Member Info for skid35

Argument number 3 falling apart over on advfn like a very cheap suit.

The really really really funny thing it's not even correct and for the wrong reason (note below "although this could be a pull forward").

Bobarth had lost the argument twice, has no where to go and it doubling down on his third brilliantly illogical, arithmetically incorrect argument.

Amazing how he twists everything to support a point of view, just good that our police werent as gullible as washing machine.

1. bobarth states the two rnss (dates April 6th and may 27th) is less than a month apart ?

2. Bobarth still doesn't comment on the differential time periods over which the supply is due from the two rnss and the two are not directly related, even when there is the hint for the initial delivery "50% over previous assumptions" (although this could be a pull forward).

3. Bobarth stating what might have actually happened 18 months later in different circumstances is 100% irrelevant, it's what's they planned / expected at that time.

Just a note for bobarths new gimp. You can't slander someone for stating published facts available in court records.

1. 100% agree with bobarths 10.00 post on advfn. Read what he says I posted and read what I have actually posted.

2. Who to believe on rnss? Dplewis, a seasoned city professional with a leading institution or bobarth?

3. The thing with bobarth is he thinks everyone else is stupid. The early april rns forecasts units for the April 21 - March 22 period based on tarana orders at that point in time. Two months later not only would that have changed but the 2m is now for a completely different period of April 21 - Dec 22, with april 22 - Dec 22 monthly run rate surely a multiple of the april 21 - March 22 rate as well as in addition - and for a totally different quantity. So another pile of complete and total rubbish.

A little pathetic when he logs himself back in as other posters to agree with himself.

Not sure what he thinks he will achieve? Tarana appears a fantastic company and hopefully an order should give ENET some financially stability if DL doesn't f up again, but in the meantime DL allowing Bergen to continue screwing existing holders.

Interesting reading Bobarths post yesterday, which says I have said 55 a chip is right which I have never said and questioned it - while quoting me saying the opposite.

After telling him the first thing he got wrong he's rewritten his numbers (again) as he knows 100% with his "most likely" scenarios. Firstly the $740k has now moved to h121 where it actually states an h2 delivery in the rnss with a massive pull forward of revenue rnsd for the following year pulled forward - numeric gymnastics which just don't add up.

On his 22 revenue assumption. Bobarth, you need to adjust for the r&d revenue which they have rnsd, which again changes everything.

It's amazing Bobath still hasn't cottoned on to the delivery of different products during this period at different prices. Also the price adjustment clause in the hw which may have increased prices which may now have fallen away. Buying COTS components, where you had no prior real customer relationship and then when you need 1000's in a short period would be 3-4x price.at that time.

I think when you're daily instructions are to pick Doris up to get her corns done but don't rifle through her handbag, your analysis skills aren't great and you start an argument in a telephone box with yourself.

Its important as it determines when the next order will be and the cash runway for other development s to mature.

Hull.

You reposted verbatim a post from someone with zero personal credibility, and who has been wrong on everything on enet.

I stated it was factually incorrect and said where to look, you didnt have the curiosity to do so and look a little foolish with your last post.

Let's take the first fact to show how everything falls apart. Revenue for h221 of $740k, which isn't even quite correct from what they said they would do from the

rns. So from the rnss what did they achieve, from the geo splits Us revenue in total is £381 of which 100-200 is non tarana. So about a third of what they said they'd do - about the right proportion for enet level of execution.

If you read what I have said I have put the number out there but have never said it was correct as there are so many variables to take into account which we don't know about. I have pointed these out to you new best buddie who has filtered me.

Can you give me your number, I'll practice my best Nigerian prince accent.

Mickey, quick hint - check out the geographic splits in the accounts (final and interim) before you comment on "facts" from PATT, you'll be quoting Andrew Tate next.

https://www.accountancydaily.co/charity-fraudster-jailed-isleworth-crown-court

Embarrassing is you kids coming home and having their laptops in evidence bags in case there dad has used them. Embarrassing is going cap in hand to your mother in law to pay your fines. Embarrassing is the police IT team laughing at your cut and paste attempt on one of your bosses emails compared to What's on the server.

Stephen, you seem like an angry gb news gammon type, zero facts just bluster.

What's your view on the unit price ?

Stephen and mickey.

Take it or leave it, the $55 was from the horses mouth - all the other PIs in the room also slightly taken aback by how low the number was.

It is the most important number, as without it as have no clue on the potential. What unit price have you built in to your modelling ? On any estate software refresh what % of this would be charged.

1p ? Absolutely. It could be 5p if the stars aligned - massive tarana order, massive refresh stopping further dilution, Chinese orders reset and stock sold, a uep licence deal with a prepay, pon / ftth movement etc.

Hull.

Stated very very indiscretly by DL, with a frowning MR looking on, at a face to face London private investor meet.

Having said that that was the same meeting as " we are working with cisco and juniper" when they had a phone call with a lowly employee, so take it with a pinch of salt.

They seem to have burnt through a lot of cash.

This isn't cash for working capital, if they do get some decent size orders with a long cash cycle there's going be be a lot of cash flow excels about.

The key question is what is 1. When is the next tarana unit order 2. the forward monthly run rate from the next contract 3. Have they secured an existing estate software refresh.

Key to 2. Is unit price which they have stated is $55 one off all in, no on going recurring fee.

There are no unit sales to Tarana (either from the order last year or any follow on orders which some have assumed do not need to be RNSd), from what we had been told there are no standard annual / quarterly software maintenance on the existing estate - so for "results" a bare H1.

Hull.

I took the RNS as the approval being a formality (a nod and wink well before signed approval), as such I really can’t see this impacting the share price.

Providing of sufficient value and embedded monthly run rate a Tarana order would have this higher, a separate 100% margin refresh of the existing estate with new software depending on value per unit (whether it’s priced as a minimal upgrade or something more substantial) could give them a real cash runway - provided DL doesn’t spaff it all on yet another shiny new project.

The three month share chart, a gradual drift down from c 8p, is telling.

They need to get their results (with full balance sheet disclosure and notes to the accounts) to show improvement, and then a forward view for current year. Lack of any signifcant RNS wins, showing a replacement and increase in backlog (which they are very poor at communicating), needs to change - a real gear shift is required to show no more dilution.

As in all industries, future winners taking the slice of 24.3bn tend to be those already with a large slice of the 18.8bn.

The main problem with the 100,000 tonne statement making it relatively meaningless is 1. through managing the opportunity there are no progress close dates, or close of a contract / initial order or manufacturing start up subject to an existing royalty rate 2. There is no indication of how such a deal would scale through to these volumes over a period of time.

Without these the market will just view these as, yet another, statement from SOH which falls apart subject to any level of detailed questioning based on a track record of execution which is terrible. The market correctly has probably a less than 10% chance of this converting to meaningful near term fruition.

Bought a bit in the last fundraise.

Impressed with the management team - really focussed on a few key KPIs backed by actions, they also know how to operationally execute rather than MBA type strategising.

JW is a narcissist buffoon. About six months behind the times.

It's the facts that are left out you need to look at. What is the decline in the gin market, rum market vs distils decline ?

Maverick.

100% wrong.

His shareholding is from when he floated the company, diluted by the 10 of raises but offset where he has also added to his holding. He has actually bought in the open market as well.

Doesnt mean he knows what he is doing when he has invested though.