Member Info for skid35

God help us - eleven recommends, are there that many stupid people?. Just given a calculator to an 18 month old chimp to do this homework.

Existing shares 150m, new shares 150m, 50% dilution.

150m for $1.3m, so 0.9 cents a share.

No the entire 150m has not been traded.

Rooney.

It sounds like they have signed the contract which is 100% binding but it's just the formality of receiving a purchase order which is perfunctory, I don't think they're be an RNS for the PO receipt.

Could have done with a bit more detail on the customer - location, upsell opportunity etc.

No mention of cash, hope no surprises to the end of the year here. Revenue seems set here for 23, now about orders forming the backlog for 24.

I let this settle a couple of days, but might add as I've a nice tax rebate coming plus my standard 1.5k monthly sipp payment.

Take a look at a couple of other AIM companies

- Corero. Cash placing with Juniper (yes the same ones DL said he was working with) took a 10% stake and one of their channels.

- Thruvision. Pentland as a customer put money in as they though the tech was so good even though they are not a tech company.

Mickey,

Unless you are a techie in the telecoms space you wont have a clue on the pluses / minuses of ENET tech vs the competition now and for future markets. Then on top you have ENETs ability to sell and contract.

Unfortunately we do not have independent gartner / forrester reports to see where ENET is.

However every major US tech company has a ventures arm (google, cisco, juniper, microsoft, dell) and so many specialist PE tech houses with really forward looking, bright techies in - at a couple of million (really not even 2p behind the sofa to these guys) would have expceted the slide rule to have run over ENET tech a few times by now ?

I stopped predicting ENET share price long ago.

Anyone believing they have a high or medium level of certainty without inside knowledge is mad.

All the prior funding (to cover working capital on contracts they were just about to win and didnt)

- were at a materially higher share price and market cap - therefore a smaller % dilution

- had Miton as the cornerstone investor taking up more than its % existing holding, now sold after repeated promises failed to materialise with DL just not executing.

The major issue here is the chinese contracts - as there has been no RNS I assume these are dead in the water, leaving stock and debts to be impaired and a gaping whole in the balance sheet.

If the company wants even £500k it really has got to massively discount the funding to get it away, a vicious circle with Bergen getting shot at anything over their buy price.

ENET unfortunately remains a poorly managed mess.

NS20. I dont post here to be an idiot like 90% here, I am trying to provide context.

1. This is a prepayment, no further delivery as the customer has the code to use it in accordance with the licence terms. In essence this allows the customer to use a quantity of X licences in (not for) X years (and will have extension terms for additional quantity usage) in perpetuity, they have security of supply.

When you do a prepayment licence the terms depend on the expected usage and how each party is desperate for revenue and cash, so ENETs position very very weak commercially.

2. The code does not need patches or updates. How do I know i) they are recognising all of the cash as income so no pcs carve out ii) this is embedded in a highly secure system which is end to end tested to the nth degree - you don't want updates or restrict these to very high priority such as security / safety.

3. I doubt this is the most advanced tech, if you have access to code through escrow a decent programmer can pick this up.

Background - thirty years plus in tech (primarily s/w) in US tech on commercial finance / bid and contract management. Recently working in an organisation with s/ware embedded in advanced space electronics / instruments whose customers have similar requirements.

Ns20. so much misunderstanding here.

1) This is structured as a licence prepayment. ENET has delivered and it allows the customer to use the licence for a defined quantity, time period and application. It is fully tested with no post contract support. The up sell is a change of licence terms, code for other applications.

2) DoD will have a set of terms which the Tier 1 needs to ensure it follows. This is structured by product type (eg on hardware use of COTS or specialised components) - for software it may include ISO or other standards, Escrow held in the US in defined companies, not using Chinese / Russian parts etc. DoD will not have poured over ENETs accounts and financial stability.

This is simply wrong.

The DOD has approved the technology of which the enet product is an element from the Tier 1 for a safety / security / stability etc for use in defined circumstances.

It has not approved ENET.

McNulty in Acacia seems like a right ****** by the way

SGD - thanks for this - Is there anyone we can write to in the FCA at this grubby little transaction ?

I wrote to investor relations over the weekend but have yet to have a response.

I did take a long look at the annual report to look at the directors remuneration to see the personal gain they would get at the expense of shareholders, as they are not acting as directors should. The terms of share options are a little murky.

It was interesting to see the notes on bonus, basically we'll ignore the terms of the performance bonus and pay the CEO double it anyway.

Flava.

More than anything ENET need a hard nosed COO, the CFO had no tech experience and it really showed, and the CEO has no commercial nous. Agree the board have been the proverbial chocolate tea pot.

Can you list the "plenty of news" split between

- contract related (existing contracts new orders on tarana / existing contracts on chinese oem, completely new customers) and your view on income recognition, margin and the working capital requirements.

- your assessment of how they will get back on an even keel from a cash / working capital basis moving away from being insolvent.

Monty.

Yes - a very impressive performance across all metrics - key is food and labour costs under control so they cannot be far from a breakeven revenue number (difficult to understand from this update) with high fixed costs of store operations.

The non execs and the chair have done an absolutely appalling job since the float - added zero.

Good riddance.

Bergen are not and never have been the issue here.

The level of understanding of ENETs products, markets, competitors, management team, financial position (p&l, balance sheet) and required business model from recent posters is pretty much non existent. The company is not under court supervision due to bergen.

My background not bergen. Qualified accountant with 30+ years in commercial finance, fp&a, sales operations , contract management across emea in multi bn $ US tech. Pre retirement now working with some of the brightest brains in the uk, well above my set of brain cells. Unfortunately realise the mess ENET are in and the problems they face - if the twenty year old tictoc investors here want to filter me, no problem.

So Rick.

What was the hurry then to conclude the agreement with Bergen at those prices, they have plenty of time under the court order ?

The share structure was based on sound legal argument from Bergen, it wasn't in ENETs control.

As I have said previously, I expect ENET Directors told Bergen a few very deliberate and now easily disproved porkies to get the cash (as they did directly with PI and Miton), and Bergen have the written receipts to make ENET directors personally liable.

Without doubt the most stupid post ever on any site in the history of the universe.

The market cap just goes up, the current share price assumes this but the market cap doesnt.

The current market cap is just shares in issue, but isnt really correct.

Looks to have a great background, clear US focus to the company now - if this was on nasdaq I think this would be valued at 2-3x the london listing.

Share options seem a little steep compared to what is offered in the UK, but this is waht the market is like in US companies - hopefully lower base and completely aligned to shareholders.

So someone invested in tech doesn't realise you can have two email addresses.

If you understood the very basics here it's just that an email address exists.