Member Info for WolfofWarks

Just to be clear they are financing the bank and supplying a ‘baas’ to SYME. We are not a shareholder of the bank. It’s not ‘our’ bank, it’s owned by ‘new tag’ and the financial partner(s).

Just want to clear that up for anyone doing their research.

Hughes - surely the client company buys back the stock at the point it sells it to the end customer? Otherwise it’s sold the stock twice and only purchased once, the second time with the stock being owned by the funders? It’s the framework that’s for three years but the true sale and buyback it a repeatable process.

The option was originally granted to orchestra and was then moved to TAG during the restructure which is confirmed on the TR-1.

When the new year starts I’m opening one with IG as it seems slick so far

Everybody moans about not being able to buy on H&L don’t they?

“ Some of the ramping on here is crazy talk. It’s important to stay grounded, keep on top of the research & news, have a plan & always be aware that nothing is promised.”

Careful there Marlon you’re starting to sound like me now :)

Savvy

I think the difference between where you and the market value this is the risk.

I think it’s unlikely a fund would be holding onto these shares at the moment as a prospect (given the high risk) so my guess and the most logical outcome would be they would want to sell them. The question is to whom. It would have been helpful to know who the ii is in the background that the option was placed with.

The transfer of the call option to tag from ochestra was on one of the TR-1s.

Poor - obviously I know he didn’t hit the option but an ii obviously had the shares sat waiting for him to buy should be wished to have exercised it.

Now presumably he will not be exercising it so an ii has 630m shares that they now need to sell.

Do you see what I’m saying? There should be 2% of the company up for grabs and possibly about to hit the market unless I’m spectacularly missing something.

Hi all

Thanks for replying. I understand the terms of the call option and that an ii would have 630,000,000 shares sat their in case the option was exercised.

Assuming it now won’t be exercised surely the ii will want to put those shares on the market and get their money back (or not depending on what they paid for them).

What do you mean he bought them at 0.48p?

Hi Shep - derivative?

If the call option hasn’t been exercised are another 630m shares about to hit the market next week as presumably the ii holding them doesn’t need them anymore?

Apologies if I’m being dim I’m unfamiliar with how these kind of instruments work.

Hi TA - I was just using a very basic example to illustrate my point. I’d love to see one of these monetisation contracts. I think it’s been said on here before and I’m not sure if it’s true or not having not seen on if these contacts that there is no requirement for the client company to repurchase the stock back.

The legal title is passed to SYME and/or funders (I assume) and it’s SYME and/or funders responsibility to resell the stock if the stock is not repurchased by the client company, with an insurance policy in place for any leftover stock.

My understanding of consignment stock is that legal title remains with the manufacturer until it is required by the end customer, so again for me another round peg in a square hole.

At a very simple level one of the first things an auditor asks when testing sales is to examine proof of delivery.

Revenue recognition isn’t dependant on a customer paying for goods as most business transactions are on credit terms - receipt of goods is the first indication that a sale has occurred.

“ In true sale the risks and rewards of the inventory are passed to the buyer. It is bleedin' obvious that it will come off the seller's balance sheet. And I'm sure HMRC will not have a problem with this when they pay their corporation tax earlier than usual.”

Ginger Hippo

I don’t think it’s this straight forward. A) the stock is still in the client companies warehouse which will make stock take interesting and calls into question whether risk and reward have been transferred and b) the sale will be well below the cost price of the goods (by at least 8% taking into account the fee payable) so there are question marks around whether this would be a bona fide arms length commercial transaction and c) the client company still has responsibility of the sale to the end customer. That’s before you take into account the affects on gross margins, vat impact on amount of funding required and turnover disclosures to the markets (effectively selling the same goods twice) and how unpalatable that might be.

This for me is the biggest question mark over whether this works or not and I’d love to know the rationale for two of the big four and also Crowe giving it the thumbs up. On a technical level it’s the square I cannot circle at the moment.

I was talking across whole portfolio.

Disappointing day all round so far. Decent increase in SNG but only got a small holding now, nice 3% in GGP, but otherwise everything down and a massive hit here. Hopefully the US will fair better.

Definitely wouldn’t want to do this monitoring prices all day.

Why do people set stop losses - think back to March this year.