Member Info for Rocky500

Yes and some interims for 2021 are later on which AZ also mentioned should show revenue for IM this year.

I can't see where the narrative has changed since the interview. He stated the trading numbers will appear formally in the 2020 accounts in April and then the interim 2021 in June I think. This is a hint that suggests there are numbers to reveal for DD in 2020 and positivity there will be IM revenue to list in 2021. This does not discount revealing soem basics in March in the trading update. If anything he left suggestive breadcrumbs pointing to a monetization programme that is already underway in some form. He does need to give detail in the trading update as he will be punished if he doesn't. Full disclosure may be through accounts however.

It's due at the end of March, not start of.

There are huge differences between the two business models...but they share the same space as well. It should be a real catalyst to SYME growth assuming the two models can be adequately differentiated for funders and clients to see this model is a far better alternative to a problem that is not going away for companies. It just comes down to whether this model is the saviour over that model

Too much emphasis is perhaps being put on Greensill as AZ said himself their nearest comparative is the Falcon Group which is quite a bit different .

Fundamentally if SYME can demonstrate this difference the demise if Greensill does offer good opportunity to potential funders and clients of Greensill there is a better way...

There are similarities to Greensill....but there is also a fundamental difference in that the financing is secured against physical collateral as opposed to the overall trading performance of the company and its sales. The key consideration is if SYME get tarred with the same brush as Greensill but IMO there is enough of a difference to differentiate itself from the Greensill business model as opposed to simple window dressing.

It is genuine as I've had one. Also had a response signed from AZ saying they are looking to inform the market as they have had many investors get in touch about resumption of trading. No substance but I did point out they need to improve their communication.

Funny that as I managed to see it before it disappeared. Cant remember all detail but interestingly it said apprxk 96.5% ownership was based in Italy. Not necessarily AZ and chums but origination of owner...if it can be accurately traced.

The suspension has not been orchestrated, the guys at Walbrook wouldn't have agreed to it I'm sure as they've been getting hundreds of emails per day and no standard service fees cover that!

AZ hasn't been entirely silent as I've had a couple of replies but I get the situation is a tale of two halves and DW is running point on answering the FCA queries (which I'm also let to believe are done...cant confirm 100% but they have been very open with them) and AZ is concentrating on business in hand...which is more important tbh right now if DW is dealing with FCA (and earning the fees hes just be paid for for setting up the RTO).

They are waiting for the due process to be completed so have little more to say beyond what has already been said.

Assuming the business is not directly affected by this process (aside from the RTO and previous accounts before the RTO) then personally I would prefer AZ not to get involved with it publically at all as he can keep himself separate from the process (better PR for the business ultimately) and concentrate on sorting out the funding.

If AZ was getting involved with that I would be more concerned tbh about the prospects of the business.

It's a waiting game, the co I understand are not aware of anything onerous (dont hold me to it but that's my belief) but we will need to wait for further info and developments as they happen.

Whilst it wont work for every company those businesses with a progressive management and applicable business model will see the 6% cost can be recouped with some on top by using the system to make their operations more liquid, put the cash to better use and increase their capability and responsiveness. Companies confident they are better guardians of cash will always see this as a better choice over physical inventory as it will give them flexibility. That said it wont work for everyone, especially those poorly run / in financial difficulty as it's not meant for that purpose. Not being considered a debt is key to this concept being accepted as a business tool and not a means to dig oneself out of a hole.

I think there are two different perspectives on if this concept will be accepted- those who advise a company and audit it and those who run it. On paper a well capitalised firm may have no logical need for it from an accounting standpoint but those in charge will likely see the opportunity from a different perspective. If it can be integrated into their business and give seamless transition between production and sale then decisions made can be adapted to save costs elsewhere (making more with greater economies of scale, shipping full containers as opposed to part loads, holding more in case of surge demand).

The fact it's not a debt will be the clincher here as it will be seen as part of the business process and not a temporary plaster over a short term issue.

It wont work for everyone but I think we may be surprised how many firms will see this as a potential evolution in their supply chain.

I'm from an industrialist family and we have always done things our auditors didn't deem necessary...but more times than not made a success of it.

Considering being listed doesn't at this stage have a bearing on the ability to conduct business then I would suggest anyway that for now it has no bearing on it at all. The relationship between AZ and his counterparts will be what's important and relationship management is his strong suit. So for now (which is why I believe AZ has not been involved in the suspension narrative - its do do with the RTO and not the business) the two are separate IMO.

That's an uninformed statement.

You have no way of answering that apart from what you might do. I'd have no problem personally as my decisions would be based upon the work done with the company to date and therefore formed my own opinion of the company and it's people.

Didn't suggest it would stop him but it would certainly put him into an ever decreasing audience. Dont like his journalism personally, cross between sensationalism and Trumpism. Neither are flattering in my opinion.

It is true but TW has now committed himself to his story...if it turns out to be false or even largely false then he will fall from that 'legendary' status to a bad tempered hack who has perhaps passed his best.

Doc Holiday has seen the world start to pass him by and largely hung up his boots. TW's style of journalism is fast becoming outdated and irrelevant.

If anyone is to reach out directly to the MIU I agree whining or complaining is not going to help (not suggesting this has happened but perhaps needs to be said)

What might be a valid angle as an investor is to point out the concern as an individual invested in the company of the potential damage a prolonged public suspension might do to a company that appears to be making progress on its business model.

They need to do their thing but at the same time it's not covert like a review that is done behind close doors

Well that's a shame, thought we were making some progress there. Might have been the first post as I'm not aware of anything controversial later on.

They don't know when, could be today or tomorrow. They have dealt with the FCA enquiries as they have been presented and I believe are up to date on their end thus far...the FCA are like your tax man, you don't push too hard and whine about things you don't like and they can take their time and be pedantic about things if they choose. Ultimately a conclusion will come and SYME believe they have their affairs in order.