We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Customisable watchlists with full streaming quotes from leading exchanges, such as LSE, NASDAQ, NYSE, AMEX, Bovespa, BIT and more.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| JQW | JQW | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 2.70 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.70 | 2.70 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 12/1/2016 17:35 by latifs100 any hope of some money back to investors? ty |
Posted at 12/1/2016 14:48 by macnai Investor Relations site is back.hxxp://jqw-ir.com/co Most of it works. I notice "© 2016 JQW.com" at the bottom of the pages. |
Posted at 02/11/2015 17:36 by davidosh Surely the non execs will want to continue to be paid their £3000 per month for as long as possible so far at least until the cheques bounce or the company gets delisted.The poor UK investors sucked in are the last to know what happened to their cash if indeed it ever existed in the bank and I suspect the money raised in placings was immaterial compared to the number of shares traded on the secondary markets. I suffered at CamKids too so have worn the tee shirt. If the NEDs in all these chinese companies really cared they would be grouping together aND BANGING DRUMS FOR INVESTORS TO HELP GET COMPENSATION Oops |
Posted at 21/9/2015 12:57 by the stigologist Anybody know how much cash the Chinese frauds listed on AIM have cost Investors ? Must be running into billions now ?From UK investors directly into pockets of Chinese conmen. And now George Osborne has signed a Nuclear deal with the Chinese ! So we fund them to control our nuclear destiny . Cripes. |
Posted at 06/9/2015 10:47 by xenawarriorprincess Rupe, I would agree that JQW is in a revenue and profits pause, but I don't believe that they have gone ex growth.JQW has been expanding fast, so perhaps it is only to be expected that profits would come under pressure. I have posted before to say that I believe that they have recently sacrificed profits for growth, and the same may be true, recently, of revenues as the network of agencies expands. However within the interims it will be interesting to see how many fee paying members they have. At December 2014 it was 241,000. This website target='window'>h suggests that the figure may be now 350,000. If that figure is correct then JQW has certainly not gone ex growth, but has sacrificed revenue and profits for growth. As to the step change in revenue, this may be some way off, but may still be possible within several years. Banking in China is dominated by state institutions, however the most advanced form of banking they offer is telephone banking. The main banking system in China is effectively 25 years out of date. JQW is already offering financial services, and e payments are due to be offered this year. This could be a great untapped opportunity. Alipay, of course dominates in China in terms of e payments, but I'm sure there will be room for others offering e payments and mobile payments. JQW has also said it intends to move eventually to a commission based model for payments, that is really the big opportunity. Anyway I certainly wouldn't argue against JQW being a value play, that much is obvious. But it doesn't only offer value. The risk of delisting - I also would say it is small. At last years 2014 AGM, when the share price was circa 80p, there were resolutions passed which would enable to company to raise cash and double the number of shares in issue, 65% to existing shareholders, 35% for cash. I suspect a takeover was being line up which fell through due to the rapidly declining share price. At this years AGM the number of shares allowed to be issued was 20% of the issued share capital, 10% existing shareholders, 10% for cash. So I don't see that the company is particularly interested in retaining the shares not in public hands above 75%, although it happens to be just above 75% at present. As for Alibaba, I think they have much larger fish to fry, building their O2O operation and international expansion. They could choose to be a threat, but I think their present focus is elsewhere, expanding into India and the US. Even they can only do so much. But the Alibaba philosophy is also interesting, Jack Ma says that customers come first, followed by employees, then shareholders. Alibaba has also recently said that investors shouldn't be too worried by declines in share price, but shareholders should ask themselves, "will the company still exist in 100 years?". If JQW is following a similar philosophy, then it could explain what may appear to be a "relaxed" approach to the recent share price decline. Perhaps investors simply need to adjust to a more long term view, instead of focussing on the next set of results. The 2.2m shares sold by OMP's, well of course that is a guesstimate, taking account of the big, 100k+, sells over the last 3 months. There haven't actually been that many, but the OMP's have been regular sellers since August 2014, we know that, and I see no reason why their behaviour should have suddenly changed in the last 3 months. Indeed the share price until the last week or so suggests that their behaviour hasn't changed, although there has also been a regular 50K buyer picking up shares around 8p-10p a few times each week for the last several months. No doubt all will be revealed by the end of this month - but then again maybe I'm also guilty of short term focus. |
Posted at 05/9/2015 20:32 by xenawarriorprincess I thought I'd paste the whole of the 4th September 2015 Motley Fool article relating to JQW, simply because the last one they did on JQW ended up being deleted from the Motley Fool website in its entirety.Whilst the article is generally positive (and certainly better that the hatchet job last time, which had to be quickly pulled as the author basically got it all wrong) it is cautious on a number of points. They're right about the rapidly expanding market for B2B commerce, but then go on to say - "this explosive growth is attracting a wave of competitors from both inside and outside the country. As a result, established companies like JQW are on the defensive and need to come up with new ways to retain customers." There are certainly B2B competitors inside China, principally Alibaba and Youboy, but competition from outside - I see no evidence of that. Indeed over the last 10 years Alibaba has seen off all foreign B2B and B2C competition within China. This website target='window'>h clearly indicates that JQW is 3rd in B2B market rankings, close behind No 2 Youboy, with Alibaba way ahead, but the rest of the competitors are trailing way behind, number 4 has less than 30% of the number of JQW's users. Indeed outside the top 20, all competitors have less than 5% of the number of JQW's users, and many tend to be in small niche markets. I also think the author is making too much of the "changing business model". Certainly JQW is rapidly expanding the number of agencies it has and this has the effect of reducing the revenue it receives per customer, but it also increases the speed at which JQW can expand across China and enables that expansion to take place more cheaply. I see this as continuing development in a fast changing market space rather than changing its business model. To also suggest that JQW has gone ex growth is going a bit far. Indeed as the company expects to make similar profits to last year for the 2015 full year presumably they are expecting growth in profits to return in the 2nd half - that was the position at 30th June and presumably as there was no alteration to guidance that is still the case. Innovations due in 2015 such as the e commerce payment button on the website, the commission based payments model, in addition to the rural and urban finance offerings, and the mobile applications already introduced could provide a rapid step chance increase in revenues and profits. That is not to say that China does not at present face significant economic challenges, and these may reflect on JQW. However given JQW's cash pile and the fragmented nature of the market it is likely that it is JQW's smaller competitors which will find themselves under greater pressure than JQW and they could be taken out in moves to consolidate the market from which JQW could end up an ultimate beneficiary. As for the timing of MF and share price buy tips this week after months of bashing, I don't believe their 180 degree U turn at this point in time is mere coincidence. JQW announced around 3 months ago months ago that the OMP's had around 4.8M shares remaining. I reckon around 2.2M have gone over that time leaving about 2.6M left. Obviously very rough figures, but it wouldn't take a genius to realize that with a bit of heavy trading, if no new sellers appear, then that 2.6M could go quite quickly. Decent interims, and a sudden shortage of shares after almost a year of selling, together with a favourable press could make this a one way bet. Call me cynical if you must but I'm sure such a scenario has not escaped MF and share price They know the interims will be decent (JQW has said so), they can work out the selling is likely coming to an end, and they themselves provide the favourable press coverage after 12 months of incessant assault. And surprise, surprise up JQW goes. "JQW (LSE: JQW) is one of those companies you either love or hate. The company provides a B2B e-commerce platform focused on connecting Chinese buyers with Chinese sellers, a market that has exploded in size during the past few years. Indeed, data released last March from iResearch found that China's eCommerce sector expanded by more than 20% in 2014, with B2B sales the largest contributor. What's more, analysts predict that China's $2tn eCommerce market is set to double in size over the next three years. Other figures suggest that Chinese B2B e-commerce and B2B electronic payments will amount to $1.4trn and $140bn respectively, in 2015. However, this explosive growth is attracting a wave of competitors from both inside and outside the country. As a result, established companies like JQW are on the defensive and need to come up with new ways to retain customers. JQW itself is in the middle of a transition. The company is changing its business model, contracting out an increasing amount of business through external agents. Unfortunately, this change is hitting margins. For example, while revenue increased by 12% during the first four months of 2015, JQW's gross margin contracted as of commissions paid to agents ate away at profitability. With margins coming under pressure, JQW's net profit contracted by 10% during the first four months of the year. Still, JQW's management believes that the company's profit for the full year should be "of a similar magnitude to last year." Sudden halt It's disappointing that JQW's growth has come to an abrupt halt this year, but while the company is no longer a growth play, it ticks all the boxes as a value play. According to the figures supplied by the enterprise, at year end 2015 JQW had around RMB 394.7m, roughly £40.8m at the end of December last year. This cash balance was reported after dividend payments totalling RMB 114.4m during the year. This indicates that, at present levels, JQW is trading for less than the value of cash on its balance sheet. At time of writing, the company's market cap. is a tiny £20.2m. Furthermore, based on JQW's full-year 2014 results, the company is trading at a historic P/E of only 1.3. Clearly, judging by JQW's current valuation, the market believes that the company doesn't have a future. But the company is profitable and trading below the value of the cash on its balance sheet. For deep value investors, JQW could be a top pick. Trust issues However, there's one issue that's overhanging JQW. Certain Chinese companies have gained a reputation over the past few decades for falsifying accounts, misleading investors and taking advantage of poor corporate control by government. That said, there's currently no indication or proof that JQW is misleading investors, but you can never be too careful. Even at the best of times, deep value plays like JQW aren't for the faint of heart -- you can often end up losing all of your investment. But for those willing to take the plunge the potential reward can sometimes be enormous." |
Posted at 22/7/2015 13:28 by paxman Rupe1958 - Everything you say makes sense but if we look at what the Chairman Cai Yongde has actually done:Pay no final dividend - company is very cash rich + a dividend was wanted by minority shareholders + a high yielding company might have attracted income funds as investors + a dividend would have reassured the market. So what did JQW do? They paid NO dividend. Keep his and his associates shareholding at just above 75% so giving him total control over delisting if he chooses. If JQW really wanted to attract institutional investors, CY and associates would have sold down under 75% so reassuring potential investors that any delisting would have to attract more widespread support. My guess is JQW listed on the basis that if the share price went up they could sell some shares at a higher price but if the share price went down - as happened - they could delist if they chose. i.e. heads we win, tails we think we don't lose. If they delist would they pay a premium? They should to ensure access to public markets in the future but so far their decisions have been very sub optimal for both the company and its minority shareholders so frankly I wouldn't bet on them making the correct decision this time. Unfortunately with JQW, what they say and what they do are not supportive of each other. Maybe it's strategy or maybe some people just get things wrong. |
Posted at 06/6/2015 09:42 by rupe1958 Tech shares are booming on the Chinese stock market. See this article below from the WSJ on May 28th.From Wall Street Journal 28/5/15 The booming stock market in China and more-favorable domestic regulations are driving a wave of tech companies based there to list shares at home instead of going public in the U.S. Bankers, lawyers and early-stage investors in China said interest by companies to list shares in China has increased significantly in recent months. Companies said listing in the country will make it easier to explain their businesses to investors, who often are their customers. They also point to the stunning success of companies such as Beijing Baofeng Technology Co., whose shares have skyrocketed more than 3,600% since listing in China in March. The lure of China’s markets is drawing companies that already have listed in the U.S. Some have gone private so they can relist in China, and dozens are planning to follow. Regulatory rules ban significant foreign ownership of Internet content-related companies listed in China. Small Funds Stoke China’s Stock Rally Driving the move is a focus by Beijing on the Internet and innovation-driven sectors to boost slowing growth by easing listing rules. Another factor is a stock rally that has seen the Shanghai Composite Index climb 43% this year, although it fell 6.5% on Thursday. Meanwhile, Chinese investors are pouring money into funds that target startups. In 2014, 39 angel investment funds were set up in China, raising $1.07 billion, a 143% increase from the previous high in 2012, according to investment database pedata.cn, which is run by Zero2IPO Research in Beijing. Angel investors typically provide personal funds to finance small startups. High valuations and the loosening of listing rules will draw more Chinese companies to their home market, said Jianbin Gao of PricewaterhouseCoope Until recently, Chinese markets were hard to access for tech firms because, unlike in most countries, China requires government approval before a company can list its shares. Beijing also demands that companies be profitable before listing. Both of those requirements are expected to change this year as part of Beijing’s efforts to overhaul its financial system. |
Posted at 02/5/2015 10:39 by xenawarriorprincess It is interesting that Motley Fool, a supposed reputable site, has been caught out publishing completely false information about JQW.The author was saying that the figure for interest received was negative (when it was in fact positive), and therefore intimated JQW did not have the cash reported in the accounts. Indeed not only did "The Fool" say it did not have the cash (a mere £40M or so - note market capitalisation £23M), but that it had a negative cash balance, it actually owed money, and therefore the accounts showed it had to pay interest on those borrowings. This is what "The Fool" said - "2: Net cash? According to JQW’s 2014 balance sheet, the group has no debt and a strong net cash balance, a situation that also existed at the end of 2013, and at the time of the company’s interim results last year. Normally, I would expect a firm in this position to report interest income from its cash balance, with little or no financing costs. However, JQW’s cash flow statement for 2014 shows interest income of minus RMB 4,576,000 — in other words, JQW paid more interest than it received last year. One possible explanation for this is that JQW’s cash balance varies widely, and at various points in the year, it does use debt facilities, which are subsequently repaid before the next reporting date. Today’s results don’t provide enough information to explain this discrepancy, but in my view this calls into question the quality of JQW’s cash balance" This was altered to "#2: Insiders exiting the business According to the firm, “a number of the overseas and early stage investors” have “realised returns on their original investments” over the last year. Although it’s normal for early-stage investors to take some profits when a business is floated, I tend to be suspicious when they start flogging large volumes of shares into the market after a flotation — there’s a risk that they are taking advantage of less well-informed retail buyers. In this case, you have to wonder why a Chinese business has chosen London’s AIM market, rather than the Chinese or Hong Kong markets for its listing. Unfortunately, one possible reason is that UK investors have zero visibility of JQW’s business, whereas investors in Hong Kong or China would be much closer to the action and able to form an informed impression of progress." And "The Fool" said "N.B. The author's second point was changed on 1/5/15 from net cash to insider selling following a miscalcuation (sic - not only can they not get the figures right their spelling is awry as well) in the analysis of cash flow." Effectively "The Fool" was saying that the accounts showed that JQW was cooking the books - borrowing in between account reporting dates, and then repaying the borrowings just before the year end date in order to show a large cash balance, then borrowing again immediately after the year end date, and the evidence was in the accounts as they showed interest being paid, despite a large cash balance on the year end date. This was an outright allegation of fraud, (despite couched in terms such as "possible explanation" and "calls into question") - as if there was no cash then what has happened to all the profits, the clear implication was all the accounts were false, together with the profits, the cash, and no doubt the company itself. This followed on from point 1 of the article "#1: No dividend Today’s results contained some bad news: JQW will not pay a final dividend for 2014......In my view, JQW’s decision to cancel the final dividend is a warning flag for investors" Point 1 - no dividend, followed by point 2 - no cash and cooked books. The reason there is no dividend is that there is no cash with which to pay it. Then point 3 - "#3: The P/E is too low As a value investor, I love buying cheap stocks — but I wouldn’t buy JQW, despite the firm’s shares now trading on a trailing P/E of just 1.8, based on the firm’s reported 2014 earnings per share. In my view, this is simply too cheap. When the stock market prices a share this low, it’s usually because the market does not believe the earnings are sustainable or genuine. I share this view and rate JQW as a strong sell, even after today’s falls. After all, the catastrophic declines of several other Chinese AIM stocks over the last year should serve as a warning: these companies are not necessarily being run to the same accounting standards as UK firms. Some may be genuine, but it appears that some may not be: why take the risk?" So there is the original article - Point 1 - no dividend, because Point 2 - there is no cash and the books are being cooked, followed by Point 3 - JQW is too cheap, because the market doesn't believe the books either Therefore sell even at this lowly price, whilst you can (and you can then buy this share promoted by us). All very logical - but there was a problem - that the central premise of the article was false - JQW wasn't paying interest on borrowings, they were receiving it, on all that cash the company supposedly didn't have. When this glaring error was pointed out to "The Fool", the article was altered to insert a new point 2, but the "sell" conclusion of the article was not altered. So despite the central foundation of the article, from which all the other parts are produced, being proven wrong, that they indeed have £40M cash, instead of supposedly major borrowings (remember the market cap is only £23M), the "sell" conclusion remains. It is as if "The Fool" has decided to publish a conclusion - "I...rate JQW as a strong sell, even after today’s falls." and despite whatever the evidence actually says, despite the central premise of the article being wrong - the cooked books - they are determined to say sell, whatever the reality may be. In many ways this is similar to what TW has been saying over the last several months - he called JQW an outright fraud, then changed his mind a few weeks ago saying he didn't know whether it was a fraud or not. But no matter "The Fool" can then take up the baton and call JQW a fraud. Of course this then gives ammunition to the derampers on here (and other websites) who can then republish the allegations infinitum, all adding up to a crescendo of fraud and false accounting allegations and innuendo. And "The Fool" amended second point "#2: Insiders exiting the business In this case, you have to wonder why a Chinese business has chosen London’s AIM market, rather than the Chinese or Hong Kong markets for its listing." All have a very familiar ring about it on here, indeed it is almost as if they are all reading off a script, and TW, MF, and the derampers can only sell one central message - fraud, cooked books, false accounting - whatever the reality and figures may actually show. Well, "The Fool" has been caught red handed - the message remains "sell", even though the evidence upon which that recommendation was made has been proven manifestly false. Well done to Loobrush, Loverat and Forwood for exposing this attempted fraud by "The Fool" - and it is noticeable that their posts have been marked down on ADVFN, whilst those supporting the manifestly false allegations by "The Fool" have been voted up. Very happy to be buying at these levels, given the manipulation and downright falsehoods being published against this company by supposedly reputable websites. All IMHO, DYOR etc. Xena |
Posted at 07/4/2015 17:43 by xenawarriorprincess Even the great Alibaba is subject to pre IPO investors selling out following the expiry of the lock in period - see link below.The same was true of JD.com and numerous other US China internet based IPO's. Alibaba - market cap $200Bn, JD.com market cap $40Bn. The only difference between those shares and JQW is that JQW is smaller, not followed by institutions and therefore much more easily manipulated. The derampers have therefore been able to manipulate the price far below its true worth via a campaign of subtle and not so subtle misinformation. Today it looks like at least 875K were sold in block amounts of nice round numbers (which I take to be the OMP's selling) with some interesting large other trades (which appear to be sells) of odd amounts, so it looks like at least around 17.8M of the 23.9M have gone. Price action and large scale buying suggests others know that OMP pre IPO investors are almost out. Anyway don't forget, just over a year ago, and prior to the selling these were 100p+. No reason why they shouldn't return to that level during the course of this year. And the institutions will want to buy this share eventually. And the article:- "My earlier theory that shares of e-commerce giant Alibaba (NYSE: BABA) will continue to slump on any news, good or bad, is playing out as the shares re-approach a post-IPO low on a mixed series of headlines about the company. At this point, the stock is simply on a downward track, as investors of all ilk who made big profits from the company's meteoric rise sell their shares to lock in some gains. The pressure looks set to continue for the rest of the year, following the end of a post-IPO lock-up period last month that will allow Alibaba's earliest investors to join the selling frenzy." |
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
