Member Info for yasx

You seek to explain the reason why Feedback disposed of StoneChecker as follows "Feedback announced that they had taken the project to a certain stage and they knew that huge resources and investments would have been required to continue to further develop and commercialise the product" Tell me dear chap, how on earth do you think a minnow like FBDU will access such "huge resources and investments", and, even if so, at what cost to existing holders of equity? All well and good you trying to take excerpts form the prospectus, but do at least try understand the guff you seek to advance since elsewhere you were the one indicating the Co. was fully funded with no requirement for cash for years to come, if at all.

2What 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? Do you even understand what you put in print?

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?

More still from Ash: "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.

You seek to explain the reason why Feedback disposed of StoneChecker as follows "Feedback announced that they had taken the project to a certain stage and they knew that huge resources and investments would have been required to continue to further develop and commercialise the product" Tell me dear chap, how on earth do you think a minnow like FBDU will access such "huge resources and investments", and, even if so, at what cost to existing holders of equity? All well and good you trying to take excerpts form the prospectus, but do at least try understand the guff you seek to advance since elsewhere you were the one indicating the Co. was fully funded with no requirement for cash for years to come, if at all.

Listing: I will throw in a another few hundred k. Remnants of recent equity issuance: Say, 300k Other assets: Nil. So, £1 million looks a very optimistic but reasonable valuation. I will throw in some more for this pre revenue outfit on the basis that it might get a product by the final quarter that is commercially viable for purposes of sales, and that it might generate during 2018 a few sales. So, have another 500k since I am a rather gracious chap. Even then, one comes to 1.5 million. It is currently overvalued at 2mln. How on earth some are suggesting it is worth 100 mln or whatever beggars belief. This is completely detached from the underlying reality. It would require an exponential rise in sales for some considerable time, nonoe if which is even remotely likely or indicated by the Co. So, come on bulls, tell me which of these facts is incorrect? Point me to the evidence? Each of the points I have detailed above can be backed up by evidence, mainly from the Co. itself. What a bunch of clown - luring in the novice mugs and being remarkably audacious in criticising anyone that tells it as it is. These plums on twitter run some sort of dictatorial regime seeking to suppress any counter opinion with horseshit, abuse and pictures of silly rockets and fireworks. This gracious chap is not for turning.

KingOfKeighley, Your points are duly noted. I have laid out just some of the significant concerns that exist, but, notwithstanding the rhubarb from EarlyInvestor, the cheerleaders on twitter have been unable to refute a single point. Seeking to affect little shifts and subterfuge to avoid the force of argument is hardly a compelling rebuttal. The reality is they know that the points I have raised are lifted verbatim from the information laid out by the Co. but which these nuts neither understand not have the ability to assimilate. Their view is confined to something along the lines of 'it is a low m/c and Trevor Brown is on the Board and endless ramping is bound to see this illiquid tiddler move higher'. If EarlyBird suggests that the points I have raised in my previous point have been addressed, I put them here again and ask him to answer (not with expletives and personal insults to conceal the fact he has no answer, but with hard facts). Here goes 1. Is it the case that just over a year ago the main asset of FBDU, Stonechecker, was purchased by Feedback for one thousand pounds? The answer is Yes. 2.Is it the case that Feedback then sold the stake for 45 times that amount (i.e 45k but for one half) some months later to Trevor Brown? The answer is yes. 3. Is it the case that Feedback, who knew the product inside out at the time of the sale having refined the software, indicated that they did not think it appropriate to justify sufficient spend on this product and preferred instead to concentrate on their other products? 4. Is it the case that Trevor Brown, who, according to people like Early Bird, 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 (but still considerably above the sum paid for it)? 5. Is it the case that despite all the talk from the twitter nuts and those like Early Bird, the Co. has confirmed that sales of a mere 450k are expected next year? 6. Is it the case that even those sales are only anticipated if the Co. is able to conduct additional trials, overcome regulatory burdens, and engage spend in significant marketing and sales campaigns? 7. Is it the case that the sum of 450k raised recently has already been earmarked for initiatives laid out in Point 6? The answer is yes. 8. Thus, ramping aside, on a pure valuation basis, is it the case that a m/c of 2 million (58x3.5) this looks to have plenty of hope already factored into it? Yes, thought so. Summary: Illiquid tiddlers can be ramped to various unjustifiable levels based on buying by deluded nuts. But, from a valuatiion perspective (and in the long run everything reverts back to value, the old adage of weighing and voting machines), this is worth as follows: Stone Checker/Prevent: 240k - last crystallised value. I will be very generous and double it even though no tangible developments have since occ

*If this has the ability to 'revolutionise' a billion dollar market in the near term, why did Feedback, who essentially developed it, let it go to Trevor Brown for 45k only months ago? *If it so clear to you that this will capture billions or tens of millions in sales very soon, why did the founder sell it to Feedback last year for one grand? *Why did Brown sell it to FBDU last month for 240k rather than keeping this gargantuan business soon to be yielding billions for himself? Philanthropy? "the aggregate purchase price for the Target, on the basis that 8,000,000 Consideration Shares would still be issued to the Sellers, is now £240,000 as the Company’s share price at suspension was £0.03" *As for all these sales,it is not even ready to be sold, nor is it even certain that it will clear hurdles to be able to be sold. From the prospectus last month: " In the event that the results from the fourth study are unsatisfactory the StoneChecker product may require further trials in order to prove whether or not it is capable of commercial sales" FBDU's words, not mine. *This is what the Co. expects in terms of next years sales: "it will be possible to sell 30 units of the one-off server version of the software in the UK during the first twelve months of launching the StoneChecker product at a target price of £15,000 per licence" ie £450k. That is sales, not profit. So, strip out all the cash and investment to get to that stage, hardly a monumental offering is it. Obviously, the 450k raised is all but accounted for (the prospectus details in itemised form how the funds will be used for purposes of ongoing trials and obtaining regulatory approvals. Where will they get additional funds from to develop and market this next year? Don't ask me, ask the Co, it clearly states: "Once the Net Proceeds have been exhausted, the Company will be dependent on the income generated by the Target and its business to meet the Company’s expenses and operating cash requirements" Think those 450k in anticipated sales not likely to go very far next year...