A lot of these deals involve companies that make a consistent loss.
By becoming larger, somehow, this loss becomes a profit.
This prediction seems to ignore externalities - a service like banking / taxi booking / payment … is a readily substitutable thing.
So any deal that returns any money to shareholders is a good one, as the value of most of these will tend to 0.
I do not expect the new owners will make money either.
Fire sale … no, need to raise more money at some point at a time when there is less 'free' money around, yes.
The long term issues involved in the 'carry' arrangements makes me think the whole current Seedrs business model is more suited to private equity - valuation is too subjective.
There does seem to be money in managing the EIS funds (octopus etc) though and so I would not be surprised if they introduce an annual charge on "FUM" at some point.
Noting that that is a very 'sticky' bit of income
The nominee model enables this. CC raises were (?) not held under a nominee structure.
Roughly what you said
They make a profit
But are not growing fast
This is not niche - Teapigs / Pukka / Many others - many substitutes
There is no moat other than the brand
Good quality website and pushing cold brew tea.
The Co looks viable
Unless they go hyper on marketing (or fail) I see no trigger to change
So where is the exit - not IPO - too small
There may be trade sale but what value do they bring to close competitors who are doing the same things
They have someone from Lush
Amanda Layzell, Associate Director: Turning our people into superstars & expert retail advisor. Previously Head of Retail at LUSH.
and not so -
However on LinkedIn she is a "Senior Manaer" and I could not see employment dates.
Head of retail southwest england / uk / europe is one thing (and if it was I would be in). Running one shop another.
So on the basis of puffery completely unsupported by reality spotted in 5 mins for me it is a pass.
I would be happy to work there though, it seems nice.
I have it on paper.
income for 2018 (!) was projected as 8560k. Net profit 4925k
will look for the pdf.
I was in when they did an SEIS raise (not much) back in 2016, it seemed like a long shot to me, but possible.
Since then they sound like they have gone from strength to strength, lightweight bulletproof armour, curtains that are bullet proof for us schools, virucidal inks, wind turbine parts.
Except… exactly what are their sales / licencing deals etc etc.
Back in '16 they said there would be revenue in a couple of years time
In 2021 they say there will be revenue in a couple of years time.
I say they are very good at raising money, there seems to be promise in what they are doing (*), the capital light nature of the business indicates that if they make it they will make it big.
But are they really any closer to making real money at 300p than they were at 15p?
They were specialising in graphene areogel composites that appeared to offer lightweight impact protection and I thought lightweight car armour …
… this may work. They did some tests where samples of the armour did stop 7.62 ammo as well / better than kevlar.
If it really is accounted for as backpay, it may be that pay can be allocated to the relevant tax-year - if so, clever dodge.
Not that I approve of the morals not least as the shareholders have been treated as mushrooms - morels.