Member Info for BashM

Well sticky hands or paid off - both are good news :)

@willhi02 - clouds do have silver linings. Credit to the BoD exercising the option which I firmly believe was the right thing to do by shareholders.

Oh you think. Willhi02 got the company to pay the £90k. You on something mate lol

Gag gets bitten again. First he said the deal for $200m won’t happen. Than he said 2m warrants will hit us. WRONG as always. Our resident doomsday poster has got it WRONG again. LOL

@willhi02 - now that you have the news you were waiting on. I hope you are going to buy a few in VLRM this morning :). You said it would be good if they announced before the option expires and they have. So no 2m warrants hitting shareholders LOL.

No more 2m warrants rubbish I hope from our fellow doomsday crew :). Also nice to note they paid £90k saving SH value and also clearly had the money to pay it :)

We have £90k and it’s been paid. So all this nonsense about 2m warrants and fear mongering is GONE! @willhi02 and the rest of the doomsday crew! PP1 you were right!

Nice to see GaG getting a taste of his own medicine. Keep it up PP1

@Broke_holder - I suspect two things, these are both my personal opinion. So no RNS's for these LOL. (1) VLRM have a larger, at play deal in the works, thats the only way they will satisfy that requirement by Nasdaq in terms of revenue. Gary mentioned 6-9 months via F-1 form so I am assuming that deal is close to being concluded and money into us. That satisfies the £50m revenue debacle. (2) I think due to NDA's and other restrictions the roadmap cannot, as yet, be shared. Once some the major deals conclude we should get a better view of the plan. Gary's alluded to us being the motor, and all these MoUs / partners cogs, so we will take small stakes in each, improve RWA capability and gain revenue from the positive works our cogs do. Hence the stopping of all tech spend. Why spend £££ms when you can buy in better tech and also live of the profits. Its a better model, and less dilutive for shareholders. It also has us generating revenue earlier in the cycle.

@Broke_holder - Some more meat to the bones, as I think what I posted didn't touch on the point you made around IFRS:

Yes, under IFRS, the "annuity" from Valereum's $200 million deal can be treated as income, but its specific classification on the financial statements depends on how Valereum defines its "ordinary activities".

1. Revenue vs. Other Income

Under IFRS 15, the term "Revenue" is specifically reserved for income arising from a company's ordinary activities, such as selling goods or services.

As Revenue: If Valereum's primary business model is defined as a financial services or investment firm that manages tokenised assets, the $15.9 million in annual coupon payments from the Medium Term Notes (MTNs) can be classified as Revenue.

As Other Income: If these payments are considered incidental to their main technology operations, they would be classified as "Other Income" or "Finance Income" rather than "Revenue".

QGP are leveraging VLRM technology - Gary has alluded to this. So it is income treated as revenue

@Broke_Holder I am certain it will be treated as revenue, hence the contractual clauses on Nasdaq as part of the agreement. I do like my numbers and understanding. I too did some AI searching just now based on the term used in the RNS of 'Contracted Income' - see below:

When a company like Valereum announces $15.9 million in contracted income per annum, it changes how you should value them:

Reduced Risk: Traditional "revenue" is historical. "Contracted income" is a guarantee of future cash flow. This makes the company much easier to value because you aren't guessing about next year’s sales—the contracts are already signed.

Valuation Multiples: Investors usually apply a higher valuation multiple to contracted/recurring income than to one-off sales. This is because the "quality" of that income is higher and more predictable.

The "Run Rate": Analysts will use this $15.9M figure to calculate a Forward Revenue Multiple.

Example: If the market cap is £52M (~$65M USD) and they have $15.9M in contracted income, they are trading at roughly 4x Forward Revenue. For a fintech company, a 4x multiple is often considered quite conservative/attractive.

Well you lack integrity than as you keep changing the narrative even when wrong. I thought the deal could help you harness some integrity but clearly that ain't going to work. Says a lot about your intentions, posts and you as an individual. :)

If you are completely off GG, than I would strongly suggest you change your negative narrative to a positive, more balanced one :) - is that a deal?

@Broke_holder - Sorry not an accountant, but why wouldn't it be treated as revenue. The payment of interest is made to QGP, which in turn is paid into VLRM as revenue. Or am I missing something?

GG - your prediction of the $200m was severely off :)

@Sanboy - Well based on the fact we have line of sight to $15.9m revenue per year from QGP deal and £5m revenue target for FY25/26. Assuming revenue stays flat at £5m (worse case) next year and £12.7m QGP we have worse case circa £18m revenue for FY26/27. Tech companies are valued 4 to 10 times their income. So lets go in the middle and say 7 times their income, VLRM should be valued at circa £125m. That ignores the NAV on the books of $200m. Furthermore, that assumes no growth in revenue next year. It also ignores the fact we maybe beneficiaries of revenues generated by our stakes in Digishares, Bluebird & Fiduem

@ppanchol - If 2m warrants do not hit the market, wil you commit to buying VLRM shares??

@Sanboy - The market has liked the deal. If you look prior to suspension we had 230m less shares in issue and were at a similar price point. We now have 230m more shares at a very similar price point. So the market cap has been adjusted for the deal. However, the market hasn't completely revalued the company. I don't think that's anything to do with 'like'. Moreso, the sector is taking a beating i.e. tech, deal isn't fully understood by retail given its not a cash transaction and lack of liquidity currently which appears to being only listed on Aquis. These things given first revenue, payments, more deals etc. will change and the company will transform to represent a higher sp. Its a matter of time and further more material news flow.

@crawshaw - To be ignored. Offers not substance in here :)

@crawshaw - Grow up please. We are not at school. Stop being a parrot. Have you anything productive to add here? Or are you merely a sad life individual that likes being a parrot.