Cobus Loots, CEO of Pan African Resources, on delivering sector-leading returns for shareholders. Watch the video here.
Just the 15.4m rise in net imports against 6m build in total stocks. Do the maths. Demand is good. Even bearish oil traders will face this reality at some point.
Not convinced this is anything more than creative interpretation by journalists and analysts.
Personally can't see anything stated on Saturday that wasn't stated on Friday, e.g. OPEC and Non OPEC partners will return to 100% conformity levels from July 1st. The fact that they achieved a 147% conformity level on the £1.8m barrel reduction in May infers an increase of 900m barrels would be required to return to agreed reduction levels. This looks like it has been creatively rounded up to £1m. And its still all on paper, the reality of getting back to 100% conformity may be somewhat different, and slightly more complex.
Saturday's OPEC press release attached, but happy to be proved wrong if someone has greater detail or a different release.
http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/press_room/5081.htm
All commodities taking a small hit today. The strengthening dollar will no doubt have a role to play in that.
Orange tree, irrelevant now as this is done and dusted, however my exact point was that you have no quantifiable facts but expressed your opinion as if that was the case. All we know is that the lending group have maintained a debt facility of �102m (term, revolving, invoice discounting - who knows?) and that C&C have agreed to pay this off over the next 12 months. We have absolutely no idea how much C&C and AB InBev have additionally paid to resolve additional debt over and above the �102m (potentially up to another �30 - �60m), who picked up the cash, where the tax bill resides or how much extra was stumped up to cover overdue trade payables. We further have absolutely no idea how much net debt remained with conviviality plc, albeit on the basis it has gone into administration today we can assume it can't be small else such a move would make no sense. My point is that for someone who clearly likes to style themselves as a guru, you clearly should not be making wild assumptions based on newspapers and claiming they are facts. I do however agree with you that the management are clearly bent and am truly disappointed that we have received no announcement of an SFO, FCA investigation into how this unravelled, given, according to C&C, state of the art systems available to the management.
Orangetree Care to qualify with facts your statement below, and please tell me that it wasn't from the Telegraph article, which was a work of fiction. "As for Conviviality, it is still responsible for �78m of debt.......And it still owes HMRC �30m. Make that �108m in liabilities." Don't get me wrong what has happened here is a disgrace and as things currently stand I don't see investors getting anything out of the retail business, just as they haven't out of the direct business, however, unless you can back up your statement with hard facts then please consider the value of posting anything at all. While the board of this business is clearly capable of the most incompetent of decisions, there is no logic to suggest why any net debt, or a tax bill, that is likely to be linked to stock coming out of bonded warehouses, should be remaining and attributed to the retail business. As such please qualify your statements. I am genuinely fascinated.
Cannacord bought Hargreaves Hale. HH manage funds as discretionary portfolios primarily for private investors. Not a new II and highly unlikely to be lending shares.
2reincarnated. Do you understand the debt structure of Conviviality? Do you understand that they have around 30% headroom before the covenants are tested? Do you understand that the leverage ratio based on current guidance will come in at around 1.6 this April against an allowable factor of 2.5? Do you understand that based on current debt the adjusted EBITDA would need to drop to around �40m before covenant tests or breaches even enter the narrative? Outside of a further downside profit warning indicating a 40% miss on prior market expectations, there will be NO covenant breach. Period. This smacks of Glencore 2016. Now undervalued by 2 or 3 times over a near / medium term basis. Only question is which management team will be in place to realise this value gain. More information in a few weeks time, but until then ignore the noise, games and fear being created.
But one also assumes that the highly skewed service also doesn't cater for the many millions, whom as clients of 'Expensive, Useless and Condasending High Street Estate Agents plc', also have a negative experience to impart to the often non existent customer service team (frequently Dorothy on reception or Clyde the office junior) or are less than impressed with Boris (the jumped up, undereducated and overpaid partner) who, having done nothing more than stress what a wonderful property the client owned which should most definitely achieve a premium price to the market, then proceeded to advice 5% be lopped off the price on a sequential basis every month thereafter. Just an assumption obviously.
Hi lukehere I quickly scanned through your attached article and if anything could only see the positives in it it, i.e. more and more diverse businesses producing OTT content. I couldn't however see how it was in any way negative for ZOO who do not produce content themselves but localisations services for content providers. If it is a cloud on the horizon it looks to me as if it is a big fluffy white one with an even bigger yellow smiley face in the middle as it offers a more diverse set of clients for Zoo to provide their services to. If I have missed the part of the article that explains where Amazon are providing localisation software and services then please correct me and accept my apologies.
Ah Cracken, a post full of capital letters to emphasis your well thought out prose, and further confirmation of the very reason filtering won't be reciprocal, it would deprive me of much humour and a reminder of how many less fortunate people there are in this world. I am pleased however that your delusional rants won't be any further befuddled by trying to absorb educated research, information and analysis. If of course any of you hick chancer chums would care to read my posts from a week ago, and spell them out to you in basic English and capital letters of course, then I would be delighted to have a grown up discussion on this disruptive business, moving through a transformational phase with a first mover advantage product and strong management, operating off the back of an outstanding set of financials.
findahappyplace Just ignore Cracken and his meaningless ramblings. At best he is probably casuistic in nature and probably suffering from a dissociative identity disorder. At worst he is part of a 'two bit' bunch of hick chancers. Either way this post won't offend him as we have already established that he has reading difficulties.
findahappyplace Just ignore Cracken and his meaningless ramblings. At best he is probably casuistic in nature and probably suffering from a dissociative identity disorder. At worst he is part of a 'two bit' bunch of hick chancers. Either way this post won't offend him as we have already established that he has reading difficulties.
In summary, and as stated by the Chairman in his report, the interims presented were a highly robust set of financial numbers, both in terms of building a capital base for future expansion while maintaining profitability today, and moreover in achieving an operational cash flow position that is clearly going from strength to strength. There are clearly games at play currently, and make your own mind up with regards to how you position yourself within them, however don�t be fooled by those who will lead you to believe that ZOO�s recent financial interims were poor. They were anything but.
Trade Receivables While much has been documented about the increase in trade receivables and its impact on cash flow, I would put forward that this is in fact an extremely positive development. Until this half year, ZOO have had to rely on the use of invoice financing to fund their operational cash flow. I wont go into the detail of invoice financing (some specifics relevant to ZOO can be found in last years annual report on page 52), however in addition to it being a cost based means of cash flow management, it does not carry great credibility amongst clients. The fact that ZOO are in a position to carry such a higher trade receivables number, is testimony to the company�s �new found standing� with its lenders given far greater fluidity in revenue receipts. For those questioning the validity of the above it is backed up by both a deeper analysis of debt interest, and endorsed by Finncap in their recent note. Finncap stated, �Importantly, we understand that ZOO�s working capital cycle and cash position is no longer affecting operations, as the company is using short-term debt when necessary�. In essence a short term overdraft facility. As mentioned, this is further endorsed when looking at debt interest. - Over the FY�s 2016/17 and 2017/18 ZOO have paid debt interest on the following; CLN�s, Insider Loans (Sara Green), Invoice Financing and Lease Financing - The Sara Green Loan and one of the CLN�s were repaid through equity in May 2017. - Zoo reported total debt interest of $221,000 for H1 2017 / 18 and $291,000 for H1 2016 / 17. - The CLN / Loan interest for H1 2017 / 18 was circa $138,000 (including a May 2017 cost of $12,700 for the closed loan and CLN) and $189,000 in H1 2016 / 17. - Stripping the above out of the reported interest for each year would give a remaining interest figure of $83,000 for 2017 / 18 and $102,000 for 2016 / 17. These remaining interest figures comprise lease interest and any remaining working capital interest payments. - It is my understanding that lease interest payments are increasing, however notwithstanding this it is fundamentally clear that ZOO�s interest payments on operational cash flow requirements have substantially reduced, and quite possibly by a dramatic amount (and all at a time where work in progress has increased by 60% over the corresponding period). The extent of the decrease will only really be shown in the full year report. This clearly backs up the theory, and Finncap�s note, suggesting ZOO now have the financial muscle and liquidity with the banks to operate on short-term overdraft facilities, as opposed to the high interest-bearing route of invoice financing. Continued in a third post.
I posted the following on a different site as a means of clarifying some of the misinformation currently being spread around the H1 Financials and in particular adjusted earnings and trade receivables / cash flow. There are clearly a number of chancers and speculators around the stock at the moment whose only apparent ammunition would be to try and put a negative spin on the H1 financials. While any serious investor in ZOO understands that the 2017 / 18 financial performance is of little relevance to the story unfolding in the business, the below shines a light on just how strong the 2017 / 18 interims were given the clear business focus on investing in sustainable high quality growth. I will focus on adjusted earnings, margin, trade receivables and debt interest. Adjusted Earnings There were a number of exceptional items in the H1 P&L, in addition to a negative FX adjustment. Re stating the accounts both this year and last year as adjusted figures with the removal of the FX adjustment, Share based payments and CLN conversion cost would give the following headlines. (All figures stated as $000�s) - Adjusted EBITDA $1,339 (2016 - $996) +34.4% v�s LY - Adjusted Operating Profit $604 (2016 - $320) +88.8% v�s LY - Adjusted Profit Before Tax $383 (2016 - $29) +1,221% v�s LY - Adjusted Earnings $605 (2016 - $285) +112.3% LY I won�t go into detail on forward estimates however 2 numbers for conjecture would be - Estimated Adjusted Full Year Earnings $883 (2016 - $178) +396% v�s LY - 2018 / 19 Estimated Full Year Earnings $4,320 Margin At 63.3% the gross margin surpassed my own expectations given knowledge of gross margin investment in both dubbing and a broader / varied subtitling client base. Of more interest to me was the administration cost expenditure (excluding A&D). At $6,719 (2016 $4,930) it represented an increase of $1,789 or 36% v�s LY. Clearly this was to be both expected and desired given the stated investment in growth. Of greater interest however was the cost represented as a % of revenue, coming in at 52.8% compared with 63.2% in 2016. This clearly demonstrates the leverage being achieved against operational assets even in a year of stated growth investment. I would estimate this dropping further to circa 46% in 2018/19. I will continue in a second post.
Please don't take this personally, it is out of genuine concern for you, but do you have reading difficulties? The word credibility existed nowhere in either question I asked, nor was it remotely inferred? I was merely questioning your sanity and imagination which are fundamentally different traits. As a bit of advice however, I do think you should re-consider listening to the thoughts of your imaginary friends. They sound a little unscrupulous and lacking in a detailed understanding of the business and industry if they are advising you a price will be 50p one day and within 72 hours have changed their minds to a price 60% higher. Any well researched investor wouldn't have been surprised at all by todays announcement, simply pleased with the calm and assured positivity of the outlook statement, immediate pipeline and solid base being built for Zoodubs. I have absolutely no idea what the price will be at the end of the week. There are just far too many short term variables that can and will impact the short term price in both a North and South direction. I do however expect the price to be trading in a range of �2.00 to �3.00 within an 18 - 24 month timeframe. For completeness, Finncap, who are genuine brokers rather than imaginary ones, have upgraded their 12 month target price to 97p, while also upgrading FY revenue forecasts to $26m. Hope that sort of answers your question. Now as I directed I will run off like a little boy, although my 2 year old by the way uses the words "run away" rather than "run off".
Cracken / dactions. You both are talking utter nonsense and have absolutely no idea what share options are. You should be ashamed for such uneducated ramblings. The executive team have options that vest over a period of 3 years. A percentage of those options vested in September 2017. Options allow the individuals to purchase shares at a stated price. They in no way whatsoever relate to selling shares albeit like any shareholder once an individual has purchased options they have a right to sell them. The award of options once vested is SUBJECT TO performance criteria being met. A number of the recent options awarded were to replace options awarded in 2008 which have now been cancelled as they did not contain performance criteria. Of the options that vested in September 2017, to my knowledge there have been no director selling and as such, if performance (profit that, is not share) criteria was attained the individuals may have taken the options but clearly not sold the shares. I have no issue with anyone posting a personal view, but at least caveat it with the view being a personal one based on absolutely nothing and in the main fundamentally inaccurate. Best wishes