Member Info for ElvisRocks

You keep believing in those FT journalists Wolff, put them in front of a High Court Judge you may find you get a different answer as to the facts … you keep wanting to go back to your RNS prophecy and think the lawyers bill is a load of junk.

Like I said Friday if you believe it is a load of junk, phone Judge Isgur as it’s perjury to wilfully tell or submits untruths to a court or make misrepresentations

bore bore bore Wolff, you are self confessed in having no experience in the audit or accounting community and you now want to spout off about your expertise in Big 4 / Big 12 without having a clue what has been going on for the last 10 years or more in this area. You choose to be the self confessed expert in every area of the game, no offence meant but are you a narcissist who loves the sound of his own voice or words?

And before you ask I’m fact checking you and giving you a not unreasonable interpretation of what the direction of travel is via the lawyers letter. I am of course not party to the actual correspondence or meetings, yours is a one way diatribe that the RNS “trumps all”

Again Wolff, it’s “a..se covering” RNS, managed by lawyers, who have no / little expertise in going concern - they are words people, not numbers people with a vested interest in risk aversion public reporting …

Wolff, the Big 4 underwrite worldwide capital markets, the odd scandal is quickly yesterdays fish and chip powder, the big 4 keep their own counsel helped by thousands in their compliance and risk management departments. I suspect you wouldn’t get far in a big 4 boardroom, nor with a Panorama or FT journalist. Have you ever thought perhaps someone may litigate against these individuals to prove their facts not just what they put in a newspaper? Oh no, that’s because you chose to read / hear what is put in front of your or that your 3 ears choose to listen to.

Wolff, big 4 take too much in advisory fees? Have you not heard the Big 4 are separating their audit / non audit business in 2024? Slaughter and May charged $2.4m in ONE MONTH, pwc charged that for the whole audit!

Oh, and by the way, Slaughter and May charged a big chunk of that for “advisory fees on the RNS” and even it seemed ran / were the major contributor at the audit committee and wrote the minutes!! (as pwc had a bit part role due to their no needing to be involved in half year process).

Check your facts Wolff ….

Nope Wolff, not irresponsible at all, far from it, wouldn’t trust an ft journalists as far as I could throw one, they are clueless when they go to briefing meetings and often send people with ZERO knowledge at all. I’ve been at meetings when they have sent someone with a knowledge in public health to a corporate meeting.

Perhaps a trip down regulatory lane or parliamentary committee will awaken your naivety. I have been at the sharp end of too many spats over corporate failure.

Your knowledge of going concern is wrong - Cine IS a going concern at the moment (not IS NOT), it is still operating even day of the week at the moment isn’t it? It is the C11 process that allows this, and there is a good chance it will come out of this and continue to operate, albeit that there is a chance that it may not. The outcome is uncertain

I stand by my interpretation of the lawyers bill and an ability to read between the lines, your position is that you will believe a journalist or wirecard and replay that situation. 1:1. Suggesting you have not been at the sharp end of the reality how this gets played out.

The RNS is risk averse, advised by lawyers, in a “hands held” position. A dose of cynicism would serve you well.

Correct Hexam even ..

Correct Wolff, accounts say 4979+ convertible loan 189 minus cash at bank plus overdraft 20 = 4832 so best part of $5bn ignoring other items in note 19 accounting offsets kicking around elsewhere, I was typing too fast or going off my weekend memory when I thought (perhaps incorrectly) total debt including leases was in the $8bn region hence why I plucked that $4bn earlier

Good points Wolff, you and I are aligning a little closer now, I would tend to agree DIP are in the power seats … and Investec (somewhere).

typing not trying

Thanks Wolff, I’m trying too quick before absorbing your fuller analysis below

Sorry that was me who said $4bn was the year end position (which it is in the annual report), sort of by chance that may or may not be related, to the $4bn Ad hoc that Hexam quotes

Wolff or Hexam, so if we have gone from $4bn at year end to $6bn now (per Hexam) the movement, ie the DIP of $1.94bn, are we saying that is a non recoverable loan, and on a standstill basis (what Wolff is suggesting will fall away with new co), we are effectively back at $4bn.

Wolff, in fact only 5 days old since issue … and you think auditors are sceptical?An RNS written by lawyers doesn’t cut the mustard

https://www.frc.org.uk/news/november-2022/frc-publishes-what-makes-a-good-environment-for-au

Oh Wolff, you are naive! Of course it is an important concept but we are at a “hands tied” position. If I wasn’t correct why would the FRC - a force for good - bring all these cases (at any one time they have an inbox of 100+ cases) mainly against the Big 4, not always.

So many of these cases are about going concern and goodwill, the answer that “we put it in an RNS” doesn’t wash.

The reality here is that a heap of work is going on in the background for that exact reason - that Cine will be a going concern not destined for the scrap heap as those RNS would have you believe… or put another way the direction of travel hint is in those lawyers bills, not the RNS.

By the way Wolff, I am not suggesting the directors are not taking this seriously, of course they. It is a review of the Ashurst and SM legal bill that shows how inundated the specified non executive directors are (including the ex Deloitte and ex KPMG partners). Of course they know the score, what is required and are well versed in all these procedures. Add to this the whole host of directors indemnifications and listing rules requirements, you are at a “hands tied” position … advised by lawyers …

Now imagine how anyone is going to break a stranglehold on this, no way.

Expect a clean audit report not taking an adverse or opposing views to those of the directors or lawyers. It’s a “slam dunk” except for what goes in the viability statement … on 30 April 2023

Wolff. No. I’ve been there, got the t-shirt and all that on this going concern stuff and that’s how the dynamic works. Of course the directors have to follow the listing rules, the world is now so risk averse, and guess what, the lawyers were in the driving seat filling their boots

Pwc were nowhere near this at interims - and were absolutely not required to be - they will be maintaining their stance and this comes through on their docket and also slaughter and may submissions, where you can see they had a call with pwc who granted them half and hour or so. My suggestion this would be fishing around wording on RNS stuff and going concern- pwc risk management would have issued a steer clear. So yip, it was the lawyers in charge with the directors. What do lawyers know about going concern - they are words people, not numbers people.

Get with the pace Wolff and how the dynamic is currently getting played out. I stand my position how this will be getting played out. Go and have a dig around Thomas Cook or HBOS if you want to sense more.

… please …

Wolff or Hexam

Can one of you make sense of this crap

At the weekend we broadly concluded Cine had $8bn of debt - $4bn debt, $4bn leases. Today Hexam, you said loans went up to $5 or even $6bn.

Yet Motley Fool about half way down suggest the $1bn the judge gave them relief on, i.e, knocks $1bn off the total loans bill. Was the $1bn just transferring $1bn from one lender to another, drawing down $1bn from an available facility or something else.

I’m now lost what the total loans bill WAS AND IS NOW, and who has take the haircuts on loans?

https://www.fool.co.uk/2022/11/19/2-penny-stocks-to-watch-closely-in-2023/

Agree with your point on going concern statements being more useful at the smaller listed end, unfortunately though (any) auditor doesn’t have the balls the qualify a listed company because it is a self fulfilling prophecy downwards fast - Thomas Cook and Carillion being examples or even HBOS during the financial crises - much better to find “enough evidence to support the directors opinion” and run with that, rather than pull the trigger

Picture the scene at a board meeting in April if pwc rock up and say they are going to qualify the accounts after everything the company is going through now, all hell would break lose, if they are going to do it they need to do it now

In other words, expect a clean audit opinion in April 2023

Wolff, my point on going concern was the auditors (pwc) are nowhere near the interims, they have no requirement only at full year, so if you cycle back to December 2021 they will be copious material in their audit report and also in the viability statement that all listed companies are required to produce, so we won’t hear anything more decent until 30 April 2023

As you know it is the directors who are required to produce going concern statements so at the interim, the directors were most probably so busy, they allowed slaughter and may to go p-tong on advisory so they filled their boots with advisory fees on the RNS (you can see this in the lawyers s bill). As Cine has two ex seniors auditors o it’s board, one from Deloitte one from KPMG, they would have been inundated with documentation and emails from Slaughter and May, who “guess what” put their legalese on it.

Whilst of course the going concern statements we see are / were a necessity under the listing rules, not to mention protection that the directors need, it is the lack of balance to reality of what is happening that bugs me, all while the lawyers are in charge, filling their boots.

Have a look at any company’s viability statement (in the front end) even Cine’s that’s where the action is. Unfortunately for us, the real action in terms of (audited) viability statements we won’t see in. Cine’s case until 30 April 2023