Member Info for skid35

Elrico.

It's a very valid question and one I analyse as it 1. If a company manages receivables well they tend to have good overall controls and process 2. Shows that the board see cash as a key kpi 3. Is an indicator they have secured contracts on good terms especially with retailers who know how to squeeze margin and cash.

As I've said it is difficult to tell these from 1. the lack of reporting required at interims, the full annual report does provide a better indication due to notes to the accounts 2. Optis business model where invoicing / revenue recognition are backdated in the reporting period and not due.

Mol.
You clearly haven't much clue on this issue.
Debtors will be made up of 1. invoices (Due to the back loading of revenue / invoice generation in the 6/12 month period on probably 30-90 days payment terms) 2. Royalty / other contracts where the amount is agreed with customers after the sales ledger has closed it the general ledger hasnt.
I haven't said invoices which will not be contractually due and paid shouldn't be issued.
If you have £1m of revenue all of which is raised in the last month and not due for payment and showing outstanding at £1m the calculation as you say is 180 days even if the whole £1m is then actually paid in 30 days - every finance person knows to treat this calculation with care. You also have to 1. adjust for vat 2. Possibly understand the impact of sale or return type contracts.
As I've said hopefully an equalization of invoices through the year will help in future, but as you say should be an area for analysis.

Mol, agree it's good to look at receivables especially movements and also notes on doubtful debt movements in the annual report.
The standard debtor days calculation simply doesn't work when a company raises invoices for a large proportion of its revenue which are not even due for payment of even invoiced at period end.
Hopefully as the business matures the year end hockey stick flattens and hopefully debtors days analysis doesn't shout out like it does now.

I think we all have our own views on where enet share price should be, and a view on how each potential rns may improve the share price - and this is both in our own heads as well as what we perceive the market reaction might be with still little IR or news hitting new potential investors.
Daily ups and downs not a concern, However must say really, really tired of this 40-43 range. News to take us to a new level, even if it’s not at the level we believe it should be, can’t come quick enough.

Surprising that this has not had an impact on share price. Other share I follow do show a share price impact as people blindly follow these tips without question.
Hopefully this is on a few more watchlists for future developments

Perky, would hope so.
Really haven’t a clue how the market values cns, recent news now discounted and we are back to 11/12p.
So much dross on AIM, Cns appears well run and heading in the right direction for a year or two now but not really recognised.

Aqc.
The order value is pretty irrelevant. If you believe it can move the share price it must be released, I believe any sale deserves an rns.
"That's what they said they'd be doing", this is kmk - saying and delivering are not the same.
I think you're mixing me up on this one, much more to be irritated by with kmk.

Investor confidence needs to be Built on delivery and execution, words will just be discounted by the market.

Aqc.
I think you're wrong on real covid detector sales even at a small scale outside of the pilots. This would need an rns as it is so significant even at a small £ value, and kmk would be shouting from the rooftops.
Should be interesting, as always with kmk look at the small print and read the notes to the accounts. As a start kmk need to hit their promises on the "base" business with no surprises to restore some level of credibility.
Any positive news should hopefully see this heading towards the twenties. I think the ST effect lessens with seventh or eighth time, but is still there.

Aqaue.
Not a fan of tw but on the non execs I think I be has this one right. They really need to prove their worth before getting options where we are unaware of the hurdles.
If I were an employee I would also feel miffed that a Tory mp doing a couple of hours a month gets rewarded here.
As I have said previously I interesting SOH has not changed his options.

Nice summary Haggis.
A medium term holder with 400k shares, was waiting for some cash to add to this but looks like I might be paying more than I wanted.

Andrew.
Absolutely, as well as IP it is the very small team who will drive and deserve success.
Individuals joining OPTI where they have blue chip options are taking a risk, options are a major part of the equation in attracting, retaining and rewarding people.

Uhlf.
Can be pluses and minuses in having to recruit and get so many people productive, trust with prior experience of similar situations the team have this in hand. Really looking forward to high margin, scalable revenue at a multiple of the opex growth this headcount implies.
As you say a leading indicator, and as you say looking for news flow soon - I've been patient as my first buy was Jan 18 at 75p so coming up to 4 years anniversary, longer than some marriages (like dallo mine may be strained with what I have in here).
Really hope we are commenting on rnss in the very near future.

Larus.
Performance criteria and timescales are not stated therefore it is impossible to compare. We seem to have people thinking they are executive rem and ben specialists here, the detail required in the annual report is far in excess of the rns including how they are valued.
As the payment price by the employee moves from what is what to 2p this is a major change.
If you take other employees the 150k to 75k shares at 57p. If the share price hits 75p and they exercise the gain is now 55k vs 27k previously, as well as the ability to exercise over a longer period. Obviously a sliding scale which would have been modelled by pwc.
All comes down to whether we put faith in SOH which I generally do die to his holding and his background/ way he has run the company, very noticeable this does not include his options here.

Andrew, haven't got a clue whether it's correct or incorrect for shareholders, the fact that you think it's simple enough show you don't understand it.

Having read the rns again and the options notes in the last annual report I am still a little confused, I have some personal knowledge with options and rsus but not enough detail here, this includes details over what period can they be exercised.
- With the old options the benefit to the employee is the difference above the exercise price, with the company receiving cash from the employee when exercised.
- With the New scheme the strike price is effectively 2p ??
If so the reduction of the number options is dwarfed by this and is completely irrelevant, and the new scheme is far from neutral but is a massive change in the benefit these options provides.
From a personal view it was like the change is US companies moving from options to rsus, albeit here with hurdles.
Look forward to the annual report for this detail to come out, but this will be mid 2023 so we are left in the dark.

Aqu.
Agreed vivid is outside the control of management, but there has been no scale back of options in companies which have benefited from covid so as an overall group management teams win.
I have sold shares in companies on such matters in the past where I considered this an abuse and called into account the integrity of the BOD, as you both say I don't think this is the case here.
One interesting point is timing. Much better to do this now than in a few weeks / months where we are all looking for a re rating on news, where such a reissue would be really questioned. Let's hope this is a prelude to news.

I have never been in favour of adjustments to issues options, never works the other way when it is realised after the event they are worth more than originally envisaged.
Either events impacting the share price are in control of management of they're not.

Aqc.
If this is additive rather than canabulising existing revenues in happy. I used to be holder of SIS which sells through multiple competing channels at differing margins, all of which have their place.
As with most here surprised we are still at this price level, just with current news I thought we would be 55-60p. Looking forward to the trading update for 22 which should hopefully show solid growth and move towards breakeven, stable cash.

Revenue will have to be well North of I would say £10m, depending on the complexity of contracts and volume of transactions, to warrant a CFO - especially as the more strategic finance work doesn't lead to any forecasts.
I did see he was cfo at iig, an entity I have been looking at for some time and will dip my toes in when funds allow.

Acq.
I wish you you would actually read what I am saying.
I have not said they are guaranteed to muck up, but a history of repeated incompetence and major ethical issues up cannot be discounted merely because they have a new chairman.
As I have said this expectation appears to be built into the share price, I haven't a clue whether this will be £2 or 10p this time next year but the upside on balance looks better than the downside hence why I am still here. However the upside would be much better and more certain with a different management team.