Member Info for hefonthefjords

sharebel - Theoretically, more client companies have been paying onboarding fees as time goes by. The fees are not trivial sums of money as I understand it but we don't have the published numbers to comment on.
It's also irrelevant because if there are terms on the table and both companies are agreeing with the terms, then Tradeflow must see something that SYME has laid out which is of adequate consideration to them already.
That could not happen if it were not something SYME did not have to offer.

Ndn71 - Exactly my point. There are any number of arrangements that result in SYME not having to spend a penny on the deal now.

Sharebel - Yes, I agree there must be some provision on SYME's part, but commenting on the nature of it is entirely speculation as we have zero information about the structure of the deal. It could be nothing down and nothing due for ten years for all we know.
We also don't know how much cash SYME has generated since June last year. There may be millions in our coffers to play with already, making this deal a simple cash exchange, but not one of us is in a position to comment on that because none of us have that information.

If your question is "how are they funding this?", my rebuttal question is "can you show me anything that says they have to provide funds for the deal?".

We know nothing about the structure of this arrangement yet, only that both parties have come to some sort of agreement that they are both happy to move forward with.

Ndn71 - Perhaps. Certainly wont be making any complaints if the price leaps 10p in a week.

Havoc - True. I was deliberately using only that €8bn figure illustratively as it's from the only forward looking outline for anticipated growth we have from RNS at the moment.

BP used to be owned by the UK government. They are referencing that it has never been government owned.

With £80bn monetised, my expectation would be for a 73p share price at a p/e of 20x.

That is my anticipation of a 10 years long timeline though, not tomorrow or April.

Why isn't becoming a £16bn company achievable here?

If they are planning to monetise £8bn of inventory by 2024 (according to RNS), why couldn't it be £80bn by 2030 beyond that if there is high demand, which there seems to be, for this kind of service?
If there is really a £1tn addressable market here as has been suggested, it's totally not unreasonable to expect the first mover company in the market to hoover up a huge portion of the market is it? £100bn is only a 10% market share of the supposed addressable market here.

Apple now famously has a $1tn market cap and they only have an 8.2% market share by number of units shipped as of 2020 of an addressable market that is only just now actually getting close to reaching $1tn ($944.09bn - 2021) and is a hugely crowded market with at least 5-10 other major player companies competing with them worldwide.

SYME have no competitors yet. They are not creating the market from scratch (like apple had to over the last 40 years) and have a brilliant business model that is a game changer for companies that have cash tied up in holding inventory. The market is here now and, if what AZ says is the case with market demand is true, it will lap up SYME's service like it was a cat with double cream. 10% of the addressable market is a lofty number in £££s but actually quite a small goal when the goal is open like this.

Remember when GM tried to make electric cars a thing in the 90s but they flopped because there was no market?

Look at Tesla now.
They saw there was a market appearing and addressed it. Now they have an 18% share of that market and a $650bn market cap.
Global EV market size is only around the $200bn mark right now, expected to grow to $803bn by 2027.

£16bn mcap is very possible here if all the ducks are lined up correctly.

In the same way as if your company bought shares in another company for example.

Wolf - On the "stock or loan note on the funder's books" point...

The name of the game here is securitization, right? That says to me that the purchases likely should be treated as capital assets by the funders' accounts....

I may be wrong but that's how I would have thought it would go down.

SYME are a service provider in the same way that Amazon or eBay are... they connect sellers with buyers and take a small cut of the transaction between seller and buyer. Dead simple.

Some companies have inventory that they want to release equity from - SYME unitize that inventory and then sell it to a funder for the client company. SYME collect a bit of money off the top for providing this service.

It is really that uncomplicated at it's simplest level.

The important part for us that should be ringing in your ears like a gong from on high;

• Technology solutions that increase transparency and end-to-end visibility will become more attractive.

That is the definition of the SYME platform.

*aye

Cool, just didn't know if this was normal process or what. I'm still quite new to investing.

What does this part of the deal entail exactly?

Do they pretty much just give it a yay or nay rubber stamp and that's it?
Are there any points of contention the court could have with the deal?

Absolutely. There was no intention to be critical of your assessment. I'd be utterly overjoyed with either of our calculations being the outcome, especially with the utterly grim outlook my working life has just now (events industry freelance audio technician).
My holding isn't really huge but a 6p share price here would give me a deposit on a house or pay my rent for three years which would really really really lighten my emotional load right now.

SAM - My assumption was that the contractor team members were mentioned on the basis that they are likely to bring more client companies into these calculations in future.
Regarding EPIC targets 2020/21; My reinterpretation of your calculation there was based solely on the 15 employees * 25 client companies each suggested in the Q&A by AZ.
I was deliberately choosing to stick within your parameters in the initial topic as my only point of debate here was that we don't know how many contractor team members AZ is referring to in the Q&A or how many client companies they are managing/expected to manage now or in future so I feel it's too speculative to make any assumptions on the numbers they may or may not add to the equation just yet.

You took 5 as a guess, it could easily be 2, or 200, there is no way for us to know just yet so in my mind there's little point in trying to calculate for it.

I also think it is a fair point to say that just because the plan is for all 15 employees to handle 25 client companies, this doesn't make it the case as plans don't always reflect reality. This plan is all we have to think on for now though.

I agree with your formulae on principle here but I don't think it's sensible to include the highly speculative "contractors" numbers in there because we have absolutely no evidence to support that part of the calculation and it requires inference to arrive at any numbers worthy of considering on the other side of that equation.

Do the same calculations based on only the "known" 375 companies and I'd back those numbers as a reasonable anticipation of a possible reality.

That gives;

375 companies @ ~£12m = £4.5bn monetised
1.5% profit = £67.5m
£67.5m / 32.755bn shares = 0.0021pence EPS
p/e 20x: 4.12p
p/e 30x: 6.18p
p/e 40x: 8.24p

The outcome could be wildly better but it's not a great idea to bank on that without a basis in real facts.
If we get an exact number of those "contractors" working on and exact number of client companies, only then would I be inclined to include them in this kind of calculation.

@kinney - 100% agreed on the POS vs POW issue. I was using "bitcoin" more generically to refer to "a cryptocurrency" really. I suspect that whatever crypto ever does become mainstream, if one does, it doesn't exist yet.

33p on HL now.