Member Info for BigBiteNow

I am a long term holder of this share. Huddled is one of my largest holdings, and I won't be selling down any time soon because I feel the real value comes from 2026 onwards.

But even so I always follow the charts of all my positions. 3.8p is a big barrier that HUD has already had 3 previous cracks at. It will go eventually, and when it does, then the previous high of 4.5p should be the next test and final test before blue sky.

Lately, it has happened a lot on many shares I follow.

Well in part, it is an educated assumption based on improved shareholder communication + the fact that Huddled is now in full swing as an operation.

Last year, they included it with the FY results but I trust they will give this year's figures their own platform. Early 2024 they were just getting going and only had DD to report on. This year, things are very different.

I believe Zeus is due to put out their first broker note on the business. This may be timed with the Q1 update is release.

It will be really interesting to see what they predict for 2025 and 2026.

Right now, my view is that HUD is heading for c. £27m in revenues this year + whatever Let's Explore contributes if it isn't sold off beforehand. Next year I think +£40m is possible if the warehouse infrastructure can handle it. Then I think HUD will be looking for a new home for at least one of their brands.

Huddled is still flying well under investors' radars. This BB demonstrates that which is essentially you and me playing posting tennis.

In the meantime, Huddled is demonstrating that it is gearing up for much bigger things.

New BOD members (note Martin's words around Mike Ashley's experience in wellness retail being applied to Nutricircle).

Nutricircle is already growing at a fantastic rate and must surely be on the brink of sustainable monthly operating profit, but more product ranges are being sought, so it still has far more to offer. I also believe that Nutricircle hasn't demonstrated its true abilities with its current client base, as many are still new. So the increased AOV that tends to come through repeat visits is yet to show itself in the numbers.

A new sustainability-led website designed to encourage main player suppliers/brands to do business with Huddled based on a win/win agenda.

Note also that the website shows that each brand now has its own dedicated MD.

In terms of DD, my view is that it has been held back in the first few months of 2025 to push the other two (low picks and so lower cost to serve) brands harder. This is tied in with the limited warehouse space whilst they await the second floor area (due on line in the coming weeks).

So I don't believe DD is about turning a profit, but more about Huddled focusing limited initial growth opportunities to brands (Boop, especially) that offer far better margins front-end.

Reducing the picks will undoubtedly help support profitability for all three brands, but the additional floor will be the biggest milestone for DD. At that point, DD will have its own dedicated floor space and will have had a good number of weeks testing bulk buys (so lower picks per order). Then let's see what they can do.

Huddled is talking about +6 picks per DD order savings. Even at 6 per order, we are talking many million pounds of new orders from essentially the same warehouse team and that is before the additional floor comes on line.

This is a super exciting little company and I am really looking forward to seeing what it can do as Q2 unfolds and options on logistics and infrastructure increase.

Let's not forget that the Huddled team has increased revenues substantially with just one warehouse floor in play and (normal) teething issues along the way. They've also done it with brands that have been under their control for a limited amount of time. This is especially true for Boop, which has gone from a standing start in late Sept to doubling its Christmas revenues in just 3 months. Such efforts for a business in the perfect branch of retail for these times simply cannot go unnoticed for very long.

Another great update from HUD today.

Two brands out of three delivering their "best month ever" is very good sign.

Yes saw that myself last night. Yet another signal of where this business is heading. Confirm cash flow has turned positive (I think late Q2) and then the sky is the limit.

It is worth noting that retail prescriptions (so those covered by insurance) have been increasing throughout 2024 despite overall fluctuations in total prescriptions. Q4 was the lowest increase in commercial prescriptions all year at c. 3,000 vs. 7,000 in Q3 and 5,000 in Q2.

So it is a sensible conclusion to assume that they will rise again in Q1, although the broker points to some seasonality in Q4 and Q1. They deem Q2 and Q3 to normally be the strongest performing quarters.

I question that due to the realignment of the sales force. 50% of the total sales force in 5 states, where uptake has been strongest, and optimal insurance cover already exists, says actual performance could be reset. So, comparing Q1 2025 to Q4 may be a non-starter because the sales strategies aren't the same.

The BOD also pointed out that the sales team has only been in play for 18 months. But each month that passes leads to a better overall understanding and acceptance of the product. This is potentially amplified in the 5 leading states.

Performance in 2024 was far broader, geographically wise, which is another good reason why consignment sales would/could be lowered as STX focuses much more of its efforts on high insurance coverage areas.

This is in part why I feel positive about Q1 results.

Shandypants 2,

One other important quote and point I would share.

"Our objective is to maximise the commercial part of the business that then relates to what the medicaid price gets set at...while converting the consignment patients over into the commercial side of the business so they can get access to Accrufer and get covered by insurance companies."

The point being that the more the retail sales rise, the better the pricing point for Medicaid, increasing the overall NSP. Also, a patient can start on consignment, but then, through STX work, can later be transferred over to commercial sales. So, additional retail sales have more than one avenue. New and existing consignment converted.

Note the important quote that says "we get paid when our wholesaler buys from us..."

This eliminates the question of wholesalers then needing to make further sales for STX to realise a payment. So, wherever the insurer element and/or the pre-authorisation part comes in should be irrelevant to STX other than driving consignment prescriptions to retail ones by encouraging/ensuring that the insurer provides cover (where possible). Their true job is to drive awareness and retail uptake, and then the rest should take care of itself.

Hi Shandypants,

Firstly, here are the exact quotes from the Investor Meet presentation,

"The 41,000 prescriptions represent demand. The prescriptions that were picked up by patients after a physician wrote them."

"We do not use the 41,000 prescriptions in terms of revenue recognition. We recognise revenue when a title is transferred from Shield to the wholesaler and so when you think about the revenue that is associated with the title transfer, we take the title transfer number as the basis for calculating what our price is. So the $237 that we shared with you as the net price that is the price based on the sale of the units from Shield as a title transfer to our wholesalers, and then you take the revenue associated with that to get to $237."

Then later they said this,

"We get paid when our wholesaler buys from us and that is the discrepancy between that and the number of prescriptions that are filled."

"That difference will increase the bigger we get because they always keep a stock that is constant, about 2-3 weeks of stock."

Nowhere in any of that does it sound like STX has an issue with the insurance element. My understanding is that STX are simply focusing their sales more towards wholesalers who are willing to pay (for whatever reason) a higher (retail-driven) price. They drive that interest by pushing up retail sales and dampening down on consignment ones.

Coverage of course helps, as does clinician awareness, etc which is why they are driving marketing and their sales force focus in those states that are most likely going to add retail sales more quickly.

The more uptake there is the more stock the wholesalers are willing to take, hence why the difference is expected to continue to grow. This point I think is very important because it means even limited further retail sale growth has a greater effect on STX as wholesalers frotn run the demand.

Pursuant is the key word in the statement, which means the conversion is directly linked to the extension agreement.

The risk would have been that AIMSL came back and said no deal or we want better terms. By removing c. $640k from their debt, GRL immediately saves c. $100k per annum in further debt payments + their lender stays on side.

This conversion is an outstanding agreement from April 2024 and is part of the "Amendment Agreement" that saw the standstill agreement date extended to 31st December 2025.

"Pursuant to the Amendment Agreement, AIMSL has also agreed to accept settlement of the interest accrued under the Gold Loan Agreement to 31 December 2023 by the issue to AIMSL of 101,803,680 new Ordinary Shares (the "Conversion Shares")."

There was no getting away from issuing these shares at that price otherwise, the agreement would likely be void. The only reason they didn't get issued earlier is that, up until the 23rd December CLN debt deal, there was no headroom to do so.

As I said earlier having known about this amendment, I was concerned that GRL would push more interest through to take AIMSL to just under 30%. They haven't done that, which is a good signal for where GRL is at production and financially.

Whilst GRL management could certainly improve the quality of their communications, there is no getting away from the fact that clear actions are taking place on site to further increase production from what are already improved levels.

Yes, it is happening slower than investors want, but it is happening. Pit 1 works have commenced. Pad 5 is progressing with its c. 40% extension, which is nearing completion (likely being timed for pit 1 coming online). Pads 3 and 4 second lifts are progressing also.

In terms of risk, we know that the stacking is consistent at 48,000 tons, and the recoveries remain in line with projections. So it should be purely about grade and time to execute only. Meanwhile, the production that is coming through is enjoying record high gold prices.

20,000 items sold at the last one which now we know the average pick per order for Boop equates to around 4,000 orders.

When we consider that Boop's daily order run rate is around 310 as of mid-March then it represents a big opportunity to boost sales. What I also like is the fact that Boop already "delivers a decent absolute margin" (stated 23rd March). So any further growth from here supports the bottom line and their move into profitability.

One last thing worth remembering.

The core gold loan has a base value of $1,500/oz. Yes, that means that AIMSL get paid very well in an elevated gold environment. But what it also means is if gold falls back, then the majority of the loan (1,871 oz) is unaffected by this move down to $1,500/oz. A price that will likely never be seen again.

So, as an example, if gold were to pull back $1,000 from here, it would not affect the core element of what GRL owes. GRL would still owe the physical gold (1,871 oz). That is the swings and roundabouts element of such a deal.

It is the interest where the potential pain can come because it grows at 14% per annum on the full debt. So paying it down is much more critical and this conversion deal removes a healthy chunk at a price that was agreed in April 2024. A time when GRL had far fewer choices. As production grows, and with it we trust the share price their options should expand with it.

Just checked back on the shareholder register and AIMSL had 194.8m shares as of 17.03.25.

So they haven't sold any of their holding in the run up to this conversion = sticky hands.

The initial production target of 12,000 Dore ozs, if converted to troy oz, similar to the conversion rate seen in the January pour, will deliver c. 9,900 troy oz per annum.

The core gold loan sits at 1,871 oz, which represents c. 18.9% of one year's production for GRL.

Whilst it is painful front end is not a major hangover for the business so long as production comes through. Given AIMSL's support to date, I expect a fair and reasonable payment schedule to be agreed this year, which may inevitably come late in the year to give GRL a chance to establish its regular and stable production levels. That will then decide what this deal ends up being like. I expect AIMSL to be rewarded for their patience because that is how these things work. In the meantime, managing interest whilst this ramp up completes is sensible especially if the shares used to pay it go to a sticky owner.

Ian,

The gold loan is broken down into two parts. The actual loan and the interest.

In terms of the gold loan, this is 1,871.43 troy ounces valued at $1,500/oz. GRL is obligated to pay that amount of troy ozs back to AIMSL, and this is not connected to any change in the gold price.

For the interest, this can be paid in cash or gold, but it remains in line with what is owed in actual cash based on the interest calculation of 14% per annum.

Gold loans for non-producing gold plays (see THX as an example) can be expensive over the long run. But if GRL does hit its initial production target, then this debt will fade away as it has done for THX.

To be exact, this conversion today represents 5.44% dilution and not 10% as some seem to think. It is 49m new shares which to date have gone to very sticky hands.

It's 5% dilution.