|
|
Post by Crumpy Six on Sept 4, 2015 20:13:02 GMT
Just in the nick of time (deadline was the end of this month) 22Cans has published its 2014 financial statements. Apparently these were signed off by the directors in February of this year, so they've been sitting on them for a while. In the UK, a company's financial statements are public documents and are available for anyone to see. You can download them from the Companies House website: beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07955622/filing-historyThey are... surprisingly and boringly similar to the 2013 statements, to be honest. 22Cans still qualifies for Small Company exemption so only has to file abbreviated statements. Last year I was surprised by the huge Creditors balance. This balance has hardly changed. This is a current liability which means it falls due within 12 months. Either 22Cans mis-stated their 2013 creditors balance and the debt was not due (and should therefore have been recognised as a long-term liability), or in the course of normal business they manage to steadily maintain a ridiculously huge creditors balance. In 2013 the net value on the balance sheet was (710,022). In 2014 it was (1,183,610). This difference is almost entirely due to a 100k decrease in debtors (people owing 22Cans money) and 300k less cash in the bank. Does anyone know what has become of the tens of millions of dollars that PM kept saying Mobile Godus was earning? It doesn't seem to have made it onto the balance sheet. |
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Sept 4, 2015 20:48:18 GMT
Weren't those Zimbabwean dollars?
|
|
Lord Ba'al
Supreme Deity
Posts: 6,260
Pledge level: Half a Partner
I like: Cats; single malt Scotch; Stargate; Amiga; fried potatoes; retro gaming; cheese; snickers; sticky tape.
I don't like: Dimples in the bottom of scotch bottles; Facebook games masquerading as godgames.
Steam: stonelesscutter
GOG: stonelesscutter
|
Post by Lord Ba'al on Sept 4, 2015 21:53:10 GMT
Am I to understand that those values between parentheses () are negative values?
|
|
|
|
Post by Crumpy Six on Sept 4, 2015 22:22:44 GMT
Correct.
As always with abbreviated statements, it's very difficult to perform analysis because we're missing key figures. We don't have revenue, for example, or expenditure. We don't know what the creditor balance represents. Last year I speculated that this might be Early Access sales recognised as deferred income for some reason, but I don't think this is the case (it would be incorrect accounting treatment for a start, but the figure has also decreased slightly since last year, which wouldn't make sense if that's what the were doing).
Bank loans tend to be recognised as short-term liabilities, but 22Cans has next to no assets against which this could be secured. Shareholder loans would typically be recognised as equity. If it's actually money owed to a lender, sucks to be them. 22Cans had nothing to pay them with.
Of course, these statements are from 31st December 2014, almost a year ago. 22Cans has plodded on since then, albeit with a massive turnaround in staff (including the loss of some key people, such as Tim Rance and Peter Murphy). So despite the sucky-looking financial situation they have survived. Something is keeping them afloat.
|
|
|
|
Post by hardly on Sept 4, 2015 23:19:30 GMT
Correct. As always with abbreviated statements, it's very difficult to perform analysis because we're missing key figures. We don't have revenue, for example, or expenditure. We don't know what the creditor balance represents. Last year I speculated that this might be Early Access sales recognised as deferred income for some reason, but I don't think this is the case (it would be incorrect accounting treatment for a start, but the figure has also decreased slightly since last year, which wouldn't make sense if that's what the were doing). Bank loans tend to be recognised as short-term liabilities, but 22Cans has next to no assets against which this could be secured. Shareholder loans would typically be recognised as equity. If it's actually money owed to a lender, sucks to be them. 22Cans had nothing to pay them with. Of course, these statements are from 31st December 2014, almost a year ago. 22Cans has plodded on since then, albeit with a massive turnaround in staff (including the loss of some key people, such as Tim Rance and Peter Murphy). So despite the sucky-looking financial situation they have survived. Something is keeping them afloat. Crumpy thank you for providing this analysis. I'm no accountant but that doesn't look like a healthy company. Whatever they earned from mobile in the past there cant be much coming in now.
In terms of the short term loan is it possible this was just rolled over? Also could Peter be guaranteeing a bank loan against his personal assets?
Its a shame we cant see revenue as that would have been very enlightening.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crumpy Six on Sept 4, 2015 23:47:46 GMT
The loan may have rolled over. Having thought about it, I think the most likely explanation for the Creditors figure is that it's a loan from Peter classed as a debt. By lending the money as a loan rather than investing it as further equity, Peter will be in line to receive payouts if the company goes tits up (shareholders are the last to benefit from liquidation procedures, whereas a creditor may recover some of their cash).
|
|
|
|
Post by Tenu on Sept 5, 2015 16:41:45 GMT
Crumpy could it be that instead of Early Access sales the creditor balance refers to the Kickstarter backers? Possibly for tax reasons this wasn't classed as 'incomings' or they would have had to pay a big tax on it back in 2012/13.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crumpy Six on Sept 5, 2015 18:53:08 GMT
Kickstarter funds could conceivably be deemed a liability, if 22Cans recognises that it hasn't actually delivered the Kickstarter promises and might have to end up repaying the money. I sincerely doubt they have done that, though (and if they did it would probably be in the form of a provision rather than a creditor). One slightly insidious possibility is that PM used the Kickstarter funds as the basis for a loan which is now on the books as the creditor balance. This would mean Project Godus could ultimately collapse but Peter gets to keep the money when the loan is repaid following the anticipated success of The Trail.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tenu on Sept 6, 2015 17:03:16 GMT
Yes maybe they used the £ from KS against a loan from DNA?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tenu on Sept 6, 2015 17:16:43 GMT
Crumpy it cleary says in the notes on page 3 about 'monies received' as deferred revenue and included in creditors and accruals
|
|
|
|
Post by Crumpy Six on Sept 6, 2015 20:22:06 GMT
The notes clarify that deferred revenue would be included in Creditors, but I don't take it to mean that the full Creditors balance is made up of deferred revenue. It's not impossible but I can't see how that could be the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tenu on Sept 9, 2015 19:29:10 GMT
It's because of this comment I'm suspicious:
"Despite all this and the apparent lack of funds that necessitated a publisher in the first place, Molyneux noted that the company still had Kickstarter money in the bank—just in case. In hindsight, he says he wishes he'd used it."
from Kotaku.
|
|
|
|
Post by hardly on Sept 9, 2015 23:25:20 GMT
It's because of this comment I'm suspicious: "Despite all this and the apparent lack of funds that necessitated a publisher in the first place, Molyneux noted that the company still had Kickstarter money in the bank—just in case. In hindsight, he says he wishes he'd used it." from Kotaku. Peter also said they were accruing money for Bryan which later turned out to not be the case. |
|
