Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. Watch the video here.
@extrader, I don't think AZ ever worked for one of the big 4. He worked for a small consultancy that was eventually taken over by Accenture after he left (I think).
It's not just the big 4 who can bring issues to the iasb or ifric. Anyone can. But they will just reply that the standard is clear as to the accounting - and refer to the example in the standard (of course it is never 100% clear - but this is clearer than most issues they receive).
The reason that the standard precludes this being recognised as a sale is because it is not a sale. It is a financing transaction. Surprise, surprise!
I imagine that someone at syme is getting a right kicking!!
@extrader, it is interesting how recently the company has started to refer to the accounting and IFRS 15 (for example in this RNS and in the AZ video last week).
They have now realised there is a big problem here. It was only a few weeks ago that they said the accounting was bullet proof! Now they say they are "collaborating" with one of the big 4. This no doubt means they will pay for them to do some analysis which will just further highlight the problems with the accounting. Changing the standard for something like this is just plain unrealistic.
However I still think it is very possible they get SH away - they will find 20-30 companies that don't know about (or don't care about) the accounting problem.
@wolf, if you really are interested go straight to the source. Illustrative example 62 in ifrs15. A good demonstration of the "bullet proof" accounting!
You may need the help of an accounting colleague to locate. The illustrative examples are in a separate document to the main body of the standard.
The market cap of this company is still in excess of £100m which seems pretty rich to me, for a company that has still to get a transaction done and which has so far mostly blown hot air.
Personally I still feel they will probably get SH away. They only need to convince 20 or so companies that need the cash and aren't too bothered (or don't know about) the accounting issues. Don't worry - I'm not going to cover those again. And of course they still need to confirm a funder. But I also think they now realise that this is a much harder slog than they originally anticipated.
I don't see much evidence of all of the deramping that is often quoted. Just some people who have raised legitimate concerns. And quite frankly anyone who had listened to these concerns over the last couple of months would have saved themselves a tonne of money.
Poor - I imagine that your sale and repurchase also saved you some cash given that the decline in share price has been pretty consistent over the last couple of months. Don't worry - I don't expect any thanks.
Does anyone know whether AZ has explained what they are telling clients that were due to receive funding from the SH transaction - given that it was initially due to close by end of September, but has been delayed with now no estimated date of closing?
If I was a client that had paid an onboarding fee and was waiting for funding I would be furious.
I've no idea how the company is handling this. Presumably that is the benefit of Syme not having any regular contact telephone number. Clients left in limbo can only speak to investor relations....
These fake articles are so poor that I don't think anyone really pays them any attention.
The last fake article quoted a made up analyst forecasting a ridiculous share price and was actually retweeted by AZ. I'm guessing that he won't make the same mistake with this one.
@extrader, I can't see any justification for the company recognising the onboarding revenue upfront. These types of upfront fees have to be deferred on the basis that onboarding by itself has no value. In terms of IFRS 15 the service is not "distinct" from the later services - i.e funding and use of platform.
The problem is that AZ in 28 September RNS stated that this revenue of 2.3m would be recognised in period through end of September. That could potentially have led to bust up with the previous auditor (I'm guessing here though).
Funny enough that same RNS on the 28 September also stated that the securitization by SH would be approx 300m. But now some appear to believe it may be 1bn due to a slide dated 30 September. Some appear to again be setting themselves up for more disappointment.
@wolf, don't beat yourself up over the "originated portfolio" point. The company's use of this term is very misleading. No-one would think this is just prospective client pipeline.
I see someone else this morning was incorrectly stating that Carrefour was a client. Again, down to a misleading RNS from the company.
@wolf, I'm not sure if other parties have ownership of some of the IP. I would have guessed it would need to be disclosed in the prospectus if so.
Looking at the accounts of the entities involved, what has always surprised me is how little the investment in this business has been. The capitalised development costs are only a few hundred thousand pounds. Any money ploughed in either results in net assets or a retained loss - so you can get some idea of amounts invested (but can only do this with the solus accounts - or by reversing certain consolidation adjustments at the group level - such as the 226m loss which was non cash).
I'm not a valuer - but various techniques such as discounting future cash flows, peer comparators, royalty relief methods etc are common. I've often found valuation more of an art than a science. If you predict the moon you can of course end up with a crazy valuation.
All of this is of course in my own humble opinion.
@wolf, I'm not sure we have been provided details of exactly what a pilot involves. I would imagine some kind of dummy run through of all of the relevant processes. Not sure how funds could be provided without a funder!
I love the answer AZ gave to the question of when SH would complete:
"The Company is evaluating to further update the market in order to inform on the progress of the completion process."
Why didn't he just say "don't have a clue".
@wolf, SH is critical because it is the first transaction. These other numbers are just future potential. If I was a client I would certainly be asking where my damn money was - especially since I would have already paid a fee to "onboard".
@wolf, see page 1 of interim report which was issued some time ago. 'Originated portfolio' is defined as "a pipeline of prospective contracts...". What makes you think that any client has yet received any funds?
Honestly - the number of times I've been asked why I am on this site if I am not an investor. Pure entertainment. You couldn't make it up.
But I do feel sorry for those who have significant risk here. Don't bet what you can't afford to lose!! And without hard numbers this is just a bet. Personally, I like to sleep well at night.
@scoob, I'm very confident in my own analysis. It sounds like you were asking your friend the wrong question. It is illustrative example 62 in IFRS 15 that is relevant. If anyone wants to do some proper work. But I've now made my point on this matter.
What has changed, based upon the reply that Parm received, is my view of the integrity of syme. The meaning of their reply was clear and it was brazen. And I do not at all agree with it. Take that as you will.
@Mrmarkymark, I am fascinated by this. It's like watching a train crash - impossible to look away.
Will AZ singlehandedly save the world economy or is this all a total fraud as claimed by TW?
How long can AZ keep investors stringing along with no real news?
How many partnerships and pilots can one team of 14 people work (especially when some are spending all of their time writing rns's or answering random queries from PIs)?
What the hell are SH spending all of their time doing?
It's much better than the telly. And it's real life.
@fb. I don't really understand that. Unless the company is issuing or redeeming shares (which it isn't) or there is a net change to MM holding, don't investor buys have to equal sells (in qty terms). Surely that is only logical. Honest question.