Blinkx Share Discussion Threads

[jonc] 26/2/2015 22:36

Well done custard pie.

Have an egg nog.

[becky sharpe] 26/2/2015 22:32

Shroder -

Peter Stephens
CONTRACTOR

Having held various senior management positions in the manufacturing sector, Peter founded his own manufacturing company in 1996. This was subsequently sold in 2007.


I so value the opinion of a widget maker!

I reckon these two used to write for MF until they saw the light

[shroder] 26/2/2015 22:28

1gw, I am glad to hear you are still a holder but you do not come across as one, that's my view based on a change of tone/attitude.

If I had issues with a company or it's management I would take it up directly, not post vague assertions on a public forum. You know no one here has the answer so why post?

You seem to be the only one picking up on these points which have been explained by other posters. For example Becky corrected your assumption with regard to the masking issue and again with the appointment of Sudhi.

On both occasions these explanations seem more than reasonable imo.

You have my contact details, feel free to call for a chat.

[sikhthetech] 26/2/2015 22:21

Shroder,
My comments...

"Now if blinky can get even 10% growth with perhaps forward outlook of say 15% that would put us firmly in the black."

"I do not think that's unrealistic given the recent results within the sector."
"glitch adding in the AdKarma numbers"


management fy expectation is $212m



Last yr the fy revenue was $247m...



Therefore, management are expecting a revenue decline of $35m or 15%...


You say "if blinky can get even 10% growth".

10% on last yr = $247+10% = $272m..

That would be $60m or 30% above their own expectation...


Whilst I accept anything is possible but if management were expecting to beat their own expectation by "30%", would you not expect a TU saying so...
Therefore, without a TU and yr end being only 4 weeks away, I don't agree that your "10% revenue growth" is 'realistic'...

Unless you believe AdKarma/Rhythm are going to contribute an extra $60m since Nov...

Talking of which, they "bought" AdKarma on 19th Dec... are you saying the millions of uniques added during the ONE week in Dec that blnx owned AdKarma was the reason why blnx was in the Comscore data in Dec but not in Jan... really!!!





Shroder 26 Feb'15 - 11:38 - 6679 of 6720 2 1

I mentioned last month it was probably a glitch adding in the AdKarma numbers.

Perhaps these shouldn't have been counted in the first place given their leaning towards mobile.

On another note, the US ad tech companies have generally reported strong growth this last quarter, outlook is good too. However their Achilles heal is the amount of losses they are carrying, even the shinning star Rubi reported losses (below)

"Fourth quarter net income of $1.4 million, or $0.04 per diluted share, and full year net loss of ($18.7) million, or ($0.70) per share

Full year 2015 outlook for approximately 40% revenue growth, year-over-year"

Now if blinky can get even 10% growth with perhaps forward outlook of say 15% that would put us firmly in the black.

I do not think that's unrealistic given the recent results within the sector.

..imho

edit: incidentally, Rubi's market cap is:


Market cap $ 707,251,392

P/E Ratio


Read more:

[barkboo] 26/2/2015 22:16

Yes Jarvis - and ADVFN are throwing in a few heavies - almost literally.

[jarvis4] 26/2/2015 22:12

There does seem to have been a rise in tempo amongst the committed doomsters.

[1gw] 26/2/2015 22:11

I am very definitely a holder shroder. I bought in hoping for a quick bounce, bought several more times (at least once on the basis of ComScore numbers, I don't remember buying on the basis of Quantcast) and have held based on a sum-of-the-parts valuation.

However, I have no interest in getting a quick bounce on the basis of misleading posts and then getting out at the expense of a "greater fool". I believe the company is undervalued and there is a reasonable chance that either that undervaluation will be recognised by the market, or it will be recognised by another company who bids. But I am prepared to wait to see whether the data support my undervaluation theory.

The appalling PR gaffes really frustrate me, but I believe as shareholders we should try to hold the company to account and point these things out when we see them. I also believe the chairman should have forced a change of executive leadership many months ago. So I believe the company is undervalued but I have little confidence left in the current senior management of the company.

Do you think it is OK for the company to put out this morning's RNS which is clearly IMO not consistent with the AGM resolution which it references? Or to put out an RNS from which a reasonable person might infer they have taken a senior employee direct from Samsung, making no reference to what he has been doing since he left Samsung or indeed the fact that he had already left Samsung?

[barkboo] 26/2/2015 22:06

Shroder - these threads are running alive with rags..the stench is almost unbearable!


The guy was always a dud!

[barkboo] 26/2/2015 21:57

He resembles a guy called McLellan - nice bloke by all accounts?

[shroder] 26/2/2015 21:55

Ta footy, I guess links to other forums are a no go.

1gw, you seem to relish looking for any sort of imperfection. What happened to the good old days when you were running around asking others posters if they were buying more stock based on Quantcast numbers?

What was the last one, the appointment of Sudhi?, before that Pixalate and many more.

Your change in approach/attitude suggests you are not a holder anymore so why not move on, buy something where you look for the positives rather than negatives.

Cheers

[barkboo] 26/2/2015 21:55

I see the guy above in the picture has just been snapped going inside a certain Pizza Pigsty.

No need to ask what he thought!

[leluot3] 26/2/2015 21:39

great ost football

I thought the rampers dismissed all the Motley Fool stories as rubbish?

Oh I forgot

Only when they are negative!


"Shareholders will be invited to approve PwC's re-appointment at the Annual General Meeting to be held in July 2015."

What a bloody cheek!

Will they also be asked to approve the third profits warning?

[1gw] 26/2/2015 21:39

football - that's approving the reappointment. i.e. they audit this year and then we vote on reappointing them for next year. But they were never supposed to be appointed for this year in the first place - the resolution is clear. The most charitable explanation I can come up with is that PWC won the tender, Deloitte got stroppy and said they didn't want to do this year in that case, PWC said they were prepared to do this year as well and some PR person thought no-one would mind and since they'd talked about the tender in the notes to Resolution 5 perhaps they could just pretend that it was supposed to happen this way - after all, who would go and check the wording of an old AGM resolution?

And yes, I have called Dan, but got the usual voicemail.

[football] 26/2/2015 21:30

It says this in the Rns

"Shareholders will be invited to approve PwC's re-appointment at the Annual General Meeting to be held in July 2015."


so the shareholders will have the final say on PCW

so many bashers tonight with so many ID's not!!!



Shroder here's the link it's better getting it from yahoo

[sikhthetech] 26/2/2015 21:18

interesting post by 1gw....
obviously the gang have tried to hide it, so here it is...


1gw 26 Feb'15 - 19:08 - 6704 of 6716 2 0

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."

[custardpie] 26/2/2015 21:17

well saved myself 10 mins there by having jonc and loopy filterd...

[sikhthetech] 26/2/2015 21:10

1gw, you little de-ramper.... ;-)

a great find - only you can find the finer details like that...attention to detail as usual..
well done...

[jonc] 26/2/2015 20:58

brain cell?

[simon e self] 26/2/2015 20:57

Shroder and digitalis need to know they wont get a cell together

[simon e self] 26/2/2015 20:57

Mebbe lots of audit firms tendered for the work cos they think a very lucrative bankruptcy liquidation may follow and they think the auditors will get a first foot in? ;-)