Worthington Share Discussion Threads

[davidkip] 03/11/2018 16:38

I wonder if Streamcast are the media company that received the £1.7m pre-pay. When RAP asked for it back (ha ha) Screamcast offered shares instead. "sorry we don't have the cash any more, would you like some paper?". But then just kicks the can down the road to a new question, which is how RAP are valuing those shares at ~ 3x their purchase price?

All a tad opaque and hardly the sort of thing that will get RAP a London listing.

[cliffpeat] 03/11/2018 16:28

Roy - well spotted

Nicholas Hollens signed the audit report filed with Companies House - he is MD of Greenwich UK in Oz.

More here


So what is the status of the Moore Stephens report?

And re-iterating DY or SK's questions about the audit procedures for verifying the value of the Screamcast and Motivideo "assets".

The Screamcast/Advertising prepayment transaction is hard to understand. in the 2017 accounts the auditors reported:

"RECOVERABILITY OF ADVERTISING PREPAYMENT
Risk Description
The Group holds £1,706,869 in prepayments related to advertising. This advertising was paid for in full in a previous period, but was not fully utilised.
Given the age of this balance, coupled with its size, recoverability of the prepayment was considered a key risk for the purposes of our audit.

The note corresponding to this balance is note 10.

How the scope of our audit responded to the risk

We obtained a letter of confirmation from the provider of the advertising service, confirming the balance that was held on deposit for the Group, as at 30 June 2017.
We analysed the terms of the prepayment, to ensure there was adequate time for the Group to make use of the asset.
We confirmed the translation of this balance from its historical Australian dollar value to its Pounds sterling value was accurately performed.

Key Observations: We concluded that the prepayment balance is recoverable."

But 2018 note 12 says the prepayment was "sold to Screamcast Marketing LLC ... for contributed equity in the company". How did that work?

So - credit prepayments £1.7m and debit investment in Screamcast.

Debit investment in Screamcast - £3m and credit .... where is the £3m credited?

[davidkip] 03/11/2018 15:42

I note that the same double-act of Greenwich (CH) and Moore Stephens (for SIX) happened last year, which makes me think this is some Swiss SIX regulation regarding final sign-off of SIX-listed companies.

[davidkip] 03/11/2018 15:39

That's bizarre. The text of the two audit reports overlaps beyond the usual boilerplate but is also quite different in places. I can't see why anyone would pay for two audits. I wonder what happened ... the one on their website is ten days later for the audit signature ... I wonder if SIX requires a swiss audit firm to give their final sign-off so Moore and Stephens had to double-check Greenwich and Co's figures.

[roydyor] 03/11/2018 15:08

I see we have have just got an Australian flag, is Simon St Ledger having a peek? lol
The Companies House audited figures were signed off by Greenwich & Co while the audited figures on the Rapid site are signed off by Moore Stephens.

[sweet karolina] 03/11/2018 11:32

David,

Fully agree with your views on RAP corporate governance and abiding by disclosure rules. A convenient change of auditor has no doubt helped with passing off the valuation of assets.

However if you are seeking a dual listing, is it not a good idea to comply with the basic disclosure rules for any market?

It is entirely possible that at some later date WHET and RAP will concoct something around the warrants which have officially expired.

[davidkip] 03/11/2018 08:17

SK - "WHET may not be subject to market disclosure rules, but RAP is."

I'm not sure how strict the SIX rules are. A whopping £4.7m investment in S(c/t)reamcast has appeared in the accounts, apparently as a result of £1.5m of prepaid advertising. That's nearly doubled the net assets. Did that (very material) event get announced at the time?

I'd read very little into the silence on the option expiry therefore, esp given how sloppy RAP are corporately (the vanishing CEO shares, inability to spell their major investment, etc etc).

[sweet karolina] 02/11/2018 18:48

ALS,

POCA has been applied to specific AB assets. It may be applied to the GSC shares in AB's name (I have my doubts whether he put up the money and is truly the beneficial owner). I see absolutely no reason why POCA would apply to WHET just because of AB.

Andy,

Without a liquid listing, which enables them to raise quite a bit of cash very soon, RAP will go bust; so of course RAP is "committed" to a dual listing. The issue is can they find an exchange that will have them and if so can they afford the prospectus, DD and listing costs? With no more of WHET's cash coming RAP's way, who else is going to be daft enough to provide the reddies needed for a company with an obviously flawed business model and assets which would seem to be massively overvalued, if indeed they exist at all?

[andy] 02/11/2018 18:21

PAP are still saying they are committed to a dual listing.


I guess they are looking for an exchange where there will be some punters, and news may create some liquidity.

[arthur_lame_stocks] 02/11/2018 18:20

I still think WHET simply can't due to AB's assets being frozen.