DJ Models Announcement 01/05/19

[AY Mod]

24 minutes ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

Isn't it time it was locked

 

Possibly so, but it always puts me off when someone tries to get it locked.

 

Other items Kernow commissioned DJM to produce:

Clay Tigers - Announced Jul 2014, delivered Aug 2017

Gatestock - Kernow intervened to get stock released from the factory - announced Nov 2011, delivered Nov 2017

 

[Ravenser]

12 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

Possibly so, but it always puts me off when someone tries to get it locked.

 

Other items Kernow commissioned DJM to produce:

Clay Tigers - Announced Jul 2014, delivered Aug 2017

Gatestock - Kernow intervened to get stock released from the factory - announced Nov 2011, delivered Nov 2017

 

 

 

Noted. I've been listing only projects undelivered, rather than those which have actually come to fruition 

 

It is however worth noting that a substantial number of projects involving Kernow have been delivered, whereas elsewhere DJM's record is 1 completed project with Hattons, and 2 completed "own-brand" projects

 

Its also worth pointing out that the Kernow projects are all novel specialist subjects, whereas when Dave Jones has chosen for himself it has usually been a subject already produced by someone else - generally Hornby [A number of his N gauge projects are things already made in OO by Hornby]

 

This perhaps explains why DJM has faced so much more competition on his own projects , while Kernow projects have effectively had a clear run

 

The last few pages have very largely been an attempt to list what DJM has announced, with dates /results , so it isn't quite fair to suggest the same old arguments are going round and round.....

Edited May 8, 2019 by Ravenser

[arran]

Never in the Field of Internet forums has so much time been wasted by so many on so few 

[The Stationmaster]

1 minute ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

Noted. I've been listing only projects undelivered, rather than those which have actually come to fruition 

 

It is however worth noting that a substantial number of projects involving Kernow have been delivered, whereas elsewhere DJM's record is 1 completed project with Hattons, and 2 completed "own-brand" projects

 

Its also worth pointing out that the Kernow projects are all novel specialist subjects, whereas when Dave Jones has chosen for himself it has usually been a subject already produced by someone else - generally Hornby [A number of his N gauge projects are things already made in OO by Hornby]

 

This perhaps explains why DJM has faced so much more competition on his own projects , while Kernow projects have effectively had a clear run

That is one reason why I clearly separated 'own account' DJM announcements and delivery achievement for locos/powered items such as railcars.

 

With further information since posted in this thread I need to correct my figures as the cancelled/not yet delivered list has got a bit longer.   And  I think we do need to separate two things here, as I have tried to do.  There is a commissioning business where for some years DJ carried out work on behalf others and paid for by them - such as Kernow and Hattons.  And where it generally appears that models on which work was actually authorised to start have been delivered while some on which it appears no work was done have been moved elsewhere or, in the case of Kernow, at least one project was taken back in house in order to achieve completion.  As far as we are aware from information in the public domain people, especially retailers, who placed commission work through DJM no longer do so, for whatever reason and on the face of it there are no publicly stated current commission customers.

 

The more important area in my view is the own account business where progress relies almost entirely on DJM rather than a customer continually pressing for progress reports and achievement and putting in the necessary funding as it is needed.  Here the picture is far less rosy as notwithstanding various statements along the lines of 'under development in the factory in China' actual achievement and delivery to end customers has been a low percentage of what had been stated to be underway with an even lower percentage of total announcements prior to 31.12.15 actually delivered.   Opening capitalisation - judging by the short form accounts - hardly looked sufficient to progress much of what was initially announced, let alone what was announced in 2014, although it was made clear that income from commission work would enable own account investment.

 

But in reality apart from the very low percentage of products actually delivered, and and hence able to bring revenue into the business,  we have seen a change in the way projects are financed - apart from wagons in N gauge.  Thus own account investment has been replaced almost entirely by crowd funding which suggests to me, if nothing else, a shortage of capital and an inability to obtain any funding. by more traditional business means such as bank loans or mortgaging property although it can also be seen as a de-risking move.  And this is not really new as the shift towards crowd funding started for DJM projects (as opposed to joint projects) back in 2014/15 when some commission business was still live.

 

If a business analyst were to look closely at DJM it would seem logical for them to assess the businesses success, or otherwise,  in producing the own account models.  And the here perhaps (but maybe not to an analyst) the point made by Ravenser about models chosen for own account development could be a very telling one - in other words if you lack the in-depth strength and resources of the bigger boys be careful of the ground on which you challenge them.  Equally any analyst's review is inevitably going to look at the capitalisation of the business, or lack of it, in a product area where development and productions costs are high prior to it being possible to make a return.  Just look at the way Hornby has had to borrow/obtain borrowing facilities in recent years and continuing under its new management or at the real financial strength behind Bachmann through its parent company.   R-T-R model railways is a capital hungry industry albeit with potentially reasonable returns but it still needs capital outlay to get to those returns.

[Ouroborus]

1 hour ago, AY Mod said:

 

Possibly so, but it always puts me off when someone tries to get it locked.

 

 

 

Applying a bit of counter logic here then:

Please don't lock the thread, 

Please don't lock the thread, 

Please don't lock the thread, 

Please don't lock the thread,

[royaloak]

On 07/05/2019 at 12:50, Great Western said:

I've no personal dislike for DJ, I’ve not brought or invested in any of his schemes, my anger is how this has continued to bump along from drama to drama, missed deadline to missed deadline but people are still saying they’ve ordered models, continue to show faith and just shrug off losing their had earned money.

 

Maybe these schemes should of been run through a 100% trustworthy platform which provided protection to the investor - or was that not that plan all along ? 

Several months ago in one of the DJM threads, I posted (half jokingly) that Dave would 'invest' in a property in the Bahamas, I wonder if that is where he has gone, again half jokingly.

[royaloak]

11 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

Wow, 40 pages and still going . I think we have exhausted this and continuing is just going to do another circuit of the same arguments and opinions. 

 

Is there anything else to say again? 

I note the 'partners' (DToS) in the APT adventure are remarkable quiet at this time, I would have thought an update from them would be rather opportune.

Edited May 8, 2019 by royaloak
Edited to add (DToS) to clear up any misunderstanding.

[APOLLO]

36 minutes ago, royaloak said:

Several months ago in one of the DJM threads, I posted (half jokingly) that Dave would 'invest' in a property in the Bahamas, I wonder if that is where he has gone, again half jokingly.

 

Perhaps his next project is "To do" a complete Annesley to Woodford goods train !!

 

Brit15

[craigy]

58 minutes ago, royaloak said:

I note the 'partners' in the APT adventure are remarkable quiet at this time, I would have thought an update from them would be rather opportune.

 

Hi,

I assume you mean Durham Trains of Stanley & Crewe Heritage Centre ( as our name is on the leaflet, C.H.C ) As i'm aware there is only one "partner(s)" and that's Durham trains of Stanley, Crewe Heritage Centre have nothing to do with the model or the running of the business end of it we just supplied a train for him to scan, nothing more nothing less.

[royaloak]

3 minutes ago, craigy said:

 

Hi,

I assume you mean Durham Trains of Stanley & Crewe Heritage Centre ( as our name is on the leaflet, C.H.C ) As i'm aware there is only one "partner(s)" and that's Durham trains of Stanley, Crewe Heritage Centre have nothing to do with the model or the running of the business end of it we just supplied a train for him to scan, nothing more nothing less.

I did indeed, I never considered CHC a partner, I have edited my earlier post to clarify the point.

[craigy]

Hi.

Thankyou for that Royal Oak.

Regards. Brian

[Wolf27]

3 hours ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

There's 41 pages to this thread now and the arguments are just going round and round. Isn't it time it was locked—at least until there is new information?

I dont see why this thread should be locked, the tone has changed over the last couple of days from disbelief and shock to concern and advice and now morphed into an inquest into what has gone so badly wrong. The comments today show more reasoned debate, no signs of real hatred/vitriol towards DJM, perhaps more concern about the business and those affected by all of this, and a bit more of an insight into the world of model manufacturers. Several more pages to go I feel before it’s all done. It’s certainly made DJM at talking point, but not in the way it was planned!

 

cheers

 

Shane

[GWR-fan]

As usual with just about every thread critical of DJM there are calls to lock the thread.  It was Dave who is responsible for this thread in his somewhat hasty and unfortunate attempt to protect his perceived interests,  so perhaps those wishing to stifle discussion may ask Dave his reasons for doing so.  This thread has resulted in a collation of planned and executed projects and has become a blow by blow account of seeming inactivity on the part of DJM,  a lot of talk but seemingly little action.    Are there accounts to show exactly where the crowd funded money has gone?  It would seem that Dave is more interested in saving his own business interests than the plight of those who have paid deposits.  If I owned the business I would be bending over backwards in my support and reassurances for those who have contributed financially to the projects,  most of which unfortunately have little progress to show, though.  I daresay that after the press release I feel that Dave may not get many more crowd funded pledges,  so will any of his projects actually reach tooling, let alone release

 

I do find it odd though that a shop proprietor is able to advance projects to fruition in a timely fashion after taking the project back inhouse and yet an apparent specialist cannot.  It seems that most collaborated projects seem to end in the commissioner taking back the project for perhaps personal reasons or simply lack of progress.

 

[delticfan]

Anyone for a crowd funded hst prototype +++ lol only joking, won’t be touching any crowdfunded stuff with a barge pole maybe a hard lesson but it could have sucked more cash out of prospective modellers for the apt had this gone further.

[adb968008]

39 minutes ago, GWR-fan said:

. Are there accounts to show exactly where the crowd funded money has gone?  It would seem that Dave is more interested in saving his own business interests than the plight of those who have paid deposits.  

 

Only companies house... accounts to July 30th 2018.

 

Fixed Assets £68,348 (toolings ?, designs ?  - not clear ?)*

Current Assets £79,726 (cash ? Stock - but what stock ? Anything else ?)

 

Creditors: amounts falling due within one year(£65,597 )

Creditors: amounts falling due after more than one year(£22,333 )

These are amounts that need to be paid.

 

If I read correctly, To meet the creditors, as it stands reading that report, it relies on new income, or extracting revenue from fixed assets, as £65k + £22k (£87k) is > £79k current assets, though APT funds were incoming.

 

Events post 30th July 2018

Access to tooling was reputed to be lost (don’t know how this impacts Fixed Assets).

The Funding for King /APT was incoming, was there anything else ?

Outgoings presumably include scanning the APT, new 92 CADS, APT CADs and registering designs, plus usual business sales/marketing/travel expenses + anything else ?

 

*

we are anecdotally told tooling a wagon costs min £40k, a loco £100k and a big one £200k...

So if we ignore all DJ commissions (which also means ignoring some of the designs).. DJ is known to have delivered in his own name:

 

00 J94

00 class 71

N class 17 (there is an EP running video on YouTube ages back)

N mermaid

 

In 2017 Fixed assets were £81k and presumably depreciated to £68k in 2018...

Is £81k representative of the above 4 tools + any work done on the “designs” that have been registered ?

 

the problem with Micro accounts is they basically leave you guessing.

Edited May 8, 2019 by adb968008

[96701]

On 07/05/2019 at 16:52, Great Western said:

 

Okay, your welcome to your opinion - raise concern - equal troll. 

 

Typical. 

Wow. Well done!

[Ravenser]

12 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Only companies house... accounts to July 30th 2018.

 

Fixed Assets £68,348 (toolings ?, designs ?  - not clear ?)*

Current Assets £79,726 (cash ? Stock - but what stock ? Anything else ?)

 

Creditors: amounts falling due within one year(£65,597 )

Creditors: amounts falling due after more than one year(£22,333 )

These are amounts that need to be paid.

 

If I read correctly, To meet the creditors, as it stands reading that report, it relies on new income, or extracting revenue from fixed assets, as £65k + £22k (£87k) is > £79k current assets, though APT funds were incoming.

 

Events post 30th July 2018

Access to tooling was reputed to be lost (don’t know how this impacts Fixed Assets).

The Funding for King /APT was incoming, was there anything else ?

Outgoings presumably include scanning the APT, new 92 CADS, APT CADs and registering designs, plus usual business sales/marketing/travel expenses + anything else ?

 

*

we are anecdotally told tooling a wagon costs min £40k, a loco £100k and a big one £200k...

So if we ignore all DJ commissions (which also means ignoring some of the designs).. DJ is known to have delivered in his own name:

 

00 J94

00 class 71

N class 17 (there is an EP running video on YouTube ages back)

N mermaid

 

In 2017 Fixed assets were £81k and presumably depreciated to £68k in 2018...

Is £81k representative of the above 4 tools + any work done on the “designs” that have been registered ?

 

the problem with Micro accounts is they basically leave you guessing.

 

I'm no accountant, but I would have thought that crowd-funding would have to be shown under creditors (you've taken their money) and the cash received , stored in a bank account, would be current assets.

 

The only other significant creditors should have been factories in China?

 

If the APT crowd-funding was after these figures, then 100 crowdfunders @ £250 each is another £25,000 of money owed. If more than 100 have stumped up , then the figure increases pro-rata.....

 

These are sobering amounts of money at stake.

[PaulRhB]

Ah good I was struggling with the enthusiasm to take it downstairs myself, what time will you be round? many thanks  

 

So items have been delayed and those delivered haven't quite set the world alight like the ambitious statements suggested. So is there really that much more that can be achieved than we see already without it costing an absolute fortune and being very delicate? I have 4 DJM locos and while great to look at they don't beat others in my collection in fidelity and the drives are average, they run ok but not perfectly and silently, and two are relatively noisy and need a sound chip turned up a bit more to hide it.

I don't know that there are huge advances to be made until materials technology allows a cheap memory plastic that actually returns to the right shape rather than almost standing that handrail upright

Has the whole story though pushed Hattons and Kernow into the higher gear and actually proved there is room for others although as we've seen the old guard, Mr K , aren't going down without a fight. I think DJM stepped too far in trying to do the whole thing and it was just too much to manage alone. I hope not all the money is lost as this plays out but crowdfunding can work if done through a proper channel.

[Harry Lime]

2 hours ago, royaloak said:

I note the 'partners' (DToS) in the APT adventure are remarkable quiet at this time, I would have thought an update from them would be rather opportune.

 

Everyone who has invested in the project receives updates from Dave on the progress of the project. Personally, I am prepared to play the long game and wait until the project moves to its next phase. Fortunately, I have the patience to wait. I did the same with the class 71 and was pleased with the results, therefore, I can do the same again. As DJM is the originator for the project, why would DToS have any further information about the project (or supply it to the world even if they did?)

 

However, what I don't understand is the constant looking for 'more angles on the story' when there is nothing more to see, tell or know at the present time. Until DJM has something else to convey to the investors, no-one will be told anything else. I would suggest that that is sensible business practice.

[njee20]

I thought DToS had backed out of the APT entirely (or have been removed), because there was confusion about who people were buying the model from, and who they’d pursue if things went wrong. I don’t know who instigated the split, if there was one...!

[blueeighties]

Well. After what has been announced from Steve at the Little Loco Company today, who it has to be said, was producing quality, regular updates on progress and developments, I wouldn't now consider any venture involving new models that required payment 'up front.' And certainly not from one that seems to announce matters which have nothing to do with customer products.

[Clearwater]

1 hour ago, Ravenser said:

 

I'm no accountant, but I would have thought that crowd-funding would have to be shown under creditors (you've taken their money) and the cash received , stored in a bank account, would be current assets.

 

The only other significant creditors should have been factories in China?

 

If the APT crowd-funding was after these figures, then 100 crowdfunders @ £250 each is another £25,000 of money owed. If more than 100 have stumped up , then the figure increases pro-rata.....

 

These are sobering amounts of money at stake.

 

 

I think, but am not certain, that you’d account for prefunding as a prepayment (so a creditor).  That would then be released to the p&l as a sale at the point of delivery of the model.

 

initially the double entry would book the cash received as a current asset however I’d expect the cash to be used to pay the factory/ongoing costs so cash would reduce and assets increase.    I don’t think you’d keep all the cash on account pending settlement of the production liabilities at completion.

Edited May 8, 2019 by Clearwater
Answering balance of q

[melmoth]

I was taught to account for payment in advance of goods/service as an outstanding liability because the payment might have to be refunded at a later date.

[The Stationmaster]

9 minutes ago, Clearwater said:

 

 

I think, but am not certain, that you’d account for prefunding as a prepayment (so a creditor).  That would then be released to the p&l as a sale at the point of delivery of the model.

Interestingly nothing has been shown under Pre-Payments in the short form accounts since those made up to 31 July 2016 when an amount of £500 was shown (and similarly for the previous year) however 'current assets' grew by very substantial amounts between 2016 and 2018 July end accounts as did amounts falling due within one year.

 

(BTW you should have had a PM from me from yesterday on another subject  )

Edited May 8, 2019 by The Stationmaster
addendum

[antrobuscp]

2 hours ago, adb968008 said:

the problem with Micro accounts is they basically leave you guessing.

 

For most practical purposes Micro accounts tell you nothing. If anyone with any sense were to want to invest in any serious way into DJ Models, they would require far more information than can be gleaned from these accounts. Nor, in my view, can the accounts form the basis for any serious comment about what might or might not be happening within the business. 

 

For example, Ravenser above says "The only other significant creditors should have been factories in China?". However, what if Dave Jones himself had lent funds to the company in order to finance it's operation? Such monies owed to Dave and not repaid would also be within creditors - how it had been spent or held could be, or have been, shown in the Profit and Loss Account(not needed for published Micro accounts) or on the Balance Sheet. 

 

I am not saying that this is the case, merely giving an example of how one might make incorrect assumptions.  

 

Speculation based on these accounts is just that, speculation, and may well be wildly misleading. You cannot infer a great deal from such abridged accounts. 

 

#Stationmaster - the prepayments in the 2016 accounts of DJ Models Ltd were assets - i.e. probably prepaid expenses(an example would be insurance paid in advance at the date of the balance sheet). #Clearwater was referring to a prepayment in respect of something to be supplied - money received in advance of supplying a product. Such funds would be shown as liabilities(deferred income).

 

I have never had to deal with accounting for crowd funding, and a quick search suggests it can be complex, has potentially significant tax implications, depends upon the exact terms of the funding agreement, and may not be straight forward. The issues principally affect the project manager rather than the "investors" unless they also regard the investment as a business one. I'm not delving further, I've retired!!!!

 

Colin

 

 

Edited May 8, 2019 by antrobuscp
typo