Tom Winnifrith Bearcast - 26th February

Comments

1. ---

   filthy lucre

   26 February 2015, 12:13

   Tom

   We look forward to you admitting that you were wrong on Quindell in that case.

2. ---

   dasv

   26 February 2015, 13:02

   Russell “thesaurus” Brand question:-

   Typically web start-ups and now App start-ups start with zero “revenue streams”. Their aim is typically to land-grab a user base (forgetting that such user bases are fickle: remember Friends Reunited, Myspace, Bebo?).

   Once they get to a certain level of audience traffic (or in Audioboom’s case – streams/downloads), they can then present their offering to advertisers who will pay them for ads.

   The problem Audioboom have re: RB is that he is all over twitter and has his own youtube channel already. Why does anyone need Audioboom as well to listen to his verbose diatribes?

   Unless Audioboom can convince advertisers that the increase in traffic from RB is sufficient to reach critical advertising mass, then the impact of RB on BOOM revenue will be zero. Even if advertisers are convinced, the revenue impact will be immaterial although relative to previous rev. of £50k odd might be a 100% gain. Maybe.

   p.s. trying to make money pre-christmas from his book “Revolution” wasn’t very Che Guevara, was it?

3. ---

   Temptress

   26 February 2015, 13:36

   A post on the BLNX thread on ADVFN:

   Does anyone who was at the AGM understand the context for this morning’s RNS? It looks as though blinkx has breached Resolution 5 of the AGM and appointed PWC one year early without shareholder approval.

   At the risk of being labelled a deramper again it looks like the usual ambiguous/misleading release by the blinkx PR team, unless there was some discussion and approval of changing auditor part way through the year at the AGM. If Deloitte has in fact resigned as auditor part way through the year, whether in response to losing the tender for FY16 or otherwise, then the RNS should have explained this.

   The RNS states that “in accordance with Resolution 5 of the 2014 Annual General Meeting, the Company has concluded a formal tender process for its statutory audit services…the Board has appointed PricewaterhouseCoopers (“PwC”) as auditor for the financial year ending 31 March 2015”

   And yet Resolution 5 of the AGM according to the blinkx site is:
   “To re-appoint Deloitte LLP as auditors of the Company in accordance with section 489 of the Companies Act 2006 to hold office until the conclusion of the next general meeting at which the accounts of the Company are laid.”
   This resolution was passed with 95% voting for it.

   The notes for Resolution 5 said that “the Board, on the recommendation of the
   Audit Committee, has determined that the Company should conduct a tender in respect of the role of Group auditor, with a view to the successful firm performing the external audit for the year ending 31 March 2016. Deloitte will be invited to enter the tender process. Any new firm of auditors appointed by the Board for the year ending 31 March 2016 will then be subject to appointment by the shareholders at the Annual General Meeting of the Company to be held in 2015.”

4. ---

   Temptress

   26 February 2015, 13:44

   Per the AGM notice:
   Resolution 5
   To re-appoint Deloitte LLP as auditors of the Company in accordance with section 489 of the Companies Act 2006 to hold office until the conclusion of the next general meeting at which the accounts of the Company are laid.

   Per todays RNS

   Change of Auditor

   London, England and San Francisco, CA – 26 February 2015 – blinkx plc (“blinkx” or the “Company”) announces that, in accordance with Resolution 5 of the 2014 Annual General Meeting, the Company has concluded a formal tender process for its statutory audit services, facilitated by Independent Audit Limited.

5. ---

   Paul Scott

   26 February 2015, 15:56

   Hi Tom,

   Thank you for your praise for my stance on Tungsten. I still like the concept of what they are doing (offering invoice discounting through an e-invoicing platform), but on reflection I think the shares were over-promoted by the company itself, and there are questions emerging over how significant the take-up rate of the invoice discounting offering will actually be. The company has thrown around huge potential numbers, but now it’s time for them to translate potential into reality, and hence the market is now a lot more sceptical.

   If I get my views on companies wrong, which we all do from time to time, then in my view it’s easiest to just admit it, apologise, and move on.

   Also I do want to heavily emphasise, that I never, ever give share recommendations to readers of my blog on Stockopedia. It’s purely a news & views blog, on a site where we are passionate about explaining things to readers, to educate (particularly newcomers) into being able to do their own research. Having said that, I recognise that sometimes people are influenced by my views, hence why I apologised to my readers over getting TUNG wrong.

   Keep up the good work, I really enjoy your audiocasts, and listen in every day!

   Regards, Paul.

6. ---

   wildrides

   26 February 2015, 16:11

   OBT holders ………….. sp drop today allegedly caused by African Min admin sell off of their OBT shares , so no need to flap . Should go back up when overhang cleared .