Member Info for spike501

I'm not sure I'd worry about the terms being adjusted, Ariana are in a strong position with no need to sell and with the strengthening of gold prices both now and on an outlook basis, if anything Ariana should be changing the terms of the deal in their favour.

I actually sold this morning, as I'm a bit concerned about the Covid-19 situation in Turkey which is escalating and could see production impacts. I'm aware this means I could miss out on a strong rise due to the corporate action but I had good gains to lock in.

More significantly, junior gold stocks fell with the overall market, while gold has reached new highs - junior miners are starting to fly now and buck the market trend, while still being someway off their pre-slump prices.

Nothing wrong with the TW figure, the point is that you cannot add the £514k debtors onto the £808k revenue figure - it is already included in the revenue figure. Revenue was £808k not £1.3million as claimed.

"Firstly you can have no p and l impact from a balance sheet posting, as an example the purchase of fixed assets."

Yes, fair this an asset to asset movement, which is not an asset to asset movement

"Receivables are not just from revenue, as examples this might be proceeds of legal action, sale of a subsidiary etc"

Fair again, but again it also does not apply here. The debtors are from sale of goods / license agreements

"There seems to be a lot of disagreement over this."

There shouldn't be - you can't have a balance sheet position without a matching P&L booking.

If I start a company and at the end of the first year there is a receivable of £500k, there has to have been revenue of £500k to create that receivable - it cannot just materialise.

If you don’t understand a receivable is already included in the revenue number you shouldn’t be invested in anything more complicated than a premium bond.

Shandypants is 100% correct you can’t add the receivable to revenue as it’s already in the revenue.

Tony is right - Russian production costs are sub $20, split around 50/50 capex and opex, lifting costs are something around $8per barrel.
Saudi, Kuwait and Iraq are sub $10, UAE and Iran are around $12.

Alternative view is that this is a business with no cash flow and has a high yield bond imminently due. At the same time global markets are in flight, oil has slumped, liquidity is drying and risk is off the table.

There will be very few if any suitors for this project in the current climate - the North Sea was already the preserve of juniors and mid caps, many of who themselves are facing solvency crises. Anyone that is interested can see I3E is in a perilous state and can lowball any offer.

I’d be really surprised if I3E survives this current downturn - if it does it will also certainly be with massive dilution in a debt to equity swap it by surrendering a large portion of its assets in a farm down.

“ it would have to be at 25p -30p Sp to get the majority to sell .“

Utter la-la land.

"In fact, with the prospect of a "no" vote, they should have been doing all this already!"

What on earth makes you think they haven't?

Regardless of your views on the recent fundraising, as things stand today UJO can just ride out the market volatility sat on plenty of cash, with no likelihood of a cash call needed anytime soon. Thats a much better situation to be in than a large number of AIM stocks.

Not interested in the daily fluctuations here - this will all become interesting in Q2 as operations restart

“ You could even transfer some into your name, one into your partner's name, neighbours, friends, etc.”

This has been done before and the court rejected this.

https://www.slaughterandmay.com/media/2536304/share-splitting-and-takeover-schemes-the-dee-valley-case.pdf

Calamari - bear in mind with a scheme of arrangement a nominee account is classed as a single shareholder. So Barclays nominees for example has 1 vote at the court meeting, not that each shareholder in Barclays nominees have 1 vote.

“ Barclays say votes will be offered to shareholders . I.e 1 vote per account. ISA equals 1 vote . Smart investor equals 1 vote.so I have 2 votes”

No, one vote per share

FFC - they have many more of their own shareholders to consider, so paying over the odds as some favour to shareholders here is not only unnecessary its effectively against their fiduciary duty.

"The fact that AAL didn't give a option to exchange SM shares for AAL shares is disappointing."

There is no need to - AAL have sufficient cash and a share scheme is more complicated due and dilutes existing shareholders. AAL shares are also highly liquid so you can just buy on the open market if you want them

Bankruptcy usually happens just to lack of liquidity and which point balance sheet value of the asset will be dramatically different to the value when the business was a going concern and the less liquid, generally the higher the markdown.

An unfinished mine is about as illiquid as it gets.

"spike well that would also make TW wrong as he also said similar in his bearcast from a few days ago,you will need a subscription to listen"

I subscribe as well - TW is claiming the debtors are not booked to revenue, he is saying that not all of the 'other income' is related to share sales of probiotix, but a portion relates to non-product sales. TW basically say full year revenue is really £1million as opposed to £808k. I don't really know how he knows this, he could be right, but it would be a bit unusual from an accounting perspective.

Jscsc - the lemminginvestor blog is wrong on that point. The debtors are included in the revenue figure, they have to be - basic accounting.

Belgrano - you can’t add the 514k to the 808k - it’s part of the 808k.

If they aren’t paid it would be deducted from revenue next year but there is no reason to assume it won’t be paid.