George Frangeskides, Chairman at ALBA, explains why the Pilbara Lithium option ‘was too good to miss’. Watch the video here.
@Rosie
Take anything they say seriously? Lol
There is not one person replying to me on this thread that has shown they even have school level economics knowledge, let alone the application and interpretation of accounting standards. They have collectively made themselves look so ridiculous to anyone with a small level of education and business acumen. It is embarrassing.
Bouchos
Page number of the E&Y document?
https://www.ifrs.org/issued-standards/list-of-standards/ifrs-15-revenue-from-contracts-with-customers/#about
There you go, the IFRS link as of today, and as you'll know with you extreme knowledge of IFRS, the forum in 2020 should cover IFRS15, as it was last updated in 2018.
@Guitarman
Simple question, in the biggest supply chain issue era in modern history, do you have any customers yet?
I do acknowledge Jim Coyles ability and experience, if anyone is out there that can assist in getting this corrected, it will be someone like him, and you'll know he's having an impact if you follow the IFRS website and look for revisions to IFRS15. When/IF that happens, SYME overnight becomes a different beast.
So, I put up facts and links, you can see the IFRS website yourself. I also acknowledge that you have a chairman who will be in a great position to get this issue sorted for you, and therefore increase SP considerably.
All I've had back is abuse and nothing at all to conflict what I've said.
Then the lies start, supposedly I was an accountant at minus two years of age, can anyone please link where I said any of this, I like evidence you see, it makes things easier to credit/discredit.
This is the problem with the SYME bb board, people who don't understand jack and have overinvested through hot air and bluster. Look at the SP, the ones who highlighted the issues months ago have been proven correct.
@Bouchos
I put the IFRS website up from today! I have taken into account any revision and updates.
Still waiting for you to highlight where i'm wrong on the E&Y document you put up, if I was you, i'd put it up PDQ as otherwise it makes you look like you were trying to discredit someone when you had no actual evidence to do so?
@guitarman001
That's great if you've done your thorough research, all shareholders should do the exact same for all companies. So you've spoke to an accountant and Amy, I'm sure for balance of the board and to give LTH's confidence, you'd be more than happy to put their educated responses on this thread?
I don't know why you mention the FCA in an accounting treatment discussion? Why is that, what do they have to do with the implementation of IFRS??
Also, does Bigmac still follow me, bless, can someone remind him he's on filter, but it's good to know I still live in his head rent free.
As for how long I've been an accountant, close to 20 years, and I'm 40 years old, I'm really struggling to understand why this is weird?
In fact, I remember this has been posted before, and is from an extremely respected website used by accountants. One of the person involved in the forum and contributing is actually the owner of the website in question.
https://ifrscommunity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=355&sid=534067ee4e828829a23fa3405dc23c21
@Guitarman001
I don't need too, I understand IFRS fully, why would I need to ask anyone else about it?
Tell you what though, here is a challenge for you, everyone on this board will have access to a chartered aca (or acca) accountant, whether that is through employment, the company they own, or just by going to your local high street and booking half hour of their time.
Take what I wrote in, see if they disagree with me. There you strip the behind a keyboard argument, and get a face to face response from someone who can physically prove their qualifications to you.
You won't though, because you wont like the answer.
@Elllltelinv
Despicable?? I've used the IFRS website today, are you trying to tell readers that the IFRS website is wrong about IFRS matters?
Go on, stop this waffle, educate me, where and when has IFRS being confirmed by SYME, a proper confirmation, not another throughway AZ quote.
@moneymaker0060
I actually wrote about this yesterday, I think a lot of holders really need to educated themselves on the transactional rules and regulations, here is what I wrote.
"IM as a true sale is a myth, it is not a legal accounting transaction, it does not matter what the company, the business owner, SYME or anyone else tells you, come statutory account time, at this moment in time given current accounting standards, it would be reclassed onto the balance sheet as a debt transaction. Inventory loans are commonplace, and obviously this means that SYME's USP is in fact nothing more than hot air.
Proof, right here:
https://www.ifrs.org/issued-standards/list-of-standards/ifrs-15-revenue-from-contracts-with-customers/
IFRS15 is the accounting standard we use to confirm if a movement of a good or service out of a company is actually a real sale, but to fully comply with IFRS, you have to move control of that service from your company to the buyer. If there is a buyback clause, there is no true sale. Extract below directly from IFRS15
"recognise revenue when a performance obligation is satisfied by transferring a promised good or service to a customer (which is when the customer obtains control of that good or service). A performance obligation may be satisfied at a point in time (typically for promises to transfer goods to a customer) or over time (typically for promises to transfer services to a customer). For a performance obligation satisfied over time, an entity would select an appropriate measure of progress to determine how much revenue should be recognised as the performance obligation is satisfied."
We are in an era where a lot of manufacturers have excess inventory, just look at the semi conductor issue plaguing many companies for the past year and further into the future, if there was an ability to true sale inventory, the sign up for it would have been through the roof, it hasn't happened because its not allowed to happen!"
And further down the message, I also wrote
"Positives, a good chairman, who's qualifications guarantee integrity and honesty, and has the ability to come to the rescue of all LTHs and transform the company. He is also extremely well positioned to lobby for changes to IFRS and make IM a legal true sale transaction. If IFRS15 was revised, you'd see a very steep increase in SP and interest in company."
Of course, I haven't quite answered you question as well as guitarman001, but I'm sure he'll elaborate more and give you a better more educated response soon.
@Kchappers
I'll go, I'm in the so called de-ramper camp, and for completeness, I also fully admit I'm a trader of this share should that have any impact on how you read what I write.
IM as a true sale is a myth, it is not a legal accounting transaction, it does not matter what the company, the business owner, SYME or anyone else tells you, come statutory account time, at this moment in time given current accounting standards, it would be reclassed onto the balance sheet as a debt transaction. Inventory loans are commonplace, and obviously this means that SYME's USP is in fact nothing more than hot air.
Proof, right here:
https://www.ifrs.org/issued-standards/list-of-standards/ifrs-15-revenue-from-contracts-with-customers/
IFRS15 is the accounting standard we use to confirm if a movement of a good or service out of a company is actually a real sale, but to fully comply with IFRS, you have to move control of that service from your company to the buyer. If there is a buyback clause, there is no true sale. Extract below directly from IFRS15
"recognise revenue when a performance obligation is satisfied by transferring a promised good or service to a customer (which is when the customer obtains control of that good or service). A performance obligation may be satisfied at a point in time (typically for promises to transfer goods to a customer) or over time (typically for promises to transfer services to a customer). For a performance obligation satisfied over time, an entity would select an appropriate measure of progress to determine how much revenue should be recognised as the performance obligation is satisfied."
We are in an era where a lot of manufacturers have excess inventory, just look at the semi conductor issue plaguing many companies for the past year and further into the future, if there was an ability to true sale inventory, the sign up for it would have been through the roof, it hasn't happened because its not allowed to happen!
Second point, the company is technically insolvent, and will rely on loans and placings to ensure positive cash flow going forward. I would be extremely surprised if there was not a placing before EOY 2021. This is purely my opinion and not fact. Placing I believe will be anything between .1 and .15.
Positives, a good chairman, who's qualifications guarantee integrity and honesty, and has the ability to come to the rescue of all LTHs and transform the company. He is also extremely well positioned to lobby for changes to IFRS and make IM a legal true sale transaction. If IFRS15 was revised, you'd see a very steep increase in SP and interest in company.
I also think you'd see a good increase in the SP if AZ was to be removed, I think what he and his friends set SYME up to be has run it's course and achieved it's aim, time for him to sail off into the sunset.
This will be deleted soon, as was my little story the other day, so maybe i'll cut and paste to post later?
Repost of a post I made in August. Just FYI as I still see this "theory" on this BB.
"I keep seeing this all over this BB.
It's not manipulation, in fact, it's nothing over than outdated and useless algorithms that determine what it believes is a buy or sell.
The system looks at ask/bid prices, anything above the middle point it believes is a buy, anything below the middle point it believes is a sell, it's that simple. If the spread is moving quick, the algorithms just cannot cope and does it's best guess decision.
So if bid is 2p but ask is 4p, anything 3p and under is a sell, and anything 3.01p and over is a buy. If the spread moves in the milliseconds you buy, then that can mean your trade looks different.
Its ridiculous that in this era we haven't got a better system to shows buys and sells, but it is what it is, and that's why you should put very little emphasis on what the computer believes the trade is. But one thing for certain, there is absolutely no manipulation or a company behind the scene marking buys as sells or vice versa."
I do trade this, I even put my intended trade up last week, I never and will never try to hide that. But I'm also aware with the amount of shares in issue nothing I say will effect the SP.
I've also been in lots of system presentations, T&A systems, accounting systems including presentations and implementation plans from IBM, ERPs, MRPs, etc etc. If any of those presenters had walked in with PowerPoint and not a working system with demo customers/clients where we could track input to output, I'd have swiftly shown them the door before they had their suit jackets off.
There is no room for flamboyant CEOs when playing with other people's investment, straight action and straight talk with managed expectations, under promise and over deliver!
You are about to embark on a spiral of monthly dilution, I will continue to trade and try and call this, I'll get some correct and some wrong.
Anyhow, your money, your choice. I hope you get to your intended targets and get a good financial outcome in the long term.
Fiisch
I accept that view, it does seem logically. But, maybe some of us are brought here because of the abuse we get, the insults and shut downs, the fact that we can see a hell of a lot of investors here are new to the game of the main market.
I am not paid by anyone, I get no commission for writing on the board, I actually no no-one on the entire site!
You can believe it or not, not my concern really.
What I would say though, is that most of us detractors have been consistently correct. And if this all goes to the dogs, would you actually then be man enough to apologise and say we were right.
I'll apologise if I'm wrong, I'm big and ugly enough to do so. I hope I am wrong, no investor should lose money to a BOD with less than good intentions.
I don't want to rub salt into wounds, that's not cool with any PI losing money or watching investments decreased, but can I just make one point.
Maybe the detractors here, like me, who have asked questions, queried the statements and paid interviews AZ have given, read the accounts and traded the company, maybe, just maybe we weren't here to harm your capital, maybe we were just reading between the lines.
A good CEO does not:
- expect you to connect dots, they tell you how it is when it's legally able to do so
- promise, delay, promise, delay
- hide behind NDAs
- talk to people through LinkedIn, phone calls, Twitter feeds
- show PowerPoint presentations for working systems
- Create misleading RNSs, they creat clear concise ones
I've always said I don't trust AZ, I see through him, I see through his valuations, his NDAs, his partners he uses to conduct business.
There is one troll related to SYME, and its him.
Now, you are the shareholders, the owners of the company, you deserve straight answers to the questions that have been asked. Stop getting fobbed off, stop reading what isn't there and making assumptions, so you top up at this low, or the lower low next week.
And maybe start seeing that not everyone who questions SYME is there to hurt you, some are potentially there to let AZ know that he is being watched carefully and luckily, he has left quite a big audit trail.
I hope your portfolios recover soon, I hope it is through SYME. But I suspect you'll need another captain to get you there!
AZ, you're leaving one hell of a lot of hurt! And a direct message to Amy Benning, I hope you didn't print off that balance sheet to read it, because I don't know what gets vomit off paper!
This argument raises it's ugly head again.
Simple:
Every accounts have a going concern statement, what changes is the content
A company is of going concern if the company is viewed to be ok to trade for the next 12 months
A company not of going concern is finished, bankrupt, ceasing to trade
A company with material uncertainty of going concern means there is doubt whether it can trade for the next 12 months (unless revenue increases, finance arrangements, capital injections)
https://www.accountingtools.com/articles/2017/5/14/the-going-concern-principle
That's it, no need to argue!
@Garwool1
What cash?? Even with revenue estimations, with cash burn, comes absolutely nowhere near paying off this with cash.
I had plenty of arguments re Negma when that was introduced, I was proved completely correct, I don't want to revisit arguments again as no point in this echo chamber. If I'm wrong I'll come on here and apologise. But, that won't ever be needed.
I'ts a terrible deal for SH's, and allows the wheels of AZs money making machine to carry on turning, but for the benefit of the very chosen few!
Anyhow, off I go, no need to clog the board up with arguments.