Member Info for crompton21

Between 1973 and 1979 there were two significant oil crises brought about by Middle Eastern issues. In June 1972 B.O.E base rate was 6%, it finished 1979 at 17% with a few large swings along the way. Let’s all hope that the past is no predictor of the future.

Regarding the 55% figure that you quote, in my experience the way that the commission scheme worked was for the dealer to get a percentage of the additional interest charged over a set base rate. The base rate would tend to rise with the age of the car because of the additional customer protection built into car loans , principally the ability to hand the car back without redress when certain repayment thresholds have been passed.

As an example, if someone borrowed £10k over 24 months at a flat rate of 5% per annum with a dealer base rate of 4% then the additional interest charged over the base rate would be £200. The £200 is what the additional commission was calculated on, so 55% of £200, £110 commission. The dealer commission at 55% is very high, 25% would be more normal.

The buyer in the above example has paid £200 more than they perhaps may have been able to negotiate. I would be very surprised if there were many people who had signed up for agreements at 55%, firstly because the monthly repayment would be huge and secondly because lenders set a maximum rate as well as a minimum and 55% would have been far in excess of the maximum rate.

I purchased a number of these, it was considerably cheaper to buy them in smaller batches, the quote price for 5000 was about 1.5p cheaper than the quote price for 50000. It therefore reduced the spread (and cost) considerably by buying smaller volumes over a few days, even if it did annoy me having to pay repeated dealing charges. Apologies if that’s teaching your grandmother how to suck eggs!

The RNS is a notification of MNG having sold a holding in the company Sigmaroc (which is a mining company) and not the other way round. As another example the RNS on 13/9/23 is MNG increasing its holding in WHS.

I voted (rightly or wrongly) to remain. Having said that, I believe in democracy and the will of the people. Something that I am struggling to see the majority of our political elite doing at the moment.
Consequently I would now vote to leave in order to uphold the will of the people, irrespective of my inner belief being still to remain.
What a mess.....

Having paid £172m for BMI and it’s landing slots at the end of 2012 the landing rights appeared as an intangible asset of over £400m in theBA final year accounts of 2012.

I stand corrected from the replies. Thank you.

Could anyone post a response as to how BA have intangible assets of landing rights (644M) if Flybe can't do the same? Do BA have different landing rights?

So they have zero value then?

Surely they could/should be shown as intangible assets if they contribute to the value of the company (by allowing them to land or take off) and there is the ability to sell them on?

It would appear that there is quite a bit of evidence to confirm that these slots are indeed worth up to 100 million.

I am struggling a little bit to understand how senior management/auditors didn't appear to realise that they were an asset worth more than the collective value of all the companies other assets. The disclosure of their apparent value is a game changer that nobody in the company knew about...or wanted to disclose?

I am not an investor in this company, but I am a little bit intrigued by some numbers in the 2014 admission document. Perhaps someone could shed some light on my questions?

P16. "Stores are typically profitable from the first month with average weekly sales of £14,000" 138 stores at IPO which I believe equates to annual sales of £100,464,000 or £83,720,000 pre vat.

P20. "The Group estimates that it serves 170,000 customers per week in stores. Average spend per head across the Group varies throughout the day and across each of the brands but overall store average spend per head is approximately £8.84." Thus advised sales of (170k X £8.84 X 52) total of £78,154,600 or £65,121,333 pre vat.

Within a few hundred words or so, one sales figure appears to be some 29% higher than the other.

P31. Revenue (prior to cost of sales) £60,112,000. Shouldn't the revenue figure be a little bit closer to one of the above figures, or even the same?

In the light of what has come out recently, should these variances have been a red flag or are they acceptable in an admission document?