Member Info for oldspursfan

While we wait the main course from the Cap'n:

I'm renting a house from a matron at the local Ursine Hospital, and it's full of inflatable sofas. Doesn't sound great, but it's got all the bear-nurse air settees...

HappyScot If the BoD members held a majority of shares between them, then I would agree. Then we would be at the whim of whatever other vested interests exist.

AFAIK the key players in the FSP don't hold a majority shareholding so if an offer is made they have to put it forward and cannot unilaterally reject it. I've raised this point several times and no-one has yet contradicted me.

Thanks Aubery - I think we are on the same page. My point was that everyone who is saying the SP will collapse, seems to be of the opinion that the BoD will end the FSP in a similar way to others who have gone into it, but not sold.

I.e. "No offers have been put forward, and management believe no offers are now likely"

The only examples we have of FSPs end either in a sale, or that statement. However, the BoD have already stated offers have been received. Now I admit don't know how the receipt of "non-binding" offers compares to other FSPs where "no offers were received" but I am trying to visualise how this could end and "no offers/none deemed likely" just isn't feasible imv.

So by extension some details have to be announced and so the SP would then have to reflect whatever is announced in some way - it cannot just randomly crash.

Aubery
If the FSP results in a partial sale of one/ more assets and a probable dividend, would the SP not have to reflect the remaining assets PLUS dividend (until it is paid out)? So why would it collapse?

If the BoD try to close the FSP with no outcome, are they not obliged as a minimum to put the offer for the whole company to a vote? Non-binding RNS said offers received included a full buyout, meaning at the very least a suitor submitted it; even if negotiations failed to reach terms the BoD could agree to put to us as a "recommended offer", it would at least provide a base value to compare against (what someone was willing to pay). So again why would the SP collapse?

Thx

Wow - 350 posts today, and yet they all fit in one webpage as two thirds of them have been deleted!

So - a question: was there any point at all in posting such a bucket load of argument-causing, mud-slinging, w1lly-waving, antagonstic carp? Can the usual suspects please take note, and not bother tomorrow.

We're still over two days away before the share price moves and the mudslinging "end of bell" posts start, but following the excellent dissection of Thursday, I personally feel a little more confident.

Reason? The only thing AZ is currently guilty of is missing deadlines for delivery of his strategy. Really annoying trait in a CEO, but not the end of the world.

So far as we officially know, no funders have walked, some clients are still there, and the legal side of things are pretty much done (per earlier rns)

A good thing is that if and when the first securitisation round gets completed, it wont mean just one company, it will be a whole lot more, done in one lump. €300m was mentioned? Not small beer.

Then the TF acquisition which we are all curious about is just a few weeks away from further details (Sharebel please save your "how will we pay for it?" queries until then, because we dont yet know).

Until such time as we get told everyone has walked we have some things near term to look forward to. Yes updates saying not there yet/jam tomorrow are annoying, but ultimately it could be worse.

Not buying the fraud accusation because of the above, and if it goes **** up our only spokesperson is AZ himself who stands to lose a whole lot more than any of us. Any wilful deception charge just doesn't fit yet. GLA may hold off from posting as not a frequent poster and now focusing on the AGM

Thanks to everyone for the last day or so's genuine friendly debate. GLA

Sorry Parm saw your partial reply so thanks for sharing!

My cynical nature says gross is internal/ management/ sales target fluff, useful for putting rockets up sales people and keeping management advisers in employment (simons pipeline or sales funnel jargon). Net is more of interest to shareholders! See what else they come back with! Cheers

Hi peak. Sorry phone died on me so has been charging.

Not sure if it has been specifically addressed but your "why pick on the funder, not the clients?" query I would say is balance of probability. Plus some clients have paid DD, so is this a case of funds available but every one of 180+ clients said no thanks? Including those paying for DD?

Or is it the small collection of funders including an IF who has now decided to have a different mix of geography without lending anything, that's holding it up?

But you're right we don't conclusively know why AZ cannot yet announce that IM has commenced, we can only deduce. Something for the AGM I reckon.

Never been a fan of mushrooms Wolf so that sounds interesting!

So it’s back to the contract specifics to hopefully satisfy everyone’s concerns. Doubt we will see an example, but have to trust it will be...

Thanks Chalker, you have me refreshing my mi d on ifrs15!

So it states that "Control of an asset is defined as the ability to direct the use of and obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits from the asset."

So from this, so long as the monetization contract is explicit, there should be no problems in identifying a true sale. Company monetises this amount of inventory, but retains responsibility for onward sale. Funder owns and receives the benefit of onward sale. It won't matter if it's still sat in the company warehouse, if this arrangement is clear, and he inventory is identifiable and traceable on request. Auditors shouldn't have any problem with that.

Obviously that's a direct relationship, so throw in middle steps for IM tokens, but principle is still there.

"If an auditor wont sign iff - get an auditor who will."
Love it Ndn - Groucho Marx LLP

These are my generally accepted accounting principles so if you dont like them, well I have others...

Welcome back skipper! Have often wondered if there is any logic to whether a post, poster or the entire thread gets deleted. Would seem not.

Confess I have had to report in the past, mainly from the sideline but only abusive or libellous content. I know enough dad jokes not to get offended by your efforts and it does help keep spirits high so keep it up!

Actually, one to throw in for the rugby loving shipmates of a certain age:

Just seen the fixture list for Enya's new rugby club, and have to say, it's pretty tough! Next three games:
Sale (a);
Sale (a);
Sale (a).

Chalker it's a leap to say the least to get from funders not yet funding clients, to questioning the entire fundamental concept of SYME model.

Most obvious reasons for the inventory funder wanting to have a more diverse geography are to do with risk profile and assurances over income, which AZ should be able to address.

Less likely is the funder hasn't monetized anything, because he is worried about XYZ's auditors having some questions about the true sale concept a year down the line.

To suggest this, particularly in this thread, is disingenuous.

Jimjam rob clients hanging around, I agree and have been one of many saying so. My point is that whilst AZ is accountable for the performance of the monetization process, he is not responsible for every party in it.

For me, it looks like the inventory funder is causing the delay, as he/she has been mentioned since at least q3 last year, but has not yet released any funding to any clients so far as we have been told, and instead seems to want to move the goalposts. Why? AZ needs to focus on and resolve this, and get the funds flowing, rather than expanding into other regions.

Understand where you are coming from Simon, but you're missing the fact that syme is the middle man. Responsible for matching eligible clients to funders and running the blockchain tech side of things. There appears to be a block in the "sales funnel" or "pipeline" somewhere, but it may not be syme causing it.

Not sure that is quite right Keith/Jimjam

Clients are there (interest), funders are there (inventory funder, SH) but for some reason they are not yet being matched. Is that Syme's fault? Funders fault? No idea, but what is AZ doing about it is what I would like to know. Expanding into the whole world is not top priority right now imv

IM? IF - inventory funder!

Once one of these routes successfully monetises some inventory I would expect interest and take up would be exponential. It's just getting that first lot over the line...

In fairness, given no funds have yet been released by either of the funding routes currently in progress, drop out rates are pretty meaningless right now. Admittedly I would expect the securitisation round to be a big bang "all these companies, this much funding". The IM more case by case, so only conclusion from 6 months of no funding is he is just being a bit of a twat.

Did someone mention a sharetalk interview is due? And are they accepting topics or questions from Shareholders? Not seeing anything on twitter atm.

Agree hef, and/or stick a rocket up SH securtisation if the inventory funder route is playing silly beggars.

Wasnt the captive bank meant to be in Q1 as well?

Right been out with the family on the beach for a few hours. Still feel let down, but at least allows some perspective.

SonQ1 was to all intents and purposes a shambles of a quarter, which after the can kicking at christmas, is disappointing. Hopefully the market reaction and gist of shareholder views wakes AZ up and gets him banging heads together to sort out the funding side of things pronto.

Four day weekend ahead, so try to relax, enjoy Easter and ease off the insults and gloating. The potential is still there, draw a line under this, bc in a couple of weeks we get to hear just WTF this Trade Flow thing is all about!

HAGW