Member Info for Scorpionwinger

I don't think there are any surprises here. Pretty ugly but only in keeping with the reality of trading updates. The question now is will the market give credit to the company for taking the decisive action to deal with the legacy business and if so, whether, albeit with a reduced yield, this will be the start of a turnaround story. If the market believes it is, then there is scope for the market to recognise the current price is way too low. On the other hand, it may want to wait for some evidence of success before giving the management the benefit of the doubt. We have been here before with them! I wonder whether a predator could manage the turnaround more effectively off market. Interesting few months ahead.

An rns is only needed when the order is filled.

If an institution has decided to bail, price drops below fair value to find buyers to match the sell order. That is what is happening. Results 7 march when we will learn more prior to which directors can't buy. Having done my research I am satisfied that despite short term issues, debt is manageable and business is still materially cash generative and profitable. Fair value should be around 80p and with a recovery story 150p. Current price is a bargain and rather than whinging to FCA, buying shares would be a better strategy. By the way I expect a dividend cut, which I believe is fully priced in.

I speak as someone who made £15k day trading this stock today: but wouldn't have an overnight position for all the money in the world. Why? 1. CEO exercised and sold all resultant shares, amounting to over £1m in last 5 months, with last tranche 8 weeks ago, leaving negligible shareholding 2. Chairman having previously sold most of his shares, a week ago stepped down from the Board but carries on being corporate finance advisor 3. CFO is the fall guy and all the mis-statement was down to him, once money was taken of the table. Clearly it was co-incidence that everyone else sold their shares on his watch - check out his recent video interview on proactive investors and watch the body language to figure out who knew what. 4. PWC as auditors were either negligent or were subject to a fraud or both 5 What were Numis up to as NOMAD - they are also potentially liable for damages for negilgence Although I am a big fan of Chris Cole, with a "fraud" of this magnitude and "banking covenants" being mentioned in the RNS, I immediately think Quindell and in my philosophy investing is about calculated not blind gambling. Right now this is a pure gamble until some facts emerge - and lawsuits will fly -and rest assured AiM will be investigating

Yes. She is a friend of Raj the Chairman. He invited her

Tosca were merely reported on as being "incredibly supportive" but of course they are merely a shareholder and were not present. Andy was there. Had a long chat with her. Impressive lady and based on the diligence she told me she had done before joining the company, on the business, the industry and fellow directors, I was left feeling the future was bright

No it wasn't. If you claim to have 1m shares and all but 200k didn't vote I know from the shareholders who did vote that the maths doesn't add up

So full of s&&t

I can assure you lundon79 did not vote against

Ps having just seen the agm vote results, only 6pc of shareholders bothered to vote. Pathetic! I hope the keyboard warriors on here are proud of themselves. Why don't we just give management the keys to the safe and ask them to gorge themselves. Oh we have!

I went. Decent turnout. All pi's. Brian is much better 1 on 1 than as a presenter. Definitely got a good sense of progress and that the issues a sensible shareholder would suggest are being addressed. Still a slow burn to true statutory profitability and jury will stay out til q3 update in my view. But felt better leaving than I did going in. Still have a sneaky suspicion we haven't heard the last of Tosca's intent or which side management are on in that situation. Time will tell. Nb I think sc kept his role but significant vote against

Schroder I partially agree with you but with a very large retail shareholder list personal financial interest often overtakes long term value considerations which an institutional holder would consider and this give rise to anomaly a bidder here can exploit

Rusty Couldn't agree more about the need for clarity and plain speak next week. That said to be technical about it, a takeover bid is not subject to shareholder approval, it is based on how many shareholders accept an offer made to them. Sure if the board wants to be super awkward and not recommend a deal or grant diligence access they can push the bidder to hostile territory but how many shareholders would support the board in not agreeing a deal at a decent premium to the current price. i.e I am talking about shareholder psychology rather than due process. Let's do a straw poll. What would we we each sell for. Based on today, my starter for 10 is that I would only sell at above 40p. Very interested in peoples' sentiments.

With respect Rusty, since the board have negligible shareholding, what they agree or not makes no odds. It's the price at which shareholders will sell. That price was 50p. In my opinion it's now 30p. Brian will give a positive update but I bet it will be so opaque that no-one blinks an eyelid - pardon the pun

Looks like some big buys going through? With the Yume and tremor buy backs and the conclusion (see iii) postings that we are the least worst in a loss making sector, I wonder whether all industry participants now feel more confident the corner has been turned. I am slowly getting more confident although won't do anything before April. If the corner was indeed turned, brave buyers today will look very smart down the track

I don't fundamentally disagree with you save that re the buyback my point is that the only source of shares for a buyback are disgruntled retail investors for whom I don't think selling to provide supply to the buyback is good business for them. As for spending the cash, I continue to believe that the company should not spend money on a share operation rather than either frugally using it to drive the business forward with a decent buffer or returning it to all the shareholders at the same time through a sale or special distribution. For me a buy back is about financial engineering to revive a share price when the business is in fundamentally good shape. That is not the place we are at.

I am not expecting anything great in May other than slightly better numbers than the trading update. What I am looking for is a great deal of granularity and some proper guidance to fy17, so we can all focus on their ability to deliver against a plan next year which we also know! I am sick of management beating their own expectations which we are not privy to and means nothing. If the communication is more of the same and delivery continues to be pathetic then all shareholders patience will run out. The Company knows this. I do believe operationally they have made significant strides, so while in last chance saloon, they have 6 more months to demonstrate they have got it right

I have had some sensible chats with people better informed than us - all above board and based on facts in the public domain. Don't get me wrong. They have to deliver but I was sufficiently encouraged to reserve judgement until the results and agm. That makes me a holder not a buyer. Clearly past communication and delivery has been shocking. I do however now think that some sort of corner has been turned. So I guess I am now marginally half glass full than half empty hence the change of emphasis of my posts. May is critical. Failure to exhibit clear certainty of 17 profit based on h1 performance and then a takeover and/or termination of management become inevitable. Any diminishing of cash from hereonin is a total red flag

The company will not do a buy back. A buy back is useful to enhance earnings per share. Until there are positive earnings it will not improve metrics. To effect a buy back you need liquidity, which would only be provided by disgruntled private investors selling at today's depressed prices, which hardly achieves a return objective. I would rather the company stewards the money on a more accountable business to get profits flowing and then return excess capital, if appropriate, via a tax efficient special distribution. The company is well aware that it needs to beat expectations in its May results with proper transparency. I am confident they will do both. Then they need to refresh their whole broker/pr team to re-energise the story, sort out their shareholder communications and do more to provide a credible board link to shareholders. Again I am confident this will happen Over-riding all this is what are the expectation for 2017 and 2018. Again, I am confident the operational corner has been turned. I still have residual concerns that the market shifts and advertising demand trends are significantly more volatile than management hopes and they will be in a state of catch up rather than being ahead of the game. Time will tell. That said, I do expect small profits to be made in 17 and the biggest question which will drive value is if ebitda can be heading back to £10m for 18. If progress towards that goal can be proven through 2 decent quarters - the current quarter is usually their second best - then a steady appreciation to beyond 50p is on the cards. If there is consolidation, I don't think the board will want to support a sale much below 75p and will not be bullied into a fire sale. The big institutions are patient and my understanding are in for the long haul and supportive. Share price weakness therefore is driven by pi's winding each other up and selling into an illiquid market. While no investor wants to be under water for years, I think direction of travel is positive. You only need to look at the take out price of Internetq relative to pre bid approach to figure out how wrong the market can be on AiM. Tosca are not fools.....

So if my maths is right after after 3q ebitda breakeven, they must have lost up to $4m in q4 off an annualised $40m lower cost base. Time for Tosca to effect their takeover and kick this board of slime-balls into touch. Their statements are random, inconsistent, untransparent and downright misleading. I see no visibility of 2017 revenue or earnings