What frustrates me immensely is that there is enough to go on to attack SISU and their ownership of CCFC without making huge assumptions that actually are tenuous at best, but others take as fact. Now there may be some benefit to SISU somewhere in this but the accounts do not show any direct link, and indirect links are conjecture.
-The £1.3m interest charge was in Otium accounts to 31/05/15. SISU accounts just released are for year to 31/03/16. Yes they overlap, by two months but are largely different periods
- It is absolutely clear in both the Otium and SBS&L accounts 2015 & 2014 that there was no physical movement of funds to pay interest in year to 2015 or 2014. (see the cash flow statement and notes regarding loans and interest)
- Interest shown in 2015 otium accounts is due to ARVO not SISU Capital Ltd. ARVO results are not consolidated in to the SISU Capital accounts so the interest charges due to ARVO would not show as SISU Capital Turnover in any case. That means that the SISU turnover 2016 could not be the same interest charge in Otium accounts 2015.
- Yes ARVO is related to SISU Capital but is not a SISU Capital Subsidiary. SISU do source income from it via SCPLLP some years, SCPLLP manage ARVO investment funds. CCFC do not appear to be the only ARVO investment and have not physically paid ARVO any interest in 2015 or 2014
- SISU Capital Ltd accounts list the source of income in 2016 as SISU Capital Partners LLP (SCPLLP) and SISU Capital international limited (SCIL). In theory the funds A-E/ARVO could have contributed something to the SCPLLP income relating to CCFC but so would the sale of Abacus Alpha in January 2016 (see my post 73 above). The evidence available suggests that CCFC is not the only investment held by funds A-E or ARVO managed by SCPLLP. In 2015 the source of income for SISU Capital Ltd was SCIL alone and as far we know that entity has no interest in CCFC/Otium/SBS&L at all
- Is a lender not entitled to charge interest on an unsecured loan? Even then it is hardly a benefit if it cant be or isn't drawn
- the employee benefit Trust. This is a strange one because you would expect this to be entirely separate to the SISU Capital Group accounts. Yes there could be a charge but why is it shown as a SISU Capital Asset, the whole purpose is to take it away from the company. I can only assume it is there because as well as contributing SISU control the investment. But I always understood that contributions had to be seen to be paid, the SISU Capital Accounts could seem to imply non payment because as well as the investment there is a liability equal to the investment. Perhaps it is just to include the asset and the book entry is dr asset cr liability.
- total costs of SISU Capital Ltd are £1092908. Wages costs £455171, Other costs disclosed in note 3 are £135326 = total £590497 that leaves amount left to cover remaining expenses £502411 (stuff like rates, insurance, professional memberships, computer maintenance, travel, and employee benefit trust contribution). The apparent contribution to the Employee Benefit Scheme to also include in costs is £613684. Something does not seem to add up.
- wages costs did not drop because they took a wage reduction it would seem there are 4 less employees in 2016 compared to 2015
All the above is taken from published audited accounts.
Whether we like it or not SISU are contractually entitled to earn from the investments they manage for their investors and have been entitled to well before investing via those same funds in CCFC. How much is charged to CCFC is the question and is it fair and reasonable - perfectly valid to question that. No evidence is shown of any such charges in any of the related financial statements. So claims by some taken as fact that it goes on are conjecture, guesswork and assumption nothing more
We wont be able to compare Otium/SBS&L to SISU Capital better until we have the OTIUM/SBS&L accounts to 31/05/16 due out in February
The bit that frustrates about stuff like this is that Juggy is well known and people take in what he says and a lot believe it. When in actual fact it is jumping to conclusions that might look right but there is not a lot of evidence to support when you actually look in to it (see above)
Stick to the facts we know, question certainly, but don't dress up assumption as fact. Doing so only brings misdirection, confusion. weakens the challenge to SISU and makes their life easier
