Member Info for Extasio

Look at mothercare. Got 1 star on trustpilot and is still up nearly 100% over the last few weeks thanks to their restructuring. Carpetright actually got a a suprisingly good Trustpilot score despite the rumors of bad customer service on other review sites.

CPR offers an attractive upside for investors if CVA and RI are executed. CPR's international and core UK operations are profit making with possible earnings at a very low PE ratio compared to present market cap. Meditor as main shareholder apparently shares a more optimistic outlook and has raised its stake considerably over the last months.

Carillion share price dropped 8% on a similar note. Tried to find some data on typical FCA fines for such cases but couldn't find much info. Any one knows a few examples? I remember a few insider trading investigations but don't recall them resulting in a large fine (say > �10mm). Cheers

Thanks for highlighting this part of the RNS Annie! It would be interesting to have more details on expected cash burn this year to understand this statement in light of the presented figures.

Cost reduction from 380k (H2 2016) to 240k (H2 2017) looks positive. Based on present cash (1.4m) and 2016 expense (0.7m), runway would come to 2 years (not sure where you take the 1 year from goldline). Also, thanks to the latest raise, IRON is debt free. Granting of the water license could be the pivot to secure the smelter funding. My dislikes: *) When the smelter acquisition strategy was revealed about a year ago, PC sold the idea as if funding was "imminent." One year in and we are still in "advanced discussion" on funding. *) No update on the land leases to build the smelters as per original plan. Acceptable to focus on the smelter acquisition but why no word on the original plan?

To your thefierce: I've been holding MTR shares for 1.5 years approx and started to buy in after the 1.5 rights issue. I prefer AIM shares after RIs as they occur frequently and typically are discounted 10-20% or even more to market price. I am tempted to increase my MTR holding and am trying to assess if I shall wait for a potential RI or up my stake now. Amount of Botswana exploration expense is a key cost for MTR and I would like to try to estimate its extent.

MOD Resources is in the process of raising a total of $24mm which will mostly be used for Botswana exploration. 30% of the Botswana assets are owned by MTR. Therefore, one could assume that $8mm (30% of $24mm) need to contributed by MTR for Botswana exploration. However, a recent MTR RNS states that "Metal Tiger to contribute 30% of incurred exploration costs, up to GBP 1.85M at current exchange rates, in line with direct JV holding." Does anyone on here know if MTR's exploration expense will be capped at 1.85M or amount to 30% of MOD's investment? I believe this information is critical to estimate likelihood of another rights issue in the near term.

Have been following this for a while. PE looking indeed attractive at ~7 right now. I am concerned though about the balance sheet. Approx 500mm net debt compared to ~50mm operating profit over the last years and net income after taxes of around 30mm. That's huge leverage. Does anyone know terms of the debt covenants (typically net debt over EBIDTA)? Add to that profit impairment due to stronger competition- may get tight to keep lenders happy although not mentioned in RNS .Also I'm not too impressed with their intangible/goodwill position of 380mm which amount to around half of the assets and which are probably to a large extent due to buying new sites for fast expansion at prices higher than market price.

Not a problem :-) I further increased my holding in Debs today. GLA!

Hi Fruitster, That's a good question. I shared everything here what I was told. Further, I did some research in where the intangibles have arisen from but could not identify the exact trigger event and then came to the conclusion that it is actually not crucial to inform an investment in Debs now. I am not a professional accountant or investment analyst so take the following with a pinch of salt and please feel free to add or amend the following. The intangibles have arisen as either the private equity firm bought Debenhams above book value or as Debs was refloated above book value. Either way the intangibles artificially inflate Debs asset base, particularly, if you were to compare Debs to Next which hasn't had comparable transactions. I see the following pros and cons with regards to the info given on intangibles: Cons: - Artificial inflation of Debs assets. - Risk of write down of the intangibles. Assume only 30% would need to be written down after the annual impairment test, Debs would need to report a large statutory loss that would make the headlines and likely lead to a notable share price drop. Pros: - ~85% of Intangibles originate from the historic transaction and little Intangibles were added in the following 10 years. This indicates stability opposed to companies like Carillion and Steinhoff that materially increased their Intangible/Goodwill positions over the last couple of years prior to crashing. - No material write-downs of Intangibles have occurred for over a decade which shows that Debenhams has been robust towards their impairment test (but of course that could change if profitability falls). The key questions seem to be how much margin of safety is left towards a write down and if the information given in the annual report is sufficient for estimating it.

I asked Debenhams' investor relations team a few questions around intangibles: - Where do the intangibles originate from? - When did they arise? - Is there information available on how the annual impairment tests are conducted? - Have there been larger goodwill/intangible impairments to Debenhams in the past? They kindly replied promptly as follows: With regards your question on intangibles. These arose on the acquisition of Debenhams by a private equity backed group in 2003, when the group was taken off the equity market and subsequently refloated in 2006. There are some small additional items relating to store acquisitions made in the subsequent period but these are not material. In the annual report (just published) we give the following details of the impairment review process, which occurs annually... [quoted page 111 of the 2017 Annual Report]. There has been no impairment of goodwill. The small asset impairments made in the recent past relate to software write-offs.

Re to Gerry's comment on Debs intangibles. They are indeed rather high compared to book value or MCAP. Next by comparison almost doesn't have any intangibles or goodwill on the balance sheet. I also would like to know why Debs has such large sum of intangibles particularly compared to Next. Anyone understands this? Although the high intangibles make for a weaker balance sheet, I agree that Debs seems to be undervalued overall.

Agreed with Troy. Lots of broken promises and and missed targets. If the planned smelter acquisition fails and is delayed beyond Q1 2018, I would like to see Peter Cox's head roll. We can't just go on on overly optimistic forecasts, weak business execution and dramatically dropping share price. A new CEO is probably the best a shot to turn Iron around...

Reassuring and agreed on Acacia. Was able to buy near the low then sold at 5% plus. I rarely daytrade but that was a catch :)

This: https://mem.go.tz/press-release-export-ban-of-metallic-mineral-concentrates-and-ore/ Acacia Mining for example is affected with share price down 18% atm. Now the question is how much of Shanta's gold exports are unrefined... anyone?