GreenRoc Accelerates their World Class Project to Production as Early as 2028. Watch the full video here.
If you followed all of that Feeks, deferred tax should have been easy ;-). Cheers for posting, an interesting read and I’m glad to see that Burford isn’t taking it lying down.
wpa - I can get to around 10.4m from just the four 1m+ holders on here that I know of. I suspect there are more. Add SD's holding to that whatever it is (it sounds like he could well be another in the 1m+ club), plus a large number on here with holdings of 0.5m - 1.0m and I think you'll find the LTH's on here own quite a large chunk of the company.
One thing that I didn’t pick up at the time when the 2018 finals were announced was that we had recognised a deferred tax asset of £889k in respect of brought forward tax losses.
For the non bean counters, where a company has prior period tax losses that it is able to offset against future taxable profits, it can recognise a deferred tax asset to the extent that it is probable that that taxable profits will be available against which those losses can be utilised.
Note 17 to the accounts states “The Group has recognised a Deferred Tax Asset of £889,000 (2017: Nil) due to budgeted future profits of the business beyond 2019” and that it has been calculated using a tax rate of 17%, which by my calculations would require future taxable profits of some £5.2m.
No such deferred tax asset was recognised in any of the previous 5 years (2013 -2017) despite all of the MOUs and the Iran LOI. So that would indicate a significant change in the outlook by both the BoD and importantly the auditors. It would also indicate that recognition does not take place on the basis of a MOU or LOI. Therefore I believe it unlikely that any potential profit for Tema would be included in the forecast of future taxable profits of £5.2m when the results were announced some three weeks prior to the receipt of the Tema LOI.
As at the end of 2017 WSG had 12.6m of losses to be carried forward, plus losses carried forward in 2018 of £0.4m, giving a total of £13m of which we have now recognised an asset in respect of £5.2m.
Obviously we have the profit on the balance of revenue from the ME teach contract of £2.2M and the SE Asia tech contract of $3.2m (£2.7m), say £5m total, which using a margin of say 40% would be a contribution of £2m to the £5.2m, but given we have had taxable losses of between £0.2m and £0.5m for each of the last 7 years, it looks like both the BoD and auditors see a significant change of fortunes even before Tema is taken into account.
Neither have anything to do with CC.
It would certainly make sense to RNS it if we were aware. Tbh not overly familiar with the reporting regs around that kind of transaction, so you could well be right if CC had a requirement to disclose it. It would certainly be an interesting conversation with the administrator otherwise.
Jimzi - any idea how a 188k buy trade can appear at 17.06 yesterday?
Or they ring Canacoord and ask to borrow some - providing they haven't already lent them to SVS, which I suspect they have.
MH did say he wanted to report earlier going forwards.
Here you go
https://www.wsg-corporate.com/investor-relations/financial-calendar/
Good spot MRVest - that is early this year, normally in September - 21 Sept 18 and 22 Sept 17 being the last two.
Yes good spot. The heading on that page also makes it very clear
“Maximising Security & Revenue Generation at Ghana’s Ports” (plural).
Aiming, the RNS stated "at 10p per Ordinary Share to raise £1million before expenses together with the issue of warrants. "
So the expenses clearly came out of the £1m and the warrants were not given as payment of those expenses.
DHC. the SP might be 9.6p to buy now but I bet you couldn't buy 10m shares for that on the open market. The warrants have a two year life. If when the administration is finalised in say 6 months time, if the SP is say 50p post TEMA, then the warrants will have a value which the administrators will have a fiduciary duty to pass on to the creditors.
Whether they went to SVS or their clients they are still in existence. If they went to SVS then the administrators could exercise the warrants for the benefit of the creditors if the share price was above 12.5p. They could even assign the warrants as a dividend in specie to the creditors. If they went to the placees, they will still receive them, but only when the administrator has sorted out whatever mess he/she is faced with. They do not go away either way.
Sure is!
The warrants were given to the placees, so they won’t be dead in the water, but I doubt anyone will be in a position to exercise them for a while until it is all sorted out, much in the same way they won’t be able to sell any shares they hold.
Also I can't see the bad debt being linked to the African airport MOU as we have already signed the contract. That wouldn't have been the smartest negotiating tactic if they were linked.
However Mike, I don't think that the bad debt in those accounts of £545k has anything to do with Sudan.
The Juba contract extension for $2.72m announced in November 2009, required payment for all goods (circa $2.5m) in advance of shipping with balance payable on installation. So the balance would not be enough for the £545k write off in the 2010 accounts.
The original Juba contract for $4.7m was awarded in 2008, I can't see us having done the extension if there was debt outstanding on the original contract.
Here you go Mike - they are on the website, but in the list of old RNSs
https://polaris.brighterir.com/public/westminster_group_plc/news/rns/story/w33vgjw
HB, yes of course they could have obtained finance for it, but they needed the letters of credit which have arrived late. They could have raised finance against this but that would have taken time, time which appears we didn't have. Are you suggesting they should have just taken the risk and just borrowed without obtaining a LoC first?