Gli Finance Share Discussion Threads

[boadicea] 08/9/2015 20:52

I have only just (belatedly) read the RNSNON issued on 1st Sep.
I am a little surprised that it was not a full RNS as a 44% stake in Platform Black is very substantial and a considerable increase from the previously notified 31.9%.

In some circumstances it could amount to effective control, raising questions of account consolidation (IAS27).

....... Any informed views on this out there?.........

[droid] 03/9/2015 23:40

I don't think any GLIF holder is naive enough to think that one or two of these platforms won't work out. Others like Funding Knight are going gangbusters as Boris would say.

[james188] 03/9/2015 19:25

So we agree that GLIF does not value the Raiseworks equity at £5 million.

If GLIF really was "dodgy" and manipulating valuations across the board, which is what is being implied, I really struggle to see why it would make such a large write down in one investment at this time for an internal valuation. Surely it would have hidden bad news? It makes no sense. I have met most of the management at formal meetings(I am strictly an arms' length investor) and I do not consider them a fly by night outfit.

[james188] 03/9/2015 18:38

The Raiseworks equity valuation at 30 June 2015 was slashed from circa £8.436 million (the end March 2015 valuation figure) to circa £2.546 million - see the Portfolio Stats section on the Company website. That is why it had such a general distorting effect on the overall valuation. I am not aware that the loan to Raiseworks has been written down, nor of any suggestion that it has been.

The recently issued GLAF Prospectus states that Raiseworks had made five loans as at 30 June 2015, with total lending of $600,000. I think that much more than that had been expected and I guess (I have no further information) that is principally why the equity value was cut back - to more or less the face value of what GLIF has invested. It has not been written off.

As far as I can see, the Initial Portfolio that is seeding the new fund does not include any of the Raiseworks loans. In any event, it is loans and not equity stakes that are going into the new fund and so the equity write down does not affect new fund investors, although it was clearly not great news for GLIF holders.

[bluemango] 03/9/2015 18:26

You're the one needing to put all the effort in!

Well done btw creating a new alias today for a single purpose.

Apologies to regular thread users for momentary diversion.

[eeza] 03/9/2015 18:04

@raiseworks

My post was directed to bluemango, and not you. There was no sarcasm.

The statement made no sense - to me.

[bluemango] 03/9/2015 17:58

#1841 Whatever.

A look at past posts can, for the curious, be quite illuminating as to insight into character and motivation. Got back to April, plenty of one-liners and still not a single comment to sound like anything other than consistently wanting a lower price here. Fine, so long as readers are aware of the likely context behind such posts.

[eeza] 03/9/2015 17:23

I made that statement, from the link, in post #1835.

"were it not for Raiseworks then the NAV would have been marginally higher, reflecting the significant progress in our other businesses."

So 'significant progress in our other businesses' only results in NAV being 'marginally higher'. Something amiss, surely.

I sold half my holding on that statement - I was overweight before selling down.

Why would 'significant progress in our other businesses' only result in NAV being 'marginally higher', that does not make sense to me - it may to you, and that is your choice, but it does not make sense to me.

[ifthecapfits] 03/9/2015 11:59

Cheers j6.

Wasnt aware that banks were going tobe mandated to refer to alt fi. Hope GLI are part of that.

[jaws6] 03/9/2015 11:54

hxxp://www.cityam.com/223506/p2p-investment-taking-banks

[bluemango] 29/8/2015 00:11

"Something amiss surely"

No, but someone sounds overly keen for others to think so ;o)

[eeza] 28/8/2015 23:03

From Hyper's link

"were it not for Raiseworks then the NAV would have been marginally higher, reflecting the significant progress in our other businesses."

So 'significant progress in our other businesses' only results in NAV being 'marginally higher'. Something amiss, surely.

[bluemango] 28/8/2015 22:42

The market should not be too phased by this. It is a portfolio of platforms and surely nobody was realistically expecting an immediate 100% success rate across the whole lot.

[hyperboreus] 28/8/2015 17:37

I have no further information I am afraid LG on what has clearly gone horribly wrong in such a short timeframe with Raiseworks.

[james188] 28/8/2015 17:34

I was also surprised that there was no comment in the RNS as to the substantial write down in the value of the equity interest in Raiseworks (down by almost 70% compared to the figure at end March 2015). I assume that more will be said in the end September half yearly report, if not before.

[lord gnome] 28/8/2015 17:04

Thanks for that Hyperboreus. Without that snippet I would have had no idea what caused the drop. Do we yet know what is going wrong at Raiseworks?

[eeza] 28/8/2015 17:02

Doesn't bode well.
Not least the share price