Charles Jillings, CEO of Utilico, energized by strong economic momentum across Latin America. Watch the video here.
Ok Hallowed, you got me to respond once more
Arvieum buys and sells the inventory, does not return it to the manufacturer - fully legit.
CTMFile - article from 2013. No evidence of it ever been in working practice, why after 9 years
Simmons article
" As the accounting treatment depends on the relevant accounting principles which the company is subject to, the early involvement of the company's accountants is essential if accounting off-balance sheet treatment is sought. While this is ultimately an accounting matter, the accountants often request certain structural features to be included in the legal documentation to support their accounting conclusions. Common requests received by lawyers include:
outright sale - ensuring that the relationship between the company selling assets and the assets entirely ends at the point in time the transaction is put in place. For instance, the company selling the assets (eg some loans or a portfolio of vessel leases) is no longer entitled to any cashflows relating to those assets at any point after the sale."
Like I've been saying!
No Hallowed, I'm not, you have it wrong and no amount of personal creativity will change that.
True sale inventory finance has never existed, and here is the proof, show me any company in this world that has done it, and link the companies House record which will have to show the notes detailing the transaction. Thanks in advance!
An inventory finance scheme is in its simplistic terms
Dr bank (cash from funder) balance sheet
Cr debt account (cash owed to funder) balance sheet
I agree with the legal contract part of your message, but that only works if you lose control. So in essence, company makes £100 worth of stock. Company transfer that £100 of stock to the funder for £85. Company has no legal right to take the stock back from the funder. Good deal hey, companies will be knocking the door down for that product.
Let's just end this here. My final proof, we are in and have been in a supply chain nightmare for numerous years now, companies are desperate for solutions, companies have gone under because of a lack of solutions. So where are the customers for SYME???
OBS
A good company will always provide against these, if there is reasonable belief that they will be realised.
Such as warranty provisions, legal provisions, etc etc
The general movement in standards seems to be tightening the legislation against OBS anyhow, such as the changes in leases seen recently.
OBS are liabilities or assets not directly owed/owned by the company, clearly doesn't fit an asset movement with resale conditions.
An escrow account holds the cash.
The purposes of SYME is to release immediate funds, the escrow would do the exact opposite.
Also an escrow account is a debit account on a balance sheet, it is seen as an asset account. So it can't be considered for off balance sheet movements.
Hallowed
Every single financial transaction in any business throughout the world goes through double entry transactional systems. For every debit, there is a credit (or numerous debut or credits), the end result is always a balance of zero.
If you have inventory on a balance sheet, and you CR it out of your business, which you have too if you are 'selling it to another party', that inventory will become an asset on the funders balance sheet, that inventory can't exist in two companies. It has to leave the customers books. How do you get it off (credit the balance sheet) if it's an off balance sheet transaction. It has to go through the P&L. The inventory becomes a Dr on the P&L, commonly referred to as 'cost of sales'.
With inventory finance, the inventory is collateral, the transaction stays on the balance sheet as a debt liability (credit) and you gain the debit on the cash side. The only impact on the P&L is the fee payments, which reduces profit, and nets off to the retained earnings.
Sales have to go through the P&L. ALWAYS!! This is none negotiable, and I'm literally shocked anyone would even ask this question. Even a Foundation level AAT student would know this!
You are wrong, severely wrong, I assure you of this. There is a bullish accountant on this thread, NS20, I'd refer you to him for your answers on your below statements because clearly you don't believe me, so it's ridiculous us continuing this and clogging up the board.
Also, a liability is ALWAYS held on a balance sheet.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/currentliabilities.asp
Hallowed
Direct answer
Does the concept already exist removing inventory off a customer balance sheet, using the P&L, when it's is not the final sale to the customer who uses the said product.
No it does not! (Direct enough for you)
You are confusing customer and funder transactions, and therefore misunderstanding the SYME USP quite considerably!!
Don't drag me back into posts, it's the weekend, but challenge me, or my little obsessive stalker appears, I'm well within my right to respond.
Rise out of you, not trying that, you literally are obsessed with me and try (yet always fail) to play the man. Don't respond to me, I don't respond to you, simple, especially when you can never actually contribute to the context of the messages.
make sure you keep the board up to date on your ICAEW claim Steve, otherwise people will think your all mouth and no trousers.
No, don't have small man syndrome, also have a full head of hair...remember those days Steve?
Steve
I pretend to be an accountant
Yet you've called the ICAEW about me giving advice/opinion on a BB?
Thanks, I'd just called dial a moron for my daily dose of idiocy, but thanks to you you've just provided it for free.
Never go anywhere Steve, your invaluable to my happiness.
Theanalyzer
I'm in full agreement, but what you discuss is getting into the depths of IFRS15, which most on here won't understand. The issue I raise, I see as very simplistic to explain to non finance professionals, and gives them at least some ammo to demand responses and action from the BOD to counter the claims we post. If I was on the BOD and was reading the threads and aware of the noise, I'd certainly want to protect my shareholders and issue a response.
Anyhow, I hope you know with the message you've just posted, you are now on 2 hitlists
Savvy - taking you to court for being a paid deramper
SteveK - contacting ICAEW and taking your license off you
Be scared, be very scared. Or maybe just don't give a ....
No worries Ellllte
just fyi, if I didn't want to speak to someone, I probably wouldn't address them in the first place. Anyhow, why write to me, when you can lie on this share board, as your history suggests you do lots of that. the fact I don't have credibility with you, I see as a badge of honor.
Theanalyzer
B85 is also one for the contentious pile!
I think the strategy update will ensure these concerns get negated, I'm staring to feel that the end of June will be the release date, of course, may be surprised within next three days. Im desperately trying to find out what the new funders game plan is so I can trade accordingly, no signs yet about their play, very up in the air.
@Peakhope
If you're going to get into this share game and broaden portfolio, can I recommend one book, especially as you've identified yourself as a business owner too.
Accounts Demystified.
It won't give you in-depth knowledge on standards, but it'll definitely give you a understanding of how to read and place understanding on stats, couple that with some general share ratio calculations, and you'll find it really useful when looking for value in future. I recommend this book to a lot of business owners who just want to understand what the average high street accountant will produce for them.
Hi
Lsekin...
Joshma...
Sorry, I meant
Jonahb
Unless there are actually three people that thick in the world.
Anyhow, join your other two accounts in the filter bin.
"COME ON NAPALM
I'LL TAKE YOU ALL ON !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
I've deleted the other names as I'm not answering for anyone else.
What would you like to take me on about??
I've read your history, and I'm not sure it's really fair I take you on, well that is until you start to prove your not intellectually challenged, and no evidence of that as yet
No-one. And nor should you sell if you are positive on a share. If your comfortable with your own research and holdings then the only thing that should make you sell is official communication from the company or hitting your target exit points.
And as you've mentioned before, you have a diverse portfolio so you are more than equipped to have speculative punts in your accounts.
Agree, and there surely won't be a lot of reconciliation and testing to be completed, well unless there a huge order book sitting waiting for the forward statements and going concern decisions.
I think the chairman and secretary employment issue may be used as the reasoning if there is a delay.
Theanalyzer
Yes, the 4 months should be the deadline...but I don't see the appetite for thorough investigations if companies request the extension. I expect we won't see accounts to June.
It'll be an interesting argument though, considering the office base situation and the assumption most employees work from home. My trading plan is to be fully out of any position I may be in by end of play 29th.