Member Info for WolfofWarks

Put very simply if a company sells finished stock to another company (in this case the funder) who is not the end user then the funder should technically show it as stock in their accounts.

So think of a food manufacturer who sells to Tesco. They sell their goods to Tesco thus removing them from stock. Tesco them book them into stock until they sell them to the end customer. So the stock moves through the accounting framework until it is eventually purchased by the end consumer.

Likewise in the case of a lender there is always a borrower. The accounting rules state what each party to the transaction should show in their accounts.

So my original point to the doc was we technically have an equal transaction if the funder doesn’t present the transaction as stock, but as a securitisation note, loan note, digital token, or whatever we want to call it.

Come on JR.

Are you really pumping Peace’s figures?

I’ve heard it all now.

UBS are probably holding on behalf of more than client, therefore no need for TR1.

Could be related to the new investors.

We’ve had the six month interims to 30/06

Lloyds own HBOS actually so it might be right if it’s the entirety of their accounts.

I’d say HBOS is too high to be just PI shares unless they are a big players in the market.

I don’t think HL were on there either which is strange as they appear based on forums to be the largest online retail broker.

I only had a brief look though.

So the stock effectively drops out of the financial framework ... and replaced by a one sided loan?

There are accounting rules which govern this kind of thing, so for example for every lessor there has to be a leasee and the rules state who should show what and how.

If I was a betting man I would say Hbos , Equita, Globalcapital, UBS & Picet are nominee account for the ‘new investors’.

I’d say that makes the most sense, certainly wouldn’t be treated as a loan.

Plus they do own the stock, the only problem is that they don’t control it as the client has responsibility for selling it.

DC3 - read what WG posted earlier in relation to market caps and number of shares in issue. A similar EUA market cap (£835m) in SYME would give an SP of around 2.5p

Right so in the accounts we had confirmation that 165 clients had been ‘originated’. Of these 82 were pre-RTO. So during April to December 2020 we added 83 clients.

During this time we have been told that SME need to be IFRS compliant (which would wipe out most S and a lot of M from SME), we have also been told that the clients profile is pivoting to medium and large enterprises (Nov interview). Now in the Q&A we have been told that a funding profile of larger contracts is too risky and are expecting an average of €50m euros.

With all this information to hand we are expected to believe that AZ had added another 60 in the last six months from when the accounts were published.

I’d be more interested to see how many of the current pool can and will actually take up the offer.

Nikikiki - how many IT staff there are depends on how much of the development SIA chain are doing. I’m pretty sure AZ has said or I have read that the It team are in Milan. So with everyone working remotely (which was mentioned in the accounts) I doubt they have need for a receptionist.

Who is doing the due diligence? Our own staff or is it outsourced. I think the research doc pointed to Gordon Bros for instance carrying out the inventory checks. They must have some sort of credit manager carrying out the financial side of the due diligence. Again this might be something else outsourced.

Probably is if you outsource too much it all comes at a cost and puts pressure of the 1/1.5% margin.

I’ve been working on a platform business start up and there is a payroll of 9 which is a CEO, CTO, Head of Digital, a researcher, and the rest are IT related - UX, Android, etc, developers.

Hi doctor - I think we might have our wires crossed a bit here.

This is how I see it:

Client company - sold the stock therefore they show a sale - no loan on their balance sheet

Funder - owns the stock or at least a digital token. Is this then presented in their accounts as stock (which as chalker says doesn’t fit) or as a financial instrument, ie a loan note.

The problem with a loan note is there has to be a lender and a borrower.

Other wise we have the client showing no stock and no loan and a funder showing stock (which would make the most sense unpractically) or one side if a loan transaction.

This is why I’m fascinated to see how this will work as a lot of it is guesswork at the moment.

Doctor the accounting laws in each geography don’t apply as the platform and the clients are required to report under IFRS which is the global standard.

Sam this is my last post in this as it’s tedious.

Yes I held shares in Tesla in January, yes I told you I was looking to get out while the going was good and had plans to sell at various levels AT THAT TIME.

I had previous sold in Sept (also bought in Sept as well as it was all over the place) and Dec. So I started reducing my holding in Sept and when we exchanged in Jan I was referring to exiting the remaining holding I had. The present at that time rather than the past.

This last couple of weeks I’ve sold some more because the price was tanking and I derisked and moved into something else (Walt Disney if you’re interested).

I’ve sold and bought SYME at various times and levels given ... you know .... we are participants in a public market.

Now that’s pretty simple stuff broken down and is pretty easy to understand. If you think that means I’m a liar I think that says more about your vendetta against me and you and your alter egos as a person/s.

I’ve never really thought about it from the funders perspective before but you’ve raised a very good point. If they are a company for example do they now show stock on their balance sheet? How does that get audited at their year end given it’s held at SYME’s clients premises. Does the blockchain digital token suffice?

The securitisation note must be a financial instrument for accounting/audit purposes but that would then suggest it is a loan rather a stock purchase.

It’s an interesting one.

I’m honest in all my dealings on here.

Can you say the same?

I’ve seen you, Exos, TRD, peace’s avatars on Twitter.

There is no lie in anything you have posted.

You just haven’t got the intelligence to see that.

You’ve took two posts and created your own narrative with no consideration of the context.

You need to grow up Sam.

I don’t like being called a liar by anyone, especially you dodgy feckers.