Morning all - 3.7m in the bank

looks like the MCI technology payment wasn;t received until H2

Highride - 30 Jun'04 - 10:59 - 626 of 627 (Filtered)



rjs - 30 Jun'04 - 11:07 - 627 of 627 (Filtered)

We still hold Tad on the basis of hope rather than expectation. The next few months will not be easy unless tad can manage newsflow effectively.

Thats not very nice DICK ;-)

Im sure everything will work out for you guys in the long run - very long run ;-)

Psychologically you guys really do worry me. The attitude.. I'M RIGHT AND I KNOW I AM BECAUSE MY MATES SAY SO - is a sure fire way to lose your dough.

But then again yu've been holding for so long now with no profits, why stop now.

oh well


pachandl - 30 Jun'04 - 11:31 - 629 of 630 (Filtered)



rjs - 30 Jun'04 - 11:44 - 630 of 630 (Filtered)

i thought i was allready filtered ;-) now who's retarded.

what a bunch yu guys really are. Its not my fault you are doing your money.

Smell the fear

Rumours of new rumours

Down it goes

"The Tadpole BB PR people would like to announce that all new rumours are put on hold until nearer the next fund raising once the 3.7M has been spent!"

:-))

Snappy
Smell the fear and see the buys, ok the price might be down but since 8.20 the buys have ouweighed sells by 2.1 on very heavy volume.

Anyone got a copy of the TAD annual report - what does it say about revenue recognition policy? Are they recognising on invoice or receipt of payment?

Yes yuff, smell the fear

who cares what buys are being reported, only a muppet bases their investments on what others are buying or selling in the market on a particular day.

I remember when Telewest collapsed in price the muppets were buying and couldn't understand why the price was heading south. For every buy somebody must be selling get it?

Smell the fear

DOWN SHE GOES

It is always nice to be filtered (by DD) for simply expressing an honest, yet sceptical stance. The problem with some people on Tad BBs is that they cannot fully understand that the current value of a share is determined by current market sentiment, current growth in turnover, current profits growth and current prospects, not by continued promises of future growth which eventually run hollow. Tad's products have great potential but it requires clear evidence of take-up, no promises to that effect. Getting in early can make you rich (if Tad does break through) but where small cap, jam-tomorrow companies are concerned it is a gamble - no amounts of research should persuade you otherwise. I remain a holder because I am a gambler.

zzaxx99:

For software, you should only recognize revenue at the point where the royalty/license fee is actually earned. A prepayment should not be recognized unless it is a non-returnable license sale. A prepayment based on usage should be recognized as usage is reported -- sell 50 in August, recognize 50 in August revenue, even if 1,000 units invoiced. Software maintenance is often paid a year in advance -- that should be recognised 1/12 per month until the next renewal. Tempting to stuff it all into the current quarter if you're having a hard time, though.

Many are the software companies that have been hauled over the coals for agressive revenue recognition policies.

The Microsoft deal sounded to me like there was no upfront payment at all, simply an agreement to sell n usages at $x each to maximum of $100k then review the deal. Bearing in mind that Microsoft has about $60bn in the bank, this did not sound like a Microsoft-driven deal. It sounded like a low-key deal done at zero risk to Microsoft and driven by Tadpole. If nobody uses it, it doesn't cost Microsoft a brass cent.

If Microsoft like this technology, and can't do it themselves quickly, they might just buy Tadpole. I find it hard to believe that they'd shell out the current market cap of 45m for it, though.

Just IMHO.

MM

Well that's strange.

Dickdasterdly1000 says morning all, then proceeds to filter several posters out. Why's that, don't we fit into your blinkered view of the market Dick????

H

Can anyone confirm that the MCI upfront payment was not booked to the latest set of interim accounts?

Madafish - you mentioned that at some point you would divulge how close you were re. Tad interims and where you went wrong. Have you had a chance to marshall your thoughts? Cheers.

pachandl

My estimates for the Intrims were way off the mark. Reasons being I did expect some form of payment for the Autodesk contracts that were booked around Xmas. Obviously not knowing the details I cannot even guess as to why ETI's earnings remained stagnant. Then there was the Initial down payment from MCI, deal ann in Jan, so i did expect to see it somewhere in the results.
These are the two factors that made my guess nearly 1.5M out. I still have no doubt that TAD will make it for us but we have to learn to walk before running.

Anyhow on the rumour front, its up early tomorrow and definately be up early Friday. You have been told!!!

M

good job the market`s closed on saturday and sunday

It's absolutely crucial to know what TAD's revenue recognition policy is - doesn't anyone have their annual report? If they recognise on invoice then the MCI advance payment is in the interims* (and a long way short of 2m); if they recognise on cash receipt then the money is yet to come.

* unless they didn't invoice MCI until MCI came out of C11??

zzaxx

march 03 debtors about 900k and short term creditors about 1.1m

seems to me no advance payment in there then as they look more like the day to day figures

I would therefore imagine that money was paid post year-end

it could be that they received the cash and are going to recognise it over the life time of the deal so it is sat in debotrs but unless the payment is tiny then the above figures do not bear it out

the annual report is on http://www.tadpoletechnology.com/downloads/investors/2003ar.pdf

zz - excellent point - I completely forgot that they could not have invoiced MCI until it had come out of its protected bankruptcy status. Having said that, I had a debate with Madafish about when payments were booked - if the upfront payment represents access to the technology then it should be booked almost immediately, but if it is an upfront "royalty access" payment (which also allows for additional royalties based on actual use/turnover) then, as DD has said, it could be spread across the full term of the agreement - unless you know different. Cheers.

-- DD10000

thanks for that link. Agreed that the payment isn't in the interims unless it's tiny - that's the issue that I'm trying to establish. TAD have a history of leaks / rumours of large deals that turn out in the cold light of day to be much less significant, though planting 2M and then booking 20K would be a serious piss-take.

-- pachandl

Do we know for certain that MCI can't be invoiced in C11? I doubt they could pay, but can't see why they shouldn't be invoiced.

Any experts on C11 around?

Here's what the annual report has to say about it:

Revenue recognition continuing operations
Turnover is recognised for any element of a sale when all of the basic criteria are met for that element. The four basic criteria for recognising software licence revenue are: that persuasive evidence for the arrangement exists, delivery has occurred, our fee is fixed or determinable and the collection of the revenue is probable. Maintenance revenue is recognised rateably over the period of the contract, and consulting revenue is recognised on the basis of work performed and contract milestones.

So, clear as mud there then! appears to be satisfiedopen to question - depends if "technology access" counts as delivery at signing, or when they implement; or whether any software has been handed overprobably satisfied,open to question - contract signed, but customer in C11.