Member Info for Beo1

There is an update due on Thursday

To be fair they should both be on the hook. Yes it was the Dealer who "sold" the interest rate at a higher level than needs be and profited from that via the higher commission payment. Butm the funders did facilitate this and would also have benefited financially via higher interest recovery

I agree, he's not amusing at all. He offers no opinion, just oh its going down, but is his weird put on broken English. And then throw in his race ist diatribe he throws in occasionally. just adds zero to the conversation and he's clearly an abhorrent human being.🤷‍♂️

12.34 is the time of our UT, so need to look at the moment post then to see, and it actually finished up from that point slightly.

I guess it's no surprise, but didn't pass phase 1, will have to 1st week of April to offer remedies or will move to phase 2 investigation.

Cash in the bank vs a burn rate of cash in the business of over £2m pa, so money will soon disappear again, gross margin on sales means the sheer amount of sales needed to turn cash flow positive is immense, so this isnt the white Knight, more a stay of execution

It's not just a question of the P&L impact, although I think you are massively overstated how much interest corporations make on bank balance's, it nowhere near 6%.

The bugger issue is the cost of capital, which is after tax cost of debt x debt % + cost of equity x equity %

Equity is always higher than debt, debt would be about 5% at most, equity is normally >10%, so if you reduce debt and don't reduce equity in the same proportion then your cost of capital goes up. They are already struggling to make returns in excess of cost of capital now, increas that cost of capital and it becomes impossible.

So long story short they are reducing the net debt position and the equity via buyback of shares, so yes at this point in time that is the best choice. Normal gearing is about 70% debt 30% equity, so the amount of buybacks makes sense to me to keep that ratio and therefor not change the cost of debt.

Don't touch Cap XX, the company is burning cash (has for years) and lost a case against Tesla, they can't fund raise anymore and heading into Administration.

Looks like I missed the opportunity to Trim too. Bought in at 352.6 and had the opportunity to bank nearly 9% profit for about a weeks holding, but got greedy and now its barely above my avg cost. There's definitely long term value here, but should have took the profit whilst you can.

At the end of the day this share price is not being held down due to normal fundamentals. Its all about the potential exposure. And what new have we learnt about that today? We learnt how much they are building a pot for and how much that is impacting the underlying fundamentals and that really only pre 2016 deals are tied up in this. How much value does the market hold to this information is anyones guess but wellbfind out soon.

Tbf, prior to 2016 the method of interest rate calculation was 100% manipulated (by dealers) to force customers to pay more interest than they might otherwise had paid via a straight relationship with the funders, but the funders did facilitate this. But seems thus was within regulations at the time. Since 2016 we changed the basis of interest calculations to a point where I don't see a liability.

The issue won't be as big as portrayed as people are ambulance chasing and won't even be eligible IMO

They had to cut dividend, even though Italy and Spain are below the cost of capital they were paying some of the dividend, as the cost of capital includes cost of equity. A cut if 50% was disappointing though as those 2 countries were definitely less than 50% of the cost of equity proportion

You do realise this company have been on a massive cash burn for years, accumulated losses exceed £200m since inception. The court case costs are just the final nail in the coffin, not the catalyst. They have never operated a positive cash flow and have needed RI after RI to keep the cash coming in and the business afloat.

74.20

If they get stung by the FCA, then yes with what they have in the bank, a RI may be the only way to pay any compensation.

Sunk cost fallacy!

2 shares both value at £1

One share you don't think will move, the other you believe will double. Which share would you put your money in? So why stick in a share with no upside potential just because you are scared of booking a loss, when you could be using that money elsewhere to make money.

P&L Performance does not indicate liquidity (eg recognising a paper loss does not lead to bankruptcy) Cash flow is king. There is some correlation between P&L and cash flow, but your reference is wrong. recognising a loss on a P&L doesn't lead to bankruptcy.

Obviously if you take the sensationalist headline on the share news it looks bad. But all the bad news had been previously taken, we made £118m profit H1, H2 was £279m, which is some improvement compared to what is effectively priced into the SP.

Plus dividend maintained with aspirations to increase it.

Plus 10% fewer shares in circulation.

TAR outlook wasn't great but studios was.

And they are well ahead in the cost reductions and the full year impact of that isn't in this years results.

H1 was indicating EPS even more than half down. H2 YoY was still down but much better, the market was expecting worse than this IMO.

EPS is 7.8

Dividend is 5.0

So dividend cover of 1.5, not great but sustainable. With full year impact of cost savings and come back in advertising and studio growth plus 10% reduction in shares I expect that dividend cover to improve to over 2.0

All the news outlets were saying 350m. You had it down lower, if you remember our conversations.