Member Info for Globex

No, adjusted EBITDA does not give an accurate reflection of the underlying business.

Those accounting standards I refer to are important because there are rules governing them, whereas adjusted EBITDA does not have to follow any set standards.

This allowed them to exclude all these costs from their "Adjusted EBITDA" for FY23:

"foreign exchange movements, material one-off items, and onerous contract provisions and losses incurred"

That's an irregularly high number of exclusions and raises a lot of questions, such as why are losses from those contacts left out, what are those one-offs, if they keep happening can they be accurately called one-offs, etc

No other company will have this exact combination of exclusions, making it impossible to compare with anything.

Which brings me to the main point.

Unlike adjusted EBITDA, statutory profit/loss is crystal clear - it has to include all costs by design. It's therefore an absolutely fundamental measurement of a company's success, or otherwise.

You can't be serious. EBITDA is not even a recognised accounting principle under GAAP or IFRS.

"you name one public company that doesn’t report on an EBITDA basis"

That did make me laugh though, thanks for that. You can't have looked at many accounts.

As a random example here's Next's annual report: https://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/7124H_1-2024-3-21.pdf You will not find EBITDA mentioned once.

Totally agree that revenue and cash key.

I would go even further on EBITDA on this share and say forget it because they perpetually present it on a highly adjusted basis. They throw in a load of one off costs that are anything but, and as a consequence it's totally unrepresentative of actual underlying profitability (or loss as was case here in 2022 and 2023). The statutory number - aka actual bottom line profit/loss - is the one to focus on here. They can't mask anything with that one.

True Corryvreckan1. Her biggest ETF ARKK has underperformed S&P500 and other US main indexes over many years now. ARKG is if anything a bigger disaster.

The funny part is even if she had a decent track record, her buying tangentially related stocks still wouldn't in itself boost Oxford Nanopore, given the differences between individual companies in any given sector.

Plenty of successful fund managers have picked LVMH. Doesn't mean we can claim Burberry must therefore be a good buy just because it's also a luxury stock.

This has been a good example of how not to run a plc. Or any company for that matter. Everything from paying employees late, raising money from IPO investors based on guidance that turned out to be wildly inaccurate, suspending shares through late accounts.

Even now in its dying days as a plc the car crash continues.

FY23 revenue below even downgraded guidance they issued after that year had closed.

Opener of accounts RNS says adjusted EBITDA of £4.5 million, market opens, then they update and say sorry we actually mean to say lost that much. Even that is highly flattering because scroll down further and actual statutory loss was £17.97m.

"It was an observation on successful fund manager thinking and rationale not a drilldown into individual stocks obviously."

Well we are on the board of an individual stock, so far from being obvious it was misleading of you mention her when she has absolutely zero connection to this stock

"it is just replacement discs"

I know, OP asked for price per disc, this was answering his question

Sounds right, I imagine something like a 991 GT3 would be a typical application, and below link for example has them at £6.3k for front pair, then rear would be same again. Bear in mind that's retail mark up with VAT, the company will obvs be selling to retailer for less.

https://www.design911.co.uk/p/carbon-ceramic-replacement-front-brake-disc-set-porsche-991-gt3---gt3rs/

Neither Cathie Wood nor any Ark ETFs hold this stock.

Fwiw the other main fund Train appears to hold Burberry in is the Finsbury Growth & Income Trust plc, which is incidentally similarly below UK indexes on any recent timeframe. Shows his trying to blame UK markets for his woeful recent record is disingenuous. To cap it all they don't do much better outside of UK either, the Global Fund is - as you'd expect - also a mile behind MSCI world.

Truthfactory also worth factoring in the options re whether investable. Per annual report directors have options over 6,000,000,000 shares exercisable at 0.03p, plus more at other prices. So even without factoring in CLN the 6bn options alone would have dramatic impact on share count.

The more you look at it the more strange this deal is. The two companies couldn't be more different. Raises question of how did it come about, must be connections. Can't be coincidence they both have Peterhouse Capital as broker.

Reading between the lines Hamak probably approached Peterhouse and said hi guys we're going to run out of money can you help. Peterhouse sure let's raise but then look at their lowly market cap and realise no chance there. But hang on, Peterhouse know just the guys who can help, get on phone, hi Vela can you please dilute your shares instead. Vela say sure, gives us something to do. Peterhouse earn fees from both clients, win win!

Fair enough being stuck with a UK mandate does mean slim pickings at the best of times, and I suppose at least he puts himself out there. I'm sure he comes across well in interviews, you have to be a convincing salesman in that role.

But checking the data, the Lindsell Train UK Equity fund has now underperformed both FTSE100 and FTSE250 separately on 1, 3 and 5 year ranges. That's not great, let's be honest.

It does seem like an odd deal. Looks like a roundabout way for Vela to be able to dilute shares for cash through a third party. Sort of thing they've had to resort to from never keeping enough cash on hand.

Given Hamak have zero revenue and are not in the business of investing in unrelated companies, they'll presumably be selling their 13% of Vela shares not long after they get them, which will put further pressure on Vela's share price. Getting involved with a pre-revenue micro cap LSE miner rarely ends well for anyone.

It's fair to say Train has lost quite a bit of credibility over last few years. Not that picking UK stocks has led to much glory for many active managers lately, but even amongst them he's really started to stand out as a serial underperformer.

Nonetheless thanks to his position alone Burberry will have to politely nod along while he muses they should lock the stable door after horse has already left.

You may not like it, but very simply sufficient working capital for at least 12 months from date of admission is an aim listing requirement.

Strange how even stating on topic facts provokes these emotional responses.

This is a plc not a cult.

https://www.pwc.co.uk/risk/assets/pdf/guide-floating-aim-listing-london.pdf

Biggest hurdle is sufficient working capital for at least 12 months from the date of admission, given negligible revenue and a very top heavy payroll.

Sorry to interrupt the reach around but mention of Martin Broughtwood and 0.6p is a bit selective given the price he ultimately dumped shares, and worse still via a third party without initially disclosing to the market.

I wouldn't get too excited, even a 100% gain would put it below the share price of one week ago.

Argo holders so quiet now we don't even get the odd one pop up trying (but failing) to reprimand us for talking about decent miners!

Yesterday didn't want to jinx it mate, and to be honest it's hard to not post coming across as a bit self-congratulatory on such epic days, but long may it continue.