GEO - GeoOP - Work Management Software

[CJ]

Bought at $2.40

Dame - the days high

in at $2.00

Not quite the low so very disappointing . Nice way to capitalised on a sick day. Have you considered turning 'pro' - are you working to wards a level of capital where that would be viable or are you still having your share of losers?

[ddrone]

Haha, yes I am very disappointed in myself right now and am going to eat dry wheetbix tonight to punish myself

I am focussed on raising my capital right now and getting to a point where I can become pro.

I was wary of buying because of the frequent trips to the bathroom and the need to watch it, but at last, relief is here! Unfortunately, money cannot buy you healthiness, so still feel like s***!

Out of interest, if I may ask, have you made back your losses on DIL yet Moosie?

[CJ]

Unfortunately, money cannot buy you healthiness, so still feel like s***!

You could buy into some pro-biotic companies. Not BLT though, they are for the mouth, not the gut so wouldn't have helped.

[ddrone]

Broke even today ddrone. Not bad for 3 weeks trading eh?

Great to hear, silver linings.

[Copper]

The TV3 coverage was quite conservative. Even Mark Weldon said I put in 2 mill and it will hurt if it does not go well. That's what investors should experience. Even the staff were full of " having to perform "statements.It may temper a few of the Xero repeat dreamers....that's my take..

[Stranger_Danger]

Cooper, the real point is that there was TV coverage.

Seen a TV crew outside your corner dairy recently, a business that is currently turning over more than GeoOp, but, presumably, is not capitalised at 50 million dollars?

I've been slowly edging up to this for 12 months, but, now I'm calling it : Unbelievably, after little more than a decade, we now have another dotcom bubble.

Enjoy it if you want, profit if you can, but do not delude yourself and prepare accordingly for it to blow, because it will.

Recently, I've been hearing people say to compare Xero not to Meridian, or Auckland Airport or Contact (one gets scared when one does that!) but to similar Nasdaq listed tech stocks.

This form of analysis (find something even more expensive to make your pet stock feel cheap) is, in itself, never a good sign.

Regardless, I've spent the last week doing just this. Line by line, going through over 100 Nasdaq stocks, nearly all cloud plays.

I have been shocked - I had no idea we - once again, 12 years later - had zero revenue stocks being listed with multi billion dollar market caps.

And now I get it. Xero **IS** cheap when compared to some of this crap.

Of course, someone with this mindset doesn't do the next step - take the zero revenue Nasdaq crap and then compare THAT to Meridian!

I'm calling it. We're here. Tech stocks bubble, will blow horribly.

Enjoy the game guys, and feel free to commence laughing at me.

[percy]

After losing a fair bit on US dot.com bubble 12 years ago I think your post is "right on the money."
Timely warning !!

[blackcap]

After losing a fair bit on US dot.com bubble 12 years ago I think your post is "right on the money."
Timely warning !!

I went through the dotcom bubble in 2000, lost a bit, learnt a lot. This is as stranger danger puts it very similar to 12 years ago. The same rationale is being used, the same justifications, the same blown out prices on stocks and the same zealous like defending of prices and ridicule of those "old farts" who just do not understand that this is something different and revenues and PE's are a thing of the past and do not matter.
Like stranger danger said... make money while you can but be prepared to pull out because a lot of people are going to get hurt and a lot will become disillusioned with capital markets.

[CJ]

I went through the dotcom bubble in 2000, lost a bit, learnt a lot. This is as stranger danger puts it very similar to 12 years ago.

I wasn't investing back there.

My understanding is the 'difference' this time is that it is based on the growth of paying customers (even if 'currently' those customers don't cover costs). The past bubble was based on the growth of non paying clicks/pages views/etc which relied on an advertising model - of which Google is the most successful company to survive.

Is that correct?
And if so, does that 'difference' actually matter?
Does this 'difference' rely on a 'winner takes all' outcome as that is the only way revenues will cover costs?

[blackcap]

Hi CJ,

I wasn't even thinking of the mechanics of where revenue comes from. Back then the "difference" was that the "internet" (very much at its infancy) was going to do away with everything and totally change the way business operates. A new paradigm as it were. But the similarities with now is the thinking and hype that goes on with these stocks. The very premise that revenue and profit are not that important and that potential growth is infinite, forgetting the very real risk of competition. It is so easy to get caught up and many may feel they are missing the boat and tend to get in at exactly the wrong time. And do not be fooled by the so called experts or fund managers purchasing as well. Back in 2000 the "experts" got caught out just as badly as the punters.
It doesn't really matter what the "difference" is. Whenever you hear the justification for avoiding real things such as PE's and earnings being "this is different" then you know something is wrong.
Just my opinion off course