Member Info for bigpunt

Positive update but Management were remiss in not providing a funding update given the timescales announced. You could also argue they could have given a trading update even if it was uninspiring

It just goes to show how murky Civitas, and their Board, are. They labour the NAV over and over again, then when it comes to selling it is entirely ignored! I feel sorry for the shareholders and leaseholders

I sincerely hope nobody, ever, makes a trade or changes their trade, based on somebody else's trade

Oleric, I think you are having the wrong battle. Of the 4 P's of marketing, I think there is a fairly huge green tick next to Product. Perhaps you could provide your analysis on the other aspects

Has anybody actually read the notice?

"The information seen by the regulator identifies that Auckland is thinly capitalised. While Auckland has received some short-term cash support and fees for entering new lease arrangements which allow it to meet its commitments when they fall due, it has not demonstrated that its financial viability, or the financial implications if risks crystallise, can be effectively managed or mitigated over the life of its contracts."

Now let's have a look at the Civitas balance sheet....

Lease incentives (debtors due > 1 year) £21.5m (up £1m)
Debtors past due > 60 days £2.7m (up £1m)

Murky

Clio, I am allowed to be invested in something that I am critical of. In fact, it normally means the price is one to buy at!

The prospects of the company and the track record of Management are quite different to what I bought in to. As such I have adjusted my holding accordingly.

To be honest, Elrico is the only contributor that has addressed my concerns and developed my thinking, and for that I am grateful.

Elrico, your view is an interesting one. Going back to my original point, I do feel that Management have now backed themselves in to a corner, and you have made an extrapolation that the vendor is perhaps not quite so cordial and, clearly recognising this, may play the game. I am weaving our respective views together in to the point I was originally trying to make.

Anyway, this Exec must know that they now need to 'do something'. This is why I feel we are in a c.12 month period of boom or bust

Aquae, fair enough, you think it could not be clearer. I think it is, at best, obfuscation

The majority of PLC acquisitions that require capital raise are agreed pre-raise, for many obvious reasons. The capital raise is just one of the dependencies to complete the acquisition.

The point I am making Aquae is that the DD is that if Management come out and say they are looking at an acquisition, it should be at least 75% complete with a high likelihood of completion. Because this is clearly not the case, I am suggesting that this was a bluff by Management and I have made my case.

Belgrano, that directly answers you. Clio, sadly I do not offer much credence in the direction of the NOMAD, having met many at the various events I have attended with the QCA

I'm surprised there is so much discussion of the DD tedium. I would have thought more folk would have mentally moved on from the acquisition. I will explain why.

I'm sure there was a deal in some state of progress. Somebody knew someone and agreed the price up front, being the amount the seller 'would be happy with'.

However I cannot understand why Management did not strike the agreements and then raise the cash. It makes absolutely no sense, unless:

1. The Board don't know whether their shareholders would back an acquisition
2. The cash was actually needed to "keep the lights on" *cringe*
3. The seller wouldn't entertain vendor DD unless SBTX showed they were in a position to buy

Sadly I do not believe 1 and 3. If it was 1 or 3, that would reflect poorly on Management.

If it is indeed 2, they have definitely played their final trump card. If they can't get a lucrative deal done before the cash burns out, they know a further raise is highly unlikely and they are toast. As will us investors be

IMO

HX can you please define "it's sector" and "it's peers"

In terms of share price projections, the next 12-24 months will be interesting.

I can see customer numbers going up as small hotel/pubs, tenanted pubs and freeholder pubs close in one way or another. Do they go for growth or continue to pay down debt? I hope the former

I wouldn't get too excited about property value/revaluations. Yes it helps with going concern assessments, but management have no incentive to make a huge non-cash profit. They could actually be accused of having an inefficient property estate if the City knew the true value and their trading was below-par, so it makes sense for them not to revalue

Cost base is far too high. I appreciate there was a comment within HY results alluding (perhaps) to the CFO as an unnecessary expense, but £1m per half year to make and send a dozen-or-two boxes of product per day, is far too high.

In terms of AxisBiotix in isolation, the launch has been abject failure. I hope dear Stuart takes some time to reflect and considers a re-launch. I'm not sure there is a business case for selling this product in new markets based on the last 18 months.

There are other prospects here but there appears to be little progress; and the company has deteriorated, in my view, in all other aspects

The numbers are more than acceptable to me. It looks like they needed to work reasonably hard to get to where they did - lots of open discussion of provision releases. Growth is weighted towards vehicle finance which doesn't excite me but I'm glad this product is performing well.

Central costs - they did mention moving to a central services model - more than we have heard before. I can understand the disruption this causes but it is right for growth ambitions.

I imagine more investment is going through personal loans than we see as they did say they are acquiring bad books. I hope to see significant improvements as they tap the Group's customer base

I felt presentation was a slight improvement in clarity although I was slightly disappointed to see changing KPIs and KPIs using adjusted numbers.

Still, a great starting position for the new CEO (assuming provisions have not been completely emptied)

You obviously how no idea how audit works. One person signs off the audit report. If that person is absent through ill health or whatever, a new partner with sufficient spare time needs finding, and taken on a crash course of how a business operates and how all the audit procedures have been designed and carried out. That's why the share price has not reacted - II's understand this

HX, it will be a new CEO with a fresh perspective on the Group's prospects, delivering the presentation. He has a much better CV than anyone at Vanquis - I can't see him being a mimic.

I am eagerly anticipating his views on strategy. I can't foresee him diluting his views on strategy with endless bleating and slides on credit cards and vehicles

The budget is good news for JDW. Draught costs down, inflation forecast down, Gilt rates down (which will eventually feed in to debt costs), hopefully workforce pressures ease, energy costs easing

I only wish I had piled in at the bottom rather than on route to the bottom!

Well, HX, the CEO drives market comms and that cannot be disputed from my experience. Whilst the CFO will do a fair amount of the donkey work, the CEO drives. On that very point, it will be interesting to see how long the CFO lasts. I have been very critical of some of his slides in the past, how he skims through them, and the arrogance in which he avoids analyst questions. It will be interesting to see whether his output radically changes or whether he 'chooses to step down'

HX I get the feeling you are a bot. We could have easily been wiped out with the regulatory environment of CCD, as with NSF and Morses. But the Board were decisive

What transpired was that we launched 'proper' banking products, and us shareholders got the opportunity to buy in at levels that we will never see again

Building a story around the share price is foolhardy