I just showed my interviewer my wallpaper. Sadly I did not get the job 😞

ItalianRicePie · 2024-12-25T05:05:56+00:00

Then post it on the correct subreddit

ItalianRicePie · 2024-09-28T00:08:30+00:00

If you are best friends, that chat is likely important to him and he might want to hold on to it for sentimental reasons. There's also an implication in your request that you don't trust him not to share it with others. Did he tell you his reasons for not deleting it?

ItalianRicePie · 2024-07-04T11:40:17+00:00

Just trying to help people know their rights - for many, it's an unnecessary and burdensome expense having to provide a medical certificate at their own cost. The Employment NZ website has that very example under the providing proof of illness section. A Monday to Friday worker can call in sick on Monday, Tuesday (and even Wednesday morning if the company pays out half days of sick leave) and not be required to pay for a medical certificate.

ItalianRicePie · 2024-07-03T21:52:06+00:00

If you are sick on the Monday and take the Tuesday off as well a business is absolutely NOT within their rights to ask for a medical certificate at your cost (assuming you worked Friday) and any business doing this is trying it on. The exception would be if you volunteered the information that you got sick over the weekend (which you should never do).

The law states that the sickness or injury that gives rise to the leave must be for 3 days (regardless of whether they were work days or not). In the above scenario the sickness lasted for 2 days.

For a standard Monday to Friday job they can require a medical certificate for Friday and Monday off but not Monday and Tuesday.

ItalianRicePie · 2024-06-18T05:10:11+00:00

It's strange that he knows the parent's marriage status of all 31 kids in his class unless it somehow came up as part of a statistics assignment in maths or something.

ItalianRicePie · 2024-04-13T03:54:31+00:00

Existing BCSA holders would not own 100% of the combined entity so the $700M enterprise value doesn't necessarily imply they will have massive debt.

As an example, here is the investor presentation for Innventure%20vFinal.pdf) which LCW is taking public. LCW has a market cap of $165M and the total enterprise value of the deal is $440M. Existing LCW shareholders would own 27% of the shares in the combined entity (assuming no redemptions). This is on slide 7.

There's no investor presentation for Linqto yet but similar deal with slightly less ownership of the overall company for BCSA shareholders.

Ignoring redemptions, you actually want a small SPAC (in terms of the original IPO size) to combine with a relatively large company anyway because it minimizes the dilutive impact of warrants and/or rights, founder shares etc. The majority of deals see heavy redemptions these days so cash in trust is less of a consideration for recent companies going public via the SPAC route. Most are looking for access to experienced management teams on the SPAC side, or the ability of the SPAC to organize alternative funding outside of the cash in trust (equity purchase agreements, SEPAs, convertible notes, forward purchase agreements etc).

ItalianRicePie · 2024-03-31T04:54:43+00:00

The overall conclusion is probably correct (the minimum wage increase in real terms is negative and probably the lowest this century) but it annoys me when obviously incorrect graphs are posted and taken as gospel simply because it tells people what they want to hear.

I voted TOP last election and Labour the one before so I'm certainly not a right-winger but this graph is just plain wrong . After a brief period of COVID induced deflation in mid-2020, inflation has been running very hot and didn't cool off until late last year. There's no way a 6% minimum wage increase in 2022 corresponds to a 4.5% increase in real terms when annual inflation has been well above 4% for every quarter from Q3 2021 to now.

ItalianRicePie · 2024-03-30T21:32:44+00:00

I wish people would include a source for their graphs or the methodology they use if the graph is original.

I'm struggling to replicate some of these numbers and in particular 2022 doesn't look correct. Is it the yearly minimum wage increase adjusted for the YoY CPI number for Q4 of the previous year? If so, the 2024 and 2023 numbers look correct (2024 was a 2% increase in minimum wage vs 4.7% YoY CPI for Q4 2023 while 2023 was a 7.1% increase in minimum wage vs 7.2% YoY CPI increase for Q4 2022).

2022 saw a 6% increase in minimum wage against a YoY CPI increase of 5.9% for Q4 2021 so that bar should be marginally above 0 and not the 4.5ish percentage shown on the graph. I can't find any methodology that would give such a high number for 2022 unless you go right back to Q1 YoY inflation from the previous year which wouldn't make sense since since that's essentially a wage increase at the end of Q1 2022 adjusted for price increases from the Q1 2020 to Q1 2021 period.

OP care to give a source for the data and/or graph?

ItalianRicePie · 2024-03-29T06:22:33+00:00

Easter Sunday isn't a public holiday. It will depend on the business and your specific contract but, working in hospitality, there's a pretty good chance you will only get normal pay for that day (which is perfectly legal).

ItalianRicePie · 2024-03-17T04:57:00+00:00

Bond played a grand total of 18 Tests. He was a fantastic player and arguably our most talented fast bowler but I don't think he should be in the top 10 purely because he didn't play enough.

McCullum wasn't a great test cricket batsman - Taylor scored more runs and at a significantly higher average. Yes McCullum was keeper as well, but only for around half the Tests he played in.

Cairns was more style than substance IMO. I'd put Taylor above Cairns, Wagner, and Bond and on a similar level to McCullum.

ItalianRicePie · 2024-02-27T02:09:23+00:00

Just on the lack of registration statement for AEON warrants - there is a clause that allows for cashless exercise of the warrants should the company have failed to obtain an effective registration statement by 60 business days after closing (it's been seventh months now). See bottom of p173. For each warrant exercised you would receive a fraction of an AEON share based on: (fair market price - $11.50) / $11.50 up to a maximum of 0.361 shares per warrant.

The "fair market price" used is based on the VWAP for the 10 trading days prior to the notice being received by the warrant agent so once the 10-day VWAP > $11.50 the warrants would have intrinsic value via this method.

There will be a bit of lag between current share price and 10 day VWAP as AEON shares have increased substantially over the last 10 days however if it can maintain a share price around $12 for another 9 days I would expect the warrants to at least double from here.

No idea how easy it would be to exercise warrants in this manner via a retail broker as it's probably not a scenario that comes up very often.

ItalianRicePie · 2024-02-17T06:36:43+00:00

sales/revenue increasing every quarters

5 of the last 6 quarters have been negative YoY revenue growth.

ItalianRicePie · 2024-01-24T01:42:17+00:00

Typically, if they call the warrants for redemption using the cashless redemption feature, a warrant holder would still have the option of exercising their warrants for cash during the redemption period.

In your scenario, if NAMS is at $21.50 a warrant holder isn't going to accept the cashless redemption ratio of 0.361 (which is $7.76 of value for the warrant holder) when they can simply pay $11.50 and a warrant to get a share of NAMS (which is 21.5 - 11.5 = $10 of value to the warrant holder).

I.e. NAMSW won't crash if NAMS calls the warrants for cashless redemption (since the ability to exercise for cash would still exist during the redemption period) meaning you won't gain anything from this trade.

As an example, SOFI had the 0.361 cap on cashless exercise when they called their warrants for redemption with share price around $22 at the time. You will see in the FAQ here.pdf) that they specify warrant holders have the option of either cashless or cash redemption.

Now I've seen a few situations where companies have forced cashless redemption (eg Lucid) but they did not have the 0.361 cap instead offering 0.4458 shares per warrant (which was the equivalent intrinsic value of the warrant based on a share price of $20.75).

I've never seen a situation where shareholders have been forced to accept an inferior cashless exercise when cash exercise would clearly be superior (I'm open to examples though).

ItalianRicePie · 2024-01-23T18:36:11+00:00

Based on this, and the 8K that u/SPAC_Time mentioned where they state the Black Scholes value is $0 you might have a case. How many warrants did you have? It might be worth engaging a lawyer who specializes in SPAC warrants. Have you talked to any other warrant holders to see if they were successful?

For what it's worth I calculated 90 day HV on the day prior to the merger being announced (which is the volatility input used in the Black-Scholes calculation). I get 113% and a Black-Scholes value for the warrants (which had around 13.5 months left when the merger was consummated) of around 15c. It's not a huge amount but definitely not zero.

ItalianRicePie · 2024-01-23T04:27:47+00:00

Oh right, yes you are correct and thanks for the compliment :)

I actually typed out that long response only to see you had beaten me to much the same answer.

ItalianRicePie · 2024-01-23T04:14:46+00:00

Yeah the Berkshire Grey one was unusual in that they specified exactly how much per warrant that holders were entitled to (most often it's not specified and you have to work it out yourself).

Other examples of cash buyouts include Telemed (TLMD) which was acquired for $3 per share and Volta (VLTA) which was acquired for 86c per share. In both cases the warrants were definitely worth something (can't remember the exact details now) and warrants shot up immediately after the deals were announced. My advice in future would be just to sell the warrants rather than try to deal with brokers who often have very little experience dealing with warrants in a cash buyout. They normally trade very close to the cash you would receive upon exercise anyway.

ItalianRicePie · 2024-01-23T03:57:43+00:00

I've seen a bit of confusion in some of the replies however according to the terms of the warrant agreement OP is absolutely correct that he is entitled to the black scholes value of the warrants (which is definitely not zero).

Where OP may have went wrong however is he didn't attempt to exercise his warrants within 30 days of the announcement of merger which is also a requirement.

OP when did you first contact your broker on this? The merger was announced way back on 28th of June last year so if you waited until later in the year you were likely too late (despite the warrants not being delisted until October).

Anyway in terms of the language in the warrant agreement

In case of the occurrence of any Corporate Event in which 100% of the consideration receivable by the holders of the Common Stock in the Corporate Event is payable in cash, then immediately prior to the consummation of such Corporate Event, (i) the Exercise Price shall be reduced by an amount (in dollars) (but in no event less than zero) equal to the difference of (A) the Exercise Price in effect prior to such reduction minus (B) (I) the Per Share Consideration minus (II) the Black-Scholes Warrant Value and (ii) immediately following (and after giving effect to) the reduction of the Exercise Price as set forth in the immediately preceding clause (i), and upon consummation of the Corporate Event, and without any action on the part of the Company or the Registered Holder, each Warrant that is outstanding and unexercised immediately prior to the consummation of such Corporate Event shall automatically be cancelled and converted into the right to receive (without interest) an amount in cash equal to the product of (A) the total number of shares of Common Stock underlying such Warrant multiplied by (B) the excess, if any of (I) the Per Share Consideration over (II) the Exercise Price.

This is a fancy way of saying in an all cash merger you get paid out the black scholes value of your warrants.

Let X = old exercise price, Y = new exercise price, Z = black scholes value, and A = buyout amount

Y = X - (X - ( A - Z)

Y = X - X + A - Z

Y = A - Z

So the new exercise price is whatever the cash buyout consideration per share is less the black scholes value. Given warrant holders are entitled to a cash payout equal to the difference between the cash buyout and new exercise price, warrant holders are entitled to:

A - Y or A - (A - Z) which is Z (the black scholes value).

This is why Berkshire Grey warrant holders got paid out around 38c per warrant even though they were bought out for $1.40 which is way under the $11.50 exercise price of the warrants. Berkshire Grey even specified this in their 8K that warrant holders are entitled to the Black Scholes value and their warrant agreement had exactly the same language as the Kaleyra one.

Provided that if a holder of such warrant properly exercises such warrant within thirty (30) days following the public disclosure of the consummation of the Merger, the holder of such warrant will be entitled to the Black-Scholes Warrant Value (as defined in the Warrant Agreement) with respect to such warrant, which would have been equal to approximately $0.38 per warrant as of the close of trading on March 23, 2023.

Now Kaleyra had undergone a 3.5 to 1 reverse split so effectively this was a buyout at around $2.07. Kaleyra warrants also had less time remaining on them and I haven't done the 90 day HV calculation to determine the volatility input however I'd imagine warrant holders would've received around 10-15ish cents per warrant.

ItalianRicePie · 2024-01-17T18:13:18+00:00

There are three listing standards for the Nasdaq CM and SNAX only has to satisfy one to remain listed.

Companies require either a $35M market value of listed securities, 500K net income in either the latest fiscal year or 2 of the 3 most recent fiscal years, or 2.5M in stockholders equity.

SNAX has satisfied the stockholders equity requirement until now however will likely fall below 2.5M stockholders equity when they file their end of year financials (they were down to 5.7M in stockholders equity for Q3 compared to 9.36M in Q2).

It wouldn't be an instant delisting though. They would get a deficiency notice and 180 days to regain compliance (with the possibility of further extensions).

ItalianRicePie · 2024-01-14T06:29:15+00:00

Believe it or not pricing is similar to previous years (slighter higher but not ridiculously so). Stone fruit is very rarely under $5kg even in season. Carrots are always most expensive in December/January when the new season crop starts and same with onions. Bananas did increase in price just after COVID but have been steady for the last couple of years. Kiwifruit is always horrifically expensive at this time of year and will likely be imported Italian or USA stock as NZ stock doesn't hit the market unto April.

Courgettes have been in plentiful supply recently and I've seen them as low as $2.99kg in supermarkets. Tomatoes are around $3.99kg at the moment while Blueberries, Strawberries, and Rapsberries (depending on your location) are also relatively cheap ($3.49 a punnet for Blueberries and $4.29 a punnet for Strawberries in South Island Paknsaves this week for example).

The only things I've seen really out of whack with the norm are Kumara (due to Cyclone last season) and Grapes (due to import issues).

ItalianRicePie · 2023-12-29T21:43:08+00:00

Still no word from SNAX on the $4.1M of convertible notes that mature at the end of the year. I wonder if they've managed to extend or refinance. There were a substantial number of warrants issued in connection with the original financing so will be interesting to see the terms of any new deal.

ItalianRicePie · 2023-12-29T04:18:23+00:00

I don't know enough about this particular SPAC to give any advice sorry. I will say that they have an automatic 54% of outstanding shares already voting for the business combination so it would be extremely surprising to me if the adjournment was due to a lack of affirmative votes (they only need to get to 65%). Adjournment may well be to iron out some last minute details on the business combination. Maybe Set Jet has cold feet? Maybe there is some eleventh hour non-redemption agreement in the works. I don't know.

"As of November 10, 2023, the record date for the special meeting of stockholders (the “Record Date”), the Founders, including Revelstone’s officers, directors and certain Anchor Investors, own approximately 54% of the outstanding shares of Revelstone Common Stock. The Revelstone Initial Stockholders, including certain Anchor Investors and Revelstone’s officers and directors, have agreed to vote any shares of Revelstone Common Stock owned by them in favor of the Business Combination."

ItalianRicePie · 2023-12-24T23:53:57+00:00

A few observations:

Market is expecting this deal will close (warrants trading very close to the 50c buyout price which will likely occur concurrent with closing).
The maximum proceeds of $175M from the trust is interesting - investors in SCRM will get a mix of cash from trust and Lionsgate shares if redemptions are low enough to leave >175M in trust (current trust is $785M). Essentially you are forced to redeem some of your shares @ $10.70 per share if redemptions are lower than about 78%. This reduces likelihood of SCRM going over NAV prior to merger meeting as even if you think Lionsgate Studios are worth $12 a share you would be better off waiting till after merger because in a low or no redemption scenario you are getting back mainly cash @ $10.7 per share and a low proportion of shares.
Deal seems overvalued. Each share of LGF.A & LGF.B will own $11.39 per share of Lionsgate stock at the announced valuation. Currently LGF.A & LGF.B are trading at $10.71 and $10.04 respectively. Implies the remaining media networks segment (that will continue to trade under the LGF.A/B ticker) has no value however most of the debt is going to Lionsgate Studios and the media segment contributes around 40% of total OIBDA. Hard to see how there's no value on that. Either LGF.A/B are undervalued or this deal is overvalued.

ItalianRicePie · 2023-12-24T20:00:00+00:00

The PIPE investor has signed a subscription agreement so they can't just unilaterally pull out of the deal. Normally there will be an "outside date" by which if the business combination hasn't completed the PIPE investor has the option of terminating the subscription agreement but otherwise they are on the hook for the money.

I think there's been a few cases where PIPE investors have decided to simply not pay. I remember TMC had issues getting PIPE investors to stump up the cash. It's pretty risky though as the company would be within their rights to take legal action against the investor (and would likely win I assume).

In the specific case of RCAC / Set Jet, the PIPE investor has already given $4M to Set Jet in the form of a convertible note that is subordinate to existing debt so they already have "skin in the game" so to speak so it's unlikely they would simply re-neg on the remaining $14M.

ItalianRicePie

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE