Member Info for yasx

This one made me chuckle - from guzzler: "Peer, I'm still researching. What I expect, or at least hope, is to make back my losses. My portfolio is 66% down since March, around �50K. I'm trying to take the emotion out of things and just make money." So, here we have a chap who is sitting on a loss of 66% of his portfolio in a substantial bull market run and his idea to recoup his losses is to pile into perhaps the biggest hype job on AIM. Oh dear!!

"because you yourself are sitting on a loss" A loss? Where? I have been investing for decades, long before you even knew a market even existed. I could state the same to you - you have expressed you are bullish here, now move on having made your point.

Words allegedly echoed privately have nil relevance. The Co has formally stated very recently they exhausted all funding channels and the best they came up with was 30c of the Co. for 210k to keep the lights on. That is the reality - read the announcement at the time of the crystallisation of the placing. If they could access a chinese funder for $30mln for part of the Co, it would be negligent of them to offer 30pc of it for 200k to anyone else. Deal in facts not myths.

I will leave it at that with you since you seem to ignore the key points made by the Co. You keep correlating the performance of ANR with MRS (as you will have gathered, MRS offered a rebuttal to the thesis that any link between the two was likely to be forged). As for any notifiable holder not selling MRS, it is a matter for them, but you cannot suddenly offload 20c of the Co and hope the price remains firm for you so to do unless there is an institutional buyer at the other end _ this may well prevent any selling at this stage, not necessarily a firm belief in the Co by those involved. Moreover, both Hogan and Zorbas are, at best, not even at breakeven on MRS (or if in profit in percentage terms it is not substantial) whereas they comfortably have a profit of over 1000% here. Stick to the facts

Igonre my view if you sowish - but you cannot ignore the view of the Co which is: "The Company faces a difficult working capital situation and, after exhausting all usual funding channels, we believe these new investors represent the best opportunity for the future of Altona." So, they have already exhausted funding options and did so at the time they had the same asset - they even now have negligible cash, a lawsuit they are defending, so what makes you think suddenly all these funders will be clambering to get a piece of this asset at any cost when the Board has, by their own admission, already exhausted all options and only managed to elicit 210k for 30pc of the Co (note: the same Co that has this awesome asset you claim it to be)

I see bulls engaging in hurling profanities - but, curiously they refuse to discuss ANR (which is the purpose of these forums). As for MRS, I am invested and remain so - I have long stated it has considerable potential as a recovery play, but, it does require in my view a more suitable chairman to steer it. But, MRS has nil relevance here. This is a separate entity. ps I ascribe nil weight to Zorbas and/or Hogan in rescuing MRS. As I privately pointed out to Morfew at the time, all it required was sufficient numbers to boot out the former Directors'. Zorbas took his stake, and many retail investors threw their weight behind the same. In my view, Zorbas has since been a hindrance to the Co, but I have no doubt others will see it differently. I was one of a several people who participated in the teleconference involving the then members of the Board, advisers to the Co and potential financiers (post suspension), and one must bear in mind (even if in generic terms) there are always two sides to any event.

"The Company faces a difficult working capital situation and, after exhausting all usual funding channels, we believe these new investors represent the best opportunity for the future of Altona." So, despite having this supposedly gargantuan asset, they tried all funding options and the best they could do was get 200k for 30pc of the Co. What does that tell you about the asset? Is the rest of the mining world so blind that they cannot see the value of this remarkable asset? No, thought not.

Reggie, You write "Not when you research the asset" Surely the Board "researched" the asset a few weeks ago? They considered it appropriate to sell 30pc of the Co. that owns this precious asset for 210k. That is the bottom line. They know the value of the asset better than you do.

Well, if the Board deemed it fair to value to sell 30% of the Co. for �200k a couple of weeks ago then what makes investors think it is suddenly reasonable to consider it is now weeks later undervalued at approx �10 million? Do you not see how absurd the current m/c is?

There are 3 ways to satisfy entitlement to wafers by customer, as follows: 1) produce and supply them - would take 9 months of production- unlikely option 2)Buy in spot market and deliver- based on PV insights who track spot market trends, current value is $0.627 /wafer, at current fx =12.4 million Eu. So award is 34-12 =22 million;ergo leaves 28 million net cash +22 mln award=50mln Eu, or �44mln. 3) agree aforementioned value with customer and net off from overall award of 34 million Eu (this is the most probable outcome) So market cap should safely be around �44 million v current cap of 38 mln so good short term fairly risk free upside (insofar as can be the case), plus other bits thrown in which would inflate the 44 million figure alluded to above. Re legal costs - these are negligible as I understand it so negligible impact and is not dissimilar to a case of each party bearing their own costs even if not technically the case - but, no material impact to be derived from legal costs. For reasons I have just explained in detail, pvcs has virtually risk free (approx) 25pc short term upside in my view. I suspect they will conclude matters in fairly short order since interest continues to accumulate (notwithstanding the fact that the award included all interest up to the point of the award) but interest is accumulating since. Nil brainer in my view

That does make me laugh - same old hype of secret messages propagating on twitter following alleged chat with the Head Honcho. Well, ask him this - why did he sell off most of the share he held in this Co. at a fraction of the current price? As one chap said the other day, research Trevor Brown - do ask yourself why he chose not to retain the substantial stake he had here and instead sold it for a pittance to FBDU? He still holds a significant stake, but why sell the majority controlling holding for a tiny sum (given he does not really need the cash) i this really is set to be a blockbuster. Mugs all over the place soak up any twaddle...

This remains grotesquely overvalued. The reality is TB bought this for a pittance from Feedback and then sold it on to FBDU for many multiples of the price he paid (had it been a blockbuster as claimed he would have held on to it entirely)- but, what is staggering is that the current m/c is many multiples of what TB sold it to FBDU for. This has huge (in my view insurmountable) impediments to secure any meaningful revenues, nor does it have the financial resource to market and penetrate any of the target markets even if the product could demonstrate success. The current m/c is sheer lunacy. This is not worth more than 1 million at best, and the listing is the most valuable asset. The rest is merely for purposes of justifying the listing...

Here is an example of why this product is a joke and will not sell. Take Stone Prevent, which will be sold directly to patients at, wait for it, £500 a time for a margin of around 60%. This is an app to prevent a recurrence of kidney stones and includes twaddle such as lifestyle and dietary recommendations. You could not make it up Take the very serious and life threatening condition essential hypertension – this can if improperly controlled give rise to heart attacks and strokes and up and down the country one can find appliances in every supermarket and pharmacy for around £5 that will enable patients to monitor their hypertension to enable strict control, thus reducing the risk of the aforementioned life threatening conditions. But, even then, most people do not bother to pay £5 to test themselves periodically – it is just not what patients do. So, when you consider the risks posed by hypertension, and that patients tend not to bother, it is inconceivable that anyone will pay £500 for some data that might enable a reduction in the prospect of recurrence of a kidney stone, which is in comparison not nearly as serious a condition. Indeed, a recent research publication in a renowned journal indicated that a roller coaster ride can reduce the risk of the same, and even then those susceptible to kidney stones are not sufficiently concerned to take a ride. It is insane to think anyone will pay £500, and, even if they were prepared so to do, to get that to the wider public requires considerable marketing spend that FBDU do not have. This product in my view only has one purpose – to raise money from deluded nuts by way of issuing equity - period.

So, supporters of #FBDU seek to pretend that the reason Feedback had to sell off this blockbuster Stonechecker product for a mere 45k was because they had insufficient funds to develop it. Really? Well, Feedback managed to raise 750k only a few months ago and it marginally bigger than FDBU, so is it really the case they could not raise what FBDU think is required to develop this product? Let us examine what FBDU only months ago thought was required: • developing and manufacturing the Products (£80,476) for both Products); • conducting further clinical trials (around £70,000); • obtaining CE-marks certification for the Products (£56,333) for both Products; • starting the process to obtain FDA authorisation for the Products following penetration of the UK market (£96,556) for both Products); • setting up a cloud services platform for the StoneChecker product (around £10,000) That’s it – so, it is clear Feedback could have utilised 300k or so if this was set to become a monster within a year – pull the other one chaps. They sold it for 45k since they knew that was a good deal.

How this Co. with negligible assets other than a product purchased a few months ago for 240k is now capitalised at just shy of £3million. A few months ago, this Stonechecker dud (for so I assume) was purchased for 240k without any independent assessment (in my view any impartial assessment would have valued it at far less (see risk identified by the Co. itself), but, be that as it may, let us stick with the 240k for now. Suddenly, a few months later, the Co (which has negligible assets other than this, save for a tiny bit of cash which surely must be running out), and this thing is capitalised at 3 million. How on earth has it achieved such a ludicrous valuation when nothing of any real note has since happened? “the consideration payable by the Company for the Target will be the equivalent of £240,000. As the Company did not procure an independent valuation, there is a risk that the consideration payable for the Target at the time of the Acquisition will not be the “market price”.

Ash, I agree there is no point in discussing matters further since we are at variance as regards our views so will leave it at that. Just on the issue of my alleged attempt to spin this for personal gain, I assure you that is not the case. I suggested it might head to 10p and more on nothing more than a nebulous and brief look, took a few thousand pounds worth of shares for a fun punt before reviewing it properly with a view to taking a meaningful stake. When i reviewed it I thought it overvalued and therefore disposed of my very small holding. Other than that I have no interest, but will watch to see how it fares. I sincerely wish you he best of luck with this. On that note, no more from me on FBDU.

Another fine one from Ash: "Oh and nearly forgot to highlight that, Trevor Brown owns approx. 25% of the company’s share capital and it seems as though he hasn’t finished just yet. So it seems to me he is definitely ‘well aware of this blockbuster product’. But, if he was well aware of the blockbuster, why sell it for 240k to FBDU? Why instead of taking 240k would he not retain 100%? Does he really need a couple hundred k? What is clear is that the company anticipate to breakeven by Q1 2018." So, let me get my head around this. On the one hand you say Feedback required huge investment and funds to even try to make this work, and FAB for the same reason could not give it a go since both were simply too small to make this successful. Bu, in a few months, a Co. as tiny as FBDU on a mere budget of 450k will make it profitable. So, did it really take huge investment? Was it really too big for Feedback, which is several times bigger than FBDU?

"Secondly, Free Association Books (the bookshop) does not have the required cash resources to develop such a business." So what cash does FBDU have? Apart form the 400k recently raised. but, surely T Brown could have put his hand in his own pocket and drummed up 400k and retained the entire asset for himself if it were really to make twins of millions imminently? Cobwebs in the attic..

---------------- Is it the case that Trevor Brown, who, according to some, is well aware this is a blockbuster product set to capture and revolutionise a billion-dollar market, knowing all this decided a couple of months ago to sell the asset to FBDU for a mere £240k? Free Association Books LTD had no choice but to sell the asset as firstly, it expertise lie with publishing books () and not developing and increasing value in a product which intends to be of a service to hospitals, doctors and patients all around the world. Secondly, Free Association Books (the bookshop) does not have the required cash resources to develop such a business. So as the company would not have been able to structure the acquisition and therefore would have lost out regardless. Oh and nearly forgot to highlight that, Trevor Brown owns approx. 25% of the company’s share capital and it seems as though he hasn’t finished just yet. So it seems to me he is definitely ‘well aware of this blockbuster product’. ----------------------------- Now, let me see. Who is behind Free Assoc Books? Who is behind FBDU? Yes, Trevor Brown behind both. So, let me get this right. Trevor Brown, the MD of FAB, has no relevant expertise to retain StoneChecker but has to sell it to FBDU, which has no relevant expertise in the area other than having, you guessed it, T Brown at the helm. Perhaps , on the other hand, he sold it since he made a very useful profit having bought it months earlier for a fraction of that, and can now retain a stake in the outcome of the venture at essentially nil cost to him personally. I certainly would not let go of a business that was set to imminently tap a multi billion market for a few hundred k if that really were the case, would you? No, thought not.

It is impossible for a company of the size of Feedback to try and exploit and master" Yet, a Co. as tiny as FBDU can - gulp. Chuckle chuckle. Make your mind up.