TSK - TASK Group Holdings

[klid]

2014 to 2015
497% increase in Operating revenues
1707% increase in ACMR
Revenue to Loss ratio reduced by 4.65x

That's progress.

You have to dig way down into the details and analyse it along with your own research if you want to find anything worth niggling about.

Yeah it's progress like my running of 8 metres in the first two minutes compared to my 1 metre in the first one minute.

Why wrap it up in percentages? It mean's nothing, do you get my point? I ran 1 metre in a minute and then ran 8 in 2... but let's not trumpet that fact; let's just trumpet the fact that my output increased by like 900% WOW! Announcement NOW.

Proof is in the pudding (share price):

Stock	Name	Year start price	Current price	Year change
VML	VMob Group	$0.350	$0.370	5.71%

Don't get me wrong; I want VML to succeed, I hold quite a lot of shares.

You have to be realistic.

[robbo24]

Highest performing stock now:

Stock	Name	Year start price	Current price	Year change
VML	VMob Group	$0.014	$0.024	71.43%
XRO	Xero	$16.150	$24.470	51.52%
PAY	Pushpay Holdings	$2.800	$3.950	41.07%
PPL	Pumpkin Patch	$0.220	$0.285	29.55%
BRL	Bathurst Resources	$0.030	$0.038	26.67%

Such a change

(Edit: To think I was insulted and lambasted for offloading at 2.5 (62.5) cents...)

[Baa_Baa]

What's not realistic about simply stating the business performance as it is provided in the FY15 results, with no need for analogies when the numbers can speak for themselves? If you care to look, the $ numbers are in the results as well, and they all say 'progress' as well. No point in comparing business performance with share price performance when the business can't do a thing about the share price, and as you can see for VMob and any number of other listed companies, what the last traded price in the market indicates, often has little bearing on how well or not the business is actually doing.

[robbo24]

What's not realistic about simply stating the business performance as it is provided in the FY15 results, with no need for analogies when the numbers can speak for themselves? If you care to look, the $ numbers are in the results as well, and they all say 'progress' as well. No point in comparing business performance with share price performance when the business can't do a thing about the share price, and as you can see for VMob and any number of other listed companies, what the last traded price in the market indicates, often has little bearing on how well or not the business is actually doing.

What's the FY16 loss going to be? How on earth will they raise that much money to keep going?

[Baa_Baa]

What's the FY16 loss going to be? How on earth will they raise that much money to keep going?

Fabulous that you're so attentive and interested in the future successes of VMob. At the current revenue growth rate against the current opex rate, VMob will be profitable in 12-18 months and not require any capital raising. However, Scott did mention "global domination" recently so perhaps like XRO they'll never be profitable; capital raising will defer to massive money forsaking small investors; but the share price will fluctuate between 30x and 70x the IPO. Then again Microsoft might buy out VMob shareholders for a few billion before the share price goes crazy, being a fair price for securing the Azure revenue and potential. The sacrifices we make as small investors, sigh.

[axe]

Fabulous that you're so attentive and interested in the future successes of VMob. At the current revenue growth rate against the current opex rate, VMob will be profitable in 12-18 months and not require any capital raising. However, Scott did mention "global domination" recently so perhaps like XRO they'll never be profitable; capital raising will defer to massive money forsaking small investors; but the share price will fluctuate between 30x and 70x the IPO. Then again Microsoft might buy out VMob shareholders for a few billion before the share price goes crazy, being a fair price for securing the Azure revenue and potential. The sacrifices we make as small investors, sigh.

BaaBaa. I cannot tell whether you are serious or not in claiming that MSFT will buyout VML. If you are; you need to come back to reality.

If MSFT wanted to own a mobile ad team, it would have created its own platform, using its own in house technical skills and resources.
However they can just sit back and sell azure cloud services to anyone who wants to have a go at it. Seems like the easy option for them.
If VML starts making good money, MSFT will just bump up the "gold partnership" prices for its azure services. Seems like the easy option for them.

So really if you think VML is the team that is going to take AZURE to the world, you would be far better off buying some MSFT and not VML.
Dont get me wrong, MSFT want VML to be successful - so they can make money from them.


"At the current revenue growth rate against the current opex rate, VMob will be profitable in 12-18 months and not require any capital raising"

Last year VML grew costs more than they grew revenue. That's why the loss increased by 112% on LY. If they keep increasing the loss by 112% - VML will require capital raisings to stay solvent.

[robbo24]

Fabulous that you're so attentive and interested in the future successes of VMob. At the current revenue growth rate against the current opex rate, VMob will be profitable in 12-18 months and not require any capital raising. However, Scott did mention "global domination" recently so perhaps like XRO they'll never be profitable; capital raising will defer to massive money forsaking small investors; but the share price will fluctuate between 30x and 70x the IPO. Then again Microsoft might buy out VMob shareholders for a few billion before the share price goes crazy, being a fair price for securing the Azure revenue and potential. The sacrifices we make as small investors, sigh.

But as revenue increases so does the aggregate amount of money required to keep the VML machine turning $2 into $1...

$4.4m loss requires every current shareholder to give VML 6.8 cents just to remain solvent, right? So as the loss increases so does the amount of money people have to fork out?

It's all very good to say the revenue to loss ratio is decreasing but the aggregate amount of loss is increasing. Klid accurately tips his hat to this principle with his running analogy.

So what will be the net capital requirement for the next 12 months on shareholders? We must presume the aggregate loss is increasing so is the liability on shareholders (incumbent and new comers) to keep the "turn your $4 into $1" machine afloat...

JMO, DYOR, etc etc...

[Baa_Baa]

BaaBaa. I cannot tell whether you are serious or not in claiming that MSFT will buyout VML. If you are; you need to come back to reality.

If MSFT wanted to own a mobile ad team, it would have created its own platform, using its own in house technical skills and resources.
However they can just sit back and sell azure cloud services to anyone who wants to have a go at it. Seems like the easy option for them.
If VML starts making good money, MSFT will just bump up the "gold partnership" prices for its azure services. Seems like the easy option for them.

So really if you think VML is the team that is going to take AZURE to the world, you would be far better off buying some MSFT and not VML.
Dont get me wrong, MSFT want VML to be successful - so they can make money from them.


"At the current revenue growth rate against the current opex rate, VMob will be profitable in 12-18 months and not require any capital raising"

Last year VML grew costs more than they grew revenue. That's why the loss increased by 112% on LY. If they keep increasing the loss by 112% - VML will require capital raisings to stay solvent.

Hey Axe, good to see you're keeping an eye on VMob. You have to keep in mind that Microsoft have a track record of of acquiring startups that drive revenue into their core business .. for example Green Button, who never listed but the second tier investors who had 50k in took 375k out. That's a nice multiple, but will never see the true potential, not that the second tier investors had a choice.

VMob has an opportunity which some successful SaaS suppliers have but few take, as they see success on their horizon. Whether to move to profit which VMob could do quickly if they wanted to, and reward themselves and their investors, or go for global domination and endless capital raisings.

Time will tell.

[robbo24]

VMob has an opportunity which some successful SaaS suppliers have but few take, as they see success on their horizon. Whether to move to profit which VMob could do quickly if they wanted to, and reward themselves and their investors, or go for global domination and endless capital raisings.

VML could potentially raise more capital if their directors didn't buy them all at 25 cents (1 cent) a pop in January...

[Baa_Baa]

But as revenue increases so does the aggregate amount of money required to keep the VML machine turning $2 into $1...

$4.4m loss requires every current shareholder to give VML 6.8 cents just to remain solvent, right? So as the loss increases so does the amount of money people have to fork out?

It's all very good to say the revenue to loss ratio is decreasing but the aggregate amount of loss is increasing. Klid accurately tips his hat to this principle with his running analogy.

So what will be the net capital requirement for the next 12 months on shareholders? We must presume the aggregate loss is increasing so is the liability on shareholders (incumbent and new comers) to keep the "turn your $4 into $1" machine afloat...

JMO, DYOR, etc etc...

No it doesn't, unless you assume they continue to expense growth. VMob have a massive alliance with Microsoft, they don't have to invest YoY into sales with the global presence of Microsoft selling their services. They have to invest in relationship management with Microsoft. A big difference going it alone, or going after it with one of the worlds largest tech company's. You have to get to grips with the power of leverage here. VMob could stand still on expenses and still be enormously successful, as they have the leverage of Microsoft globally. Pause, suck it in.