Arthro Kinetics Share Discussion Threads

[the jabawoker] 05/11/2003 09:19

no probs mate

[stewjames] 05/11/2003 09:17

the jabawoker, I'm sure it will be, but I don't much care. It won't be the first time people have said that and it won't be the last. I'm normally proved right over the long term.

I've already been reminded by nissi beach that I should possibly give a little more credit to tax losses than I normally do and realised that I should pay more careful attention in these situations to who the creditors may be. Worthwhile, don't you think?

[the jabawoker] 05/11/2003 09:12

mate

i know what ur saying, but it is going to be construed as "he missed the boat and is deramping" .

thats how its coming across.

peoples strategies are their own business, leave them to it.



imho

[stewjames] 05/11/2003 09:10

the jabawoker, I've learnt far more through "bickering" with people on these boards than agreeing with them. That's not to say my views aren't genuine though.

I'd like to hear any fundamental reasoning why people are buying. I understand from the pure trading point of view.

[nissi beach] 05/11/2003 09:07

1st buy of the day welcome aboard

[stewjames] 05/11/2003 09:06

nissi, yes I know. The tax losses are cancelled out by the market cap though and the premium remains at a bit less than 1M. However, AKI have stated they're looking for business opportunities in OTHER fields. If they do this, then the tax losses will be worthless.

Regarding the creditor, yes it could well be ONL. I hadn't thought of that. That increases the chance of them cancelling the liability significantly since they'll be the biggest losers if AKI delists.

[the jabawoker] 05/11/2003 09:02

stew

ive no interest in this share whatsoever, i dont think u have too, so why the constant bickering with everyone. u wanted the header changed the author changed it. end of story

your views r ur own, and u have made ppl aware of your thoughts my friend, leave it at that now or u will be seen as a deramper.

[nissi beach] 05/11/2003 09:01

remember a RTO will release the P&L loss to save tax for the right company.

[jonc] 05/11/2003 08:53

Carry on posting Stew.

You are of course absolutely correct about Akei it is a crock of poo.

[stewjames] 05/11/2003 08:31

logica2me, I'm aware you've been pushing microcaps for a long time and now appear to have built up enough of a following to sometimes make a material impact on shareprices. More and more frequently, that's becoming the initial push in this current market, which on the penny share level is in love with momentum. What worries me is that as your following has increased, so the quality of the companies you recommend seems to become secondary to the illiquidity. Yet again you appear to have targetted an extremely illiquid share with seemingly nothing much going for it other than a very small market cap. What is there to support the price in the long term when you all stop buying? Can you explain to me the motivation for any company to reverse into a shell valued at a premium to assets of around 1M? I've asked this on the OND thread which you also started and seems a very similar situation, except the premium there is 5M. At least that one might have some hidden off balance-sheet value with the tech. How does that apply to AKI?

I'm not "deramping", I'm commenting based on factual information and asking related questions, asked because I genuinely want to know the answers. The best way to shut me up would be to answer them.

[nissi beach] 04/11/2003 22:19

with joe onboard another OND?

joe so were you or you followers the 12K buy at 12p very early yesterday

[nissi beach] 04/11/2003 21:46

the only way to really know is another set of results.
Are the creditors also major shareholders/directors from the previous company.

Do you know how the split from ONL was done

the statement in june 03 that the directors are in discussions to benefit the shareholders is still encouraging enough for me to have a small punt

[logica2me] 04/11/2003 21:44

Stewjames

You've probably seen my record and it speaks for itself. For your information, I have been covering this share over the last week and followers have been buying in.

I'm seldom wrong, so please stop trying to deramp and either buy or leave this thread.

Joe

[stewjames] 04/11/2003 21:33

Good point, nissi beach. I've been informed by an accountant friend of mine that the criteria for another company to use tax losses are tough to meet so I tend to ignore them, but you're right, to the right company they may have some residual worth.

However, you're not right on the liability. It can't simply disappear from the balance sheet, unless the creditor cancels it (unlikely). The most likely outcome is the creditors agree to a postponement in payment in the hope AKI will raise the cash from somewhere (after all, the company has no cash. It's not as if they have a choice) or possibly the money to pay is borrowed from another source (like transferring a credit card balance to another card for example) Either way, the liability will almost certainly remain in the "creditors due within one year" column.

[nissi beach] 04/11/2003 21:19

stew

normal balance sheets do not matter infact the worst shape the better to some extent. Yes the p&L account is in bad shape -1.9m but this is an asset in a RTO.

A business making 1.9m profit can use up the deficit and pay no tax so 30% of 1.9m so approx value 600K plus your 300K equal 900K or 40p per share

the 1m liability less than 12 months was at 30 june 2002 so will not be there now

[stewjames] 04/11/2003 20:55

Only the ones I know something about, double6. I used to have an interest in ONL and AKI came out of that.

How much do you think an AIM listing is worth? Personally, I would say no more than 300K. So with its 1M in liabilities, I would say AKI is worthless, except, just possibly, to a company which for some reason doesn't qualify for an AIM listing of its own. But then there is no shortage of shells at the moment, so why choose AKI? Other than very recently, shells have traditionally traded at very near their asset value. And why shouldn't they?

[double6] 04/11/2003 20:53

Stews your man (and Stews are your job !!)

[chef] 04/11/2003 20:52

SO when is the best time to short it looking at that chart?

[double6] 04/11/2003 20:48

Stew - I note your comments - presumably you are posting messages on loads of threads asking people to give details as you deem fit.

I believe the fact that the market cap is so low IS because of the negative NAV - you can't argue against that IMHO.

I am only HIGHLIGHTING the share - like it or lump it, shares with minimal market caps are the ones which are flying at the minute.

Kind regards...

[stewjames] 04/11/2003 20:40

Thanks. But you missed out the point that the company is in the process of shutting up shop and becoming a shell meaning that profitability will not be recurring. ;-) Could you also mention the liability is £1M? That's quite a significant figure relative to the valuation. It doesn't follow either that a positive NAV would mean a much higher market cap. In fact, HAW which you've mentioned a few times seems to be proof of that...that had positive assets and until very recently was only valued at around the value of those assets. It's only in the last couple of months that the market has taken to ascribing such massive premiums to shells (insanely, IMO, but I'm prepared to be proven wrong on that)

BTW, do you know of any shells that have actually gone the RTO route at such a premium recently? I know of a couple that have been suspended with them supposedly pending. I'm still extremely doubtful anybody would want to reverse into such overvalued companies...will only believe it when I see it once or twice.

[double6] 04/11/2003 20:19

Stuart - there you go -

xxx......

[stewjames] 04/11/2003 19:44

double6, I didn't mean the thread title which can't be edited, just the content of the first post (it's all the "header" of the thread in my terminology) Just a mention of the fact that they're shutting the business down so the profitability will not be ongoing and the negative NAV would be reasonable, don't you think?