-
A little more information for you
My comments in Red:
Originally Posted by blah
Maybe I'm not reading the financial statements correctly, but from what I see, even if we strip out SNK out of the statements I think it is still very very impressive. I'll need to see more detailed statements and the notes of the statements to be sure though.
Revenue in FY 2012 was only $15,000 [that was Claridge Capital not SeaDragon]; FY 2013 was $8,999,000. From my limited knowledge of accounting, asset appreciation shouldn't be treated as revenue [it isn't]; or at least should be treated as a separate item [it is]. Lets be charitable and say that it was indeed included in the revenue figures [again it isn't]. Seadragon owns 25m shares in SNK; the share price on 31 March was 0.15c [actually closed at $0.155] - valuing SEA's stake in Snakk at 3.75m at that date. Even if we take the entire $3.75m out of revenue (let alone the appreciation over the previous year's valuation) we are stll left with revenue a healthy bit over $15,000: about 35000% revenue growth.
However, I have a hunch that this SNK value appreciation has not been included in revenue, since the cost of sales of 7.8m suggests that the 9m revenue solely is trading revenue [correct].
Having said that, I don't know why there has been no cost of sales for the 2012 year [2012 is for Claridge not SeaDragon].
I also note that in the balance sheet, the 3.9m figure under the heading "Assets classified as held for sale" I suspect is Snakk [correct]
SeaDragon was reversed in Claridge Capital so the 2012 accounts refer to what was basically a non-trading shell of a company.
Reading the commentary will help you.
Ignore janner he appears to be drunk in charge of a keyboard.
Best Wishes
Paper Tiger
-
Originally Posted by Paper Tiger
My comments in Red:
SeaDragon was reversed in Claridge Capital so the 2012 accounts refer to what was basically a non-trading shell of a company.
Reading the commentary will help you.
Ignore janner he appears to be drunk in charge of a keyboard.
Best Wishes
Paper Tiger
Correct.. PT..
-
A drunken mind speaks the truth,, So they say..
-
Member
SeaDragon may well surprise going forward and the SNK is a handy investment or buffer for them but the high grade fish oil section when fully up and running will be the catalyst for growth.
-
Member
Originally Posted by Paper Tiger
My comments in Red:
SeaDragon was reversed in Claridge Capital so the 2012 accounts refer to what was basically a non-trading shell of a company.
Reading the commentary will help you.
Ignore janner he appears to be drunk in charge of a keyboard.
Best Wishes
Paper Tiger
Thanks PT - that clarifies most of the questions I had. It would be good to be able to make a comparison with the Seadragon without the Claridge.
I'll stop wasting my time with Janner, since he still remains unconstructive.
-
Originally Posted by Paper Tiger
SeaDragon was reversed in Claridge Capital so the 2012 accounts refer to what was basically a non-trading shell of a company.
Correct. As such any comparison to last year is misleading.
It will be interesting to see if the statutory accounts consolidate the two companies for the prior year comparables - I am not sure how IFRS works for this. If not, they should to a non IFRS disclosure to assist investors get a true picture of year on year performance.
Re the investment in SNK - interesting that it is disclosed as held for resale (current asset) which should be an indication of how they view the investment. [Edit (this is incorrect, refer post #52) -It also looks as if the revaluation on the shareholding is taken directly to an equity reserve account so is not going through the P&L.]
Last edited by CJ; 31-05-2013 at 12:13 PM.
-
Originally Posted by ari
Is this the 'Real Oil' this time?.....it's been a long road > Regal Salmon>Queen Charlotte Holdings>Aquaria 21>AQL Holdings>Certified Organics>CER Group>Claridge Capital and now SeaDragon!
I have actually made money on Aquaria 21 and Certified Organics - but itis extremely hard work and it's playing pass the parcel. Too damn hard for my liking.
Meanwhile, as in all investments, check out first who are actually behind the company, what are their motivations and what are their track records.
Enough said in the case of Sea Dragon.
-
Tiger's Course in Reading Company Statement's Lesson 2
Originally Posted by CJ
...It also looks as if the revaluation on the shareholding is taken directly to an equity reserve account so is not going through the P&L.
Of course at some point I am going to post some massive mistake and you can all tell me I got it wrong but...
If you go back to SeaDragon accounts the revaluation of the Snakk holding is in the Profit & Loss account, $3M65 near the bottom, it is NOT under revenue which is what blah was querying.
As SeaDragon pointed out in their commentary and the accounts show they made a loss of $296k from their marine oil operations, but an overall profit of $3M354 because of the Snakk reval.
Best Wishes
Paper Tiger
-
Originally Posted by Paper Tiger
If you go back to SeaDragon accounts the revaluation of the Snakk holding is in the Profit & Loss account, $3M65 near the bottom, it is NOT under revenue which is what blah was querying.
You are correct.
-
Well, I have seen just about everything, but I have never seen a ...
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks