Thanks. You are correct, I didn't listen to the chat. I appreciate your answer however.
Firstly, regarding the inclusion of the technical issue in the last announcement. I don't think it is appropriate to state that revenue was lower due to the technical issue, and then later state that the fact that a technical issue occurred could have been omitted because revenue was inline with projections: (1) the technical issue was used as a reason for the decreased revenue in the announcement and therefore had to included because (2) the issue was materially relevant to the announcement itself (i.e. EN1 stated revenue could have been X but for the issue). In any case, whether or not it had to be disclosed, and whether or not without it the projected revenue was reached, are both irrelevant points: the point I raised was the fact that less revenue occurred because of the issue. And it was only solved a month later, "manually" (whatever that means).
Secondly, in the debt funding industry, apart from some "red tape" that occurs during the decision and funding execution process (such as due diligence, the contract specifying Ts & Cs), what could be the hold up? Banks and lenders aren't stupid. If they see a well-performing ASX listed company that requires a credit line, they tend to execute it rather quickly, after all, they could be earning more on the facility than keeping the cash balance on their own books, especially with the zero or negative rates occurring internationally. Banks are ruthless, and if they can extend a line of credit to a company in the order of AUD $15 million, they would pull strings all night to get the documents through. At these levels of banking, you'd have the 9-5 white collar workers slaving away 14 hour days to get it done.
I have seen cases where banks and lenders holding up funding until such time as certain milestones are met by the debtor. What is the red tape Ted cited? Is the loan contingent on the market cap of EN1 reaching a certain point, or EN1 turning a profit? Has no other information been provided, apart from "red tape"?
I'm genuinely curious as to the answers to the above question, so if anyone has clarification from EN1 that would be great.
I understand that we shouldn't be privy to the exact terms of a debt facility, as those would be confidential, but EN1 should perhaps start limiting statements with positive promises until they can be sure to deliver on them within the timeline provided. If Ted thinks EN1 didn't have to disclose the "technical issue", which I view as a materially relevant announcement as EN1 used it as a basis to say that EN1 "could have" made more money BUT for the technical issue, then perhaps EN1 should apply that same reasoning to announcements specifying potential credit facilities, which are yet to come into fruition, but which could be relied upon by some investors to buy EN1 shares.
Expand
