RE: Exclusivity terms...11 Mar 2021 15:45
Guys. I really feel I need to point this out and definitely do not want to offend anyone. Retained losses are not a good thing. Saving a potential corporation tax liability in the future will not benefit shareholders in any way - I promise. Shareholders do not get to see the benefit of the mitigation of a tax liability. Ask any bank manager, accountant or business owner (which I am).
In one of the businesses I owned with a friend of mine, we had accrued retained profits in the first 2 years. In our 3rd year we acquired another company which completely wiped out our retained profits. Believe me, we were not jumping for joy about not having a corporation tax liability for a couple of years. We were actually trying to survive! It took us another 2 years to get the balance sheet back on track with retained profits.
Retained losses harm the business and its shareholders, as well as decrease shareholders’ equity. Besides being unable to pay dividends to shareholders, a company cannot leverage a negative position to grow the business (including acquisitions, geographical expansion, new products etc). Not without selling an asset or seeking external finance, the former of which ORM had to do! The truth of the matter is that a company that has accumulated a deficit of retained losses which exceeds its owner’s investment is at risk of bankruptcy. I am not saying for one second that this is the case for ORM. But if people invest in ORM it should be because of the business potential, and that alone. The deal, if the BOD can actually get it over the line, will have positive impact on the share price. This is what we are banking on!!