I can kind of see how you've looked at this but for the benefit of all the lurkers, you're looking at the BCC view of the JV and not the full view. The full view is VERY much skewed to RP who have the majority of the subscribers. Per my comment above, we have 50% of the EQUITY ownership, but RP generate the majority of the earnings. Also, what we can see in the BCC accounts includes lots of setup costs for European expansion - it's very important to take a forward view here.
But in case you missed it, here is the EXTERNAL view of the potential value of the JV. It steps it out pretty clearly.
Post here
https://hotcopper.com.au/posts/69459649/singleAs an aside, my value is HIGHER than this but the arbitration process in these situations often means that what you're prepared to sell at you need to buy at. For example, if RP play hardball and say we think the full value of Zoleo is $100m then Beam could sell their share for $50m. Hence why I have a range - there won't be any premiums and I'm sure there's lots of devil in the detail that we're not privy to.
Thanks for your considered response. We can disagree which is actually great and what makes a forum. Two additional points. I wouldn't place TOO much focus on depth. Yes it provides a useful data point but in reality as the price drops or goes higher, new buyers/sellers appear. Also, when you use a proper broker they can place iceberg orders that appear off screen. I do this from time to time too as nervous retail can sell into my bid.
Also, you state "
Even IF the dispute gets resolved within the next 9 months (big IF, very optimistic) that implies that shareholders have to hold the loss-making BCC for another 9+ months further exposing their capital to risk, all without clear reward in sight, all whilst the SP is continuing its downward spiral."
I think it's important that you separate
your capital loss based on your average
compared to the company performance.
The company made a $2m profit last year and basically had it's best ever year. It is not a loss making business! While the SP hasn't been great, the operating performance is the best it's EVER been.
Stealth, I'd encourage you to reach out to management if you have questions. The whole point of arbitration is that it does not go through the courts. There is a Canadian based arbiter that will decide how this plays out. There are also clauses in the contract that assist with disagreements and Beam have said that their claims are "objectively compelling..."
Also management have provided guidance to the market that there are two options so I think investors should be guided by that ahead of speculation or supposition. From the announcement - it reads pretty clear to me
[Reply to your other post on royalties]
Royalties are aligned to the JV. Remember that the JV gets a portion of royalties and the distributor in that territory also gets a clip. So at a minimum, Zoleo will come with a portion of the subscription royalties. There is scope to buy the royalty stream that the other party does not own but that will come with a cost. But agree, it would be good for management to provide more clarity here if they can. After all, the value is in the royalties as we all know.
(20min delay)