Why are we again at 10.5p bid?

It doesn't add up...

Good Results + Strong buying pre results + Christmas online buying soon = Price drop

Then again some companies that have debt for equity hanging in the balance, poor results and bankruptcy around the corner and they go up!

Why sell now at a loss?

Wont that be a kick in the teeth when we see 13.5p 14p again!

Best of luck all.

Strange to see GS accumulate 3%. T100 or not, I cannot see why GS would buy into such a comparative tiddler as RTD. They are not exactly fund managers. So my current theory, which I am happy to jettison if anyone improves upon it, is that GS are buying for a client who has pretensions to put in a bid for RTD, with GS supervising the take-over. After all, GS are take-over specialists - which is how they make their mega-bucks. Probably wrong but I cannot say that I was expecting this type of RNS today. Now if it had been a small cap fund manager then I would understand.

pachandl - I agree and the fact that GS have had many ructions with Cybersource in the past, suggest that it's not them.

RTD has fingers in many pies in the sector in the UK with mutually beneficial agreements etc., so as GS INC. (the parent co.) is based in the US this is likely to be a hostile bid from the US rather than the UK and that is likely to mean a healthy 40p or 50p bid.

Of course, alternatively, it may be something to do with that order to buy 10M RTD a couple of weeks ago that I placed with my trusted brokers Rampem and Hype where I asked them to get the best deal possible (considering the dollar weakness) lol!

O/G - I have used Rampem & Hype many times and I would not hear a bad word against them.

If there is a hostile bid, a big if, then I would go for a C&P provider who wanted to enlarge their portfolio of products to cover the entire payments market - something like Torex Retail. But we all just fishing in the dark until the next RNS, if there is one.

Having spoken to a couple of friends in the City it seems that the GS buy is probably perfectly innocent. Their asset management or investment trust business would normally buy into any firm that shows good long-term growth prospects and has become a tracker constituent. Still, it shows some faith.

Talk on ADVF that alot of people will be adding following the GS news on Friday. Concensus seems to be why would a world reknown investment house buy into a tiddler ? Answers ;

1. Buying on behalf of someone for a bid.

2. Done their research and seen RTD as undervalued.

Either way looks marvellous ;-)

Why did they leave it so late, they could have picked them up at virtually half the price a month or two back. Does anyone have any info regarding the Legal action against RTD in respect of accused patent infringement as it has gone very quiet, was it resolved?

Hello...............;o)

O GOd,Douggie is back. Did You enjoy Egypt. Is true what they say of The Sands of the Nile and the Sphinx???

Rob there was a good post on ADV tonight. Management have set aside 0.5M to cover legal issues so nothing to worry about.

As to why GS did not buy in prior it is down to a recent roadshow by RTD and also the possible Techmark inclusion.

p.s OT get some DCS someone accumulating

mourning.....could this red flush be something to do with me just sitting here thinking maybe I should think of taking some profit, at that moment the screen turned RED.............:-[ !!!!!

MMs have to balance their books somehow.

It looks as though a big buyer is still around (GS or not GS ?).

500K broker to broker and 1M showing as sells (which are really buys), one with a bargain condition on, though still at the 24p level.

RTD were promoted to the FTSE small cap. from FTSE fledgling today, still no news on the Techmark - will be coming soon.

It looks as though internet shopping is going to be mega over the Christmas period - should be even more good news for RTD!

I went round a few shops last weekend looking for presents and where they didn't have what I wanted in stock I was directed to shop on their websites (where there were more products available!) - I'm sure there's lots of people like me around, plus all those who bought a PC last year or upgraded to broadband and are starting to get used to net shopping, plus all those who will be getting the same as a present this Christmas and hitting the sales on-line.

I'll be hanging on to my RTD for a while now - I don't want to sell now and see them in a year and a half's time at 1.30 (which is what I foolishly did with London Clubs a while ago which was exhibiting very similar price move characteristics). As for Douggie - you said yourself some time ago "I'm supposed to be a trader", sell a few and get trading in a new flyer or hang on in there for the huge gains to come in RTD - the choice is all yours lol!.

From GCI:

Retail Decisions could easily exceed forecasts Vikki Kunz

I can only assume that the taint of being a small cap technology play has held back the share price of Retail Decisions (ReD). For the second consecutive year, the credit card prevention and fuel card operator announced that profits for the 12 months to December will be higher than expected. Joint house broker Daniel Stewart now expects pre-tax profits to come in at 6.7 million, an increase of 600,000, on turnover of 32 million.

The overlooked stock has thrived on the back of its cash cow, the multi-branded, Australian-based fuel charge card business. Within four years, chief executive Carl Clump managed to build the Australian business to annual sales of 7 million. It now provides 80 per cent of the group's profits. Unsurprisingly, ReD is looking to expand the business geographically.

Total group turnover last year was 30.4 million with pre-tax profits of 5.5 million. At the interim stage, it increased pre-tax profits by 127 per cent to 2.5m (1.1 million) and increased its cash pile within the space of six months from 4.2 million to 6.3 million. The cash will be used to fund future acquisitions.

ReD's long-term growth, however, should stem from its payment processing and card fraud prevention services. Already capturing blue chip clients such as Walmart and T Mobile, the company is increasing its presence in the card-not-present (CNP) arena, which it operates in the UK, the US and South Africa. The potential of this market is enormous when you consider the recent spike in internet e-tailing and interactive retailing. It is also looking to develop new services such as internet payment schemes.

The only blip on the company's horizon is a legal action by competitor CyberSource over an alleged patent copyright infringement. ReD hit back asking for a re-examination of the patent after discovering 'prior art'. As this area covers three per cent of ReD's turnover, the only provision it is making is 500,000 to pay for lawyer's fees.

While the company's prospects are healthy to say the least, it's amazing that it currently trades so cheaply. The shares are at 19.75p and the EPS of 1.58p provides a prospective p/e of 12.5 way below the sector average of 32.3. Next year's profit is expected to be 7.2 million, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's third time lucky and the figure is exceeded again.

OG - nice find. Apologies for my ignorance but who/what is GCI?

pachandl, Growth Company Investor - a monthly tips mag for small fast growing Companies. One of the better ones IMHO. The article is under the heading Christmas Stock Picks.

www.growthcompany.co.uk

RCT - thanks.

What does "prior art" mean, please?

"Prior art" is a term used in patent law, and refers to stuff that was publicly known before the patent was granted. I think...

RCT - correct. Prior art is all the information that is considered "publicly available" at the point when the relevant patent application is made. This "art" is used to determine whether the patent application displays "novelty" and "inventive step", two of the conditions required for a patent grant to be made. If there is "prior art" available at the time of Cyber's application then it might destroy novelty, but is more likely to be used by RTD to undermine "inventive step". Inventive step is the term used to denote a "non-obvious" development from the prior art to the patent application. Non-obvious refers to the type of activity which is beyond the ability of a "technician skilled in the relevant art". Hope that helps. Clearly RTD's US patent attorneys believe that Cyber's patent should not have been granted. If they fail on that one, then the next line of defence is that what RTD is doing does not infringe Cyber's patents. Things could rumble on for a while but time is money when you appoint patent counsel in the USA so I am half-expecting Cyber to withdraw its allegations at some point in the early new year.

pachandl, good post. Nice rise today too.