Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Local Planet was formed among privately owned agencies to stay away from public and stakeholder interests. This is exactly how they define their YSP against publicly listed networlk agencies. Watch 2016 interviews from Martyn Rattle to confirm. So forget about a reverse merger.
Local Planet Media International Ltd. filed its 2018 unaudited financial statements (just the balance sheet actually). This is what UCP owns 5% of. Now, tell me where exactly you see a multi billion $ company???
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05982460/filing-history
LPCN also trying to bounce
QUAD pinching
The corporate structure of LPI has been set in 2016 and is unchanged ever since. It is precisely grounded in the belief that they can work more flexible without external stakeholders. You see stuff you want to see, but that aren't there.
Right on. The UK company is not consolidating any business, but the UK company is what they own 5% of. LPI business is consolidated in a few dozen companies that each member agency sets up for their respective location, such as Local Planet AB, a Swedish company, owned by The Kronor, and whose operations are included in the UCP financial statements since 2016.
no, your assumptions are wild, not peoples' valuation.
There is no cash value. Look at liquidity ratios. Cash flowing in just serves accounts payable.
LP International ltd. apparently is not the operating entity of LP network just as I had speculated. "LPI is forecasted to have annual billings of £2M and loss of £0.5M year 2019"
And the margins (8% gross, about 0% net) just shows they are reporing billings, not true revenues for UCP as well.
QUAD is finding a bottom
[Article] The Great Streaming Battle Is Here.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-great-streaming-battle-is-here-no-one-is-safe-11573272000
Even Clay has turned bullish on Eros lol. $3 next.
How did they finance the acquisition. OS probably way higher by now
The point is that media agency "revenues" cannot be compared to "revenues" outside the agency world because you'd compare two totally different figures.
https://www.quora.com/How-do-ad-agencies-calculate-revenue
Anyway, I'm out of here. Better things to do than worthless discussions. All I'm saying is you should scrutinize the company closer.
In the same way, a ticket agency would not report the sum of all tickets sold as revenues, but only the sum of commissions earned on selling these tickets
No, you are comparing apples to oranges. When a contractor is assigned a project to build a house for $1 million, they wouldn't report that sum as revenues. They would report their service fee of 100k as revenues.
Well, read the notes to financial statements on revenue recognition. Then compare what they say and what they do.
It's not that "straightforward" because revenues must be earned. Only the 200k in your example are earned. The rest is simply a cash passthrough.
Following up on that example, they would report 950k as cost of revenues. That's why they end up reporting so low net revenues on high gross revenues.
No, UCPA reports client media budgets as revenues. That's totally different because most of it is not "earned". If a client instructs them to buy media for 1 million, they report 1 million of revenues, then buy media for 950k. The difference is service fees.
Well, only that "piece" is your true revenues.
They are not bluffing, just misstating financials. The financials wouldn't pass GAAP standards, that's why you find them on the Pinks. The revenues are largely media billings. Go ask google for the difference. For some reason, media agencies get around reporting billings as revenues, but you can see from the consistently low margins that these are not true service revenues.
In the same way, it is clear from inspecting the only published financials of LPI International that this company is not consolidating any business of LPI. Each member agency operates their own local LP company to pursue LP projects, so it's questionable what values exactly lies with LPI International at all. UCPA doesn't even report its claimed 5% stake on its balance sheet. You guys should start scrutinizing UCPA more closely. It's a great company for everyone on their payroll, but worthless for common investors.
Another great close. And I bet she'll continue trending up
No one cares what books are touched. That sounds like an Acc101 course. Dividend income would be shown as an income statement item.
Again, whether LPI is public or private is totally irrelevant. Whatever they own should be reflected as a long-term asset at cost value. UCPA does not make any claims about any ownership of LPI on its balance sheet and, as you can see through the Cashflow Statement, they also have never received any dividends from it. This contradicts the notes to financially statements where it is said that a 5% stake in LPI ltd. had been purchased and fully paid.
More concerning than UCPA accounting irregularities, however, should be whether LPI ltd. holds any of the operational business of LP. If you study the few published financial statements on Companies House UK, you'd likely share my doubts.
That is total bullshit. Any dividends received would be shown on the Cashflow Statement. Dividends don't constitute an asset.
You guys have no clue about accounting, apparently.
Sure, will do on the weekend.
I know UCPA since 2012, so I certainly know the numbers (you are quoting from the ibox that I created and that hasn't been updated since 2017), but I also know the numbers are flawed.
No, you have everything wrong about UCPA and LPI.
That is utterly nonsense
You are wrong as I pointed out. A financial investment is reported at cost
It should be reported at cost
Exactly. An asset is reported on the balance sheet. I'd doesn't matter if public or private
Well, UCPA doesn't claim to own anything of LPI on its balance sheet. A 5% ownership stake (no significant or controlling interest) should be treated as a financial investment and be reported under long-term assets.
Well, some say the value lies in LPI, soon subject to UK, legislation, UK taxes, UK accounting rules and currency translation risk
Has management considered / communicated the consequences of Brexit? After all, LPI is a UK registered ltd.
EROS is on fire again. Still a weekly pincher, double-bottom on the daily.
Closing HOD into the weekend. $2 next week.
I wonder what might have caused the sudden buying pressure. Smells like some news has leaked.
Ok, 1.25 filled.
Same. 1.33, 1.29, 1.36 Doubt my 1.25 will be filled
yes, but fully diluted. So, warrants are done and no financing round till July 2020. I'd venture to say warrant holders converted for a good reason.