Sharesmagazine
 Home   Log In   Register   Our Services   My Account   Contact   Help 
 Stockwatch   Level 2   Portfolio   Charts   Share Price   Awards   Market Scan   Videos   Broker Notes   Director Deals   Traders' Room 
 Funds   Trades   Terminal   Alerts   Heatmaps   News   Indices   Forward Diary   Forex Prices   Shares Magazine   Investors' Room 
 CFDs   Shares   SIPPs   ISAs   Forex   ETFs   Comparison Tables   Spread Betting 
You are NOT currently logged in
 
Register now or login to post to this thread.

Tadpole , Microsoft/ Hewlett Packard Alliance. (TAD)     

Moneylender - 23 Jan 2003 08:09

graph.php?movingAverageString=%2C50%2C20

mackem - 28 Jan 2005 16:42 - 1215 of 2262

Are you going to continue to ramp this company moneylender?

yuff - 28 Jan 2005 17:07 - 1216 of 2262

ML
Just ignore oily.

Moneylender - 28 Jan 2005 18:50 - 1217 of 2262

Ollie/mackem

I think i might buy some more, such is my belief in software streaming.
Its the way of the future, it will stop piracy and reduce packaging costs.
Yes i will buy some more.

M

Greystone - 28 Jan 2005 19:18 - 1218 of 2262

Nobody caught the late news today then.....

Tadpole Technology said pretax losses narrowed to 2.76m in the year to September 2004 from 9.57m the previous year, in line with expectations.

Sales on continuing operations rose to 4.8m from 3.6m, also meeting forecasts.

The 35% rise in turnover was attributed mainly to the success of the Geospatial Solutions division, which accounted for almost 90% of the value growth in turnover.

The loss per share narrowed to 1p from 4.3p.

(I must admit to having a few tucked away in the bottom drawer...)

pachandl - 28 Jan 2005 20:14 - 1219 of 2262

Grey - yes, we probably all have to admit to holding some Tad. Luckily I downsized a few months ago but held on to a few in the hope that they would produce the goods eventually (now where have I heard that before?)

superrod - 29 Jan 2005 22:14 - 1220 of 2262

just found a little time to read the rns. 5MILLION? at this price that represents about another 75 MILLION SHARES.thats an awful lot to ask from the tad faithful. i wish id gone down the pub.


rjs - 31 Jan 2005 08:36 - 1221 of 2262

> superrod. Exactly and this will mean a huge amount of shares coming in to the market on a regular basis as per last time 250K chunks I believe.

short of some amazing news (which hasnt happened before) the price is capped until the overhang is gone - which will be two years.

yuff - 31 Jan 2005 08:54 - 1222 of 2262

rjs

Just like last time rjs?
Think you had better do some research and see what happened last time GEM was announced?

pachandl - 31 Jan 2005 09:27 - 1223 of 2262

The sp went up on the announcement and then slowly went down as GEM "overhang" began.

yuff - 31 Jan 2005 09:46 - 1224 of 2262

pach
it went up for several months eventually hitting 32p a couple of months later.
GEM wasn't used for 4 months.

pachandl - 31 Jan 2005 11:34 - 1225 of 2262

Yuff - agreed but you are not comparing like with like. The sp went up because there was an amazing shorters' squeeze after GEM when it became evident that Tad would have the cash to survive (and invest). This time round there is little evidence of shorting (pre-rns) so the effect will be much more mooted. Also, (i) we now know the effect of Gem drawdowns, (ii) the effect is magnified by the low sp which contributes to increased dilution.

Don't get me wrong, I really hope that Tad has some excellent news over the next few months that rallies the sp, thereby reducing the dilutive effect of Gem, and creates a virtuous circle. But I have waited rather a long time for that to happen!

yuff - 31 Jan 2005 11:45 - 1226 of 2262

pach
Fair point, I do remember the shorters squeeze, wonder who got shafted there.

pachandl - 31 Jan 2005 12:30 - 1227 of 2262

Not me thankfully - but I doubt they got any sympathy from anyone either!

superrod - 31 Jan 2005 17:21 - 1228 of 2262

im a die hard tad fan, but this really takes the biscuit. the higher the price the less shares to be issued, but the bottom line is that GEM will sell into ANY rally and nick even MORE of our money.the lower the price the higher the dilution and the less likely a shareholder will ever get a return. i need to think hard ( but not too long ) about this.

ideally GEM will tip me off when they are about to sell so i can ride their shirt tails.

( wakes up screaming ).

MightyMicro - 31 Jan 2005 23:39 - 1229 of 2262

So who's the new CEO?

Moneylender - 01 Feb 2005 09:13 - 1230 of 2262

Tadpole Technology Unit Secures New Contract



Edited Press Release


LONDON (Dow Jones)--Tadpole Technology said Tuesday that its subsidiary Endeavors Technology has executed an agreement with an OEM valued initially at $2.8 million, comprising licenses, royalties, support and maintenance services of the Endeavors AppExpress software-streaming platform.

The amount due during the current fiscal year ending Sep. 30, relating to licenses and support services, is $1.6 million.

An initial payment of $0.6 million has been received; $1.0 million is due in quarterly instalments at the end of March, June and September 2005.

The remaining balance of $1.2 million (of the total contract value of $2.8 million) relates primarily to minimum royalty payments and is due in quarterly instalments commencing December 2005 and ending December 2007.


(END) Dow Jones Newswires

February 01, 2005 04:10 ET (09:10 GMT)

pachandl - 01 Feb 2005 10:05 - 1231 of 2262

Finally some good news - someone actually wants to give Tad some money. Let's hope the management play this correctly and do not draw upon Gem too much until the sp has recovered, preferably to 12p+.

Moneylender - 01 Feb 2005 12:41 - 1232 of 2262

MARKET TALK: Tadpole Tech Frog Leaps 15% On Contract Win
1212 GMT [Dow Jones] Tadpole Technology's (TAD.LN) new contract win will drive forecast upgrades says Evolution. Analyst Lorne Daniel says contract "demonstrates revenues beginning to come through from streaming application business." Reiterates add on co, as "not enough visibility yet to push it to a buy." Tadpole +15% at 7.9p. (PAB)

M

yuff - 01 Feb 2005 14:29 - 1233 of 2262

pach
I think the whole point is this contract negates the need for GEM now.

rjs - 01 Feb 2005 14:38 - 1234 of 2262

no it doesnt!! this contract hasnt just sprung up from nowhere - if this contract could pay the bills thn they wouldnt have negotiated GEM surely!!

Register now or login to post to this thread.