Blur Group Share Discussion Threads

[eric76] 18/4/2014 12:37

Twaintwix, sorry you didn't get to sell at 8am yesterday and were left defending the share price but that was huge volume for this share yesterday and it wasn't ill informed pi's dumping the stock it was well informed market participants who recognise a massive overvaluation when they see it as did the marketmakers who marked it down well over a quid before the market opened.
Now about this cash call?

[j777j] 18/4/2014 12:20

Blur 4.0 kicking in as predicted.


$236,766,726

Total value of projects submitted

Terrible business,it will never take off,lol.


Re investors bailing.Hardly,as only 3% odd of the outstanding shares in issue changed hands.

[supersturrock] 18/4/2014 11:48

The meter has suddenly popped up to $236m. Is that a blip ?

[twaintwix] 18/4/2014 10:38

Stegrego
18 Apr'14 - 10:21 - 1826 of 1826 0 0


Difference is QPP make money, this might never.

It doesn't take a bleeding genius to know that bigger projects take longer. They should have had revenue recognition correct in the first instance, not as an afterthought.

Shows they know little about business and lots about spin.

......................

QPP are far more complicated in financial matters than BLUR is in my opinion. QPP need a mountain of cash at all times to keep making upfront payments on insurance claims and getting to the net profit figure is not easy . BLUR is not a cash burner in that respect and with a 20% cut of all successful tender fees paid on completion cash flow will not be a problem!

[j777j] 18/4/2014 10:31

Exactly the kind of comments the article refers to.I think is goes deeper,in that there is a British disease that derides anything or anyone remotely successful.Simply envy? Probably.


No mention the co has come from nowhere and short term has actually become a victim of it's own success.


This is not about lost revenues due to lack of demand.It is about far higher pecuniary levels of projects submitted, than ever envisaged at this stage.

This is a good thing,not a bad thing.That the company is adjusting it's revenue recognition model to take account of this,leading to greater visibility,is also a prudent move.

Any disruptive technology,is going to be,well,disruptive.

"Silicon roundabout," sums it all up really.

[stegrego] 18/4/2014 10:21

Difference is QPP make money, this might never.

It doesn't take a bleeding genius to know that bigger projects take longer. They should have had revenue recognition correct in the first instance, not as an afterthought.

Shows they know little about business and lots about spin.

[knigel] 18/4/2014 09:58

So small investors pushed this up to over £7.00 but didn't understand the company... now small investors are selling and pushing the share price down because they now understand the company?
I think it's far more simple than that - it called "following the herd"

[stuart37] 18/4/2014 09:57

Personally i think Letts has done the right thing re revenue recognition - most likely to be short term share price damage for future long term gain. I agree that he will need to rebuild some credibility and that may take another 12 months but i believe this company has potentially a great future and view the current share price as a rather welcome buying opportunity.
I certainly don't think that Letts should go for coming clean on this - market may not like it but this will rebuild quickly enough. Patience is a virtue!

[harebridge] 18/4/2014 09:19

As Warren Buffet famously said"After all, you only find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out."Saffy, you still in this? I've kept an eye on this one for a while, but it's clear now that this was another con on AIM.As for that silly woman blaming small investors- think she had a 'Ratner' moment there which could signal the beginning of the end for Blur.

[harebridge] 18/4/2014 09:11

So Blur had revenues of £3 million.What would a reasonable market cap be at the moment?

[geheimnis2] 18/4/2014 08:32

Back to the float price?

[twaintwix] 18/4/2014 00:48

Also from the Times article:

"The Exeter-based business acts as a go-between for companies looking to recruit professionals for a project - such as a big advertising campaign or developing an app - and claimed to be "reinventing commerce" in the process. Companies, including the Ministry of Sound and Harvey Nichols, would put the project up on blur's website for tender and pay blur a cut of around 20 per cent once the services had been commissioned."

Blur get a 20% cut of each tender on completion. This puts some real bones on revenue and is in the bag once the tender is closed. So projecting future earnings is a simple matter of adding the value of all tenders handled by BLUR and taking out 20% of the total and you have your revenue. Not rocket science at all!

[j777j] 17/4/2014 22:39

"Recognised revenue is expected to be in the range of $5.3 million to $5.6 million for 2013 (2012: $2.8m) with total project bookings for the same period of $22.2 million (2012: $2.4m), an +825% increase year on year."

Approx 27%




" Of the remaining project bookings that carry forward, we expect the majority to be recognised revenue in 2014. This is evidenced by the strong financial performance in Q1 2014. "


We know that total project listed as of tonight are $226 million,with three more quarters left of this financial year.


Ps there is a write up in the times tonight about the co pledging to "cut the hype."

[bookbroker] 17/4/2014 21:36

How do you think they will reach that figure, you are beginning to talk like the gaffer!

[j777j] 17/4/2014 21:17

So if they reach $400 million in projects and $100 million in revenues this year,is it still expensive?Or is it an explosive growth story?