1/N - $WDI - for full transparency - here the math behind my analysis - Gonna be a few tweets .... hopefully someone will take the time and interest to go walk through them @AlderLaneeggs @SafkhetCapital @QCMFunds
2/N - Everything starts with Wirecard AG filings in Germany signed by EY - There you can see how much money Wirecard AG (not consolidated level) has risen over the years. 
3/N I then try to understand where the money goes I see 3 options:
1. Stays in WAG
2. GOES to Subsidiaries (new "Forderungen" are created)
3. Goes to Subsidiaries in form of Capital Injections
Point 2 can be a bit tricky because of the Profit Transfer agreements WAG has
1. Stays in WAG
2. GOES to Subsidiaries (new "Forderungen" are created)
3. Goes to Subsidiaries in form of Capital Injections
Point 2 can be a bit tricky because of the Profit Transfer agreements WAG has
4/N How much WAG should receive fro PROFIT Transfer Agreements is reported in the filings (I assume Profits are not transferred and as a Consequence "Forderungen gg verb Unt (FGVU)" are created) - The ammount of FGVU is also disclosed in the filings. Here how much they Increased
5/N Now that we know by how much FGVU increased each year we can subtract those we thing were caused by the Profit Transfer Agreements (Ertrage im Berichtsjahr aus Ergebnisabführungsverträgen). The difference is the Money I see as WAG sent to Subs in excess of capital Injections
6/N Amount above is the Money I believe WAG (which IMO can be seen as a holding) has "sent" in form of "short term loan?/forderungen" to its subs. On top of that we also have the disclosed Capital Injections. The sum of those 2 is the total amount of Money pumped into subs by WAG
7/N per my calculations above - feel free to disagree and if you do ... please tell me why - you can see that WAG injected into subsidiaries as much as 1.12b -783m as Capital Injections and 321m as "increase in forderungen" - This is quite some money IMO
8/N ... especially when I consider the Operating Cash Flow disclosed in the Consolidated WDI filings of over 1.2b since 2012 - given its nature I see WAG op CF as limited hence it has to be generated at Sub levels.
9/N My logic is ... on top of the 1.2b op Cash flow subs generated ... per my calculations ... they also received an addl 1.1b cash from WAG ... this is a lot of money .. especially since IMO WDI biz should not really be that capital intensive (at least when I look at AYDEN)
10/N ... hopefully someone takes the time to read this string of tweets ... anybody dare to agree of disagree ...with these findings / this analysis? Feedback appreciated - even if it might be a bit too technical for most of my followers ... @AlderLaneeggs
