Blue Prism Share Discussion Threads

[hazl] 07/8/2018 18:35

Co-presented by Pat Geary of Blue Prism.



Like to be a fly on the wall at this conference.
'The Human Level AI 2018 Conference is fast approaching. @BenGoertzel will be delivering a keynote speech at the event hosted by @GoodAIDev. More info and schedule'

[doesb003] 06/8/2018 13:46

Nice view of potential ways for RPA to evolve. (also mentions BP)

[bprocket] 06/8/2018 12:02

I see 25£ within next 3 months.

(Based on Volume/Fib/Pattern/EW)

GL all.

[sogoesit] 04/8/2018 10:48

Thanks testbot for your info. (and feedback). Good points and quite impressive awareness of UIpath cf BP.

I think you're probably right. Certainly the point about more investment for growth.
In this respect US markets are far more risk tolerant than UK markets so, if a similar venture came to the US markets, it would be a more "competitive" space for capital allocation.... or for BP to raise capital in the US itself?

I also think that BP is building on a (slightly?) different strategy. It seems to me that they are aiming to construct a "platform" or operating system (as against "selling robots" if you get my meaning). Is that a fair assessment? BP certainly state this as one of their strategic objectives.

In my view this is a slower process, and the way they are doing it (with firms who have higher compliance hurdles to overcome or satisfy), also has a narrower market appeal. The risk to this is that if they get it wrong the failure could condemn them to being second tier. The prize is that they draw others to their platform and dominate the "intermediary' space.

Of course, if/when selling robots becomes a commodity all bets are off for growth but, hopefully, before that day we will have added a bit to our wealth.

[I am no expert, or user, in this field so appreciate the feedback from those who are and in the know.]

The current "motoring" speed for the share price to 03 August is about 120%pa

[hazl] 04/8/2018 10:15

JOHN THANKS interesting.

[2350220] 04/8/2018 10:09

Small, positive piece in the Times this morning p61.
Titled "The Apples and Amazon's of tomorrow" it talks about some stocks which have the potential to be the next big thing (my words).
The last sentence:
"As long as the company keeps providing positive surprises, its shares should keep motoring"

John

[petewy] 03/8/2018 21:22

Thks Testbot: always pay attention to your posts.

[testbot] 03/8/2018 17:08

To sogoesit:

If you see the following link to google trends explore - Uipath awareness has significantly exceeded Blue Prism from the beginning of 2018.



It was about the same time when Uipath released a new version where they talked about their new security features and entreprise level product. I think that Uipath look at what is unique about Blue Prism (and automation anywhere) and copy it. They are at present 1.000 employees so they have the power to do so. Even Blue Prism's collaborations with for example Microsoft are copied.

I just hope that Blue Prism will speed the innovation up so they can add more unique features to differentiate them from the customers. NOTE: I am not using it personally.

If BP need 100 more million to do so then expand the share capital again.

I strongly believe that BP will be a magnificent investment in the future - but I just think it could be a better investment if we could get a higher share of the new customers now. It is now the companies decide which product to use and pay for in the future years so the battle is now.

Maybe they should like Uipath have a free training academy - so there will be more professionals using BP and eventually perhaps companies.

[sogoesit] 25/7/2018 19:15

Google collaboration:

[hazl] 24/7/2018 18:58

With reference to Douglas Fir's post above,did anybody see the secrets of Silicon Valley on BBC 2 the night before last?
It was quite sobering in actual fact and showed that amongst the glib marketing,those that were a little bit more honest and acknowledged the unknowns of AI there were some doubts ahead surfacing.

I am not talking about the robotic software of Blue Prism but the rise of Articial intelligence generally.
It was a repeat so people might have already seen it but worth watching in my view and lead upto some philosophical questions at the end.

[hazl] 23/7/2018 17:41

Thanks for that sogoesit very succinct.

[sogoesit] 23/7/2018 11:52

From your UIPath link (thanks) testbot here is some context:

UIPath at 19 July give $100m recurring revenue for "more than 1500 customers that use its RPA platform".
That equates to £51,282/customer at a forex of $1.30/£.

At the Interims on 26 June PRSM stated an exit run-rate of £4.40m/month equating to £52.80m ($68.64m) per annum with a customer base of 700.
This equates to £75,428/customer.

Not so shabby imho.

The implied valuation UIPath states is $1.1bn (or £846m).
PRSM's current valuation is £1.19bn.

Question: What's wrong with PRSM's "speed of innovation" (and what does that mean)?

[testbot] 19/7/2018 20:42

hxxps://www.uipath.com/press-room/uipath-leads-rpa-market-with-unmatched-customer-adoption

BP must speed up the innovation.

100 million dollars in recurring revenue for Uipath.

[bokies] 19/7/2018 19:34

Just good grief in general. :)

[thefartingcommie] 19/7/2018 10:05

top o'the morning Ladieees....


Good grief...from bokies


The newsletter is good.....from petewy

.....luvverly prose...great style...would you care to elaborate?..(pls)..;)

[petewy] 19/7/2018 09:53

The newsletter is good.

[bokies] 17/7/2018 21:18

Good grief!

[hazl] 17/7/2018 20:08

BLUE PRSM retweeted this

[dtaliadoros] 17/7/2018 19:35

Can I ask the this board, how many people work in a company that use software robotics. And if so, how many are have discontinued their plans to use robotics?

I've worked/am working for two and they both love it and its a core part of their strategy going forward.

That for me is enough reason to hold robotics in my portfolio.

[douglas fir] 17/7/2018 17:46

Another day, another bloodcurdling report about how robots are going to steal all our jobs and smash all that is holy about the dignity of work. This time it’s from PriceWaterhouseCoopers, and they tell us that by the 2040s some 30 per cent of jobs will be automated, perhaps 44 per cent for those requiring a low level of education. Actually, the report isn’t quite as “woe is unto us” as it sounds, although it does contain a couple of crucial errors.

What the authors get right is that there will be economic growth over this time, which will help create new jobs to replace the ones lost to automation. It’s a logical conclusion; after all, we’ve been doing this automation of heft and grunt for 250 years now and there’s no particular reason to think that the underlying processes have changed.

The fact artificial intelligence and other technical advances will replace human skill should not be a cause for dismay — after all, the same has been true of every stage of technological change from the loom to the washing machine.

However, the PWC report has misidentified the mechanism here. It’s not that economic growth absorbs labour, per se. It is the way automation frees up previous working hours for more productive uses which grows the economy and makes us richer.

Imagine it takes 100 units of labour to make 100 widgets until a new machine now means we need 50 units to make 100 widgets. We can, with that labour, now have 200 widgets – we’re richer – or we can have 100 widgets and 50 units of labour’s worth of clothes, fancy food or tickets to the ballet. We’re richer, the economy is larger, by whatever value we place upon the extra things we can buy.

However, the PWC report has misidentified the mechanism here. It’s not that economic growth absorbs labour, per se. It is the way automation frees up previous working hours for more productive uses which grows the economy and makes us richer.

magine it takes 100 units of labour to make 100 widgets until a new machine now means we need 50 units to make 100 widgets. We can, with that labour, now have 200 widgets – we’re richer – or we can have 100 widgets and 50 units of labour’s worth of clothes, fancy food or tickets to the ballet. We’re richer, the economy is larger, by whatever value we place upon the extra things we can buy.

This is more than mere nitpicking. It is only by grasping this that we can understand our task here. That automation destroys or displaces jobs is not an error or problem, it’s the whole point. We want to kill jobs with automation, always and everywhere, as it is what that newly freed labour does next which makes us richer.

As Keynes noted, it’s entirely possible for this to be happening too quickly. Writing in 1930 he tells us: “We are suffering, not from the rheumatics of old age, but from the growing-pains of over-rapid changes, from the painfulness of readjustment between one economic period and another. The increase of technical efficiency has been taking place faster than we can deal with the problem of labour absorption…221;

In this case the twin assault on established systems of the mechanisation of agriculture and the replacement of steam by electrical power was freeing up labour faster than people could work out how to use it to do new things.

Transition can certainly be a problem, but our end state isn’t going to be. The question is not whether there will be anything for people to do, it’s can we find new things for them to do at the same rate as the old things are dying out.

The rate is what matters. In common with many other such reports, PWC’s report suggests 30 per cent of jobs (or 44 per cent in some sectors) will be killed off in the next few decades. Is that a high rate or not? Is it even something we need to do anything about?

Here’s the key point that many people fail to grasp — the UK’s market economy (the US numbers are little different) kills off some 10 per cent or more of jobs each year as it is, and creates some 10 per cent of jobs anew. The unemployment rate is only ever the mismatch between the two, perhaps the timing difference between them.

Our adaptation to shifting technology is not a dramatic rupture, but a constant process involving some 10 per cent of the population each year. With that in mind the addition of another 1.5 per cent (30 per cent over two decades) or so due to automation becomes much less bloodcurdling. What we are really looking at is a marginal addition to an extant and well known process, not some step change nor gross unknown to deal with. And that’s assuming that artificial intelligence is an addition to our usual annual rate of 10 per cent, rather than just the 21st century version of that well-worn process.

There is still the question of what we do about it of course. What is automated and how isn’t the interesting thing here. Rather, it’s what will that newly liberated labour go and do — what are the jobs of the future?

While we can make some educated guesses, the answer is that we don’t know. There are plenty of things we as a species would like to do more of, but the only way to find out how that translates into economic activity is to leave people to suck it and see. Rather than governments trying to second-guess the future, we should rely on the experimentation which only a market economy provides.

[douglas fir] 17/7/2018 17:42

17 July 2018
Automation isn’t nearly as disruptive as you might think

By Tim Worstall @worstall

hxxps://capx.co/automation-isnt-nearly-as-disruptive-as-you-might-think/?omhide=true&utm_source=CapX+briefing&utm_campaign=096430062c-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_07_17_COPY_02&utm_medium=email&;utm_term=0_b5017135a0-096430062c-241788321

[sogoesit] 17/7/2018 17:23

No, John, but bp has his own rockets which he seems to have applied ;-)

[petewy] 17/7/2018 17:21

Whose targets?

[bprocket] 17/7/2018 16:08

EOY2018 ~30£
EOY2019 ~50£ (min)

Those are the targets.