Yes the chart is looking very good, its showing a move up to 33p area now back test 23/24 has completed.
Good article.I have posted a few extracts.Explains why digital companies like Bidstack cannot be valued based on NAV or earnings especially in early years. Facebook is trading on 50 x NAV for example.
Digital code cannot be listed as an asset on a balance sheet, yet is a huge asset to a digital company.Its the lifeblood of the digital company and reason old metrics that have been used for 100 years cannot be applied.Before tech everything could be measured tangibly.
It’s important to note that companies like professional services firms are also built on intangible assets like human capital. But accounting challenges for modern, digital companies are more severe, as they have increasing returns to scale on their idea-based platforms. For example, Google can service billions more clients with the same office just by adding to its server capacity. But for an audit firm to drastically increase clients, it would likely need more manpower and office space. Furthermore, costs of services for professional services firms, mainly wages, are matched to current revenues. So their income statements accurately reflect surplus created in that period, similar to industrial companies. But for digital companies, the bulk of the cost of building an idea-based platform is reported as an expense in its initial years, when they have little revenue. In later years, when they actually earn revenues on an established platform, they have fewer expenses to report. In both phases, the calculation of earnings does not reflect the true costs of revenues.
On February 13, 2018, the New York Times reported that Uber is planning an IPO. Uber’s value is estimated between $48 and $70 billion, despite reporting losses over the last two years. Twitter reported a loss of $79 million before its IPO, yet it commanded a valuation of $24 billion on its IPO date in 2013. For the next four years, it continued to report losses. Similarly, Microsoft paid $26 billion for loss-making LinkedIn in 2016, and Facebook paid $19 billion for WhatsApp in 2014 when it had no revenues or profits. In contrast, industrial giant GE’s stock price has declined by 44% over the last year, as news emerged about its first losses in last 50 years.
Why do investors react negatively to financial statement losses for an industrial firm but disregard such losses for a digital firm?
In the 2016 book The End of Accounting, NYU Stern Professor Baruch Lev claimed that over the last 100 years or so, financial reports have become less useful in capital market decisions. Recent research lets us make an even bolder claim: accounting earnings are practically irrelevant for digital companies. Our current financial accounting model cannot capture the principle value creator for digital companies: increasing return to scale on intangible investments.
This becomes clear when you look at a company’s two most important financial statements: the balance sheet and the income statement. For an industrial company dealing with physical assets and goods, the balance sheet presents a reasonable picture of productive assets and the income statement provides a reasonable approximation of expenses required to create shareholder value. But these statements have little salience for a digital company.
Let’s first look at the balance sheet. Assets reported on a balance sheet have to be physical in nature, have to be owned by the company, and be within the company’s confines. However, digital companies often have assets that are intangible in nature, and many have ecosystems that extend beyond the company’s boundaries. Consider Amazon’s Buttons and Alexa powered Echo, Uber’s cars, and Airbnb’s residential properties, for example. Many digital companies have no physical products and have no inventory to report. Therefore, the balance sheets of physical and digital companies present entirely different pictures. Contrast Walmart’s $160 billion of hard assets for its $300 billion valuation against Facebook’s $9 billion dollars of hard assets for its $500 billion valuation.
The building blocks for a digital company are research and development, brands, organizational strategy, peer and supplier networks, customer and social relationships, computerized data and software, and human capital. The economic purpose of these intangible investments is no different from that of an industrial company’s factories and buildings. Yet, for the digital company, investments in its building blocks are not capitalized as assets; they are treated as expenses in calculation of pr
https://hbr.org/2018/02/why-financial-statements-dont-work-for-digital-companies
Everyone knows they need to issue more confetti to acquire an asset thats actually worth anything,im guessing 2p,lets see.
this looks like a very interesting proposition,spent some time researching.May buy some next week if opportunity presents.
Which CO buys and ramps via TR1 you should be selling your stock in to his buying volume... why? well you know whats coming next. He is going to sell out (wait for the video with Steffani where he says UJO will be next BP or Shell yadda yadda, this is likely when he is offloading). Only once he starts slagging the company off (which he always does - means he fully sold out) then you buy back in for less.
Big SELL signal currently even if you are a long term holder here.
Good luck to genuine holders and sorry you have this parasite involved currently, it wont last long.
always a turd....
Directors have secured their salaries for another 6 months so they'll be popping the Champagne corks... of course all at the expense of shareholders and thanks to the 6 man crew that pumped this all of a sudden yesterday who probably got a pay off on the side.
AIM is corrupt need to keep your eyes wide open.
Remember the names ramping this all of a sudden yesterday. Same people do it every time.
seems a nice round number.Just a guess
one of the worst jurisdictions for oil production given red tape and the reality is it will never produce but even 2020 its at least another year away.Given market cap here its obscenely overvalued still.These assets are worthless and they don't even hold large stakes in them.
I mean shouting about 1mmcf net of production that may happen in another year frankly is a total joke.its peanuts
Better day here
Cash burn is going up all the time with al these new team members.The amount of ramping going on on twitter and Justins podcasts is getting a little ahead of itself.Guess is £3-5m raise at 10p nice round numbers.
They Raised £3.5m at IPO,£700k when on listing costs and all associated costs gives £2.8m remaining.Listed for 3 months.Cash at year end = £2.1m
Thats £700k burnt through in 3 months
Current cash projected £1.4m
Theyre going to need to raise again in next 4 months, question is when.I'm sure brokers will be keen to capitalize on this fabricated hype.Its done 300% in a few months.
my calculations suggest they'll need to raise soon.
10p a guess
From what I can see,that's fair value here.£3m cash in bank and an array of 3rd rate assets.How much skin in the game do directors have here and what salary are they on?Thanks in advance
Disgusting.
Zorbas and Hogan two of the most corrupt on AIM and that's saying something! Karma will come their way soon enough.Just how bad they have been at covering their tracks on this latest scam shows they are getting desperate.Sadly for them they have been routed out like rats.
Be careful. This article just about sums up this business.
"Management supporters keep on asking why shares in this company appear so cheap. Well it depends how you define cheap. If you look only at earnings per share then you might say Management is cheap but only a moron would do that.
The recent interims showed a company with NEGATIVE net current assets of $17.4 million and additional liabilities (largely loans) due in more than 12 months of another $5 million. While the company reported a profit before and after tax of $3.5 million and $2.644 million ( those earnings), the amount of cash generated from operations was materially less than capex ( which appears non discretionary, i.e. has to be maintained to keep plant moving) and (small) loan repayments. So this is a business burning cash and drowning in debts. It can only keep going by a) using incredibly expensive last resort invoice discounting debt facilities, always a red flag, and b) by stiffing suppliers by paying bills in a less than prompt fashion.
So a crap business, drowning in debt, burning cash, does all share transaction on a crazy valuation with blokes operating in an utterly opaque fashion. What is not to like?"
Link: https://shar.es/amkmvJ
When supposed growing profits are not converted in to actual cash then you start to smell a rat