Member Info for extrader

There is , however , another - foreseeable consecuence of this change in reporting dates : further 'slippage' in newsflow.

You have to wonder why this second change in reporting date was deemed necessary :

SYME has already changed accounting reference date and financial year-end from 31 March to 30 September.... "to align the accounting reference date to the operations of the Group.."( then, June RNS) to June/December .."a more standard accounting reference date and one which is more appropriate to SYME's current and future operating subsidiaries' trading..."(latest RNS).

Not that much of a change, on the face of it.

However, as a result, we've gone from :

- At RTO : Audited as at 31 March 2020, unaudited as at 30 September 2020; to
- Per June RNS : Audited as at 30 September 2020, unaudited as at March 2021; to
- Per Jan RNS : Audited as at 31 December 2019 (then 12/2020 etc), unaudited as at 30 June 2020 (then 6/2021 etc).

In terms of SYME informing shareholders of how its (their) business is performing, these successive changes mean that :

Due : 31 March 2020 audited : don't have to produce;
Due : 31 March 2020 unaudited : produced;
Due : 30 June 2020 unaudited : due shortly, limited relevance;
Due : 30 Sept 2020 audited : don't have to produce ;
Due : 30 Sept 2020 unaudited : don't have to produce;
Due : 31 Dec 2020 audited : not due until April 2021.

As a consecuence , intended or otherwise , of these changes, SYME shareholders may technically not get any 'hard numbers' on SYME's trading for another 3 months.

As this information vacuum is entirely of SYME's making, the least they could do is provide a meaningful 31 December 2020 trading update , which would incidentally restore some confidence in its accounting platform and systems.

BOO - a far larger, more complex, multi-channel business - produced its detailed trading update on 14th January., see
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/BOO/trading-update-x6sjwrtonpg0odf.html

HTH

Hi Iguana,

I'm with you, people are getting over-excited.

You've posted the relevant bit from SYME : "The Company will seek a restoration of its listing IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING PUBLICATION of its audited Accounts for the year ended 31 December 2019 and Interim Results for the six months ended 30 June 2020, which are BOTH EXPECTED BEFORE 31 JANUARY 2021."

This is the relevant bit from the FCA Handbook :
Information to be included in request to suspend or cancel
LR 5.3.1 R 01/04/2013
RP
A request ..to be suspended ...must include:
...
(3) a clear explanation of the background and reasons for the request;
(4) the date on which the issuer requests the suspension or cancellation to take effect;
(5) for a suspension, the time the issuer wants the suspension to take effect; "

SYME has said both that (1) it intends to seek lifting of suspension and (2) has stated the 'by when ?' and 'how ?' it expects to 'cure' this technical breach.

A challenging deadline, considering covid restrictions. Which they invoked back in June , when they last delayed results.

Having got caught with an 'unintended consequence' from the change in year-end, SYME is 'doing things by the book'. It would be folly to have proposed -or agreed (if imposed) - a timetable that it didn't expect to meet.

HTH

Hi seadoc,

I think you're operating on a number of misconceptions , stemming from this bit of the 21 Jan RNS :

.."A Standard Listing requires the publication of audited accounts for contiguous periods for continuity and comparison purposes.
The publication of the 31 December 2019 accounts, which cover a Statutory accounting period prior to SYME's RTO and Admission to The Standard List in March 2020, are intended to meet this requirement..."

-They decided to switch to a December year-end.
- The rules require 'prior history', to enable like-for-like comparison.
- SYME has to produce 12 month figs to Dec 2019 (which it'll have to re-work, presumably by pro-forma consolidation of SupplyMe Italy (1) and 'dormant' Abal plc (2)

This is where it gets complicated . From the Prospectus :

(1) Supply@ME S.r.l. has accounts from the date of its incorporation (Oct 2017) to 31 Dec 2018 , audited (for Prospectus purposes) by rms Italy. It also show unaudited interims to 30/9 2019.

(2) ABAL plc (dormant) has audited accounts for FYE 31 March 2019 and 6 month figs to 30/9 2019 , unaudited.

The Prospectus shows that there are also pro-forma unaudited accounts of the Enlarged Group. "The statements are prepared to illustrate the effect on the trading position for the period then ended and the assets and liabilities of the Group including Abal Group Plc (“Abal”) and Supply@ME S.r.l. (“Supply@ME”).
The proforma income statement has been prepared as if the acquisition took place on 1 April 2018. The
proforma statement of the net assets has been prepared as if the acquisition took place on 31 March 2019.

Due to the still extremely limited activity of Supply@ME during the first 3 months of the year 2019 (2 transactions with income statement impact for about £2 thousand) the interim data at 31 March 2019 of Supply@ME is not presented. "

How things stand, AIUI :

First , SYME first has to provide 'Enlarged Group' pro-forma numbers , all co-terminous ie as at 31/12/2019, drawn from the above (and subsequent) records; they're 2 relatively low activity businesses, how difficult should that be ?

Then, the auditors have to review and pass them. Not sure to what standard , as they're pro-forma and historic.

Then , they have to do a 'forward-looking test' , based on post-balance -sheet events.

For the 31 Dec 2019 outlook, they'll only have to reference the RTO, as a 'future imponderable' . How much more can they be expected to say ?

Where we should get our first bit of 'hard' info is in the unaudited interims to 30/6 /2020 - also due by 31/1/2021 - which will include the first 3 months of trading by SYME as we know it.

How much info we're given about the really interesting bit - post 30 June trading - remains to be seen.

On the face of it, the new auditors will be earning their fee, IMO !

HTH

Hi Longlad,

..".a shell, RTO’s are hot these days at least shareholders might see a return that way..."

A cunning plan , M'lud ! Unfortunately, they're more usually described as 'cash' shells.....

I see a problem....

;->

You're welcome !

SYME has certainly been a diversion...and more of an 'education' than I'd bargained for. Someone else enquired about my interest if I wasn't invested (long OR short) :

.."An 'old dog trying to learn new tricks' and 'interested in supply chain innovations' etc etc
Should be researching just that, you've gone off track and all you're doing is researching corporate entities, rather than the new tricks themselves..."

On the contrary ! [ And you clearly didn't see or understand the request for information behind the links to corporate entities I provided. Itself an interesting data point ]

Things I was not aware of /have updated myself on since looking at SYME, a startup in a new sector - 'fintech' include

(1) the complexities of IPO's and RTO's;
(2) listing requirements; the FCA handbook;
(3) accounting standards;
(4) 'inventory4.0';
(5) regtech and blockchain;
(6) Companies House and offshore company formation;
(7) the ICIJ database and Panama Papers;
(8) manipulation of online statements (courtesy TheRealDeal);
(9) money-laundering and fraud (I notice some feedback from Spotify still pending);
(10) investor behaviour (ongoing) a.k.a. 'extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds'..

plus a few others that escape me atm.

I'm still not clear in my own mind whether Mark Twain's aphorism - a man who knew plenty about snakeoil salesmen - will turn out to be applicable here or not : " It's easier to fool people than to persuade them that they've been fooled".

I felt - and feel - that SYE has all the makings of a Harvard Business school case study....one way or the other.

Meanwhile, to quote Geoffrey Rush : 'It's a mystery'

ATB

Me again,

.."This has all been posted already, albeit only in dribs and drabs, but I'd prefer you not to share/re-post..."

If you want to DYOR, you'll find more detail and the relevant links in my posting history and can make your mind up.

If you find I've misunderstood or misinterpreted something - or plain got it wrong - I 'd be more than happy to hear about it.

ATB

Continued...

(1) The RTO Placing terms : 32.5 billion shares; IP 'ascribed' a value of £225million for the 'human capital of the board'; £ 2.2 m raised in the Placing of 1.01% of the shares , of which £ 1.4m to finalise the IP investment; a hardly noticeable 3 lines on p 51 of the Placing mentioning a concurrent Vendor Placing, where the promoters/principal shareholder placed 18% of the shares and took £ 40m out the back door).
NB To be clear, I have no problem with this - after all, it's what ZIOC did - but on a 1:1 (? IIRC) and fully disclosed basis.

(2) The move , in the RTO process, from AIM to Main Market (but 'Standard' listing) , ie less oversight than on AIM (no accountable/regulated NOMAD), exposing the shallowness of management (no CFO or CTO, 2 x lightweight NEDs) and 'unforced' errors.

(3) The - for me- incomprehensibly opaque ownership structure, full of cross-shareholdings and offshore trusts. Links to Italian-run financial entities based in Malta of dubious provenance; one post Vendor Placing shareholder is identifiably a 'rogue', linked to a major scandal involving the Vatican. Question-marks about some of the RTO service-providers, either too close or who left/were replaced shortly after .
I'm not prissy : after all, ZIOC itself is BVI-registered and there are ownership issues here too... but the principal players are somewhat 'known quantities' , of public standing , our interests are (I hope !) broadly aligned.

(4) The concept itself : Does it pass regulatory muster from an accounting viewpoint - whether it achieves 'true sale' and the promised the 'off-balance sheet' benefits. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, but despite pilots going back 3 - 4 years , no-one's actually seen it work....

(5) The rollout : various 'strategic alliances' : great on paper, but - on closer inspection - lacking substance; an offering that started out 'multi-channel' but is being re-engineered - 'on the hoof' - to an omni-provider. Consequential missing of (self-imposed) deadlines.

(6) The nonsensical (evolving terms of the ) 1AF2 loans for pledged shares - another 18% of the company - the stated purpose (explanations in RNS and to Proactive differ; neither 'use' has transpired, in 6 months); and the repayment terms - originally the 5.9 billion shares, but now 'or cash' (amount unspecified).... "at the Borrower's choice"... WTF ???

(7) Captive Bank timetable per SYME clashing with stated investment /funding timetable of partner Quadrivio;

(8) Change of auditor and - possibly related - accounting year date changes (forward then back), accidentally triggering current suspension.

This has all been posted already, albeit only in dribs and drabs, but I'd prefer you not to share/re-post.

There's other stuff too, but for now I'm waiting to see how things play out...and learning a bit about investor psychology along the way.

" It's a mystery"

HTH
Apols to others for the O/T

Hi Peterfal,

It's the weekend, so I hope an O/T is OK here.

It's the SYME board misfortune (lots would say) that they started up about the time I was looking to learn more about 'fintech' for the exotic ('mad money') end of my portfolio. Most of my portfolio is boring mainstream stuff that is analysed to death by people far more clever and connected than I am, I lurk (a lot) and post (a little) on s'pedia.

My post distribution on lse tends to reflect the shares that are most 'interesting / under-researched' where as a PI I 'might' have a competitive edge; and where I feel - when I started with them - that there was likely a binary outcome : either total loss or 10x bagger. That's how I feel about ZIOC (where I'm invested) and about SYME (where I'm not).

My posts generally serve to help me clarify my own thinking; reply to challenges from others; and capture relevant info/links.

The others, btw, have moved on from a binary outcome(no advice or rec intended), but are still interesting /topical from a macro /political viewpoint (coronavirus ; the climate change/economic development trade-offs, etc).

Apart from the 'fintech' angle, I was also interested in SYME as a case study where there was no proven 'value' in the traditional sense, what its got is intangible, so it only makes sense as a 'momentum' trade [ something else I've never done deliberately, though I've occasionally got caught up in the hype ;-<] , where - even if you think the price has got ahead of common sense - you can at least 'justify' the purchase on a 'bigger fool' basis.

I love the concept of monetising otherwise 'unproductive' inventory to improve cashflow (I was a 'jack of all trades' banker overseas for my working life ; where any new idea would typically be greeted with 'we've always done things this way'; or 'we've never done things that way'), so I was very pre-disposed to SYME and hoped it would work (still do).

My innate conservatism prevented an early purchase : if it's such a great idea - and it is - why has no-one tried it before? and -even if SYME succeeds - what, if any , are the barriers to entry ? If SYME has worked out' how to turn lead into gold' , some mega-bank will crack the IP and / or throw $$$$at it and squeeze little SYME out.
SYME's best hope, it seemed to me, was to get 'first-mover advantage' , prove up the concept quickly and have a 6 to 12 month head-start, giving them a 'convenience value' that would be crystallised/monetised by one of the big boys who would pay handsomely for a 'short-cut'.

Unfortunately (in all senses), coronavirus slowed everything down ; SYME was making slower progress than advertised; and I had more time for research/due diligence than expected.

And as time passed and I looked more closely, I remained convinced by the brilliance of the concept but increasingly sceptical of SYME's ability to deliver.

Here's why :

to be continued.....

It's also your first word, but thanks for clarifying your position.
And I can fully relate to wanting to leave one's work behind.

Hi Hughez87,

Here's an example of my 'spamming' for you :

Your 'contribution' : - " SYME has huge backers with a history of choosing successful companies. The Quadrivio group being one of them..."
My reply :
Fact : SYME has reported collaborative agreements with a number of entities, none of these agreements have produced tangible results to-date. In the specific case of Quadrivio, their published fund-raising schedule (Nov 2020) doesn't support SYME's Captive Bank rollout timetable.

SYME announced Captive Bank in Sept 2020 and per RNS 22/12, we were given Quadrivio as partner and told that .."The Quadrivio fund "Industry 4.0" will invest in and capitalise the Captive Bank."

SYME was initially targeting end 2020, latest update is certainly Q1 this year.

Quadrivio itself (AFAIAA) hasn't said anything about Captive Bank, however it DID produce this update -in November 2020 - of its funding plans for its Industry 4.0 Fund.

See https://www.unquote.com/southern-europe/research/3021649/q4-fundraising-pipeline-italy

Re Industry4.0 specifically, : .."Industry 4.0 was launched with a €300m target in January 2018 and held a €100m first close in October 2018. Its final close is expected in the second half of 2021, the GP told Unquote. The fund invests in SMEs operating in the manufacturing industry, with high potential to grow further via digitalisation and automation, and able to generate annual revenues of €50-150m..."

Note the January 2018 launch date and that it took 10 months to raise 1/3rd of its target funds ...which it now expects to reach 'in the second half of 2021'.

How do you reconcile these two - on the face of it - conflicting timetables and aspirations ? Maybe Quadrivio's General Partner forgot about his company's commitment to SYME...or he's addressing it another way.

"It's a mystery "

Hi Spotify,

..."Ex, you got my post removed detailing how you could be TW. Touch a nerve?.."

Only people who can't or don't have a good answer to a grown-up question have to do things like that.
I've never asked for anyone's post to be removed.
If I disagree - and can be bothered - I'll rebut, with facts, supported by links where possible, so folk can make up their own mind.
If I can't be bothered , I just ignore or eventually put on filter.

You, of course, are also free to do either. That way , you won't be challenged. Win-win !

I'm not TW (thank God) but recognise that making the association is a good and popular diversionary tactic , mostly used as an alternative to getting posts removed. Mostly used by the same people...and for the same reason (see above).

Speaking of touching a nerve, though you still haven't answered my query as to why you weren't bringing your professional expertise to bear in clarifying management's duties and potential liability if they (unwittingly) had dealings with money-launderers.

You could have made a useful contribution ...and chose not to.

And don't say (again) that you've already replied : your posting history is there - like mine - for all to check. You haven't.
So, not even a clever lie.
I know that I have nothing to worry about and hope you can say the same.

Hi marlena,

.."Ex, I have a question about orthopaedic bone cement in total hip replacements for my grandparent. Could u oblige? "

As with the Sharia'ah Q. In your example , I'd go to a family member (doctor from Imperial) and ask them to ask a 'friendly expert' for a 'quick and dirty' explanation , which I'd then pass back.

See how it works ?

ATB

Hi marlena,

.."Ex is now the expert in sharia law..."

No , I'm not - but (as I posted at the time) - I spoke with a former colleague who's a NED on the boards of several financial institutions in the Gulf.
He spoke about the significance or otherwise of Sharia'ah opinions and their relevance /impact from a practical (ie customer) perspective, based on his now 30+ year experience.
We worked together for over 5 years (I had informal oversight from a Western credit perspective of our Bank's Islamic finance unit start-up, he was the 'acceptable' co-religionist interface) , so has a track record with me - and I value his opinion.

HTH

''THAT IS CLEAR SHARIA SIGN-OFF".

It's a bit more nuanced than that.

The relevant bit is .."The Shariah Scholar Board, ... hereby approves the Inventory Monetisation Structure as acceptable within the principles of Shariah."

This fatwa or ruling is basically a 'no objection' certificate or condition precedent. Opinions on Sharia'ah matters aren't consistent or binding, much less 'enforceable' in any way.

It's certainly nice to have, because without it SYME's concept would be dead in the water, and it may open a few more doors, but - once through - the concept still faces all the other hurdles that SYME is still dealing with. And maybe a few more if - in tweaking the structure to make it Sharia'ah-compliant (we don't know, but likely) - they've compromised on some of the other features.

As elsewhere, the 'real world outcome' is the only thing that matters.

Hi Chalker,

I've previously replied to Hughez87, who is spamming this tripe elsewhere.

.."- SYME has very high internal share ownership ( a very bullish trait, skin in the game etc). The CEO himself was topping up as close as Christmas."

Fact : "TAG" started with 92% of SYME, sold 18% in the Vendor Placing, 'misplaced' 18% with the 1AF2 pledged loans, other 'concert' party (IWEP) have sold another 13%...OG has disappeared into 1AF2/'new TAG'....

I'm not sure why he persists , in the face of the evidence.

'The trend is not your friend..'
ATB

Hint : Enrico's updated his CV.
Why ?
It.s a mystery.

'It's a mystery'.

PS Have a look at our NED Enrico Camerinelli's linked in page :

https://www.linkedin.com/in/ecamerinelli/?originalSubdomain=it

Notice anything curious ?

Hi Al69,

I post in good faith what I believe to be facts, usually supported by links for people to make up their own mind.
If you aren't interested , feel free to filter.

HTH

Guys, guys,

At the end of the day , what the accountants think - or come to it, what the Sharia'ah scholars think - is of secondary importance , what really matters is what the CUSTOMERS think.

They're the only ones who really have 'skin in the game' , after all.

'In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is'
ATB