The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
S.A.M
I've already said I may have misread and apologised, do you want me to send this to you in a different language.
However, that brings me to the fact the valuer is unknown. Is that a better answer for you??? Does that make you more comfortable, because it certainly wouldn't give me any comfort.
Steve
I challenged no one, I asked if anyone had any research, anything good, the answer was, and still is No.
Let's put it this way
In a matter of months you gone from having new investors on board, and accounts weeks away, to a CLN, and accounts coming out at best 2 days before deadline day.
The TF deal is shrouded in so much mystery it's comical, where not one investor can name the valuer.
And your happy with this, why aren't people grabbing AZ by the short and curlys and demanding answers, instead of all smiles and love hearts at some ridiculous video.
I've said all along, this is a great idea, a real game changing way of business which for me, especially in the economic situation the world faces, could actually save some companies and therefore jobs.
But, I'm hitting dead end after dead end, surely that's not just me!
Havoc
The CLN is not fixed. With VWAP there is absolutely no way you can count the cost of the CLN. There can be no comparison done unless you have a time machine.
There was no other funding options. I tell you what, take five minutes to look at unfixed CLNs, also known as death spiral finances, and then try to tell me that it was the option chosen, not the only option.
Peak and Steve
Unfortunately audit teams do that, not my rules, just something we were told to do. Doesn't mean I agree with it, but if it helps your narrative discredit me, fine go with it.
I'm honoured you thought I could implement that sort of tactic in E&Y whilst in the first few years of accountancy though.
Steve
Where did I say 5 years?
The 31m valuation is based on a 5 year BP done on TF through the unnamed partner.
I think you'll find my statement said 12 months. It's right there at 21:23.
By the way, just for your info, TF are a pte. You know, like an LLC.
So I ask you Steve, are you happy with the CLN? Why do you think Parzival are involved if not the valuers and also not legal?
What's your expectations on the stats and what would you consider a good result?
No S.A.M, I said I'd look for it and if I couldn't find it or misread I apologised.
To be honest, I think not having the name of the company in charge of the valuation is actually worse.
You tell me who valued TF at the money they did. Are you happy with the valuation considering the only way to fund it is through a CLN which will cause dillution?
At least Stevek has intelligence, I recognise that straight away.
Ah Steve
But I know what your trying, and you know I know what your trying.
Again, play the ball, not the man.
There needs to be better visibility about the TF trade deal, and you know it, it's dilluting your shares through a very difficult funding option. Which is going to need a strong BOD to overcome.
Now, have a good evening, come up with some more accounting questions if you want, they don't bother me, I'm extremely well qualified and experienced in that field and can chew and spit out most people when you want to go onto financials.
This is tedious Steve.
A simple set of accounts and given the right interrogation of the balance sheet can uncover not only historic but also future potential releases, payments, etc etc
You also have audited forward statements, and most importantly, going concern.
A set of accounts should have guidence for the next 12 months minimum. If you've worked with E&Y, sorry EY for you, surely you know that?
Hi Steve
Just so you know, I'll respond as and when I'd like to. You or I don't own these boards so please don't think you can demand what you get from me. Unless your paying that is, and you'd seriously deep pockets to afford me!
@Stevek
No, I won't divulge a person's name on a BB board, and neither would you. And yes, they are in a good position in E&Y (Ernst & Young), and having worked for them for four years early in my career, we referred to ourselves as E&Y.
They aren't called Ernst Young. But I'm sure they don't correct you if you say EY, because I'm guessing you are paying them for some kind of service. Same reason we went to clients in worse pool cars than the ones we actually had, to make the client think we aren't overcharging them and we are genuinely their friend and business partner, when really, we wanted the over run fees.
As for valuation, that would be value of the idea, hard to quantify but would come down to the best guess IP using technology specialists. It also comes down to what someone is simply happy to pay.
See the intangible side can also come from what is inside someone's head, the ideas and proof that they display, an engineer with a good idea can be intangible worth a lot of money, and a company may acquire them at a higher rate.
You'd also have access to the order book, and be able to actually see what near future revenue plus spend looks like. The further you go out, the more difficult this becomes. 5 year BPs are normally not worth the paper they are printed on.
Take an incident like covid for instance, pretty much messed up every 5 year BP done pre 2020 in seconds.
@Steve1972
An article I read seemed to say it was Parzival Partners who had given the TF valuation. I spent a few minutes earlier trying to find it again, but gave up as had something else come up. I will try to find again tomorrow and if I do I'll post the link. It could have been me misreading though as other I've read suggest a fourth party. If that's the case, I apologise. I won't be looking for it tonight as want to catch up with Loki.
I don't understand the reason for withholding the name of the valuation company though, if it is a reputable well versed valuer, that could be a real plus point in the whole acquisition saga. It would certainly answer more questions than a nameless one creates.
I also fail to see the reason/involvement of Parzival Partners. It seems AZ and TJ knew each other a long time ago, so why the need for someone else would obviously want compensating. Just a few niggles for me, and maybe someone on this BB has the answers to them.
@Rebel
I never said that about SYME, ever, I thought it was a procedural suspension, mainly linked to the realignment of accounting periods.
The ICON mention was about EGOHF, I literally said watch and understand the patterns and you can benefit. I said that it might get to 0.02 when it was 0.008, it went to 0.019. it was just an observation piece about what the funder would need to recover.
I stand by that now with Negma. If you can identify their trading patterns, and they take the full ten tranches, then every single investor here has the potential to match them, and make money whilst doing so, probably eight times.
That's not getting at SYME, that's just following the money. I'm not saying sell your holding, but if you can see the pattern, why not have a trading pot as well as an investment pot?
Point taken Luckybob23
I'll try to refrain from the insults, just wish people would play the ball and not the man so much. Would make the BB a lot better and informative.
I still say, the popular posters on here are the ones who shout the loudest and deliver the least info. That shouldn't be the way.
@Peakhope
The examples put out below is normally how a CLN works, it's no an assumption, that's how a CLN profits from its investment. The company (SYME) will be fully ready to go to virtual war with Negma as and when they can.
They aren't hand in hand partners like dragons den, a CLN is there to maximise profit through share activity. This isn't someone's assumption, this is how they work and what they are built to do.
But, the CLN provides a service, it enables a start up to continue, to have signed off accounts, to use the money wisely and grow organically or through acquisition.
So even though SYME are with Negma, they are also fighting against them. The aim for SYME will be to get operational profitable revenue, and pay the contracts off, meaning less dilution and more chance if growth in future.
To dispute the CLN is anything more, or even to make comments such as do you think Negma haven't done their due diligence just shows an absolute and utter contempt for the financing function a CLN provides.
So even though they are seen as bad, the company can still profit long term. I've seen CLNs in action, they will dillute a bit and they will play with the SP, but how much, depends on AZ and the IM.
@lexlugar
Az and revenue from operations could potentially blunt the Negma effect. That's why the forward statements and going concern is so important on the stats. It will show what ammo the company has against the Negma tranches.
It will also be evident after tranche two on what Negma trading plans are, that could assist with holders maximising profits, if they recognise the pattern. For a clever investor, 10 tranches provide 10 opportunities.
I said the same about ICON many months ago, will be somewhere in my history, it absolutely followed the script.
@Parm
I don't know why this board thinks being an accountant is hard, it's literally 3 years studying to qualify, all whilst working.. I can pretend to be something else if you want me too be, but that won't mean I'm not an accountant, I can even sign your passport if you want me to prove my PQs. And I'm sorry, but I guess a lot of people investing will be accountants, it's kind of in our nature to deal with financial statements.
Plus, I'm a consultant, not retired, big difference, I'd love to be retired before 40 but my kids and wife are expensive to run.