For those "hopefuls" as
avinvest describes and those that described last quarterly cashflows as evidence of SP3 turn around how do you honestly reconcile your unabridged support for the current management of your investment.
The annual average quarterly negative cashflow since FY 2019 is:
2020 -$331,000 2021 -$547,000
2022 -$437,000
2023 -$338,250Q1 FY 24 cashflow -$720,000Does ANYONE see a pattern of improving cashflow? In fact, Q1 FY24 is the
3RD HIGHEST NEGATIVE CASHFLOW since Dyson took over the CEO role. Dyson's commentary in the 4C states that
"This operating cash consumptionwas down from Q1 FY23 ($849k)." which is the
highest negative cashflow of his tenure. A poor attempt at spin, trying to convince you that cashflow is improving.
If you like pictures, here is the updated big picture.
As
Jonboi11 and
cetra alludes, "one off costs" and other spin, is just that. When "one off costs" occur every single year as predictable and certain ongoing costs of doing business, they are
NOT "ONE OFF COSTS".$400k of government handouts coming next quarter is not a positive at all. In fact the bigger this number is, the worse the company's financials are. It is that simple, which is why my cashflow analysis does not include this
corporate welfare for struggling entities. Your tax dollars will pay for the CEO's cash based wages for next year with little left over.
Talking of
SPIN.
This would have to be one of the biggest spin charts I have seen in some time. They want to give you the impression that for the sake of a few days difference in timing, the SP3 cashflow would again be close to zero for Q1.
This is bordering on outright deceit. This is already contracted UNEARNED REVENUE brought forward for the
next 5 years which
represents only $30k of income each quarter! This $600k goes straight onto the balance sheet as a
LIABILITY. But the desperate attempt to allude to improving financial performance is now pathetically performative. The
"impact" on the company's cashflow is NET ZERO. Not what they are alluding to here in this chart.
This contract,
"based on Spectur Standard Terms" I would argue, is potentially hiding a massive lost revenue and decreased margins, by way of substantial discounting. Which customer would
pay 5 years of invoices in advance without getting a massive discount? Was this a deliberate sacrifice of margin to temporarily bolster their short term cash position? You be the judge.
I am fully behind
cetra in calling for a down vote on the REM Report at the AGM. Further more, with the addition of TWO new directors, this microcap does not need 5 directors. As such, I look forward to the announcement that Gerard Dyson steps down from his role as director or the potential development of a §249D removal.
(20min delay)