Member Info for skid35

Casey.

Best not post if you haven't a clue on market cap and cash, you just look foolish.

As usual 100% correct, this will fly with the right contract, unfortunately this won't come.

Santiago. No, I don't enjoy it.

Working with spin outs, many which have more revenue and potential than ENET ever could, struggling to get funding yet a lying fraudster DL, and his city mates taking a cut, just carries on.

DL laughing at the majority here, and all the way to the bank knowing his $20k a month for doing sfa is safe for a few more months. I must say aided and abetted by dodgy city advisors.

Said previously I could see a possible platform licence deal, clear even this is no where near closing.

Still the gullible here keep posting rubbish.

Homework? Two days ago you were still stating the market cap was £250k, brilliant.

It's now not niw. It's people not peoplea. It's how not hiw. It's looking not lookibg. It's company not comoany. It's welcome not wellcome.

I replied to you complete lack of understanding on ENETs income last year. I can see that like others here you seem to be an expert in bottom fishing in all sectors.

Tuan.

Firstly you dont sell IP you licence it. Second of the $1m most is loss making NRE with an amount about the same as DLs salary IP related. The IP relates to old pre IPO contracts. The NRE is very low value work and for tech company valuation purposes is irrelevant.

The "prediction" of $2m in the current year. Even if it was ENET is still massively loss making, can you actually provide me with a financial forecast that ENET have actually hit a year out ?

Again please use google translate before you post, as well as being factually inaccurate lacking in any knowledge, it just makes no sense.

Tuan, read all of the RNSs over the past three years to look at what DL said and what was delivered, and then reply in english.

The brilliant strategic change is moving from a co funded model (where no one would co fund and touch them with a bargepole) to a model of full funding from "an OEM" - brilliant move !

The opportunities, as usual with DL, are completely unqualified against standard sales metrics that every tech company uses. They are no where near even initial technical appraisal. A sales cycle here is 12-18 months minimum, they are not even in the foothills. As with all DLs unqualified opportunities over three years this will be forgotten in the next RNS.

Lankylad - it still depends on the actual contractual terms.

"Pay when paid" clauses usually mean a deferral of income recognition. If it is pay when paid or six months the income would be recognise the income.

However this is all in the contract which the CFO and auditors would have assesses, SA probably did a side agreement to the contract countering the contractual conditions.

Toyin.

The CFO and the auditors have the agreement, the income recognition from this would be 100% clear. It's not open to SA interpretation.

Unless the auditors and CFO were completely and totally incompetent (not out of the question but highly unlikely), communication from the customer must have been altered. The current CFO doesn't have the background for this role.

You posted it was £280k a few short hours ago.

Sham.

All licence contracts which involve royalties have clauses on reporting and a timetable for doing so. With stat accounts being well after management accounts (where an estimation may have been made) they should be against this reporting, there are no estimates plucked out of thin air. I can't believe a cfo / auditor would accept estimates as reporting backed by a customer would be available.

For this contract reporting must be quarterly, with reporting within X weeks of the reporting period.

Tuan, can you use google translate before you post

Shychap.

With IFRS 15 there is a step by step you follow to determine how income is recognised based on the contract, and performance obligations contained within the contract. You cannot recognise income on royalties that are imminent, they are either in or out at the year end - you can recognise income where there is a prepayment of royalties where the unit volume has not been "utilised" by the customer if the performance obligation has been met and their is no rights of recourse.

A CFO will have gone through and written up the income recognition steps for each material contract. The only conclusion to me is that an official communication from the customer has been adjusted, a CFO or auditor will not just take the word that a CEO has held a conversation and agreed something without written communication between the parties.

Net,

Very dependant on the contract terms.

You can have a royalty prepayment (whether cash received or waiting to be paid) where the customer hasnt used the prepayment but where there are no further deliverables and there isnt a sale or return right which is taken as income.

What might have occurred is the contract has a start date for royalties which then required further agreement from the customer for this start date which has been doctored, or very standard royalty reports required as part of the contract have been doctored. A contract should have a named person for communication of these sorts, it shouldnt be the CEO. The board really have not done their jobs here.

Netcurtains,

Accounting for income related to royalties is very dependant on the financial terms of the contract.

I have one royalty agreement where we are being paid over a 10 period, but as we have fulfilled our financial obligation IFRS 15 is to take all the revenue (with an adjustment for finance income) when the contract was signed. Auditors really should be all over this, unless SA has doctored communication from the customer (which to auditor and CFO / FD should check anyway) they should be out of the door.

No real surprise auditors were useless, clearly not following up to verify the largest entries in the accounts. You really don't take the say.so if the CEO here, you get confirmed details from the customer unless this communication has been forged. As the current cfo is still in place, suggests the latter.

Thinking of an initial toehold tomorrow. Have an indirect holding through IPO which amount to a look through of £50. Seem.to be at an infection point now.

An ultra right wing buffoon with no business knowledge pretending to be the big I am analyst, what a joke.

Tuan. Best to put your childish postings through Google translate, you just appear ridiculous.

Potential.

Really clear you really haven't even a very, very basic understanding of what Oracle or Nvidia actually do or how they operate with suppliers in the sector.

What would Nvidia, with its absolute world class engineers / billions in R&D, have any need for anything from ENET - a company that has essentially sold nothing since IPO, been thrown out of every material deal it claims to have won, with trials that show its products dont have a market and with a complete and total idiot as a CEO.