Member Info for Globex

Unless we're talking MM's commercial property portfolio? That's seen pretty spectacular growth to be fair.

Did seem a bit sus the deal RNS landed when Brent pretty much at a 15 month low and also happening to be when it fell below the $80 used in their modelling.

Before this becomes accepted here to point out that we do not know that PIs make up 20% of the shareholding here.

All we know for certain numbers wise is the major shareholders x2. Anything else is guesswork but if we are throwing estimates around it's always striking looking at any Hurricane documentation both a) how few major shareholders are listed IIs and b) how few IIs there are, big two aside.

During the FSP holdings over 1% had to be disclosed and unusually we saw very few of those. What might also be telling is that the board only secured irrevocables from those two, they didn't bother with any other holders, implying nobody else was significant enough to bother with. So the evidence suggests remaining holdings are spread thinly amongst a large number of shareholders, so it could even be that PIs make up the majority of the 55% rump.

Which is all a long way of saying your vote could make the difference here.

Impossible to quantify but we do know that 44.92% are voting for the deal (Crystal Amber + Kerogen + Director measly holdings), of the 75% required for it to go through. Remaining 55.08% shareholders unknown. Long shot frankly but so was it last time.

"with respect.... I think your mindset is wrong ..."

Too funny, lse never disappoints.

Maybe he'll prove everyone wrong and a master strategist will reveal himself, in the meantime we can only really judge on numbers. We're now looking at 6+ years of consecutive losses here. The company is a 19 years old retailer than a nimble startup. Revenue grew very respectably through acquisition but now Softbank and IPO cash depleted there's a finite cash runway. Grand plans are very admirable. Let's at least hope he can break even first.

He personally made tens of millions when this floated and anyone who bought his shares at IPO got absolutely wrecked so it's very jarring that all he's done since is moaned about being a PLC. If he were honest he would say the thing he doesn't like about is the accountability that comes with it.

Investors can see through bs in a way that his social media sycophants and his employees in their 20s can't. Well past time to show some humility.

These amateurs will have to resubmit that RNS, share count at end wrong

"Application will be made to the London Stock Exchange plc (the "London Stock Exchange") for the admission of 6,50,000 new Ordinary Shares"

It's a poor track record for sure, be interesting to see how this latest attempt to oust him plays out. Crystal Amber are in winddown mode so could be last roll of the dice before they have to take a massive bath.

Beyond personnel and company specific problems, I wonder if the issues here might be more structural and not necessarily resolvable by shuffling chair. Polymer notes have an unfortunate (from company point of view) habit of lasting much longer than paper ones. Cash use on the decline. IDs are going digital. It would be hard to push back those tides even without the various scandals here.

With Crystal Amber's Albion bait-n-switch and then that proposal mysteriously disappearing they sadly lost a lot of credibility. Even moreso now we know how far advanced their talks and the deal with Prax was.

What stands out most now from their RNS there though imo is a reminder of how much cash was promised via the Hurricane board in the absence of a deal. It quantifies just how much Prax benefiting from their meagre input. As a standalone we would also retain our current development rights for future management with imagination.

Yes pump failing risks but that would apply to Prax DCUs anyway.

Must be, numbers were otherwise pretty stellar imo. I can't think of any other UK plc that increased revenue and gross profit by more than 50% this year. The thing is she owns more than 20% of the company so perhaps market also now anticipating her selling in future for first time. Until replacement appointed could be choppy but otherwise company underpinned by quality.

Wonder if it will turn out that it's Wicks is the person subject to related party investigation? If so buying at a premium could be a belated attempt to garner some goodwill back. He sold as high as 83p+ so can afford to buy a bit back at 10p. Lots for auditors to unpick here.

Disagree. To other folks reading posts like this wanting you to feel disillusioned, don't let them.

So far all we know for sure that 44.89% will be voting yes. We have no idea how the other 55.11% will be voting. That's a lot of unknowns when 75% is required for this deal to be approved.

One thing that's always been unusual about our register is the relatively high proportion of PIs and - big 2 aside - relatively low proportion of IIs. Are the odds stacked against us? Definitely. This is a David and Goliath, all the same I'll be voting no thanks.

She'll be a tough act to follow. Ends on a high here, revenue and gp up 50%+ yoy coming after already successive years of growth is impressive.

With debt at this level enterprise value rather market cap is key metric. Ignore the £2 billion figure, the company should not be putting out such a misleading number. Last audited figures go all the way back to 30 Sep 21, no visibility since then, so all investors have to go on since then is board guidance. The question becomes can we trust that?

What we do know is there are related party transactions and that they sold 2,800 plots for £9.5m. Most recent numbers given on 06/09/22 and 25/01/23 paint two very different pictures, both covering same period (eg losses increased £50m+). Lets go with their Jan figs. If nav has now dropped to £90m - presumably after that 2,800 plot giveaway - and debt is £100m you can see how they quickly cancel each other out.

What a twist. If the government does soften the EPL will be a gamechanger here.

It would be very difficult for the Hurricane board to roll back from citing the levy as reason for diminished interest in the sale. It would naturally follow that the deal would have to be binned. Alternatively if board were brave enough to proceed as is with a hypothetically lower EPL, it would simply be one I'd be adding to long list of reasons to vote no.

If this forum was just people saying how great companies were it would be pretty boring. Lively debate or sober commentary much more interesting than just ramping, in my opinion. Luckily there aren't rules against it either.

You don't have to be invested here to find it an interesting cautionary tale. Investors have lost fortunes here. At one stage it promised to upend the entire UK real estate market, but with hindsight we can say it was just riding the back of the 2010s tech boom, not backed by much substance. The disrupter was itself disrupted.

Bear in mind he personally raised £15 million+ when this floated, funny he doesn't mention that. Any poor souls who bought those shares at IPO got totally wrecked.

He could have injected cash back or even taken it private for a tiny fraction of the funds he rinsed, but didn't need to do that as the incredible deal for him meant he could retain his shareholding, for free.

Frisby colluded with Baaj, they are laughing here by being effectively gifted the company. I don't know how Frisby sleeps at night?

Interesting points Pro. Even if the vote is a regular special resolution requiring 75% of vote I reckon there's still a good chance this vote could be borderline for the board. This share has always been atypical with a good chunk of private investors, we can make the difference. Yes there are some prolific posters who will try to wear away at morale to make it look like it's hopeless, from what I'm seeing that's not the case.

We could even get a wildcard scenario like a fund spotting an opening by taking out a short on CRS while hedging by frustrating the vote here. Conversely someone with the capital may well spot the opening that with SP close to cash and potentially being held back by a weak deal, that there's an opportunity to be had by tipping it to a no.

Whoever made the point that board must at least be a bit nervous to have issued the Q&A is bang on.