Member Info for extrader

“But it isn't debt, is it ex?”
Think of IM as like an artisan / craftsman pawning his tools to get through the weekend.
He’s got the readies short-term….and a ticket to buy back the tools he needs to carry on in business next week.
How would you rate him as a credit risk ?

HTH

.."“If I am not able to know how much debt there is in a capital structure, I am not able to properly assess the credit risk.”

SYME's IM model is an 'off-balance sheet' arrangement that allows a manufacturer to present a better image of its overall obligations, by transferring visible 'funded' to less visible 'contingent'.

Anyone who's found themselves on the wrong end of a 'contingent' obligation - like a personal guarantee, for instance - will understand why knowing what , if any, contingent obligations there may be are part of any proper credit evaluation.

The IM customer will want certainty of (re)supply of the inventory 'sold' - hence the fashionable mantra of moving from 'just-in-time' to ' just-in-case', so will defo want a re-purchase right built in to any deal .
The customer's right will be a contingent obligation on SYME's SPC.

The case for arguing that IM is a 'true sale' depends on there being no such right (because if there is, the whole thing is a sham, an accounting fiction that credit assessors - and others - will see through).

AFAICS

Maybe that's why .."The world’s top accounting bodies are currently mulling changes that would require companies to say how much supply-chain finance they use.."

If true that should incidentally put to rest the 'true sale' argument, one way or the other.

This bit is key :

.."“For the majority of investors, this is financial debt,” Saul Casadio, director of corporate credit research at M&G. “If I am not able to know how much debt there is in a capital structure, I am not able to properly assess the credit risk.”

Moving financial obligations off-balance sheet, with contingent liability to re-purchase would seem to be the sort of thing Casadio is concerned about.

AFAICS

Some general comment on the sector , extract from Jared Dillian's/ Mauldin Strategic Portfolio update :

.."Where do I think the opportunities are going forward? Well, I think the biggest opportunity is biotech as an asset class. There were a lot of stupid IPOs in 2021, and a lot of bad deals, and a lot of companies that went public that shouldn’t have. Plus the whole space was fluffed by COVID healthcare enthusiasm. Biotech broadly is down 70% from the top to the bottom. The space has been killed so much that a good portion of the biotech index is trading below cash on the balance sheet. Now that is irrational. When people think of long-term threats to the biotech industry, they usually think of politics and nationalized healthcare and such, but there is nothing like that on the horizon. If anything, the political environment is going to get more favorable...."

Every little helps...

Hi TT,

My understanding is that Blue book is wishlist (unspecified sources of funding) and green book the better defined /more advanced.
You point rightly to Spain (but I think 61, not 64 ?, at $ 160m)) for which there is also a phase 2 (Spain/France) at $ 200m.
LaValmy earlier acknowledged the overlap, but points to the overarching 'coordination' terms of reference of Bakamla, see an earlier post of his (12 April):

.." think I may have missed the relevant project in the blue book issued by Bappenas. The one that SRT are actively pursuing is with our old pals Bakamla on pages 194 onwards.
This specifies one primary command centre with a back=up and 35 'packages of coastal stations'. All quite vague really, but the total is US$180,000,000 which is the £130 million being talked about.

What connection that has with the other projects on pages 124 and 131 for the fisheries surveillance program I don't know. These two total $162 and $200 million respectively and include lots of different things. But to my mind it would be daft to have and not use the Bakamla backbone. The objectives of the Bakamla project are:

a. To integrate the national maritime early warning system among related maritime security stakeholders;
b. To strengthen coordination among related maritime security stakeholders;
c. To enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of law enforcement in Indonesian Waters and Indonesian Jurisdictions.

It would seem co-ordination would indeed have a spillover effect on the specifications of these other projects. I understand that SRT is in pole position on the Bakamla one though that is no guarantee that the government will chose them. What will be key is what the specifications are in the tender as it is this which pre-determines the winner. The tendering process may start in a couple of months, though I don't know how much information will be easily available - I understand that the tender will be closed to only three potential bidders...."

I'm passing this on in good faith, for greater clarity perhaps you'd be better contacting him directly for any further insights he may have.

ATB

Hat tip to LaValmy for this, which may be hinted at in the webinar (Indonesia)...

.."Talking about over-promising and under-delivering, Bappenas has just delivered the Green book for 2022.

hTTps://perpustakaan.bappenas.go.id/e-library/file_upload/koleksi/migrasi-data-publikasi/file/Blue_and_Green_Book/Publikasi%20List%20DRPPLN%20(Green%20Book)%202022.pdf

No 84 on the list is Bakamla's project for $180 million. Now, of course, that is no guarantee that the project will necessarily go to SRT, but, given that the Germans, UK, Norwegians and French are all providing the finance, it must be binary as to whether it is SRT or not. I don't know how long it will take to contract, months probably but before the New Year, so they will not be able to announce anything until then, but anything in the broker's note or even next week's presentation about their confidence levels will indicate whether it is in the bag or not. My guess is it is...."

..".buying tradeflow was ingenius and this company is a complete success ...

I think that the evidence looked at objectively points to it being a 'work in progress', admittedly further down the road than SYME itself.....which begs the question : what does SYME give TF that TF can't better secure elsewhere /under its own steam?

Serious question (as they usually are)!
Credibility ? Funding ?

.."2016 to 2018 the founders built a solution to the SME Trade Finance ecosystem problem. The solution was to enable the Commodity transaction for an SME firm without giving credit or lending..."

This was done through a PREVIOUS INCARNATION, as already reported :
(1) NR Capital Pte Limited ("NR CPL") has gone into INSOLVENT LIQUIDATION ,see
hxxps://www.sgpbusiness.com/get-pdf/eg/5af32281-8a7e-11ec-b068-f48e38c3a128.

(2) This is the fund management company that TomJames and John Collis used to create and run the USD fund [ the Euro fund came later] now managed under the TradeFlowCapital Management Pte ("TFCMP") label, as shown by Tom James's sgp linked-in
hxxps://www.linkedin.com/in/tgjames/details/experience/

CEO & CIO - Commodity Fund Management
NR Capital Pte Ltd·
Full-time Apr 2016 - Aug 2019 · 3 yrs 5 mos
Singapore & London
Fund Management in Commodity Markets.

(3) Although NR CPL was set up in 2016, its first fund wasn't launched until mid 2018, see hxxps://www.gtreview.com/news/asia/startup-trade-finance-fund-nr-capital-partners-with-bolero/, inter alia, from article dated 31 May 2018 :

.."The Singapore-headquartered company – which is set to announce its MAIDEN transactions imminently – offers funding solutions to SMEs in the bulk physical commodity space...
The company took its platform live in January 2018, after two years of research and testing.." SOUNDS FAMILIAR ?

(4)The NR CPL/TFCMP overlap is acknowledged in this legacy document
hxxps://tradeflow.capital/cemp-nr-capital-trade-flow-fund-sp/cempnr/.

The start date that TradeFlow reports for its Funds (April 2018) is consistent with this narrative.

(5) In the 13th Aug 2021 Executive appointment RNS, TJ discloses the following current directorships or partnerships, amongst others :

(i)Navitas Resources (UK) Ltd 09251105, accounts to 31/12 2021 show net shareholder funds of -£163K; and

(ii)Navitas Resources Pte Limited (dormant).

Companies House reports 2 other companies in which TJ is interested :

(iii)Navitas Resources Capital Limited 10045139, struck off / dissolved Nov 2020, last accounts (micro) to 31/12 2017 show net shareholder funds of -£35K; TJ reports this under previous directorships/partnerships;

and

(iv) Navitas Resources LLP OC417544, last full accounts to 31/3/2018, net partner funds of -£19K

Finally, also under previous he reports

(v) NR Capital Pte Limited.....which appears to be the same entity as (i) above, NR CPL.

All of which tends to suggest that the management team have had their ups and downs ...and that TradeFlow isn't as far down the track as some may have thought. It looks as though NR CPL failed , for whatever reason, to reach critical mass/profitability.

These facts are consistent with the relatively modest AUM ; funding resources ; and earnings reported to-date.

They'll be useful for context when we get some updated 'hard' numbers on 'new' TradeFlow.

IMO

PS per the 2nd tranche RNS .." It is expected that Admission will occur at 8.00am on or around 11 May 2022..."

Venus Capital now has 3.32 billion shares out of total 40.8 billion ie approx 8.1% of SYME's capital.

It's not as though they need to notify SYME of an unidentified purchase in the market, since SYME issued the shares...

Ho hum.

And, to prove my point, Hughez87 just repeats - again - something that comes from SYME, not Quadrivio....

£ 40K worth....a small increase in his shareholding, but still welcome news.

Brief exchange on a d v f n where Scott Fletcher, NCCL's major shareholder, pops up to refute an allegation made re finances and costings of the last solar project (sold to him).

.."scottf10 May '22 - 11:27 - 10175 of 10180
0 2 0
Yasx

I really don’t understand why you continue to spread such nonsense - you continually do this.
Let me be clear

The original project was funded $1.189m and we sold it for $1.3m to avoid a fundraising and dilution at a low price and give us more runway
You can see these numbers on page 22 of the interim report

We have also reduced costs recently and most of the directors do not even take a fee and on the contrary participate in most fundraisings, myself included.
Directors are acting appropriately and within market and legal frameworks and to say different is bordering on liable so please keep to the facts.
Thank you.."

FWLIW

Sorry, Peakhope, you've still not got it.
It's the same size pizza in both cases. Now, some might have thought they were getting a supreme, with parma ham / German Speck and artichokes etc (and paid accordingly), others reckon it'll likely be a thin-crust margherita (ditto).
It's not emerged from the kitchen yet, so nobody's sure what they'll get/whether they'll get what they paid for.

Remember the marketing adage : You sell the sizzle, not the sausage.

HTH

.."4. Dilution will be addressed by consolidation possibly 100/1 WITH NO AFFECT (sic) ON THE VALUE OF ONE'S HOLDING - it will however increase the sp to meet dual listing criteria and also means there will be fewer shares in circulation of which are already in sticky hands !!.."

You clearly don't understand how dilution and consolidation work.

Dilution : Think of a pizza (= the value of the business) cut into 4 equal pieces, you are one of 4 shareholders who each have a slice. There is a doubling of shareholders ie now 8. To accommodate the extra shareholders, each quarter is divided into two. Your share of the pizza (= the value of the business) has HALVED.

Consolidation : Think of a pizza of 16 equal slices and 8 shareholders ie you're entitled to 1/8th of the pizza (= the value of the business). The pizza slices are 'consolidated' on a 2 : 1 basis. Your 2 slices ( = 2/16ths) become 1 slice (=1/8th).
Your share of the pizza HASN'T CHANGED.

I used the example of a pizza in deference both to TW and your reference to 'sticky fingers'.
;->

HTH

I think you'll find it's a chicken and egg kind of thing : which came first, the 'disprovable ramp' or the rebuttal ?
The bull doesn't have to respond to the red rag...but if he does, he's liable to get skewered.

All AFAICS

.." at least £24m is still owed to the TF boys, and due by end of 2023.."

I think you'll find the amount is contingent (on certain undisclosed business targets being met) and through to 2025.

With shareholder approval surely required for a contemplated/potential 50% increase in shares in issue, the focus will come back to (a) how the Board say they intend to vote their shares, disclosing the aggregate quantum; and (b) how many they actually do, raising again a doubt over actual (unencumbered) ownership.
And at some point, the BoD might reasonably be expected to indicate to what extent, if any, they intend to participate in the Open Offer themselves.

All useful pointers, IMO.

IIRC, Stobie was criticized at the time for not having a material shareholding in HUR....

Hindsight is a good teacher.

.." I have checked with the company ..".

With all due respect, I think a comment/explanation from Crest itself would carry more weight , as it's THEIR service that is being criticised.
What do THEY think or say ?