Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Actually, the NEO is a Canadian national exchange for senior public companies, not an ECN.
https://www.aequitasneo.com/en/exchange/faq
As for the governance structure for listed companies on NYSE and Nasdaq, there is no Board election requirement. The BOD requirement is that a majority of Board members of a listed company be independent directors.
For other listing requirements, here are some useful links:
https://www.weil.com/~/media/files/pdfs/150154_pcag_board_requirements_chart_2015_v21.pdf
and also:
https://www.perkinscoie.com/en/chapter-8-governance-on-the-big-board-nyse-listing-standards.html#:~:text=NYSE%20listing%20standards%20generally%20require,Purpose%20and%20Responsibilities.
Not Dilution. 1. Reverse split is not a dilutive event. Reverse splits are non-economic events. Posted several times on this trying to provide some basic education on the concept.
2. Revenue Definition:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/revenue.asp
How is dilution ever considered to be revenue? That confuses how dilution works. The concepts are completely different.
Option plans are used as incentives to employees. Every company has one so every company uses a dilutive financial instrument to reward employees. Google has a very robust incentive plan so I guess they are dilutive too. Unless the stock price goes up over the strike, there is typically no exercise and no additional shares issued. Oh, and by the way, the company gets paid the exercise price.
https://www.thebalance.com/understanding-your-employee-stock-options-2388513
3. How are the financials a mess? Define mess. Look at any international company that acquires other companies. Take Facebook as an example. Understanding how financials are presented is the key to evaluating them.
4. The other questions are too confusing to follow what is even being asked.
Ridiculous. Is a book on body language the evidence of lying about the valuation of intangibles?
Here's a good outline of the real concept of evidence:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence-legal/
Evidence = credible facts not unsubstantiated accusations
Pretty simple.
Not BS. If you look at the Q, intangibles are also related to the Push Holdings acquisition. Logiq is in the software business. Take a look at any software company doing software acquisitions and you'll find Intangibles. Any valuation must adhere to GAAP.
Here's a general simple primer on valuing intangibles:
https://www.cgma.org/content/dam/cgma/resources/tools/downloadabledocuments/valuing-intangible-assets.pdf
Here's an entire book on it which goes over specific asset types:
https://www.aicpastore.com/BusinessValuationandLitigationServices/guide-to-intangible-asset-valuation/PRDOVR~PC-PBV1301/PC-PBV1301.jsp
At any rate, assets metrics are typically not significant in how to value software companies.
Goodwill is related to their acquisition of Push Holdings in January 2020 so that's why it shows up on that Q and not last year's 10K. Take a look at Note 5 regarding Goodwill in the Q. Goodwill is recognized in business combinations.
Goodwill calculation can get complicated. Here are some simple overviews to look at for goodwill calculation:
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/112814/how-calculate-goodwill.asp
https://www.freshbooks.com/hub/accounting/calculate-goodwill
Best thing to do is read through a bunch of Qs and read some accounting texts. Facebook does a lot of acquisitions so you can take a look at this:
https://www.stock-analysis-on.net/NASDAQ/Company/Facebook-Inc/Analysis/Goodwill-and-Intangible-Assets
Goodwill has nothing to do with market cap. Market cap is the value of the issued and outstanding shares of stock (market price per share x no. of shares). It reflects what investors are willing to pay for the stock. And the price per share is usually projected by investors based on a discounted cash flow model or comps or a combination of both to get a range and a target:
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/080913/equity-valuation-comparables-approach.asp
I agree - Livestream was very good. Brent made a clear presentation as to what the company does and its value-add to SMEs, and how the business segments work synergistically.
I really like the questions from the viewers. Brent gave a very clear explanation of the history of the Indonesian operations, and how they will be presented going forward in the 10K/10Qs as Logiq takes over direct majority control. He also gave some great background information on Nasdaq uplisting and also the rationale behind listing on NEO and pursuing the NYSE.
I would encourage investors to view the livestreams and ask questions. I'm not sure if people realize how massive the potential is with the Indonesian operations. I'm thinking of what is going on with Jumia in Africa right now and seeing some parallels. And Jumia is really starting to catch on with institutional investors recently.
So people should feel encouraged. Logiq is in the right space and making some very measured and savvy strategic moves.
Great upwards price action and momentum today on good volume. Logiq's strategy is working, and it's just a matter of time for the market to reward it. Great to see this today.
Perhaps you could enlighten the Board with your definition of "dilution", which I've tried to explain on numerous occasions, citing credible financial sources on the market definition of the concept, apparently to no avail.
These unsubstantiated accusations combined with the blatant misuse of the word "dilution" are just nonsensical. Repeated time and time again. Repeating them again and again doesn't change the accepted market definition of "dilution", nor does it make any of the posted statements true or valid. It just shows that the argument and statements are nonsensical and completely misleading with regards to what the company has done, and is doing.
Rather, the company is taking all the right steps to build revenue in high growth areas such as fintech and other areas in the US and SE Asia. What's wrong with building revenue, building shareholder value, and creating jobs?
Great News! Partnering with malls for delivery is a great expansion to their service. I like what I'm seeing.
Yes, I have. Things have worked out really well on the due diligence. I'm really encouraged with what I see from the company and their markets, which are are really just at the beginning of a long term positive cycle. The company is executing a great strategic plan, partnering with the right companies to roll out additional products, and making really positive acquisitions. I don't really talk much about when and how much, but I've been building a position steadily, and will look to increase that pace if there are any dips. Looking great so far.
Insider buying is always a good sign. Thanks for sharing.
Wow. Great addition in Josh Jacobs to the Board as independent director. Logiq is really making all the right moves in AI and ML in data driven consumer intelligence. His experience in the digital ad space is massive. I'm very, very impressed.
No facts to support any of that. Plus, my due diligence and investigation show that’s a very twisted take, and a gross misstatement of the actual facts.
First, regarding splits, there is much confusion. The Board makes the corporate decisions, not one individual in management. The independent Board here is very respected. It has a former Managing Director of Lehman, a former Director of the Economist Corporate Network, a former portfolio manager for Schroders Investment Management, and a former Asia Pacific CFO of MediaOne (now part of AT&T). And reverse splits are a non-economic event. No dilution, and I've tried to explain that many times to educate people for their own understanding.
Second, since Mr. Suen is mentioned so much, I did DD with FINRA, and did some actual digging, because it’s important.
Turns out, it’s much ado about nothing. The incident in question was in the mid-90s regarding a home mortgage, when the mortgage process was much different. That was 25 years ago. Let that sink it – 25 years ago regarding an application for a home loan.
So what was the allegation? That in the qualification paperwork bundle for a mortgage, there was a letter that certain business expenses were reimbursed. Not an allegation of misstated or inflated salary or anything nefarious. Not an allegation of inflated net worth, or ability to pay. Mortgage paperwork I know can be complicated. Looks like in all likelihood, the reimbursement policies at his work were vague, confusing, and he simply got it wrong. Any allegations of misstatement of salary or net worth? Nope. It was business expense reimbursement policy. Talk about nit-picky.
That’s an honest mistake to me. And the consent degree would, and does, reflect that. Happens all the time, it was a consent degree – so neither admitting nor denying the allegations. There’s an allegation, a civil one, not a criminal one; and instead of spending a year and tens of thousands on court costs, there’s a settlement.
This happens in finance all the time – happened to Elon Musk. He took a consent decree with the SEC to settle charges very recently (not in 1996) for claiming to have the money to take TSLA private, and I don’t see posts about him. Jamie Dimon, one of the most respected bankers – JP Morgan recently got fined $310 MM by the CFTC for manipulating the foreign exchange market (and this has happened multiple times). JP Morgan has also been fined by the SEC for manipulating LIBOR and actual mortgage abuses. Those are actual big deals. Here's the violation tracker for JP Morgan: https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/prog.php?parent=jpmorgan-chase&order=pen_year&sort=desc
For Suen, one letter on an application related to expenses, not even salary - 25 years ago, unrelated to the public markets, unrelated to investors – for a personal purchase of a home? And nothing at all since then. Everybody’s got to make their own decision, but c’mon. Those are the actual facts. For me, he's as clean as they come.
Plus, FINRA and the SEC have oversight on officers and directors, and vet their actions all the time. There was recently an S-3 which is a thorough vetting of the officers. So if the SEC vets him as clean, and private DD vets him as clean, and the independent Board runs the show, what's up?
This constant twisting of the facts just looks so dirty, bordering on slander. It really detracts from the actual discussion on what is really exciting with this company. There is literally no other company in SE Asia making the progress they are. That's the debate we should be having instead of this constant time wasting on what are just wild, ridiculous and totally unfounded accusations, and a really perverse twisting of facts on ancient history.
Non sequitur. Conclusion of rinse and repeat doesn't logically follow because the company today is completely different - different leadership, different share structure, different revenues, completely different business. I look at the current and future state of affairs not the past, and I have done a lot of DD. When one looks at a company, it's the future that counts, not the past.
Does everyone know that Nintendo started as a playing card company, set up a taxi company, a hotel chain, a TV network, and a food company before ever entering video games? They entered the video game biz in 1974. 3M started as a mining company. IBM sold typewriters. No one judges their current business on these past businesses. Looking at the past misses the future.
First things first, I keep seeing this narrative about dilution, and the use of the word dilution, which really needs to be corrected.
Reverse splits, and forward splits are completely non-economic events. They are not dilutive! If you own 1% of the company, and there is a reverse or forward split, the amount of shares you own changes, but so does everyone else's. If you own 1% pre-split, you own 1% post-split. No dilution. Share dilution only happens when the company issues additional stock.
Let me reference a good article for educational purposes:
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/11/dangers-of-stock-dilution.asp
Let's take private and public companies separately and take the simple cases:
Private company dilution:
Raising capital: Companies raise money in rounds. Additional share issuance for cash dilutes existing shareholders - meaning that they have the same number of shares but they own less of a percentage of the company. However, the company just raised the cash. So if the company is worth $10 MM pre-money, they raise $5 MM, then the company is worth $15 MM post-money.
The only way raising money really hurts existing shareholders short term is if the raise was what is known as a "down round", or at a price less than the prior round that the investor came in. That may hurt existing shareholders return because they bought in at too high a price. But that's not necessarily a bad thing long term. Maybe the company is expanding or introducing a new product. So a slight down round can be a blessing long term.
Conversion of options: When employees exercise options, that boosts the share count. But every company does this. In private companies, you need a 10-20% pool to attract good employees to grow the business, which may need to be refreshed every couple rounds.
Offering new shares for a merger: Companies issue shares for a merger but again, it's dilutive but can be accretive. Initially, Instagram was bought with cash and stock. But wow, that was accretive to Facebook. So is dilution necessarily bad? nope.
Offering shares for services: Similar to employees, companies offer shares to service providers. Why? For the companies, it is to conserve cash. But why would service providers elect to get shares that are restricted from resell, rather than cash? Because they believe the shares are going to be worth more later down the road. And service providers typically ask for a greater number of shares than the cash equivalent to make up for the inability to sell the shares short term. This is exactly what Bill Shatner did with Priceline.
Public companies: So public companies issue shares for the same reason private companies do. One difference is that if a business isn't working, the private company just folds. But with a public company, there is value in the public vehicle. But the share structure can be a mess at that point. New management or new money comes in to restructure the company into a new business line. And the exchanges have price minimums to uplist. If you have 1 Billion shares, you'd need to be worth $1 B just to have a $1/share price. That is not attractive to institutional investors, and you can't uplist on the exchange.
So the company was worthless before new management, and it should have gone under. But the public vehicle is worth a fair amount. So what does management do? They reverse the shares to get less in the system to reflect a higher per share price for institutions and to raise new money. It's a non-economic event when the reverse actually happens. Not dilutive. If new money is raised? Dilutive, but you have the money which is good.
To rebuild the company, to change into more promising business lines, the company and management has to issue new shares to raise money to build products, make acquisitions, and incentivize employees.
So who is affected most during any reorganization? The existing shareholders. They should have lost everything. But with new management and a new business, it'a a fresh start, and it's better to get 1% of something than 100% of nothing.
Let's look at Logiq:
Name changes: It's standard to change a name to reflect the nature of the new business. If Joe's Gardening found oil on their property, they would change their name to something like J's Exploration and Production. That's never a big deal.
Reverse splits: Ok, so I think we covered this. On the rise and repeat claim, DD shows that Brent Suen became CEO on November 19, 2014. I see nothing to indicate he had any executive power before then, any decision making power at all, so any corporate actions cannot be logically attributed to him although it looks like he assisted in a business development role back in 2009/2010 although was neither officer or director. So everything before that date, it's not him or anyone with the company today:
Reverse Splits:
8/4/11: Not current management
12/17/13: Not current management
Sitoa: Not current management
Sinobiomed: Not current management
CDoor: Not current management
All of those were completely different companies with different management. As explained above, all those shareholders in those companies should have lost everything. The only thing that associates them with the current company is the public corporate form.
Investors today need to decide on current management and the current business, not the past which is irrelevant. Rinse and repeat is a nice sound bite but not reflective of this company today, and sophisticated investors understand that. The public form is a vehicle, nothing more.
I think the discussion needs to move forward on the business itself - which is where differences of opinion can be real - because it is about the future. Revenues and profits drive share price which is in turn driven by the desirability and uniqueness of the product.
The company can theoretically issue all the employees a 50% option pool tomorrow - but guess what - the price and liquidity will tank and those options will be worthless. And realistically, that cannot happen. Why? Aside from state laws requiring certain actions to need shareholder approval, as well as Board approval, market realities dictate what a company can do. Management can't just issue a non-market standard bunch of shares to themselves (a dilutive action) and expect the market to not see it for what that is - a transfer of wealth to management. The price would adjust and management wouldn't get rich at all.
That's why option pools and share issuance is pretty market standard. Share issuance and option pools are an incentive. And any outsized issuances are quickly punished by the market.
I see no evidence of outsized issuance here. None at all. I see no risk of that either, given the bylaws and market realities and the professionalism of the management and the Board. So, rinse and repeat - sounds nice but in the US, evidence is needed to back anything up. And I'm always open to facts. But no one has provided any specifics against this team and business - which includes the independent directors, the corporate bylaws, the corporate charter, corporate financials, or their business model that validates any unsubstantiated claims against them.
Investors really need understand the reality of corporate governance, the difference of how public and private companies change business lines, how dilution occurs, and how corporate actions really work. Then maybe this message board can move on to discuss the merits and opportunities of the current business, which to me looks incredibly promising with great traction.
It's easy to sit around and throw rocks at how things are done or should be done. There's too much of a focus on brief statements with twisted facts or no facts at all. To actually add some value, let's see some posts on the company's market opportunity or how they compare to the competition. That's a good discussion. If someone has a great idea and can add value, then reach out to the company to offer advice instead of making claims of ‘scam’ or ‘fake’ with no evidence.
It's a really thoughtful piece. I think it lays out the business lines, growth potential, and comps well. Sometimes pure plays in hot sectors trade at higher multiples because they are, on the surface, in a high growth area that is easily understood.
When you have different business lines like Logiq, some of which are higher growth than others (even though all lines are growing fast), it sometimes takes the market a bit longer to catch up with the multiples and recognize the sum of the parts. But that is the opportunity, isn't it?
Just look at Amazon. They started off selling books online, which was a high growth biz. Should people have valued them as a book seller, or as an electronics vendor once they expanded their products? No way!
Investors have to recognize the power of the platform. Amazon then expanded to product after product. The market was a bit slow to recognize what they are doing, but it caught up! They were gaining more and more audience and behavior data, which enabled them to then offer their own products. And eventually launch AWS which brought in all the corporate cloud business giving them even greater insights to new products. Tech platforms can be incredibly sticky. People get used to a quality product and don't change.
For me, platforms as a service - like Logiq's product - are great. Huge growth and potential. If that was the only business line, great. But combine that with the SE Asia delivery biz and tech trends in Asia - the kind of data that is harvested with Logiq's business there - it has enormous, exponential growth potential, especially because they are linking it now to fintech product offerings with Yabx (which is part of Tech Mahindra group).
So I thought it was a great piece, and I would encourage people to take a read.
SEC filings 101:
Guess what, all 10Qs are unaudited, even IBM, Google, Apple, etc.
Here is an example for the record:
https://www.ibm.com/investor/att/pdf/IBM_2Q_2018_10-Q.pdf
10Ks are audited.
Here's a nice educational article on SEC filings:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/1/10q.asp#:~:text=Understanding%20SEC%20Form%2010%2DQ,-Federal%20securities%20laws&text=A%20company%20utilizes%20Form%2010,of%20the%20company's%20financial%20situation.&text=This%20report%2C%20unlike%20the%2010,audited%20and%20is%20filed%20annually.
Always only rely on company filings with the SEC. That being said, great analysts base their projections on the SEC filings plus their insight into the industry, competitive analysis, customer calls, etc to make predictions as to the future growth and value of a company.
Corporate governance 101:
Here's a fact based response. State corporate law and a company's articles of incorporation and by-laws govern name changes and changes to the outstanding shares.
Board approval is required for
1. Name changes
2. Reverse or forward splits
Logig has Board with independent directors so the former CEO or the current CEO cannot unilaterally act.
Thanks for the update. All great news but the stock is getting hammered. Was there something people were expecting but didn't get announced?
Impressive revenue ramp, expanding margins, and strategic acquisitions to expand growth - those are what I as an investor like to see from a company in a difficult economic time. Tells me management has a very good strategic and operational plan, and more importantly, that they are executing on it very well and getting results. Great news.
This is really huge news, and exactly the right step for Logiq to capture the Indonesian and pan-Asia markets. My due diligence told me this was heading in the right direction, and this is it.
For everyone unfamiliar with it, Yabx is part of Tech Mahindra. They are the real deal. Most people in the US don’t know Tech Mahindra. It is an Indian company with $5.3 B in annual revenue. They compete with Infosys (also headquartered in India with $13 B in annual revenue listed on the NYSE: INFY) and Wipro (also headquartered in India with $9 B in revenue NYSE: WIT).
Everything in Asia is done on the phone. Mobile phone penetration is like 85%, but bank credit (individual, SMEs) in pan-Asia (ex China, Japan), Africa, and Lat-Am countries (like Indonesia) is more like 5-15%. Banking just isn’t like the US, and that is the opportunity.
Banks just don’t have the info targeting to whom they can lend. Being on the AI and ML side, I was aware of Yabx. What they have done is to create behavior models to id good borrowers, and part of their source data is payment gateways.
So a partnership with a Logiq makes perfect sense.
Logiq has a ton of macro trends in its favor.
1. Everyone in Asia transacts on mobile.
2. Huge shift to contactless transactions leading to more transactions and data which will continue
3. Indonesian individuals and SMEs are significantly under-banked and under-served
4. More data leads to more opportunity to offer numerous financial tech goods/services to customers
Get the data, and you will get the revenue. That was my macro thesis on this part of Loqiq’s business, and this partnership is great confirmation.
I first came upon Loqiq looking at delivery services outside of China in fragmented markets like Indonesia. And the fact they had traction, an e-wallet solution, with credit options for merchants was enticing.
Now, in the span of like a month from first looking at it, they’ve really opened the floodgates to fintech offerings with Yabx and Tech Mahindra.
Great, great partnership!
I try to be thoughtful and thorough investigating a potential new position. Product research, customer calls, differentiation, go-to-market plans, competitive analysis, market research - all the good stuff. I try to take every potential negative issue seriously, but at some point, I've got to ask - when there are recycled baseless accusations with no facts, no evidence, no basis.
I've asked for any evidence of anything wrong, and none has been forthcoming. First I saw accusations of dilution, which has now apparently increased from millions to hundreds of millions. I think the next accusation may be in the billions of dilution. Then, the accusations have been upgraded to manipulation, and now further upgraded to theft. What's next - armed robbery, extortion and kidnapping? I go in taking things seriously, but it's just laughable at this point. Most message boards have their share of differing opinions, but the accusations here without evidence are just wildly ridiculous.
Here's the deal. Anyone can say anything they want. Things are easy to say without evidence:
1. Dragons secretly control the US government
2. Elvis is an alien.
3. Our universe is the Matrix.
4. The CEO is a bad wizard and pays people to post good things.
I've seen this all before. All of it sounds great for a fiction film, but I put my trust in research - customer calls, SEC oversight, and audits.
From everything I've seen, the company looks like they are doing it right.
Is it confirmed that Apple is only announcing new iPads and Apple Watch on the 15th, and delaying announcing new 5G phone and new MacBook till October?
Let us try a fact based answer. Caveat, I'm still completing due diligence and welcome anything backed by facts or evidence.
That being said, it's looking good so far. I've read the filings. August 17 the Company filed an S-3 to raise institutional funding for expansion and it looks like it went effective on the 26th. The SEC reviews all previous filings and IF there are any issues with a company on their quarterly, annual or other filings, it would not have been approved.
Making unsupported allegations about a company and its CEO relating to being in bad stead with the regulators and throwing in something about jail time - well that's just dirty pool. If there is evidence, show it. Otherwise, it really looks like there is an ulterior and transparent financial motive to disparage the company and its CEO purely in order to drive the price down.
I'm satisfied that the company is truthful, has given the proper disclosures, and is in good stead with regulators. From a business perspective, they are expanding, growing revenue, and making very interesting acquisitions. By all accounts, they have built a great platform and look to be headed in a very positive direction.
I see plenty of accusations while using Mr. Suen’s name and I also see disparagement of the incoming CEO. It’s easy to throw out accusations without back up. For real due diligence purposes, I want to know the evidence. If there is something against the CEO or the company - where is the due diligence? That's means having contacted experts in the field, explored peer companies, announced partners and customers to verify any potential accusations or facts.
The new CEO is from IBM and looks great. I think this company is very interesting so I want to know. Otherwise, I have to question the motivations behind accusations without evidence.
Companies issue shares all the time for advisors. They do it for all sorts of reasons. As a part of his marketing fee, Bill Shatner took equity in Priceline. Was that dilutive to Priceline? Not really as they did it to conserve cash and they were able to gain exposure for their business, and gain business, so it was accretive in the long run. Employees get shares too to motivate them to work harder. Same rationale goes for most acquisitions.
Short term, share issuance is always dilutive to existing shareholders, which includes the CEO, but the long term strategy is that the services (or acquisition) in exchange for those shares will help build a bigger pie for everyone. Everyone may have a smaller slice, but the pie is much bigger because the acquisitions bring synergy and new business, the employees work harder, etc. so the business grows and everyone is better off.
I need to see actual facts and evidence before I believe any accusations. If there is no evidence, it seems like just personal ranting for unknown reasons. For one, reverse splits are always a non-economic event. They don't matter, just like forward splits don't matter. What matters is that the company is growing sales and eventually expanding profits. And the company has been growing by acquisition and by growing organically from everything I see. And what is all this bashing Brent Suen? If there's some evidence of something, then let's see the evidence instead of unsubstantiated accusations. I see the filings, and it looks like normal business building. Companies make acquisitions with shares all the time. They pay consultants and employees with shares all the time. This bashing seems to be more personal than anything else so what gives? Brent Suen seems to have done very well in growing the company to where it is today.
I still have questions as I'm evaluating Weyland. Share issuance and massive dilution is mentioned here. Almost all rapid growth companies have to raise funds through debt or equity issuance - to fund expansions, increase sales, enter new markets, launch new products, do accretive acquisitions, etc. So how else is a growth business to fund operations? If it's accretive it's not dilutive.
Can you provide comparables in the same industry sector that are profitable and how they got there without raising funding through debt or equity? thanks.
First, I cannot believe Etsy made the SP500 over TSLA. Can someone explain that? Second, anyone familiar with Lucid Motors and care to comment about it compared to Tesla? Thanks!
As a part of my own due diligence, I’ve looked through the filings, and I wanted to do some fact checking about certain claims:
1. There’s a claim of 71% of all shares sold are naked shorts, implying this stock is heavily shorted - where is this information from?
2. There’s a claim about the CEO manipulating the board somehow – what is this based on?
3. A claim about Associate dealings – I do see this disclosed in the March 20 10Q p. 7 and also Note 8 p15, but this seems like a normal disclosure for companies that have significant control over a subsidiary. I don’t see anything unusual like you might see with a shell game – is there any proof that they are selling contract services at or below cost?
4. A claim about Falcon Capital – I see from the filings there was a consultancy agreement dated July 7, 2019 to identify potential acquisition targets and to help prepare a Selling Memo to distribute to potential investors. I don’t see anything from Weyland or from Falcon that they were going to file as 5% shareholders – so what is this based on?
5. A claim about listing requirements from someone– and then there’s something about lying about listing requirements and prosecuting someone (who I’m not sure) for something (which is unclear). What is the root of all this?
6. Claim about Zack’s Small Cap Research – Usually, companies subscribe to services from Zack’s and as a part of it, Zacks writes a report. I know the Small Cap Research from Zacks is not a promotional division. And this looks very dated too – like from 2016 so why is this here?
7. A list of old sites – They look like some may have been old product sites (createapp..), and they were deactivated a while ago. It’s not even clear some were even part of Weyland or its subsidiaries. Why are they called scam sites? I just looked at Weyland’s main site which is easily found, and it looks very professional. Their customers include HomeAdvisor, Orange, Quin Street, and Auchan – all large, legitimate companies.
Interesting ShopeePay news. Thanks for that. I did see that ShopeePay is one of the top 5 e-wallets as I was looking into this.
https://m2insights.com/the-2020-indonesian-ewallet-race/
You mention that you hear signups are exceeding expectations - where are you getting that insight from in your research. Are you getting your own outside looks in Indonesia or rather just relying on public resources? Thanks.
Given Covid, I've been interested in food delivery companies, and I was doing research on Alibaba and Meituan in China. They seem to have a lock on China, so I expanded the search to Vietnam and Indonesia, both huge markets. I came across AtozGo in Indonesia and hence Weyland. I also see they have a mobile e-wallet too. I was pleasantly surprised that there is a US company expanding operations there.
I want to get people's take on the opportunity with AtozGo and AtozPay, and if anyone has used their services.
Also, and I don't want to make this post too long, but I was also pleasantly surprised to see them offering a mobile commerce solution with CreateApp that looks like it has a lot of traction in several countries. Has anyone used this and can comment on the product?
I've done Ios and Android programming, and I know how difficult it can be for SMEs with limited resources. I haven't quite come across something like CreateApp and any thoughts are appreciated. Thanks.
As Uber buys Postmates, the food delivery business is consolidating. Why hasn't Lyft gotten into this business as it seems to be synergistic with its ride share. Was it a strategic decision, and why? or rather, do they not see the margins in their favor?
Given the large fees of 30% for in-app purchases charged by Google Play and Apple's App store, why doesn't Amazon create its own mobile os, launch it's own store, and compete against them. They have the money, they are in the cloud business, and the hardware business, and they have the engineers. Would it be a stretch for them to try and grab some of these rich fees? Google and Apple act as an oligopoly and effectively face limited competition - hence the same 30% fee. They have no incentive to lower this fee because there is no competition. Maybe they need some. Thoughts?
Given Uber's deal for Postmates, where does everyone think their next acquisition is? The food delivery business is commoditized and competitive so it's ripe for consolidation. As China food delivery is controlled by Baba and Meituan, I'm thinking maybe pan-Asia, and either Vietnam or Indonesia seem to be a good play given their large populations. Thoughts?
Unexpected price action given the secondary offering. I expected Nio to be down harder today at least 10 - 12% today. The fact that it's not is encouraging, but we will see in the next week. What is everyone's opinion on the secondary pricing? $16-18?
Will FB create it's own mobile OS and a FB app store?
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/28/apple-rejects-facebook-app-that-says-apple-takes-30percent-cut.html
I'm all for disclosure, and I'm an Apple and FB investor. FB obviously wants to pry part of the 30% away from Apple. Apple to its credit monetized Ios by creating the app store, and creating a review process to ensure a safe app environment. In return for using the platform, it gets 30% in-app purchase fees. That's a lot.
Apple may have rejected this language because it may be confusing to the consumer - implying a fee on top of what he/she is being charged so I can kind of see a rationale for rejection. But it's likely Apple just doesn't want that kind of press every time someone makes a purchase. Indirectly the consumer price is likely higher because of the fee anyways as the merchant passes along part of the Apple fee to the consumer bundled in its set price.
30% is a lot, and it makes Apple a target. Why can't FB develop its own mobile OS, offer its own app store based on it, and only charge 10-20%? It can certainly create its own phone.
It's a huge potential opportunity. What are people's thoughts - is it realistic to think that may happen?
Potential Wechat ban: If the US goes ahead and tries to ban Wechat, which is the go-to app for networking in China, Apple needs to pull it from the App Store worldwide, which could cause a 30% drop in iphone sales.
I don't personally think it will be banned, but I think it's an overhang and a risk that may be holding back further upside. Thoughts?
https://9to5mac.com/2020/08/10/possible-wechat-ban-iphone/#:~:text=As%20the%20order%20is%20written,between%20US%20firms%20and%20WeChat.&text=If%20the%20executive%20order%20is,%2D6%25%20iPhone%20sales%20decline.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/08/28/china-sees-no-reason-to-keep-iphones-if-wechat-is-banned
NIO vs Xping: Xping seems to operate in the 150,000 to 300,000 RMB price point while NIO's offerings seem to be at a higher price point, taking on Tesla. But if anyone has a different take, it would be great to better understand.
Xping priced a $1.5 B IPO and is backed by Alibaba. NIO raised $428 MM in June, and looks like it just announced a 75 MM ADR share issuance today. I understand that NIO wants raise money while the market is hot, but announcing this 2 days after Morgan Stanley upgraded it (and having Morgan underwrite the secondary) seems like a bit stretched in terms of optics.
A couple questions -
1. How do Chinese consumers view the vehicle offerings from each company in terms of quality, price, and value, and
2. What do you think of the balance sheet and financial backers of each company, and the timing of this recent NIO secondary?
Thanks!
IDFA news in IOS14 is interesting. Apple isn't big in online advertising - just a small business that personalizes ads shown in the App Store and on Apple News based on where users go and what users do in Apple’s apps. This explicit opt-in affects FB and other developers who want to move data company to company. Apple doesn’t have to move data between companies to run its ad business — it owns the device, the operating system, the App Store, the data, and the advertising network. I have heard rumors Apple wants to push more into online ads, and I'm curious what others think of this opt-in feature - a victory for privacy, or a greater push into advertising, or a non-event?
IOS14 & Audience Network: At first, the news about IOS14 requiring a user opt-in to share the IDFA is a bit of a concern. If the Audience Network revenues are approximately $3.4 B, and FB estimates a 50% drop due to the change, that's significant. However, from a consumer perspective, personalized ads are much more compelling, but I understand the privacy concerns. Some of the simple workarounds would be to prompt the user to share the tracking info. I think the drop today may have been a delayed reaction to this news, and it may be an overreaction given FB's ability to figure this out. I'm curious what others think of this.