.
Reply saying percentage was correct came fairly quickly.
No reply to the one about the yoyoing percentages - which I suspect is for the most likely reason (numbers are wrong).
I wouldn't rely on it being mentioned in the interims either. They would most likely only mention the percentage that they just have (or a higher one if the SAFE has been converted).

barwick - none of that was ever in doubt. That's not what was being questioned. What's being questioned is their statement of their past percentage ownership of Factom which doesn't look right.

robrob you aren’t answering my point and LBInv was just trying to help you see why you’re missing the point. Off to bed as this is getting nowhere.

I think it may well be correct but doubt the previous info can be.

Robrob you’re missing the point. Again. Read what LBInv said.

On the mobile now but look at the sept quarterlies I think which were in December. Current March presentation is 3.7%.
Basically look through the previous quarterlies/annuals (and presentation) and look at the percentage share whilst the number of shares stays the same. Doesn’t add up imo.

I think you're missing the point robrob. Like someone on Twitter who said similar.
There could be some convoluted scenario where they've quoted a percentage following series B dilution and then will subsequently quote a higher percentage following SAFE conversion. I discussed that earlier but I don't think that's very likely.
Even if that wasn't the case it doesn't really explain the up and down of the stake in the past therefore I think this clutching at straws trying to make the solution more palatable but doesn't really work.
The percentage of Factom owned will undoubtedly rise when the SAFE is converted but that doesn't explain or excuse the previous numbers in the presentation or quarterly reports.

Problem is they won’t give you an answer because they suspect I am right and are therefore just spamming links and insults to cover it up. That’s how these gangs work.

I am assuming it’s lazy copy and pasting without checking figures LBinv.
Not accounting for dilution as a result of fundraising by Factom.
That’s extremely poor but still better than the alternative which is they gave the historic figure because it looks better!

As team-ramp haven’t provided any explanation it’s safe to assume they didn’t know the answer (or because they now realise it’s one of these options - neither of which are good).

They're saying it's the correct figure.....which means I think they must have ballsed up previously and not updated their listed share of investments to take account of dilution, both in the presentation and in the RNSed half yearly accounts.

Hopefully there's some other explanation, but that's very poor if so. I've asked them to clarify.

That was my original guess but I'm not so sure that stacks up really and would likely happen at the same time as the raising. Should find out soon enough what the case is.

I think it's probably going to be a mistake. Bit of a coincidence they once had a 2.06% stake in Vemo. I think someone's got copy&paste happy and messed it up. Otherwise it's slightly harder to work out why.

Well since nobody seems to be able to answer this I've asked them to confirm if correct or a mistake.

Although, thinking about it, if the funding is done you would think that $6m would have converted and the share of Factom would be higher.
Any ideas why the share of Factom is only 2.06% now - down from 3.7%?

That equity percentage is less than in the last presentation (3.7%).
So if anything it looks like FFWD have been diluted down significantly :/
However to have been diluted down one would assume that the Series B funding has been done.....otherwise how has the stake reduced.

Just amusing watching the gang overhype every piece of news saying it's going to make the share price rocket and it never does.
A touch of realism would be nice instead of crying wolf day in day out.

Someone just dumped a load - perhaps they expected a boom - and were disappointed when it didn't ;)

LBInv - fair enough. That's not unreasonable. Just didn't think it was entirely correct to say it's trading below published NAV as such without caveats like that.