Editing Supply@ME Capital

* Listed on the London Stock Exchange in the United Kingdom, Supply@ME Capital plc is a company that's on a mission to help businesses maximise their profits, in particular raise funds more efficiently.
* The flagship offering of the company is a web application that enables companies that are inventory-intensive<ref>Here, inventory refers to the goods and materials that a business holds for the ultimate goal of resale, production or utilisation.</ref> and willing and able to take higher levels of risk (for higher levels of return), such as early-stage manufacturing companies, to raise funds. What makes the finance platform unique is that it raises the funds by selling [and then at a later stage (e.g. 90 days), buying-back, at a higher price (than the sold price)] the inventory of the businesses, using a type of financial agreement called the true sale inventory agreement.<ref name=":8" /> Evidence suggests that the agreement enables early-stage inventory-intensive companies to raise funds more efficiently, ultimately leading the companies to improve/maximise their profits<ref name=":3">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0929119914001606</ref>.
* The expected return of an investment in Supply@ME Capital plc over the next five years is 411%, according to the estimates of Proactive Investors, which equates to an annual return of 33%. In other words, an £100,000 investment in the company is expected to return £511,000 in five years time. The main assumptions behind the estimate include: 1) a significant total addressable market size; 2) the uniqueness of the company's offering(s) and the experienced, founder-led team are able to capture a sizable amount of the market; and 3) a high discount rate, mainly given the stage of the business lifecycle that the company is in currently.
* The degree of risk associated with an investment in Supply@ME Capital plc is 'high', with the shares having an adjusted beta that is 561% above the market (4.61 vs. 1).
*Assuming that a suitable return level over five years is 10% per year and Supply@ME Capital achieves its expected return level (of 411%), then an investment in the company is considered to be a 'suitable' one.

== Operations ==
===How did the idea of the company come about?===
The idea of Supply@ME Capital plc came to Alessandro Zamboni, the now founder of the company, when he developed a strong desire to maximise the profits of his business (i.e. an early-stage inventory-intensive company). Researching into how to do that, he realised that one of the best ways is to raise funds (i.e. funding), in particular funding related to the inventory of a business (i.e. inventory-related funding).<ref>Huff, J. & Rogers, D. S. (2015) Funding the organization through supply chain finance: a longitudinal investigation. Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal, 16(3), 4-17.</ref> He also realised that there are many company owners that feel the same way as him, with profit maximisation one of the fundamental assumptions of economic (and business) theory. In his quest to maximise the profits of his business and others, Supply@ME Capital plc was born.

===What's the mission of the company? ===
The mission of Supply@ME Capital plc is to help companies maximise/improve their profits.

===What's the company's main offering(s)? ===

==== Flagship offering/audience ====

=====Who’s the target audience of the company’s flagship/first product?=====
The primary audience is companies that are 1) inventory-intensive (i.e. manufacturing companies) and 2) willing and able to take higher levels of risk [(for higher levels of return), such as early-stage companies (i.e. companies that are less than two years old)] (i.e. early-stage inventory-intensive companies).<ref>Typically, companies that are less than two years old find it particularly challenging to raise sufficient or any funds.

The finance cost of the Supply@Me Capital type of finance is the highest, and, therefore, we expect the finance form to be used by those who are unable to use the other forms (i.e. those that are less than two years old).</ref> 

===== What's a major problem that the target audience experience? =====
"The widespread belief ... is that the lack of finance constitutes the main obstacle to the growth of [small-and medium-sized enterprises]." European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.<ref>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883902698000275#FN1</ref>

As indicated in the above quote, a major problem that the target audience experience is a lack of profits, more specifically a lack of financing.

Indeed, the Federation of Small Businesses, a lobby group for the UK’s smallest companies, said a survey of members founds that successful applications for bank loans and other financing had dropped precipitously, with less than half of applications successful in the third quarter of 2022. The lobby group added that the smaller a business was, the less likely its request for a bank loan was to be approved.

=====What's a key solution to the problem?=====
The solution is Supply@ME, a web application that enables early-stage inventory-intensive businesses to raise funds. What makes the finance platform unique is that it raises the funds by selling [and then at a later stage (e.g. 90 days), buying-back, at a higher price (than the sold price)] the inventory of the businesses, using a type of financial agreement called the true sale inventory agreement.<ref name=":8" /> Evidence suggests that the true sale inventory agreement enables early-stage inventory-intensive companies to raise funds more efficiently, ultimately leading the companies to improve/maximise their profits<ref name=":3" />.

Note, with a true sale inventory agreement, there is no legal obligation to return the finance, thereby reducing the financial risk of the fundraising company.

==== Secondary offering/audience ====
The secondary audience is inventory-intensive companies that follow the teachings of Islam (i.e. Islamic inventory-intensive companies).

Currently, inventory finance is treated as a loan, involving interest (payments). Interest is considered to be a sin in Islam (Quran 2:278-279), and, therefore, Muslims should avoid engaging in transactions that involve interest. Accordingly, the current form of inventory finance excludes 1.97 billion people (or 25% of the global population). The Supply@Me Finance company claims that its form of inventory finance is structured in a way in which the inventory is actually sold (i.e. it's not treated as a loan, and, therefore, there is no associated interest), making the platform an inventory finance platform that truly sells the inventory (i.e. true sale inventory finance platform), and, therefore, an inventory finance platform that is allowed to be used by Muslims (i.e. Muslim-permissible inventory finance platform).

Many Islamic countries adopt Sharia, Islamic law, and the Supply@ME finance structure has been approved as being compliant within the principles of Shariah, thereby making the platform one of the first shariah-compliant inventory finance platforms.

== Which are the main competitors of the product? ==
A key way to determine an offering’s closest competitors is by looking at other offerings that are targeting the same or similar target audience (i.e. early-stage inventory-intensive businesses) and providing or aiming to provide the same core benefit (i.e. more/maximum business profits, in particular more efficient financing), and then ranking the offerings in terms of the total amount of time spent using and/or money spent purchasing the offerings. With that said, we view that the closest competitors of the Supply@ME platform are TraxPay, Demica and Novuna. A detailed comparison between Supply@ME and its main competitors are shown in the table below.
{| class="wikitable"
|+Competition analysis
!
!Supply@ME
!TraxPay
!Demica
!Novuna
!Marco Polo Network
!Kyriba
!Taulia
!Orbian
!PrimeRevenue
!LiquidX 360
!TradeShift
!HSBC business loan
|-
|Is the product targeted toward early-stage, inventory-intensive companies?
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
|-
|Is the platform focused on providing financing (i.e. finance platform)?
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
|-
|Does the product provide financing related to inventory (i.e. inventory-related financing)?
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
|-
|Does the platform truly sell the inventory (i.e. true sale inventory finance platform)?
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
| style="background: red; color: white;" |No
| style="background: red; color: white;" |No
| style="background: red; color: white;" |No
| style="background: red; color: white;" |No
| style="background: red; color: white;" |No
| style="background: red; color: white;" |No
| style="background: red; color: white;" |No
| style="background: red; color: white;" |No
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
| style="background: red; color: white;" |No
| style="background: red; color: white;" |No
|-
|Is the platform compliant with Sharia law (i.e. Sharia-compliant inventory finance platform)?
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
| style="background: red; color: white;" |No
| style="background: red; color: white;" |No
| style="background: red; color: white;" |No
| style="background: red; color: white;" |No
| style="background: red; color: white;" |No
| style="background: red; color: white;" |No
| style="background: red; color: white;" |No
| style="background: red; color: white;" |No
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Yes
| style="background: red; color: white;" |No
| style="background: red; color: white;" |No
|-
|What is the average total price of financing inventory using the platform (i.e. inventory finance price)?
| style="background: red; color: white;" |High
| style="background: orange; color: white;" |Medium
| style="background: orange; color: white;" |Medium
| style="background: orange; color: white;" |Medium
| style="background: orange; color: white;" |Medium
| style="background: orange; color: white;" |Medium
| style="background: orange; color: white;" |Medium
| style="background: orange; color: white;" |Medium
| style="background: orange; color: white;" |Medium
| style="background: red; color: white;" |High
| style="background: orange; color: white;" |Medium
| style="background: green; color: white;" |Low
|}

=== Finance price/cost ===
With inventory financing, the default liability is restricted to the company’s inventory only, rather than to the whole business. As a result, the risk to the financier is higher than traditional financing (i.e. business loans), and, therefore, the finance price/cost is higher (than traditional financing).

Furthermore, with equity financing, there is no legal obligation to return the finance<ref>It's expected that the finance will be returned (with a profit), but there's no legal obligation to do so.</ref>. Consequently, the risk to the financier is higher than debt financing, and, therefore, the finance price/cost is higher (than debt financing). With the finance arrangement provided by Supply@ME Capital, the finance comes from the selling [and then at a later stage (e.g. 90 days), buying-back, at a higher price (than the sold price)] of inventory<ref name=":8">With the buyer having no obligation to sell back the inventory and the seller having no obligation to buy back the inventory, the arrangement here is different to a traditional inventory repurchase arrangement, where there is an obligation to sell-back/buy-back the inventory. If the buyer chooses not to sell back the inventory, then the original seller will need to buy the same inventory from another entity; similarly, if the seller chooses not to buy back the inventory, then the original buyer will need to sell the inventory to another entity (or hold onto it).

We understand that while there is no obligation for the original buyer to sell back the inventory, the buyer is incentivised to sell back the inventory, because of a more attractive price (than if the buyer was to sell the inventory to another party) or to not sell it at all; similarly, the original seller is incentivised, because it will be logistically very expensive to replace inventory that has also be used (in the production of a final product).</ref>, and, therefore, the arrangement is more like an equity financing arrangement (rather than loan/debt financing arrangement). Accordingly, we expect the cost/price of the financing (that is provided by Supply@ME Capital) to be higher than both traditional financing and non-traditional financing [i.e. (on-balance sheet) inventory repurchase (repo) agreement<ref>An inventory repurchase agreement, also known as a inventory repo, inventory RP, or inventory sale and repurchase agreement, is a form of short-term borrowing. The dealer sells inventory to investors and, by agreement between the two parties, buys it back shortly afterwards (e.g. 60 days), at a slightly higher price.</ref>], thereby making the Supply@ME Capital financing one of the more/most expensive forms of financing.

== What is the main way that the company expects to make money? ==
The main way that Supply@ME expects to make money from its platform is via finance arrangement fees, which is around 2% of the finance that the company helps to arrange. For example, if $10,000,000 worth of inventory finance is facilitated/arranged via the platform, then Supply@ME will make $200,000 on the arrangement (i.e. $10,000,000 x 2% =$200,000).

Another way that the company expects to make money is by securitising the inventories, selling the securitised-inventories to investors (the investors are expected to receive a coupon of 4-6% per annum) and then charging a fee to the investors for Supply@ME collecting payments and monitoring the security (i.e. servicing fee). The company expects the servicing fee to be between 6% and 8% of the value of the security. So, if, for example, the total value of the securitised-inventories is $100 million, then Supply@ME will make $7 million in servicing fees (i.e. $100,000,000 x 7% =$7,000,000).

== What’s the size of the company target market? ==

=== Total Addressable Market ===
Here, the total addressable market (TAM) is defined as the global finance arrangement market, and based on a number of assumptions, it is estimated that the size of the market as of today (27th November 2022), in terms of revenue, is $965 billion.

It can be argued that the TAM of the company is the global working capital securitisation servicing market, and it is estimated that the size of the market as of today (27th November 2022), in terms of revenue, is $385 billion.

===Serviceable Available Market===

The serviceable available market (SAM) is defined as the global inventory finance arrangement market, and based on a number of assumptions, it is estimated that the size of the market as of today (27th November 2022), in terms of revenue, is $48 billion<ref name=":1">https://www.pwc.co.uk/business-restructuring/pdf/working-capital-report.pdf</ref>.

===Serviceable Obtainable Market===

Here, the serviceable obtainable market (SOM) is defined as the Italy inventory finance arrangement market, and based on a number of assumptions, it is estimated that the size of the market as of today (27th November 2022), in terms of revenue, is $1.2 billion.

== What's the business strategy of the company? ==

=== Product development ===
The price of the finance (i.e. the finance cost) is a key factor in the demand of the finance (and, therefore, the profitability of Supply@Me Capital). In other words, the lower the finance cost, the higher the finance demand, and vice versa. Consequently, we expect product development to be focused on just that (i.e. lowering the finance cost), as well as improving the accessibility of finance, in particular via the following main areas, in order of importance (from highest to lowest):

==== A suitably large inventory-related database and machine learning ====
A key ingredient to lowering the finance cost is inventory-related data. That is to say, the more inventory-related data to which an inventory-finance provider has access, the lower the finance cost (and, ultimately, the higher the finance demand). Accordingly, we believe that building a suitably large database of inventory-related data is key for the success of a company in the inventory-finance space, and, therefore, that’s where Supply@Me Capital needs to focus its energy. Indeed, a study by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) detailed that "the absence of comprehensive trade finance data posed a significant hurdle ... to make informed, timely decisions".<ref name=":2">https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/WP/2019/wpiea2019165-print-pdf.ashx</ref> For us, therefore, a key milestone is the hiring of a chief technology officer (CFO) and senior data scientist (i.e. someone who has around five years experience with Python or another similar programming language), which we estimate will cost the company around >£100,000 per year each.

==== Internet of things ====
One key way to gather lots of useful information about inventory is to add sensors to the inventory and track the inventory over a communication network, such as the internet [i.e. via the Internet of things (IoT)<ref>The Internet of things (IoT) describes physical objects (or groups of such objects) with sensors, processing ability, software and other technologies that connect and exchange data with other devices and systems over the Internet or other communications networks.</ref>]. Indeed, the aforementioned IMF paper mentioned that the IoT will allow the real-time tracking of goods, which could become an important source of (big) data.<ref name=":2" />

==== Smart Contracts ====
Another way to lower the finance cost is to execute events (and actions) according to the terms of a contract (or an agreement) automatically, via something called Smart Contracts<ref>A smart contract is a computer program or a transaction protocol that is intended to automatically execute, control or document events and actions according to the terms of a contract or an agreement. The objectives of smart contracts are the reduction of need for trusted intermediators, arbitration costs, and fraud losses, as well as the reduction of malicious and accidental exceptions.</ref>. 

==== Distributed ledger technology ====
Evidence suggests that recording inventory-related information (i.e. inventory finance transactions) on a distributed ledger<ref>A distributed ledger (also called a shared ledger or distributed ledger technology or DLT) is the consensus of replicated, shared, and synchronized digital data that is geographically spread (distributed) across many sites, countries, or institutions. In contrast to a centralized database, a distributed ledger does not require a central administrator, and consequently does not have a single (central) point-of-failure.</ref>, such as blockchain, will result in inventory-intensive companies financing their inventory much more efficiently<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":4">https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/sg/Documents/finance-transformation/sea-ft-crunch-time-iv-blockchain.pdf</ref>, ultimately leading the companies to improve/maximise their profits<ref name=":3" />. Accordingly, for us, the implementation of distributed ledger technology is a key milestone.

==== Other types of finance ====
We expect that once the company has captured a large enough share of the inventory-related finance market (say 10%), the company will then move to other, broader areas of finance, such as non-inventory-related assets (such as accounts receivables) and the business as whole (i.e. business loans and equity).

=== Sales and marketing ===

As touched upon earlier in this report, we expect Supply@ME Capital to initially target Italy-incorporated, early-stage inventory-intensive companies. 

The company has developed one of the first Shariah-compliant inventory finance platform, and, it, therefore, makes sense to target people who follow Shariah (i.e. Muslims). According to the 2016 World Islamic Banking Competitiveness Report, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, and Turkey represented over 87% of the international Islamic banking assets.<ref>World Islamic Banking Competitiveness Report 2013–14 EY Global Centre of Excellence, Bahrain.</ref> 

Accordingly, we imagine that once the company has captured a large enough share of its initial market (say 10%), the company will then move to other geographically markets (i.e. Saudi Arabia) and target audiences (i.e. Islamic inventory-intensive companies), with the aim of going global.
== Who are the key members of the team? ==
The company is led by the person who believes in the mission of the company the most: the creator of the company mission (i.e. Alessandro Zamboni). Between them, the members of the team have helped companies raise a significant amount of finance and build some of the world's most renowned digital platforms.

=== Directors ===
'''Alessandro Zamboni – Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director''' 

Alessandro is a director who specialises in the financial services industry and related strategic and digital models. Since 2008, he has been managing the delivery and the sales operations of a consulting company specialising in Regulatory & Internal Controls for Banks and Insurance Firms. He founded TAG, the former parent company of Supply@ME S.r.l., in 2014. He holds a BA degree in Economics from the University of Turin. 

'''Albert Ganyushin – Independent Chairperson and Non-Executive Director'''

Albert was appointed as independent chairperson and a Non-Executive Director in 2022 following a long career in capital markets. Since 2017, he has served as Head of Capital Markets at Dr. Peters Group with responsibility for international institutional business, including investment management, capital markets, financing and investor relations. Prior to joining Dr. Peters Group, between 2010 and 2016, he worked in leadership roles in the listings business of NYSE Euronext Group after a career in investment banking that started with Deutsche Bank A.G. (London Branch) in 2000. He graduated with an MBA degree from London Business School in 2000 and began his professional career as a management consultant with Accenture in London in 1995. 

'''Enrico Camerinelli – Independent Non-Executive Director''' 

Mr. Camerinelli keeps abreast of market trends and business practices by taking an active part in projects launched by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, the World Bank, the World Trade Board, and the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals. He regularly attends major industry events as invited guest speaker and writes on specialized magazines and papers. He holds an MSc in Electronic Engineering from Università degli Studi "La Sapienza", Rome, Italy. 

'''David Bull – Independent Non-Executive Director''' 

Mr. Bull, a Chartered Accountant, is a technology-driven experienced financial services professional with a banking and financial services digitisation mindset. He has held a number of senior board roles within banking, asset finance, treasury and credit management institutions, including several years as Chief Financial Accountant at The Bank of England, and is currently non-executive director of Epsion Capital Limited, an independent corporate advisory firm based in London. He holds a BSc (First Class) in Mathematics and Statistics from the University of Bradford.

'''Andrew Thomas – Independent Non-Executive Director''' 

Andrew has over 20 years' experience in various business advisory roles and during this time has worked across the US, UK, EU and APAC regions, acquiring expertise of onshore and offshore fund structuring and oversight, particularly in relation to regulatory issues. He also has extensive experience in mitigating ESG risks while helping organisations to maximise ESG opportunities. He holds BA in History and Politics from the University of Exeter. 

'''Dr. Thomas (Tom) James – Executive Director''' 

Tom is an Executive Director, and the CIO, CEO and co-founder of the Trade Flow Funds and FinTech solutions. He has over 30 years of commercial expertise in the commodity and energy industry and is the business and system architect for this unique and innovative digitised trade finance solution for bulk physical commodity transactions. He has experience of senior regulated roles in financial institutions (including Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ, Credit Agricole and Credit Lyonnais) and various trading firms including BHP Billiton, covering a full range of functional areas including trade finance, project finance, investment banking, supply chain/operations, derivatives, physical markets, and fund management. During his career he has operated in many countries in Africa, Europe, Middle East, and Asia Pacific. He has authored over nine books in the energy and commodity trading and risk management field and served as Chair Professor and Adjunct Professor at various universities around the world and is a former member of the United Nations FAO Commodity Risk Management Advisory Group, and a former Senior Energy Advisor to the United States Department of Defense (TFBSO). He holds a PhD in Practices for the Global Commodity Markets within the Functional Disciplines of Trading and Risk Management and a Masters in Energy Price Risk Management from Middlesex University London. 

'''John Collis – Executive Director'''

John is an Executive Director, and is co-founder of the Trade Flow Funds and FinTech solution where he holds the position of Chief Risk Officer (CRO). As well as overseeing the development of the fund’s critical legal infrastructure and working with leading counsel on its enforceability, John has overseen the classification of the specialist intellectual property developed and acquired by TradeFlow and its licensing. John is a commercial lawyer with expertise in regulatory, compliance, structuring, and transactional matters. John operated his own law firm from 2003, specialising in international commercial work. John has written and lectured about the rule of law, Eurasia Economic Union, CSTO, and International Commercial Enforcement. Before becoming a lawyer, John worked for Ernst & Young, he was educated at Oxford University and is chairman of Hertford College RFC.

=== Senior management ===
'''Amy Benning – Chief Financial Officer''' 

Amy gained Chartered Accountancy qualifications in New Zealand while working with KPMG on a range of clients across various industry sectors. On moving to the United Kingdom, Amy worked briefly with BP’s shipping arm, before moving to PwC’s London Capital Markets Team where she spent 12 years focusing on technical accounting, mergers and acquisitions and initial public offerings for a wide range of clients. In 2018, Amy moved to Alfa Financial Software Holdings plc, a developer and provider of software for the automotive leasing sector company with ordinary shares admitted to a Premium Listing and to trading on the Main Market. As Finance Director, Amy was responsible for the team managing accounting, reporting (internal & external), corporate governance, audit, systems, process improvement, controls and transactional accounting. Amy joined the Group in June 2021. She holds a BCA in Accountancy, a BSc in Genetics, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and a post-graduate diploma in Professional Accounting from Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.

'''Stuart Nelson – Group Head of Enterprise Risk Management''' 

Stuart is an experienced credit risk analyst, with global experience of assessing the risk of financing solutions across multiple asset classes. Having begun his career at JPMorgan in the EMEA Emerging Markets Team in 2000, he then spent almost two decades in leadership roles at S&P Global Ratings. During his time at S&P, he managed multiple teams across the European office network in London, Milan, Frankfurt, Madrid and Paris, focusing on the assessment of asset securitisation in all sectors, with oversight of ratings on securities of more than €50 billion equivalent over that period. From 2015, he concentrated his attention on the refinement and validation of risk methodologies across a global spectrum of asset classes. He joined the Group in 2020, where he currently monitors all aspects of the risk and operational functions. He holds a Masters in History from the University of Cambridge. 

'''Alice Buxton – Chief People Officer''' 

Alice is a human resources leader motivated to help businesses succeed by creating environments which enable individuals, teams and leaders to thrive. She has considerable experience in the Financial Services and FinTech industries. Most recently she built the Global Talent function at Greensill, helping the business grow its workforce from approx. 250 to over 1200 in multiple jurisdictions in just over 2 years. Previously she worked as an Executive Director in Goldman Sachs Human Capital Management Division, focusing on the EMEA Trading floor and Risk, Audit and Compliance teams attracting and developing high potential talent. Before this she worked in Talent Acquisition for Ernst and Young’s London office, recruiting for their risk and advisory business. Alice holds a BSc in Psychology, MSc in Human Resource Management and is a qualified corporate and executive coach. 

'''Mark Kavanagh – Group Head of Operations and Transformation''' 

Mark is an experienced Risk Leader with over 25 years in Credit & Risk functions. Before joining the Group, Mark worked for Greensill Capital as Head of Product Risk. Whilst there, he implemented Accounts Receivable policies and procedures, installed an AR platform, helped Greensill Capital expand territorially, and trained the Credit team on any new product offerings, acquisitions and integrations. Prior to that, he worked for GE Working Capital Solutions (the monetisation arm of General Electric group) for 15 years, heading up their European Credit Team, managing the auto scoring and decisioning system, and ensuring processes were safe and efficient. 

'''Nicola Bonini – Group Head of Origination'''

Nicola has more than 20 years' experience in balance sheet lending and cashflow finance, gained during her time at some of the UK’s most prominent banking institutions. Previously, she was Vice President and Head of Commercial Finance at Bank Leumi (UK) plc, where she managed a portfolio of companies with turnover of up to £1bn. Before this, Nicola served as Executive Director at Falcon Group UK, where she joined the newly formed UK inventory finance team. Nicola has also held senior, high-profile business development and relationship management roles at major banks, including BNP Paribas, The Royal Bank of Scotland and Bank of Scotland Corporate. Nicola joined the Group in September 2021 to take a leading role in business development, client onboarding and retention. She holds a BA in Business Studies from the University of East London.

== How much does the company expect to make over the next five years? ==

=== Most recent full-year results ===
For the fiscal (and calendar) year 2021, revenue decreased by 55% to £0.5 million (FY2020: £1.1 million) as the company focused on automating the inventory finance process, via the development of its platform. The net loss in the period increased by 4.3x to £12.5 million (FY2020: £2.9 million), mainly reflecting its most recent acquisition (of TradeFlow) and investment in the business.

==== Most recent half-year results ====
During the six months ended 30th June 2022, revenues decreased by 23% to £209k (H1 2021: £271k) as the company maintained its focus on the development of its inventory finance platform. The net loss in the period increased by 226% to £6.2 million (H1 2021: £1.9 million), reflecting costs related to the TradeFlow acquisition and further investment in the business. Net current liabilities and net liabilities stood at £6.3 million and £4.0 million, respectively. The company ended the period with cash of around £1 million.  

==== Since its most recent half year results ====
Since its most recent results (i.e. the results for the six months ended 30th June 2022), the company raised £ccc million via equity. It also issued £ccc million in new debt and repaid £ccc million in existing debt. Accordingly, it's cash, net cash, net current liabilities and net liabilities positions are £ccc million, £ccc million, £ccc million and £ccc million, respectively. It's worth noting that Supply@ME Capital is in the 'introductory' stage of the business lifecycle (i.e. growth stage one), and in that stage, financing cash flows are positive (i.e. the business relies on external funding).

==== What are the financials? ====
{| class="wikitable"
|+Financials
|-
!Year 
!'''1'''
!'''2'''
!'''3'''
!'''4'''
!5 !!6!!7!!8!!9
!10
!11
!12
!13
!14
!15
!16
!17
!18
!19
!20
!21
!22
!23
!24
!25
!26
!27
!28
!29
!30
!31
!32
!33
!34
!35
!36
!37
!38
!39
!40
!41
!42
!43
!44
!45
!46
!47
!48
!49
!50
|-
|'''Year end date'''
|'''31/12/2018'''
|'''31/12/2019'''
|'''31/12/2020'''
|'''31/12/2021'''||'''31/12/2022'''||'''31/12/2023'''||'''31/12/2024'''||'''31/12/2025'''||'''31/12/2026'''
|'''31/12/2027'''
|'''31/12/2028'''
|'''31/12/2029'''
|'''31/12/2030'''
|'''31/12/2031'''
|'''31/12/2032'''
|'''31/12/2033'''
|'''31/12/2034'''
|'''31/12/2035'''
|'''31/12/2036'''
|'''31/12/2037'''
|'''31/12/2038'''
|'''31/12/2039'''
|'''31/12/2040'''
|'''31/12/2041'''
|'''31/12/2042'''
|'''31/12/2043'''
|'''31/12/2044'''
|'''31/12/2045'''
|'''31/12/2046'''
|'''31/12/2047'''
|'''31/12/2048'''
|'''31/12/2049'''
|'''31/12/2050'''
|'''31/12/2051'''
|'''31/12/2052'''
|'''31/12/2053'''
|'''31/12/2054'''
|'''31/12/2055'''
|'''31/12/2056'''
|'''31/12/2057'''
|'''31/12/2058'''
|'''31/12/2059'''
|'''31/12/2060'''
|'''31/12/2061'''
|'''31/12/2062'''
|'''31/12/2063'''
|'''31/12/2064'''
|'''31/12/2065'''
|'''31/12/2066'''
|'''31/12/2067'''
|-
|'''Type'''
|'''Historic'''
|'''Historic'''
|'''Historic'''
|'''Historic'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|'''Forecast'''
|-
| colspan="45" |<div style="text-align: center;">'''Income statement'''</div>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|Revenues (£'000)
|NA
|4
|1,147
|538|| 1,801||3,534||6,711||12,327||21,906
|37,665
|62,654
|100,833
|157,000
|236,506
|344,688
|486,019
|663,015
|875,059
|1,117,362
|1,380,364
|1,649,821
|1,907,756
|2,134,284
|2,310,068
|2,419,025
|2,450,751
|2,402,156
|2,277,961
|2,089,943
|1,855,094
|1,593,091
|1,323,605
|1,063,945
|827,415
|622,545
|453,170
|319,150
|217,456
|143,348
|91,423
|56,411
|33,675
|19,449
|10,868
|5,875
|3,073
|1,555
|761
|361
|165
|-
|Gross profits (£'000)
|NA
|(763)
|408
|(266)
|1,351||2,651||5,033||9,245||16,430 
|28,249
|46,990
|75,625
|117,750
|177,379
|224,047
|364,514
|497,262
|656,294
|726,285
|897,237
|907,401
|1,049,266
|1,173,856
|1,270,537
|1,330,464
|1,347,913
|1,321,186
|1,252,878
|1,149,469
|1,020,302
|716,891
|595,622
|478,775
|372,337
|280,145
|203,926
|143,617
|97,855
|64,506
|41,140
|25,385
|15,154
|8,752
|4,890
|2,644
|1,383
|700
|343
|162
|74
|-
|Operating profits (£'000)
|NA
|(687)
|(2,819)
|(10,814)||1,081||2,121||4,026||7,396||13,144
|22,599
|37,592
|60,500
|94,200
|141,904
|172,344
|291,611
|397,809
|525,035
|558,681
|690,182
|659,928
|763,103
|853,714
|924,027
|967,610
|980,300
|960,862
|911,184
|835,977
|742,038
|477,927
|397,081
|319,184
|248,224
|186,763
|135,951
|95,745
|65,237
|43,004
|27,427
|16,923
|10,103
|5,835
|3,260
|1,763
|922
|466
|228
|108
|50
|-
|Net profits (£'000)
|NA
|(551)
|(2,964)
|(12,487)||1,081||2,121||4,026||7,396|| 13,144
|22,599
|37,592
|60,500
|94,200
|141,904
|151,663
|256,618
|350,072
|462,031
|491,639
|607,360
|580,737
|671,530
|751,268
|813,144
|851,497
|862,664
|845,559
|801,842
|735,660
|652,993
|420,576
|349,432
|280,881
|218,437
|164,352
|119,637
|84,256
|57,408
|37,844
|24,136
|14,892
|8,890
|5,135
|2,869
|1,551
|811
|410
|201
|95
|44
|}

==== What are the assumptions used to estimate the financial forecasts?====

{| class="wikitable"
|+Key inputs
!Description
!Value
!Commentary
|-
| colspan="3" | <div style="text-align: center;">'''Revenue'''</div>
|-
|What's the estimated current size of the total addressable market?
|$119,000,000,000
|Here, the total addressable market (TAM) is defined as the global working capital finance arrangement market, and based on a number of assumptions, it is estimated that the size of the market as of today (28th November 2022), in terms of revenue, is $119 billion.
|-
|What is the estimated company lifespan?
|50 years
|Research shows that the average lifespan of a large corporation is around 50 years.<ref>Stadler, Enduring Success, 3–5.</ref>
|-
|What's the estimated annual growth rate of the total addressable market over the lifecycle of the company?
|3%
|Research shows that the growth rate of the working capital finance arrangement market (i.e. the total addressable market) is similar to the growth rate of global gross domestic product, which has averaged (medium) around 3% per year in the last 20 years (2001 to 2022)<ref>https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/WLD/world/gdp-growth-rate</ref>.
|-
|What's the estimated company peak market share?
|1%
|We estimate that especially given the experienced, founder-led team of the company, the peak market share of Supply@ME Capital is around 1%, and, therefore, suggests using the share amount here. As of 31st December 2021, Supply@ME Capital's current share of the market is negligible.
|-
|Which distribution function do you want to use to estimate company revenue?
|Gaussian 
|Research suggests that the revenue pattern of companies is similar to the pattern produced by the Gaussian distribution function  (i.e. the revenue distribution is bell shaped)<ref>http://escml.umd.edu/Papers/ObsCPMT.pdf</ref>, so we suggest using that function here.
|-
|What's the estimated standard deviation of company revenue?
| 5.5 years
|Another way of asking this question is this way: within how many years either side of the mean does 68% of revenue occur? Based on Supply@ME Capital's current revenue amount (i.e. $0.6 million) and Supply@ME Capital's estimated lifespan (i.e. 50 years) and Supply@ME Capital's estimated current stage of its lifecycle (i.e. introduction stage), the we suggest using five and a half years (i.e. 68% of all sales happen within five and a half years either side of the mean year), so that's what's used here.
|-
| colspan="3" |'''<div style="text-align: center;">Growth stages</div>'''
|-
|How many main stages of growth is the company expected to go through?
| 4 stages
|Research suggests that a company typically goes through four distinct stages of cash flow growth.<ref>Levie J, Lichtenstein BB (2010) A terminal assessment of stages theory: Introducing a dynamic approach to entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice 34(2): 317–350. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00377.x</nowiki></ref> Research also shows that incorporating those stages into the discounted cash flow model improves the quality of the model and, ultimately, the quality of the value estimation.<ref>Stef Hinfelaar et al.:, 2019.</ref>

In addition, research shows that a key way to determine the stage which a company is in is by examining the cash flow patterns of the company.<ref>Dickinson, 2010.</ref> A summary of the economic links to cash flow patterns can be found in the appendix of this report. We estimate that with Supply@ME Capital's operating cash flows positive (+), investing cash flows negative (-) and its financing cash flows positive (+), the company is in the first stage of growth (i.e. the 'introduction' stage), and, therefore, it has a total of four main stages of growth.
|-
|What proportion of the company lifecycle is represented by growth stage 1?
|30% 
|Research suggests 30%.<ref name=":6">http://escml.umd.edu/Papers/ObsCPMT.pdf</ref>
|-
|What proportion of the company lifecycle is represented by growth stage 2?
|10% 
|Research suggests 10%.<ref name=":6" />
|-
| What proportion of the company lifecycle is represented by growth stage 3?
|20% 
| Research suggests 20%.<ref name=":6" />
|-
|What proportion of the company lifecycle is represented by growth stage 4?
|40%
|Research suggests 40%.<ref name=":6" />
|-
| colspan="3" |'''<div style="text-align: center;">Growth stage 1</div>'''
|-
|Cost of goods sold as a proportion of revenue (%)
|25%
|Research suggests that it's best to use a similar margin rate as the one used by peers that are in the same growth stage (i.e. growth stage 1)<ref name=":7" />, and the margin for its peers is 25%.
|-
|Operating expenses as a proportion of revenue (%)
|15%
|Research suggests that it's best to use a similar margin rate as the one used by peers that are in the same growth stage (i.e. growth stage 1)<ref name=":7" />, and the margin for its peers is 15%. 
|-
|Tax rate (%)
|0%
|Research suggests that it's best to use a similar rate as the one used by peers that are in the same growth stage (i.e. growth stage 1)<ref name=":7" />, and the rate for its peers is 0%.
|-
|Depreciation and amortisation as a proportion of fixed capital (%)
|10%
|Research suggests that it's best to use a similar margin rate as the one used by peers that are in the same growth stage (i.e. growth stage 1)<ref name=":7" />, and the margin for its peers is 10%. 
|-
|Fixed capital as a proportion of revenue (%)
|10%
|Research suggests that it's best to use a similar amount as the one used by peers that are in the same growth stage (i.e. growth stage 1)<ref name=":7" />, and the amount for its peers is 10%. 
|-
|Working capital as a proportion of revenue (%)
|15%
|Research suggests that it's best to use a similar amount as the one used by peers that are in the same growth stage (i.e. growth stage 1)<ref name=":7" />, and the amount for its peers is 15%.
|-
|Net borrowing ($000)
|Zero
|We suggest that for simplicity, the net borrowing figure is zero.
|-
|Interest amount ($000)
|Zero
|We suggest that for simplicity, the interest amount figure is zero.
|-
| colspan="3" |'''<div style="text-align: center;">Growth stage 2</div>'''
|-
|Cost of goods sold as a proportion of revenue (%) 
|35%
|Research suggests that it's best to use a similar margin rate as the one used by peers that are in the same growth stage (i.e. growth stage 2)<ref name=":7">http://people.stern.nyu.edu/adamodar/pdfiles/papers/younggrowth.pdf</ref>, and the margin for its peers is 35%. 
|-
|Operating expenses as a proportion of revenue (%)
|15%
|Research suggests that it's best to use a similar margin rate as the one used by peers that are in the same growth stage (i.e. growth stage 2)<ref name=":7" />, and the margin for its peers is 15%. 
|-
|Tax rate (%) 
|12%
|Research suggests that it's best to use a similar rate as the one used by peers that are in the same growth stage (i.e. growth stage 2)<ref name=":7" />, and the rate for its peers is 12%.
|-
|Depreciation and amortisation as a proportion of fixed capital (%) 
|10%
|Research suggests that it's best to use a similar margin rate as the one used by peers that are in the same growth stage (i.e. growth stage 2)<ref name=":7" />, and the margin for its peers is 10%. 
|-
|Fixed capital as a proportion of revenue (%) 
|10%
|Research suggests that it's best to use a similar amount as the one used by peers that are in the same growth stage (i.e. growth stage 2)<ref name=":7" />, and the amount for its peers is 10%.
|-
|Working capital as a proportion of revenue (%)
|15% 
|Research suggests that it's best to use a similar amount as the one used by peers that are in the same growth stage (i.e. growth stage 2)<ref name=":7" />, and the amount for its peers is 15%.
|-
|Net borrowing ($000)
|Zero
|We suggest that for simplicity, the net borrowing figure is zero.
|-
|Interest amount ($000)
|Zero
|We suggest that for simplicity, the interest amount figure is zero.
|-
| colspan="3" |'''<div style="text-align: center;">Growth stage 3</div>'''
|-
|Cost of goods sold as a proportion of revenue (%) 
|45%
|Research suggests that it's best to use a similar margin rate as the one used by peers that are in the same growth stage (i.e. growth stage 3)<ref name=":7" />, and the margin for its peers is 45%. 
|-
|Operating expenses as a proportion of revenue (%)
|15%
|Research suggests that it's best to use a similar margin rate as the one used by peers that are in the same growth stage (i.e. growth stage 3)<ref name=":7" />, and the margin for its peers is 15%.
|-
|Tax rate (%) 
|12%
|Research suggests that it's best to use a similar rate as the one used by peers that are in the same growth stage (i.e. growth stage 3)<ref name=":7" />, and the rate for its peers is 12%.
|-
|Depreciation and amortisation as a proportion of fixed capital (%) 
|10%
|Research suggests that it's best to use a similar amount as the one used by peers that are in the same growth stage (i.e. growth stage 3)<ref name=":7" />, and the amount for its peers is 10%.
|-
|Fixed capital as a proportion of revenue (%) 
|10%
|Research suggests that it's best to use a similar amount as the one used by peers that are in the same growth stage (i.e. growth stage 3)<ref name=":7" />, and the amount for its peers is 10%.
|-
|Working capital as a proportion of revenue (%)
|15% 
|Research suggests that it's best to use a similar amount as the one used by peers that are in the same growth stage (i.e. growth stage 4)<ref name=":7" />, and the amount for its peers is 15%.
|-
|Net borrowing ($000)
|Zero
|We suggest that for simplicity, the net borrowing figure is zero.
|-
|Interest amount ($000)
|Zero
|We suggest that for simplicity, the interest amount figure is zero.
|-
| colspan="3" |'''<div style="text-align: center;">Growth stage 4</div>'''
|-
|Cost of goods sold as a proportion of revenue (%) 
|55%
|Research suggests that it's best to use a similar margin rate as the one used by peers that are in the same growth stage (i.e. growth stage 4)<ref name=":7" />, and the margin for its peers is 55%. 
|-
|Operating expenses as a proportion of revenue (%)
|15%
|Research suggests that it's best to use a similar margin rate as the one used by peers that are in the same growth stage (i.e. growth stage 4)<ref name=":7" />, and the margin for its peers is 15%.
|-
|Tax rate (%) 
|12%
|Research suggests that it's best to use a similar rate as the one used by peers that are in the same growth stage (i.e. growth stage 4)<ref name=":7" />, and the rate for its peers is 12%.
|-
|Depreciation and amortisation as a proportion of fixed capital (%) 
|10%
|Research suggests that it's best to use a similar amount as the one used by peers that are in the same growth stage (i.e. growth stage 4)<ref name=":7" />, and the amount for its peers is 10%.
|-
|Fixed capital as a proportion of revenue (%)
| 10%
|Research suggests that it's best to use a similar amount as the one used by peers that are in the same growth stage (i.e. growth stage 4)<ref name=":7" />, and the amount for its peers is 10%.
|-
|Working capital as a proportion of revenue (%)
| 15% 
|Research suggests that it's best to use a similar amount as the one used by peers that are in the same growth stage (i.e. growth stage 4)<ref name=":7" />, and the amount for its peers is 15%.
|-
|Net borrowing ($000)
|Zero
|We suggest that for simplicity, the net borrowing figure is zero.
|-
|Interest amount ($000)
|Zero
|We suggest that for simplicity, the interest amount figure is zero.
|}

== What are the key risks of investing in the company? ==
As with any investment, investing in Supply@ME Capital carries a level of risk. Overall, based on the Supply@ME Capital's adjusted beta (i.e. 4.61)<ref>Research shows that an investment has two main types of risks: 1) non-systematic and 2) systematic. Systematic risk is the risk related to the overall market, and non-systematic risk is the risk that's specific to an individual investment. Evidence shows that taking on non-systematic risk is inefficient, and it's, therefore, best to eliminate it; and in most cases, elimination is fairy easy to do [by holding a diversified portfolio of investments (i.e. around 15 investments)]. Accordingly, when assessing the riskiness of an investment, it’s best to look at the systematic risk only (i.e. ignore the non-systematic risk). A key measure of systematic risk is beta, and a main way to determine the riskiness of an investment is to compare the beta of the investment with the beta of the market, which is 1. For example, Supply@ME Capital's adjusted beta (5 years, monthly data) is 4.61, and is, accordingly, 561% above the market beta (of 1); assuming that a 'high' level of riskiness is 50% or more above the market beta, then the riskiness of investing in Supply@ME Captial is considered to be 'high' (561%>50%).

For estimating an asset's beta, in terms of time period, and frequency of observations, the most common choice is five years of monthly data, yielding 60 observations. One study of U.S. stocks found support for five years of monthly data over alternatives. An argument can be made that the 2 years, weekly data can be especially appropriate in fast growing markets.

The beta value in a future period has been found to be on average closer to the mean value of 1.0, the beta of an average-systematic-risk security, than to the value of the raw beta. Because valuation is forward looking, it is logical to adjust the raw beta so it more accurately predicts a future beta.</ref>, the degree of risk associated with an investment in Supply@ME Capital is 'high'. 

Here, to estimate the adjusted beta, we used the iShares MSCI World ETF to represent the market portfolio; and in terms of the time period and frequency of observations, we used five years of monthly data (i.e. 60 observations in total), which is supported by a study and is the most common choice. We note that the company in its current state was only really formed (following a reverse takeover) on 27th March 2020<ref>Officially, the company was formed on 1st March 2000 (i.e. almost 23 years ago).</ref>, and, therefore, the numbers of available data observations is less than what's typically used in the five years of monthly data beta calculation (i.e. 33 observations vs. 60 observations). The beta value in a future period has been found to be on average closer to the mean value of 1.0, and because valuation is forward-looking, it is logical to adjust the raw beta so it more accurately predicts a future beta. In addition, here, we have assumed that for an investment to be considered 'high' risk, it must have a beta value of 1.5 or more, and for it to be considered 'medium' risk, it must have a beta value of between 0.5 and 1.5. Further information about the beta ratings can be found in the appendix section of this report.

That said, an argument has been made that especially in fast growing markets, it's best to use two years of weekly data; using the two years, weekly data, Supply@ME Capital's adjusted beta is 1.36, which is considered relatively 'medium' in terms of riskiness level. 

The key risks can be found below. For us, currently, the biggest risk to the valuation of the company relates to the company being unable to secure a sufficient amount of inventory finance funders.

=== Risk factors specific and material to the group ===

* The group is at the early stage of its development, has not generated consistent revenues from its operations to date and is not currently profitable.
* If the group is unable to maintain or increase originations through the platform or if existing customers or inventory finance funders do not continue to participate on the platform, its business, results of operations, financial condition or prospects will be adversely affected.
* If the scoring models and processes that the group uses contain errors or are otherwise ineffective, or if customer data is incorrect or becomes unavailable, the group’s business may suffer.
* Any failure of the platform or the group's future platforms, software and technology infrastructure could materially adversely affect its business, results of operations, financial condition or prospects.
* The group's ability to protect the confidential information of its customers and inventory finance funders may be adversely affected by cyber-attacks, computer viruses, physical or electronic break-ins or similar disruptions or faults with its systems.
* The group may be unable to retain or hire appropriately skilled personnel required to support its operations.
* The group’s success and future growth depend significantly on its successful marketing efforts, increasing its brand awareness, and its ability to attract new inventory finance funders and customers.
* The supply chain financing market is competitive and evolving.
* Unfavourable general economic conditions may have a negative impact on the results of operations, financial condition and prospects of the group.
* The group may need additional financial resources to develop the platform for future success.
* Uncertainties in the interpretation or application of, or changes in, IFRS or local GAAP could adversely affect the "derecognition treatment" for customers that comply with IFRS or local GAAP and accordingly reduce customers’ or inventory finance funders’ participation on the platform.
* The ownership and use of intellectual property by the group may be challenged by third parties or otherwise disputed.

=== Risk factors specific and material to the ordinary shares ===

* Shareholders’ interests may be diluted by future issues of shares.
* Prospective investors and shareholders should be aware that there may be possible volatility in the price of the ordinary shares.
* A standard listing affords shareholders a lower level of regulatory protection than a premium listing.
* Dividend payments on the ordinary shares are not guaranteed, and the company does not intend to pay dividends for the foreseeable future.
* The group is subject to complex taxation in multiple jurisdictions, which often requires subjective interpretation and determinations. As a result, the group could be subject to additional tax risks attributable to previous assessment periods.
* Changes in tax law or the interpretation of tax law, or the expansion of the group’s business into jurisdictions with less favourable tax regimes, could increase the group’s effective tax rate and in turn adversely affect its business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.
* There can be no assurance that the company will be able to make returns to shareholders in a tax-efficient manner.

== How much can I expect to make from an investment in the company? ==

===What's the expected return of an investment in the company?===

We estimate that the expected return of an investment in the company over the next five years is 411%, which equates to an annual return of 33%. In other words, an £100,000 investment in the company is expected to return £511,000 in five years time. The assumptions used to estimate the return figure can be found in the table below.

Assuming that a suitable return level over five years is 10% per year and Supply@ME Capital achieves its expected return level (of 411%), then an investment in the company is considered to be a 'suitable' one.

===What are the assumptions used to estimate the return?===

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Key inputs
!Description 
!Value
!Commentary
|-
| Which valuation model do you want to use?
|Discounted cash flow 
|Research suggests that in terms of estimating the expected return of an investment over a period of 12-months or more, the approach that is more accurate is the discounted cash flow approach<ref name=":5">Demirakos et al., 2010; Gleason et al., 2013</ref>, so that's the approach that we suggest to use here; nevertheless, for completeness purposes, separately, the valuation of the company is also estimated using the using the relative valuation approach (the valuation based on the relative approach can be found in the appendix of this report).


Supply@ME Capital has never paid cash dividends, and it said that it currently does not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Accordingly, we suggest using the free cash flow valuation method (rather than the dividend discount model).
|-
|Which financial forecasts to use?
| Proactive Investors
|The only available long-term forecasts (i.e. >15 years) are the ones that are supplied by us (the forecasts can be found in the financials section of this report), so we suggests using those.
|-
| colspan="3" |'''<div style="text-align: center;">Growth stage 1</div>'''
|-
|Discount rate (%)
|25%
|There are two key risk parameters for a firm that need to be estimated: its cost of equity and its cost of debt. A key way to estimate the cost of equity is by looking at the beta (or betas) of the company in question, the cost of debt from a measure of default risk (an actual or synthetic rating) and apply the market value weights for debt and equity to come up with the cost of capital.
|-
|Probability of success (%)
|60%
|Research suggests that a suitable rate for a company in this growth stage (i.e. stage 1) is 60%.
|-
| colspan="3" |'''<div style="text-align: center;">Growth stage 2</div>''' 
|-
|Discount rate (%)
| 15%
|There are two key risk parameters for a firm that need to be estimated: its cost of equity and its cost of debt. A key way to estimate the cost of equity is by looking at the beta (or betas) of the company in question, the cost of debt from a measure of default risk (an actual or synthetic rating) and apply the market value weights for debt and equity to come up with the cost of capital.
|-
|Probability of success (%)
| 90%
| Research suggests that a suitable rate for a company in this growth stage (i.e. stage 2) is 90%.

|-
| colspan="3" |'''<div style="text-align: center;">Growth stage 3</div>''' 
|-
|Discount rate (%)
| 10%
|There are two key risk parameters for a firm that need to be estimated: its cost of equity and its cost of debt. A key way to estimate the cost of equity is by looking at the beta (or betas) of the company in question, the cost of debt from a measure of default risk (an actual or synthetic rating) and apply the market value weights for debt and equity to come up with the cost of capital.
|-
|Probability of success (%)
|100%
|Research suggests that a suitable rate for a company in this growth stage (i.e. stage 3) is 100%.

|-
| colspan="3" |'''<div style="text-align: center;">Growth stage 4</div>''' 
|-
|Discount rate (%)
| 10%
|There are two key risk parameters for a firm that need to be estimated: its cost of equity and its cost of debt. A key way to estimate the cost of equity is by looking at the beta (or betas) of the company in question, the cost of debt from a measure of default risk (an actual or synthetic rating) and apply the market value weights for debt and equity to come up with the cost of capital.
|-
|Probability of success (%)
| 100%
|Research suggests that a suitable rate for a company in this growth stage (i.e. stage 4) is 100%.

|-
| colspan="3" |'''<div style="text-align: center;">Other key inputs</div>'''
|-
|What's the current value of the company?
|$54.80 million
|As at 28th November 2022, the current value of the Supply@Me Capital company is $54.80 million (or £45.30 million).
|-
|Which time period do you want to use to estimate the expected return?
| Between now and five years time
|Research suggests that following a market crash, the average amount of time it takes for the price of a stock market to return to its pre-crash level (i.e. the recovery period) is at least three years.<ref>https://www.newyorkfed.org/mediabrary/media/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/research_papers/9809.pdf</ref> Accordingly, we suggest that to account for general market cyclicity, it's best to estimate the expected return of the company between now and five years time.
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Key inputs
!Description 
!Value
!Commentary
|-
| Which valuation model do you want to use?
|Discounted cash flow 
|Research suggests that in terms of estimating the expected return of an investment over a period of 12-months or more, the approach that is more accurate is the discounted cash flow approach<ref name=":5">Demirakos et al., 2010; Gleason et al., 2013</ref>, so that's the approach that we suggest to use here; nevertheless, for completeness purposes, separately, the valuation of the company is also estimated using the using the relative valuation approach (the valuation based on the relative approach can be found in the appendix of this report).


Supply@ME Capital has never paid cash dividends, and it said that it currently does not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Accordingly, we suggest using the free cash flow valuation method (rather than the dividend discount model).
|-
|Which financial forecasts to use?
| Proactive Investors
|The only available long-term forecasts (i.e. >15 years) are the ones that are supplied by us (the forecasts can be found in the financials section of this report), so we suggests using those.
|-
| colspan="3" |'''<div style="text-align: center;">Growth stage 1</div>'''
|-
|Discount rate (%)
|25%
|There are two key risk parameters for a firm that need to be estimated: its cost of equity and its cost of debt. A key way to estimate the cost of equity is by looking at the beta (or betas) of the company in question, the cost of debt from a measure of default risk (an actual or synthetic rating) and apply the market value weights for debt and equity to come up with the cost of capital.
|-
|Probability of success (%)
|60%
|Research suggests that a suitable rate for a company in this growth stage (i.e. stage 1) is 60%.
|-
| colspan="3" |'''<div style="text-align: center;">Growth stage 2</div>''' 
|-
|Discount rate (%)
| 15%
|There are two key risk parameters for a firm that need to be estimated: its cost of equity and its cost of debt. A key way to estimate the cost of equity is by looking at the beta (or betas) of the company in question, the cost of debt from a measure of default risk (an actual or synthetic rating) and apply the market value weights for debt and equity to come up with the cost of capital.
|-
|Probability of success (%)
| 90%
| Research suggests that a suitable rate for a company in this growth stage (i.e. stage 2) is 90%.

|-
| colspan="3" |'''<div style="text-align: center;">Growth stage 3</div>''' 
|-
|Discount rate (%)
| 10%
|There are two key risk parameters for a firm that need to be estimated: its cost of equity and its cost of debt. A key way to estimate the cost of equity is by looking at the beta (or betas) of the company in question, the cost of debt from a measure of default risk (an actual or synthetic rating) and apply the market value weights for debt and equity to come up with the cost of capital.
|-
|Probability of success (%)
|100%
|Research suggests that a suitable rate for a company in this growth stage (i.e. stage 3) is 100%.

|-
| colspan="3" |'''<div style="text-align: center;">Growth stage 4</div>''' 
|-
|Discount rate (%)
| 10%
|There are two key risk parameters for a firm that need to be estimated: its cost of equity and its cost of debt. A key way to estimate the cost of equity is by looking at the beta (or betas) of the company in question, the cost of debt from a measure of default risk (an actual or synthetic rating) and apply the market value weights for debt and equity to come up with the cost of capital.
|-
|Probability of success (%)
| 100%
|Research suggests that a suitable rate for a company in this growth stage (i.e. stage 4) is 100%.

|-
| colspan="3" |'''<div style="text-align: center;">Other key inputs</div>'''
|-
|What's the current value of the company?
|$54.80 million
|As at 28th November 2022, the current value of the Supply@Me Capital company is $54.80 million (or £45.30 million).
|-
|Which time period do you want to use to estimate the expected return?
| Between now and five years time
|Research suggests that following a market crash, the average amount of time it takes for the price of a stock market to return to its pre-crash level (i.e. the recovery period) is at least three years.<ref>https://www.newyorkfed.org/mediabrary/media/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/research_papers/9809.pdf</ref> Accordingly, we suggest that to account for general market cyclicity, it's best to estimate the expected return of the company between now and five years time.
|}

===Sensitive analysis===

The main inputs that result in the greatest change in the expected return of the Supply@Me Capital investment are, in order of importance (from highest to lowest):   

#The size of the total addressable market (the default size is $119 billion);
#Supply@Me Capital peak market share (the default share is 1%); and
#The discount rate (the default time-weighted average rate is 16%).

The impact of a 10% change in those main inputs to the expected return of the Supply@ME Capital investment is shown in the table below.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|+Supply@ME Capital investment expected return sensitive analysis
!Main input
!10% worse 
!Unchanged
!10% better
|-
|The size of the total addressable market
|To be added
|411%
|To be added
|-
|Supply@ME Capital peak market share
|To be added
|411%
|To be added
|-
|The discount rate

|To be added
|411%
|To be added

|}

== Appendix ==

=== Cost of equity ===
{| class="wikitable"
|+Cost of equity (%)
!Input
!Input value
!Additional information
|-
|Risk-free rate (%)
|3.488%
|Here, the risk free rate is the US 30 year treasury bond, and is calculated as at 16th December 2022. Research suggests that for the risk-free rate, it's best to use one that has the same or similar maturity to the estimated remaining lifespan of the company. Here, we have assumed that the estimated lifespan of the company is 50 years, so we have used the longest maturity, which is 30 years.
|-
|Beta
|4.61
|Here, to estimate the adjusted beta, we used the iShares MSCI World ETF to represent the market portfolio; and in terms of the time period and frequency of observations, we used five years of monthly data (i.e. 60 observations in total), which is supported by a study and is the most common choice. The beta value in a future period has been found to be on average closer to the mean value of 1.0, and because valuation is forward-looking, it is logical to adjust the raw beta so it more accurately predicts a future beta.
|-
|Equity risk premium (%)
|5.26
|Here, the equity risk premium is in relation to the global region, and is calculated as at 1st January 2022. Research suggests that for the region of equity risk premium, it's best to use one that is the same or similar to the region of the beta market portfolio. Here, the region of the beta market portfolio is the world/global, so we have used the world/global region for the equity risk premium.
|-
|Cost of equity (%)
|27.74%
|Cost of equity = Risk-free rate + Beta x Equity risk premium.
|}

===Relative valuation approach===
As noted earlier in this report, research suggests that in terms of estimating the expected return of an investment over a period of 12-months or more, the approach that is more accurate is the discounted cash flow approach, so that's the approach that we suggest using to determine the estimated value of the company (the valuation based on the discounted cash flow approach can be found in the valuation section of this report); nevertheless, for completeness purposes, separately, the valuation of the company is also estimated using the relative valuation approach.

====What's the expected return of an investment in the company using the relative valuation approach?====

Accordingly, we estimate that the expected return of an investment in Supply@ME Capital over the next 12 months is 141%. In other words, an £10,000 investment in the company is expected to return £24,100 in 12-months time.  The assumptions used to estimate the return figure can be found in the table below.

Assuming that a suitable return level over five years is 10% per year and Supply@ME Capital achieves its expected return level (of 141%), then an investment in the company is considered to be a 'suitable' one.

====What are the assumptions used to estimate the return figure?====
{| class="wikitable"
|+Key inputs
!Description
!Value
!Commentary
|-
| Which type of multiple do you want to use?
| Growth-adjusted EV/sales 
| For the numerator, we believe that to account for the different financial leverage levels of its peers, it's best to use enterprise value (EV), rather than price. For the denominator, we believe that because we expect Supply@ME Capital to reinvest almost all of its revenue back into the business over the five year forecast period and, therefore, its earnings are expected to be abnormally low over the period, it's best to use sales. Accordingly, we suggest valuing the company using the EV/sales ratio. However, we feel that to take into account the different business lifecycle stages of its peers, the most suitable valuation multiple to use is the growth-adjusted EV/sales multiple, rather than the EV/sales multiple. 
|-
|In regards to the growth-adjusted EV/sales multiple, for the sales figure, which year to you want to use?

|Year 1 
|Research suggests that when using the relative valuation approach, it's best to use a time period of 12 months or less. Accordingly, for the sales figure, we suggest using Year 1. 
|-
|In regards to the growth-adjusted EV/sales multiple, for the sales growth figure, which year(s) do you want to use?
|Year 2 to 4, from now
|We suggest that for the sales growth figure, it's best to use Year 2 to 4.
|-
|In regards to the growth-adjusted EV/sales multiple, what multiple figure do you want to use?
|43x
|Here, we suggest using a multiple of 43x, which we believe is in-line with the multiples of online marketplaces.
|-
|Which financial forecasts to use?
|Proactive Investors
|The only available forecasts are the ones that are supplied by us (the forecasts can be found in the financials section of this report), so we suggest using those.
|-
| What's the current value of the company?
|$54.80 million 
|As at 28th November 2022, the current value of the Supply@Me Capital company is $54.80 million (or £45.30 million).
|-
|Which time period do you want to use to estimate the expected return?
|Between now and one year time
|Research suggests that when using the relative valuation approach, it's best to estimate the expected return of the company between now and one year time.
|}
The Supply@ME Capital platform connects buyers and sellers (of inventory), and, therefore, acts as a marketplace. The medium adjusted EV/sales multiple of Bloomberg-defined marketplaces is 6.18x.
{| class="wikitable"
|+Marketplace peers
!Company name
!Primary exchange
!Market capitalisation ($m)
!EV/next year sales (x)
!Sales growth rate (%)
!Adjusted EV/sales (x)
|-
|Japan Exchange Group
|Japan
|7,510
|6.52
|3.79
|172.03
|-
|Mercari, Inc.
|Japan
|3,180
|2.16
|41.70
|5.18
|-
|Airbnb, Inc.
|United States
|61,219
|5.75
|17.94
|32.05
|-
|Yonghui Superstores
|China
|4,605
|0.55
|8.90
|6.18
|-
|JSE Ltd.
|South Africa
|500
|2.63
|4.62
|56.93
|-
|Zillow Group, Inc.
|United States
|8,359
|3.63
|82.81
|4.38
|-
|Creema Ltd.
|Japan
|20
|0.29
|25.89
|1.12
|-
|Via S/A
|Brazil
|730
|0.44
|4.69
|9.38
|-
|Cogent Communications Holdings Inc
|United States
|2,777
|6.00
|4.27
|140.52
|-
|Shutterstock, Inc.
|United States
|1,825
|2.15
|7.46
|28.82
|-
|KAR Auction Services, Inc.
|United States
|1,420
|1.49
| -15.78
| -9.44
|-
|Fiverr International Ltd.
|United States
|1,269
|2.95
|57.97
|5.09
|-
|North Media A/S
|Denmark
|178
|0.69
| -3.35
| -20.60
|}

=== Sensitive analysis ===
The two main inputs that result in the greatest change in the expected return of the Supply@ME Capital investment are, in order of importance (from highest to lowest):   

#The growth-adjusted EV/sales multiple (the default multiple is 42x);
#The Year-one sales forecast (the default forecast is $3.5 million); and
#The Year 2 to 4 sales growth forecast (the default forecast is 87%)

The impact of a 10% change in those main inputs to the expected return of the Supply@ME Capital investment is shown in the table below.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|+Sirius investment expected return sensitive analysis
!Main input
!10% worse
!Unchanged
!10% better
|-
|The growth-adjusted EV/sales multiple
|To be added
|141%
|To be added
|-
|The Year-one sales forecast 
|To be added
|141%
|To be added
|-
|The Year 2 to Year 4 sales growth forecast
|To be added
|141%
|To be added
|}

=== Major shareholders ===
The table below shows those who hold 3% or more of the company's share capital, as of 14th October 2022.
{| class="wikitable"
|+Holdings of shareholders
!Shareholder
!Number of Ordinary Shares
!Percentage of the issued share capital
|-
|The AvantGarde Group S.p.A. 
|12,742,513,009
|22.51%
|-
|Venus Capital S.A.
|7,900,000,000
|13,95%
|}
Note, the total number of issued share capital is as follows: 56,617,688,143 ordinary shares. What's the total number of outstanding warrants and options?

===Economic links to cash flow patterns ===
{| class="wikitable"
|+Economic links to cash flow patterns
|-
!Cash flow type!!Introduction!!Growth!!Shake out!!Mature!!Decline
|-
|Operating|| style="background: red; color: white;" |-|| style="background: green; color: white;" |+
| style="background: orange; color: white;" | +/-|| style="background: green; color: white;" |+|| style="background: red; color: white;" |-
|-
|Investing|| style="background: red; color: white;" |-|| style="background: red; color: white;" |-|| style="background: orange; color: white;" |+/-|| style="background: red; color: white;" |-
| style="background: green; color: white;" | +
|-
|Financing|| style="background: green; color: white;" |+|| style="background: green; color: white;" |+|| style="background: orange; color: white;" |+/-|| style="background: red; color: white;" |-|| style="background: orange; color: white;" |+/-
|}

== References ==
<references />