We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Burst Med Reg S | LSE:BRST | London | Ordinary Share | COM SHS USD0.01 (REGS) |
Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.00 | 0.00% | 31.25 | - | 0.00 | 00:00:00 |
Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 0 | N/A | 0 |
Date | Subject | Author | Discuss |
---|---|---|---|
18/9/2006 18:22 | LOL maybe it's a ramp ! | knowing | |
18/9/2006 18:20 | what a strange situation - | markie7 | |
18/9/2006 18:08 | That is more than strange...i've never seen that in 15 years of trading !!! That's like me saying i'm going to buy a million next week, let the heard in and then buy, suicidal ! It seems a deliberate ploy to push up the price higher, lets hope they dont buy 5k each then ! | quotes_4_u | |
18/9/2006 17:56 | Strange RNS | knowing | |
18/9/2006 17:35 | Looks like a few Institutions are not very happy too:- Burst Media Corporation 18 September 2006 Burst Media Corporation Director's dealings In light of recent events, the Board of Burst Media would like to announce that certain directors on the Board plan to buy shares in the company in the near future. A further announcement will be made in due course once these share purchases have been completed. - Ends - Enquiries: Burst Media Corporation Jarvis Coffin, Chief Executive +44 207 710 8910 Hudson Sandler Nick Lyon / James White +44 20 7796 413 This information is provided by RNS The company news service from the London Stock Exchange | isis | |
18/9/2006 16:41 | Do you understand the difference between a bonus and a regular salary payment? | wiganer | |
18/9/2006 16:22 | I don't need to prove anything. You are the one making wild assertions. You're a very cunning man; your use of language to manipulate is admirable. I especially like the "in lieu of" in the penultimate paragraph. Bravo. Feel free to try and talk this down further, it really matters not one jot to me, except that were you to succeed it would enable me to add on the cheap. | wiganer | |
18/9/2006 16:15 | Wiganer, all you've asked me to prove is that when the company shows an item as "equity based compensation" it means payment in shares rather than cash. My proof is simply the definition of standard words in the English language. Even you have said "In America "compensation" is used in essence as a synonym for "payment" or "remuneration" " so I really don't see how I can go any further to prove that "equity based compensation" means exactly that - compensation (salary) in the form of equity (shares). If as you claim you can show it means something completely different, then put up - or shut up. You go on and on that I can't prove my point but the fact is you are unable to provide any evidence that it could mean anything other than the absolutely obvious. It is quite simple: in the "statements of cash flows" which follows the Consolidated balance sheet and Consolidated statement of operations in today's announcement, BRST gives a reconciliation of figures to arrive at a final figure for the increase in cash over the period. It includes the (re)credit of $2,064,110 for "Equity based compensation" because in the Profit & Loss account (i.e. the "Consolidated statement of operations") Operating expenses included that amount as an overhead, but as it was satisfied by the issue of stock and not the payment of cash, it has to be re-credited to the reconciliation of cash flow, even though it contributed to the overall trading loss for the 6 month period. It was a non-cash cost, shown under Operating Expenses - the cash value of shares issued in lieu of cash salaries or bonuses (which would be counted as part of slaries). If you can prove it to be anything else, now is the time. | tiredoldbroker | |
18/9/2006 14:52 | I think I would avoid the NOMADS/Brokers of this one in future, clearly they got it wrong and the Directors have taken the loot. | isis | |
18/9/2006 14:45 | I ask you for evidence of A. You ignore that request and instead ask me for evidence of not-A. That is evasion of the most arrant kind, and again makes me question your objectivity. As for ADA, I admit I got that one wrong- so what?. I fail to see what relevance that has to a very different kind of company. Overall I have made more money from oversold bounce plays than I have lost. Are you claiming never to have made a mistake, oh wise one? | wiganer | |
18/9/2006 13:42 | I tend to view the activity of shorting gangs as creating opportunities for value investors. Maybe I should be a little less sanguine about it. There is a strong argument for them wreaking major damage: | wiganer | |
18/9/2006 13:37 | You have still not answered my request for evidence that salaries have been removed from the equation. I can only guess as to your motives. If, as I now suspect, this share is now going to be mauled by shorting gangs, then I shall hold my small number of shares, and look to add at the bottom, as I did for instance with SIN, another decent company savaged by the markets. Value will out in the end. | wiganer | |
18/9/2006 13:29 | Wiganer, I would suggest that unless you can state honestly that someone at BRST has explained the figures to you in such detail that you know it isn't the case that "equity based compensation" was simply shares issued in lieu of salaries, then your "understanding... it was nothing of the kind" is no more than your optimistic wish. As you admit, "compensation" in this context is a synonym for "remuneration", which is a posh word for "salary". I have not in fact suggested that this remuneration is likely to appear in future years; I have used it as part of a dissection of the just-reported figures to show that in fact the company was cash flow negative in the reported period. You may take the view that the company will be cash generative in future periods but you fail to take into account the clear negative implications of the recent trading statement. You also suggest the reported loss is only because of the "equity based compensation". Well, I'm sure quite a few lossmaking companies could report a profit if they were allowed to remove salaries from the calculation; but it wouldn't be a sound basis on which to draw up accounts. The fact remains, BRST is a lossmaking company selling at 3 times cash, with a poor trading outlook as the company itself has made clear. Given how the market has caned stocks like Adamind - where again I was the person advising caution at twice the current price - I think this makes BRST poor value at today's price. You are of course at liberty to form entirely another view, but you are yet to prove your argument. I wish you well with your investment. | tiredoldbroker | |
18/9/2006 11:25 | BRST is an American company. In America "compensation" is used in essence as a synonym for "payment" or "remuneration" (in its broadest sense). You appear to make two sweeping assumptions in your assertions: 1. That the equity based compensation has substituted for salaries and wages. 2. That "remuneration" at this level is likely to recur in future accounting period. You have no evidence for either counterintuitive assertion. | wiganer | |
18/9/2006 11:01 | Wiganer, my point is that what you have is a lossmaking company which has issued a very bearish trading statement and will be missing all forecasts made only a few months ago, selling at several times its cash pile and therefore vulnerable to adverse stock market sentiment. You attack me for making what you call a hypothesis but then claim you have an "understanding" which I suspect is nothing more than your optimistic guess... or as we might call it, a hypothesis. If "equity based compensation" is not shares in lieu of cash salaries, what do you "understand" it to be and who gave you that understanding ? | tiredoldbroker | |
18/9/2006 10:44 | One has to wonder whether proper considerations and due diligence were carried out by the Brokers and advisors. Certainly some kind of pullback on the shares for the management would've been prudent here, It's now wonder US Companies are falling over themselves to get on AIM. | isis | |
18/9/2006 10:28 | The directors dumping all their shares at issue, then coming out with profit warnings months later does leave a very bad taste though. | isis | |
18/9/2006 10:06 | I consider your analysis to be misleading. The only reason they made a small loss was because of the stock compensation award. You hypothesise that this award was in lieu of salaries, but have no evidence to support that hypothesis. My understanding is it was nothing of the kind. I can understand why investors who bought in at the IPO may be unhappy at management being awarded stock as a reward for bringing the company to market, but any objective analysis would leave aside such emotional cant. The realities are that what we now have is a profitable company with a cash pile and a listing, which is therfore well placed to make earnings-enhancing acquisitions to sit alongside its existing profitable and cash-generative businesses. The recent profit warning may undermine sentiment and make it drift further, and I shan't be adding at present. but neither will I be selling. If it does drift down to some silly level I shall add in size. | wiganer | |
18/9/2006 09:42 | Yes, the company had US$ 12.7m cash at the end of the period but there are a few things to note. Cash generation wasn't as simple as "Net cash provided by operating activities $1,402,615" - that is just one line from the overall statement, and cannot be used in isolation. I would suggest that you work backwards from the bottom line, where total cash generated in the course of the year is shown as $5,238,992; but of this, $4,334,329 came from "financing activities", basically the issue of additional shares, including a one-off $421K credit on a stock settlement. Purchasing equipment etc was a net negative of $497,952 and the net positive contribution of $1,402,615 from operating activities was only achieved by writing back the cash value of $2,064,110 in "equity based compensation", which I would suggest is shorthand for the fact that more shares were issued but under the category of a substitute for cash payment of salaries, rather than lower down in the statement as a "financing activity". So I would suggest that writing all this back, at the genuinely operational level, the company was cash flow negative, and only covered this by diluting the equity. Given that it was also lossmaking and has issued a substantial profit warning, I would therefore wonder whether the cash is a sufficient support for the share price. With £/$ at around 1.88, the cash is about £6.75m but the market value of the company at 25p middle is £20.7m with 82.9m shares in issue. We've seen recently with stocks like Adamind that the combination of a poor trading statement with the dawning realisation that the company is burning cash can be quite enough to send the share price on a downwards path until it reaches the point where market value is less than cash in the bank - and indeed there have been dozens such cases over the last 5 or 6 years. Bearing that in mind, I would still not see BRST as good value at this level (23p-27p), it carries too much downside risk. | tiredoldbroker | |
18/9/2006 07:26 | "The company is barly afloat" Would you like to re-consider that absurd statement, vision 88? | wiganer | |
18/9/2006 07:25 | Interims out. As I expected, cash isn't a problem, in fact is far healthier than I suspected: Net cash provided by operating activities $1,402,615 Cash and cash equivalents $12,700,856 | wiganer |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
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