Thursday, 12 February 2009

Profitable next year? Prove it...


"In an interview, blinkx CEO Suranga Chandratillake told Shankland that the company has 65 employees, is hiring and will be profitable next year."

Yeah? Profitable next year? Really? 

If indeed the company is on track for profitability, why not publish a full trading update so that shareholders and investors can judge for themselves? Why do we have to take the word of a man whose company - despite his best efforts to talk it up recently - still languishes at roughly a third of its IPO price? Whose policy on what to RNS and what not to RNS is, as Bill Gates might say, 'random' (no RNS for the movies added to blinkx.com in the past few days, for example)?

If Chandratillake wants to retain any credibility whatsoever, he needs to show us. 'Cause just telling us just isn't working...


Monday, 9 February 2009

Follow-up letter to John McFall MP

9th February 2009

 

Mr John McFall MP,

House of Commons,

Westminster,

London  SW1A 0AA

 

Dear Mr McFall.

Further to my letter of 13th January, I am pleased to see that it finally seems as though politicians and regulators are waking up to the danger posed by short-sellers and hedge funds. I welcome the proposed new rules to force disclosure of short positions across the entire UK stockmarket, even as I am disappointed that the FSA has ruled out a complete ban on the practise of short-selling.

In my view there are only two groups of people with a legitimate interest in a company’s share price: those who already own shares in that company and those thinking of buying shares in that company. Why should a third party with no interest in buying shares in a company be allowed to affect that company’s share price by selling what they do not own - and, in the case of naked shorting, have not even borrowed? To listen to hedge fund managers, one would think that they were doing the markets a favour by selling stock short and creating, as they would have it, ‘liquidity’: as if what they were doing was not – as in fact it is – about manipulating the share price of companies and naked greed.

Shorting is speculation, pure and simple: and we all now know where rampant, ill-informed speculation can lead, whether it be shorting shares or trading in exotic financial derivatives. If the world’s financial markets are ever to return to some semblance of sanity and normality, a fundamental re-engineering of processes, practises and risk management will be required. I cannot think of a better place to start than an outright ban on short selling.

I saw a report in The Times on Saturday (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article5679626.ece) that many fund managers are reacting angrily to the proposed new disclosure rules. The obvious question to ask is: why? If short-selling is perfectly legitimate and above-board – as hedge funds and others claim – why should they or would they worry about being forced to disclose their short positions? If, on the other hand, shorting is – as I and many others maintain – immoral, unethical, highly dangerous and should be illegal, then one could understand that they would have concerns.

If short-sellers are forced to declare their positions across the entire market, only then will the full extent of their manipulation become apparent. That is why so many of them are so worried.

In my view short-selling should be banned, immediately and across the entire market. Power and control should be given back to the pension funds and investment funds who manage the wealth of the many; not given to the few to make obscene profits off the back of those who prudently save. Such a recalibration will be required if we are to avoid the events of the past two years or so ever happening again: why would the Labour Party not do so now, re-establish that it is on the side of the working family against the spivs and the speculators, and avoid a catastrophic wipe-out at the next general election?

Yours sincerely,

 

___________

xxxx xxxxxx   

 

PS. I attach a copy of a cartoon which appeared in Sunday’s Observer magazine. If even the cartoonists have woken up to the utterly ludicrous nonsense of short-selling, why have the politicians yet to act?

Sunday, 8 February 2009

One feels that the days of short-selling are numbered...









[click the image for a larger version]

From The Observer Magazine, 8th February 2009

If cartoonists of colour supplements are pointing out how absurd short-selling is, you can't help feeling it's only a matter of time until politicians actually do something...

Online video is booming...

"YouTube sets online video record

New figures show that December was a record month for viewing videos online.
Online clips were watched more than four billion times by over 30 million people according to internet monitor comScore..."

Saturday, 7 February 2009

Maybe writing letters does work after all...

Moves afoot to force short-sellers of all shares to declare their position.




Either my letter to John McFall MP about shorting caught the zeitgeist nicely, or writing letters really does have an effect...

Blinkx are playing a very dangerous game

Interesting update on the News section of the Blinkx web site


The last paragraph is especially interesting:

"The next steps, after the web, are the living room and the cellphone. Chandratillake said he's in talks with various set-top box manufacturers about getting embedded there. As for an iPhone app, he wouldn't say, but implied that some sort of mobile app is also in the works."

This raises several interesting thoughts:

1/ I love the arrogance of the phrase 'after the web'. To date, we have absolutely no evidence that Blinkx has successfully monetized the web, yet they're already planning the next arena of conquest. Either breathtakingly confident or stunningly arrogant and delusional. How about they show us the money they've made so far before laying out another roadmap?

2/ This is very dangerous: as it is on the official Blinkx web site it could raise legitimate expectations in the minds of shareholder and investors - expectations which could well come back to bite the Blinkx management team in the ass. And will if they fail to deliver it.

3/ It's easy to talk - the real skill lies in delivery. What exactly is Blinkx trying to achive by posting this information? To drop hints about a rosy future and keep dissident shareholders (such as myself - but there are more by the week) onboard? To try and attract a buzz around the company (almost totally absent, at the moment) and try to stimulate the extremely moribund share price? A big 'fuck you' to the company's critics? 

Myself, I'd much rather have a comprehensive trading update and a clear RNS clarifying the Miva situation than more pie-in-the-sky jam tomorrow nonsense about set-top boxes. 

But that would be too easy, wouldn't it? 

Suranga talks the talk, but can he walk the walk?

For a different perspective, I thought I'd quote this post, from 'twiga', on one of the ADVFN Blinkx discussion threads.

"twiga - 7 Feb'09 - 09:28 - 1361 of 1361

...

it is worth noting that suranga does tend to come out with comments that get people excited ,but little happens afterwards ,

eg blinkxtv very slow growth , and only successfully watched in uk or usa .

trans hijacking idea no where to be seen ,,

iblinkx rumours ,,,

miva deal off ,,, then a month later back on ,, and three months later no news .

now we have the talk about set-top boxes being embedded ,,and some mobile phone talk ...

also more talk about buying other companies ..

if all the above were accomplished ,, then suranga will be a star , but he needs to be carefull not to mislead us

action is very important , not just easy talk what youd like to do.

Do it BLINKX !!! show the big boys that you can ."

Exactly my own view. What the hell has happened to Transaction Hijacking (a product that seems tailor-made for today's cost-conscious world)? What the hell is going on with Miva?

It seems as though Chandratillake is announcing a whole raft of new product, ideas and alliances when he still has unfinished business. This only leads to confusion and anger among shareholders and investors: he should focus on one product or deal or service at a time, get it finished, get it out, move on to the next and leave sales, legal, marketing and support to follow behind. Otherwise the company becomes no more than a collection of half-finished or half-baked products and ideas, none of which are generating maximal revenue but all of which suck up time and resources. Eventually such a house of cards collapses (Yoomedia, anyone?).

And of course I would revert to my previous point: if the company was doing as well and growing as fast as Chandratilake claims, why not release a full Trading Update to emphasise the fact? Why do we have to hear about it anecdotally (and unproveably) in newspaper profiles/articles?

Why not show us,rather than just tell us?