Member Info for Silverblade

Blimey SJL - now there’s a comparison I never saw becoming - TH v Bernie Madoff!! But I get your point. I hope matters can be resolved without further financial stress for current shareholders - but I also know that requires a two way discussion. SB

I wondered where you were yesterday hucks! Bonkers eh. I think SJL got a bit caught up in historic issues and when pressed it became clear recent accounting treatments have reopened one of his 'scabs' - and the debate ensued! Posters are correct - this is not the place to discuss potential litigation against the company. My fear - as is the norm with US legal approaches - is the level of any claim is likely to start out disproportionate to any real settlement - and that could really spook investors. Which is why I would rather the company opened lines of communication with SJL to see if any of what may come can be avoided - certainly out of courtesy if not necessity. Leaving this to courtroom debates is a recipe for lots of legal fees and unknown outcomes - and given our track record I'm not hugely confident our defence would be as strong as we might like based on our management teams historic performance. Our team need to focus on our future - not defending our past. You do wonder what our II's make of this latest predicament. Wonder how may sales will be soaked up in our buyback - and whether that money would be better used in negotiating with SJL - although i appreciate these are my views and will not reflect all those who post here - but our credibility remains shot to pieces and this will not help matters. SB

SJL - I remember you referring to your communication with the business - I am surprised at the reaction from the company - albeit clearly I am somewhat removed from the detail. It looks like this may have to run its course if both parties are minded that way / not great for either party imo given the opportunity for an alternative to support the business when it needs it. Appreciate your candour. SB

SJL / you have made a strong case for your position and others in ICM and as you say if the roles were reversed how would we feel. The irony of that point is we have felt it all / we were here for the write downs, the bad debts, onerous contracts, the strategic review ‘sale’ process, over zealous director options, poor partner deals, revenue treatment etc - and now there is a potential damages claim. I appreciate - and in many ways concur with where you are - but ask whether there may be an alternative to any claim if you could offer genuine support to the business in return for an agreed form of compensation based on certain targets. This is purely hypocritical but I am trying to understand how far down the line your thinking on this matter is and whether there are alternatives to the man in the wig. Or can we expect an RNS in the morning? SB

Kitekat - it’s not been a great day but your post doesn’t help does it. To suggest investors will ‘loose’ everything is absurd. SJL has an issue with specific warranties - likely given in relation to certain revenues/sales - which may or may not have been given in good faith and which now turn out to be suspect in relation to how income was received - or not as the case is likely to be. So the warranties are likely limited to certain areas of the business - I agree with SS on the Chinese theory - and as such whilst concerning, are not likely to be of such a magnitude that the business is at risk as you infer / nowhere near. It’s not ideal granted - but let’s get this into perspective. SB

Just another day in mmx world Ezzza. We will just have to see how this one plays out and hope the core business and new team can generate some positive impact. Now the issue is out in the open (to some extent) I wonder at what point it requires to be clarified at RNS level - or not. Painful....SB

SJL - re my post of 18.26

“ and I have NO reason to doubt otherwise’ - sorry - it’s been quite a day. SB

SJL - you have certain details which obviously no one else here would have been party to - and I’m pretty sure recent accounting events have brought that info to the fore. It what you post is accurate - and I have reason to doubt otherwise - there is a level of accountability in the material content of such statements and the question probably centres on whether there are caveats sufficient to protect both parties / in our case mmx; in yours ICM shareholders. The worst aspect of this is we should all be on same page where where this type of behaviour has occurred in condemning those responsible - but as noted - this becomes difficult based on our current positions. As for the ‘flying the kite’ comment - my comment stays - once lawyers get involved there is an element of uncertainty to any outcome - it was not intended as a criticism. SB

Hi SS - and thanks' for your post. I didn't think for one second my response to Scotty today would have led us here. I guess I always try and be objective in any posts - and to try and reflect a balanced opinion despite any overriding emotions myself. Don't get me wrong - this latest situation horrifies me - i am beyond the end of my tether with mmx and am amazed at how many times a company can provide so much disappointment. Sadly there are many examples of shareholders groups who group together in class actions against companies - but that tends to be in the event of administration, bankruptcy etc. We have a business - goodness knows how - which despite everything is limping along with signs it might be ok - but our legacy continues to throw rocks. It does sound like SJL asked for clarity on the warranties and was rebuffed - was he flying a kite - possibly - was he entitled to based on his position - yes imo. I agree with you 100% on the looking forward agenda and making sure you don't crap on your mates - and its not right remaining shareholders have to deal with this issue - but if there was wrong doing then the TH's and MS's should not be allowed to get away with it. Our issue is they probably do - it is the business which suffers - which is where we have a divergence of opinion with previous shareholders. ATB - chin up! SB

No problem SJL - and your frankness is appreciated - and given the catalogue of issues demonstrated here in abundance its not surprising to hear that our one acquisition (which probably saved our bacon) was possibly not done with 100% integrity. If there is any justice, it should be former directors who are culpable if any breaches are identified. You'll forgive me if I don't wish you all the best in any action against the company - but still good to hear from you! SB

SJL – I have for some time had at the back of my mind the ICM warranty issue – and had noted such previously here. I guess I was taking some comfort from your recent posts on the appointment of TF and potential scale purchasing as a sign you were looking forward. The reality is no one here likes to hear the awful truth about what has been going on in the business – because we have all been taken along for a ride – and whether that’s £1000 or £10m is just a question of personal position. If I was in your position – I’m pretty sure I would be on the same page as you are. This is where it becomes difficult for existing shareholders – all who post and read and comment here and others who don’t – to accept that the company has been run in a way which is simply not acceptable on so many levels – despite the appearance and sales gloss so clearly evident in its ‘marketing’ – and has a potential claim coming its way. I don’t believe you have been anything other than honest with your thoughts and position – it’s just that’s sometimes difficult to hear as an investor when we keep on thinking we backed the right horse. This latest part of the story is another sorry chapter – and has the potential for further disruption and impact on the company’s valuation/credibility – which is fragile to say the least. Many here are sitting on considerable losses – and if we were being honest and believed we had been ‘wronged’ – would seek redress if there were reasonable grounds to do so. I’m sorry it comes to this – and let’s be honest – it simply should not come to this. Perhaps you will find a way to re-engage with mmx – and vice versa - I hope so for all our sakes. SB

SJL - It goes without saying your response does not make for good reading and I suspect will add to the ongoing concerns here – and raise significant concerns for a number of investors here. At the heart of our problem is the 2m vip and work domains in the non-adult side of the business. I would suggest these low value sales are distorting the business and the calculations you have noted. If we strip out 2m DUM’s at $1 each – that’s $2m out of your $6.4m – leaving some 300K regs generating the balance and averaging about $15 each. I have not had time to do an in depth review.

I can understand your frustration in not being provided with the information you requested – but equally I think the company is still in a fragile place and TH and BD are likely to be conservative in what can and cannot be shared until they themselves have a true handle for past events and current trading – accepting I think you were seeking clarity on issues pertinent to the ICM deal itself. The latest trading update should have sought to draw a line under accounting issues – with confirmation on high renewals, decent operating cash flow, cash in bank and a $3m buyback.

What is very concerning is the tone of your post and an insinuation of more pain to come. That instils a level of fear for current investors at a time when we had hoped the worst was over. I am reasonably clear as to your course of action and the potential impact for those invested here. I guess we should be thankful for the heads up. SB

Scotty - FWIW i did a quick review of the year to date in market cap terms. We started the year with a £70m valuation (7.5p average share price - 920m shares in circ); took a disproportionate covid related hit which we never recovered from prior to the revenue announcements in October when the business was valued at £53m (5.9p share price - 907m shares in circ); then dipped to a low under 4p in Nov - intra day about 3.3p - so the business hit a £30m valuation; and now we are back to £44m with a 5p share price and 886m shares in circ. So in net terms - we are £26m down in value from the start of the year (and we were over 8p at one point) - but based on the above the larger element of that was as a result of covid - not the $1.7m accounting issue. Last years net income was down $1.9m; but our first half 2020 was up! So what does this tell us - well its pretty clear that the impact on a business of being trusted, honest and transparent in relation to its accounts - combined with confidence in its management team - is very important and the valuation impact often reflects a lot more than the mathematical numbers - but equally there are external factors which need to be taken into cognisance - and the ability to recover from those are linked back to to the point on trust, confidence, leadership, best practice etc! And the stark reality our current market cap does not reflect the underlying value in our business - but that has been the case for some year now and the gauge will not shift until there is a compelling investment proposition (which is based in earnings and future distributions imo) or someone makes a consolidation play based on our low price - but with so many shares in II hands they would need to support from them or a bid would go nowhere. Not sure if that helps but sometimes it helps to reflect on what has been one crazy year in so many ways. ATB SB

Keep up the predictions YHAL - slow progress but I’ll take that for now. A year ago we were at 7p - again not great but a nice target if we can deliver the numbers envisaged for this year. SB

YHAL - was clearly thinking just the same! SB

Don't disagree Hucks - the only area where we might see some reasonable support outside the buyback programme would be from our II's (or possibly SJL) - lets not forget they collectively picked up the best part of 70m shares at 6p earlier this year and despite the revenue issue announcements L+C have continued to purchase - and no one has sold - so there is still support (probably a bit thin...) that we can get this right. SB

For the first time in a long time we have seen buybacks four days in a row - ok its not huge volume (920K shares at a cost of £46K) - but its soaking up small sells and establishing 5p as the new price floor. It would be nice to see this pattern continue - we know we have the capital to increase purchasing - and to move the price up before the January trading update. Still appears to be lots of (low value) vip, work registrations going through - hopefully we will see some clarity next year on how we intend to properly monetise our portfolio. SB

Good points Hucks and bakky. There’s so much historic pessimism kicking around here it’s difficult to move forward without looking in the rear view mirror - and seeing multiple motorway pile ups! But we need to move on somehow - and hope the new team can take a business with clear potential (and there is reasonable evidence to support this as we know - no debt, decent sales, profitable, cash generating, room to trim costs etc) and make it a company which moves away from its past into a strong and investable business which operates in line with good practice and is run by a competent, experienced and respected management team. SB

CNIC is certainly growing a business of scale through its significant acquisition programme funded by both debt and share issues. I have not been through their 9 month results in detail - but note the business is making a significant trading loss - almost $10m in the red - albeit tax credits have improved that to a 9 month trading loss of c.$7m. Despite this - their valuation is at an all time high - and the future direction of travel is likely to remain focused on acquisitions with reasonable organic growth from their existing businesses. Investors clearly see a strategic plan and are prepared to support the business without a dividend or buyback - and a bit of risk with so many businesses to streamline into one organisation which is servicing a large slug of corporate debt. Meanwhile - back to mmx - lets close out this year and focus on the year ahead - much to do! SB

It’s maybe a bit early SS - but yes there is a need to communicate a proper strategy - let’s call it a business plan....and not the type that’s closer to a fairy story than what investors deserve. I would like to see confirmation that TF is permanent - or otherwise - and whilst I’m not a huge fan of the buyback let’s use it and take as many shares off the market at this price as possible in the next 4 weeks. Early next year I expect a trading update with real numbers and a proper investment led strategy - preferably covering the issues on pricing, a review on our strings and how they fit into a new strategy, what resources we need to run the business - and what the plan is for shareholder returns. Simple eh!! SB