Member Info for Tricky_Dicky

I think things will just moodle along, without real traction, until we meet the requirements of a U.S. listing.
That is where the real support lies.
Tremor do not yet have a good enough track-record to make the leap.
If Tremor were able to achieve a performance approaching the likes of NASDAQ-listed ad-tech companies we would not be where we are, stuck on AIM and therein lies the rub.

If Tremor waited until the sp had doubled the price it paid, on average, for its treasury shares. (T.S.)
Not sure of the exact figure, then it could issue T.S. for existing shareholders at the ratio of , say 5 to 100.
At this ratio, every shareholder will receive 5 T.S. for each 100 shares they have.
Again I am not sure how the ratio would best fit with the number of shares both in circulation and in treasury.
Additionally the sp would rise and there may be tax benefits as they would perhaps not be classed as a taxable dividend.
Only speculating wildly, of course, and more likely Tremor will use the treasury shares to fund a further acquisition.

£3 after 2 years would be brilliant.
£15 after 2 years would be impossible.

stt1,
Yume, listed on Nasdaq, were taken out by R1, listed on Aim.
Therefore your argument that R1 had a 'perfect opportunity' to list on Nasdaq is false.
R1 had no prior presence on Nasdaq.
If Yume took out R1 then that would perhaps be a different matter.

I would strongly recommend stt1 reads a book on shares for beginners, maybe:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Investing-Shares-Dummies-David-Stevenson/dp/1119962625

The stuff about the cash held by Blinkx, declining post-Edelman, is not very relevant as a measure of success or failure of R1 as it switched to mobile and acquired several outfits in order to compete in a changing landscape that decimated others in the field.
Yume was acquired for $185 (1/3rd in cash, 2/3rd in shares)and R1 clearly stated at the time:
'RhythmOne does not currently intend to list the RhythmOne shares on a U.S. national securities exchange, and therefore a U.S. trading market for RhythmOne Shares may not develop.'

Except for the fact that R1 operations closed, owing to the change in the business direction of Taptica, are no proof of anything untoward.
Tap bought the outfit (R1) knowing that business changes were on the cards and were fully prepared to bite the bullet.
To suggest that Tap should have done greater DD implies that they were unwise.
Or is stt1 just milking his own ego - Again!
If I buy a house without employing a surveyor I am I then unwise if I feel that I am prepared to put up with historic issues without demanding a reduction in the price of something which I really want and understand to suit my purpose?
I can use a surveyor, who will charge accordingly, but I can equally offset the charge (of a survey) against alterations which will always be necessary in a changing climate.
Sense and sensibility are often ahead of pursuing negativity by hindsight.
R1 struck a good deal, and instead of nit-picking over minor issues, Taptica accepted future charges arising.
May well have benefited from tax reduction accordingly.
There is no perfect deal and sometimes you discount the likely imperfections in pursuit of a greater good.

Look at it this way:
Not everyone buys a property ( a house perhaps) on the basis of a surveyor's report.
They may even engage a surveyor, yet ignore the report suggesting that a new roof is needed.
They may well go ahead regardless, if they think the property met their needs.
Due diligence is all very well, but if you buy into something that may (rightly or wrongly) be declared
later to be a p.o.s. then it doesn't really matter if you can turn it around and still make a profit out of it.
The perception of what constitutes a p.o.s is relative and a rising market can overcome the cost of
improvements to the roof.

People will only start taking them seriously when they are listed on Nasdaq.
Rubicon Project merged with Telaria and are now called 'Magnite', (MGNI).
Nasdaq listed, of course.
The Trade Desk (TTD) are another leading ad-tech company
Nasdaq again.
Tremor are still chugging along on AIM and don't meet all of the Nasdaq listing requirements.
'Magnite and Tremor' sound like quarry demolition companies.
Has a certain ring to it.
A takeover by a company listed on Nasdaq, is that possible?

What was R1's track record when it was acquired by Tremor?
Many thought R1 was a p.o.s. with a very poor track record, with skeletons in the cupboard and fudged accounts, but Tremor clearly felt otherwise, saw an opportunity and marched ahead, tying Unruly in for good measure.
Either Tremor will continue growing in the same vein or can add value, on many fronts, to another entity looking for opportunities, for parts that fit their business without having to start from scratch.

A future acquirer would be talking to management and major investors , not waiting for the sp to grow and grow before mounting a deal?
Seeing the potential and suitability of fit more than anything.
We/ they already know what Tremor do and how much cash they generate.
A question might be whether you would accept shares and be part of the new company?
Or take, possibly £3 and disappear off the scene?

Unruly were never fully tucked into News Corp, and the strategic rationale for the acquisition was never very clear, aside from just owning the asset, was there a greater vision?
There was no obvious rhyme or reason why a media conglomerate would want to own Unruly, who primarily functioned as a standalone unit and continued to serve other publishers as well as their corporate owner.
Unruly offers a marketplace that connects both buyers and sellers to video inventory and will provide more opportunities now, to both the huge media conglomerate News Corp (with their stake in Tremor) and to Tremor itself.
Clearly Murdoch's News Corp believe that they have found a better home (for Unruly) and will reap rewards, and of course the same goes for Tremor.
A win-win for both Tremor and News Corp, with the latter paying some of the integration costs and getting a sweetener from Tremor, who are also guaranteeing News Corp £30 million ($39 million) in revenue over the next three years, and 6.91% of their stock as part of the deal.
There may well be some risks but the rewards could be immense.
A clever move in my opinion as News Corp are set to be in Tremor, with a stake in making the sale of Unruly successful.

R1 was already a global programmatic platform and Unruly's SSP massively expands the reach and quality of customers.
Clearly, then, R1 already has SSP and is boosted by Unruly.
We know, in depth, how Unruly targets customers and being connected to News Corp I see no reason to question its effectiveness except in terms of business gained.
I agree that we need to see the figures once the mist has cleared.

Safi123,
I really don't see any reticence about Tremor's actual operations.
They state quite clearly that their strategy, via core growth engines, is to focus on CTV, Self-serve and PMP platforms, which they say are coming to fruition.
They believe the CTV, Self-serve and PMPs platforms are significant growth engines for the business and will define its success over the coming years.
You go to suggest that we rarely get real insight into the rationale behind acquisitions.
In the case of Unruly that is simply untrue.
In the case of RhythmOne (including the assets of YuMe) the businesses said to have been integrated seamlessly to deliver a number of unique benefits and advantages.
Tremor is a cash generative business with a strong balance sheet, despite the effects of covid.

bald_eagle,
That's like suggesting that if people buy anything, from property (houses) to multi-million pound luxury yachts, outside the controls of a trusted and regulated agent, then there may be criminal activity to consider.
I believe that there are money-laundering processes applicable to private business, just like those operating through a recognized agent. Deals should be declared and taxes paid where applicable.
If deals are not declared then you may well have a valid argument, but in this case they were declared.
I suspect that big deals are done privately (off-market) mainly to avoid agent's fees and that is fairly sensible.
The smaller players may be in no position to act outside the realm of agents, but we can't blame the bigger players, with private connections, from attempting to bypass the middlemen who take their cut for providing a service/taking a risk.
In the case of diamond buying, many smaller players (you and I) would seek a trusted and establishes company to buy from, only the bigger players would be in a position to have access to ways and means of dealing amongst themselves.

Bald_eagle,
If you hover the mouse over the 'i' at the end of the list you will see 'delayed publication' indicated and an earlier time-stamp for the 250k 'buy' is shown near to the quantity transacted.
Thus the larger deal of 250k occurred first, often whether it is listed as a buy or a sell has to be inferred, especially for off-exchange trades.
We know all buys have to be matched with sells, the 250k and 125x2 deals were 'off-exchange' and this makes it more like guesswork to determine sells or buys.
Data suppliers have to infer a direction for themselves. In some cases, it may be inferred wrongly, and in others, it may not be possible to infer a direction at all.
In our case it looks more likely that the first (delayed 250k) was a sell and the 2x125 were buys.
We can never really know what was happening behind the scenes and what arrangement was made.
To speculate on any illegality would be a little presumptuous, perhaps.

For AIM (low liquidity) stocks you generally see 'O' trades and they are based as sell or buy depending on whether they are traded below or above the mid-price. They operate under the SEAQ system, with market makers using their 'spreads' to compensate for the risk involved in holding stock for any length of time.
This much is reasonably accurate.
The recent 250k was a delayed publication and 'off-book' so it is difficult to determine exactly what happened.

Plus (for stock with high liquidity) there is the SETS system (introduced in 1997) with its own set of criteria, matching sells with buys at the same price, in this case it is listed as an 'AT' automated trade and can be misleading to interpret.
The LSE combined reporting of the two (SETS and SEAQ) to further add confusion.

Because the London Exchange indicates thus-wise.
Most 'aim' companies experience OTC buying, off-exchange, via computer terminals and emails/phone calls.
In an 'over the counter 'market the dealers play the role of market makers, as they quote the price at which the securities and other financial instruments are bought and sold between the participants. Conversely, in case of an exchange, the trading exchange is the market maker, as the prices are determined by the demand and supply forces.
Bigger companies tend to use the exchange, whereas companies not listed on the main markets do not.
In general, those companies which do not fulfill the prerequisites of the relevant stock exchange for listing their stocks, trade them over the counter.

'O' means 'off book'.
Both parties operating 'off book' may decide to make a trade report, bringing the transaction ‘on exchange’ and creating a public record of the transaction.
250k sounds to be 125k x 2 and is misleading and too co-incidental to be taken as a separate purchase as reported.

https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/81/idiots-guide-to-the-london-stock-exchanges-setsmm-0379.html

There are two trading systems, off-book and order-book.
The large trades you highlighted were 'off-book'.
Therefore buys and sells can be difficult to determine.
This causes confusion.