Member Info for Hexam

That kind of thing had crossed my mind too as it sits together quite nicely (and would also explain the board silence) except I don't think MA would be waiting to see a recovery or be prepared to offer such a premium as that's not his style is it? I thought he was more of predator taking advantage and striking when businesses are on their knees?

Yes, there is cash cost of leasing the property where previously there was none.

In terms of profit there is also a cost of leasing (not the same as the cash cost but similar) and this will be more than the cost of owning the property (which goes through depreciation with the £72m spread over 50 years so just under £1.5m a year).

Of course they may derive additional benefits from generating this cash (e.g. if for a business opportunity or lower interest from repaying debt).

As to narrowing the number of buyers it's as with any deal. The harder the bargain you try to drive the less likely you are of obtaining it.

Again, to stress, we don't know for sure that they are even trying to sell the building.

"The £125mil.of savings identified, does that include the sale of these offices?"

It's not a saving - just a way of raising short term cash. It actually increases costs, not reduce them.

"No reason to sell all those shares at a low price...."

Of course there are reasons - just as with any share suffering at a low price. There are always sellers and buyers at any price on any share - no need to look for conspiracy theories.

Or you could look through Obelix's posts and see how he regularly makes things up including additional identities to promote his ramping.

Simple answer is that QBT doesn't really move with BTC - even less than the miners which also move less with BTC than you might expect. Just look at a few graphs.

Yes, agree that it is common but always for the same purpose - to free up cash short term (at the cost, as Franalex says, of future outgoings). So if (and we don't know this for sure) they are doing it to bring more cash into the business but we don't know why - just as we didn't know why last year if they were thinking of doing it then as well.

It could be a very positive reason, to fund taking advantage of a business opportunity. Or a fairly benign reason like simply wanting to have more of a buffer given the last two years performance and large cash outflow from last year. It could be just to repay the £75m RCF due early next year rather than replace it with alternative borrowing (which would seem quite sensible). Or it could be more negative e.g. they could be struggling more than expected and need some more cash to get them through a tricky period. All are possibilities but none are certain - assuming the rumour is true which of course it may not be!

Have to disagree with you there Reardon. To me, if they need cash then ‘logically’ selling the head office makes more sense as it’s purely a financial transaction whereas the other options you mention impact their strategy too (assuming they have plans for RevB and the brands which I would hope they do). Also the sale probably gives them more cash up front as well as being easier to enact. So less disruptive, easier to achieve and more beneficial?

In my mind they wouldn’t be doing this if they didn’t at least want the cash (e.g. to manage/pay down debt or, less likely given their comments on capex, invest in something else). Whether they ‘need’ the cash rather than just ‘want’ it though will probably have to wait until an RNS or the interims to be answered.

And of course these rumours (including the debt renegotiation) could just end up being just that, rumours. So, yes, in that case they might not be trying to raise cash at all! Though would have expected some comment from them before now if that was the case.

...and you Mister Twister

Yes, I mentioned 40p as perhaps as low as I would go but only as that is my current average (as I stated at the time) so would allow me to escape without a loss. Still a 40% increase on the current sp so not a 'very small impact'. I would prefer 50p and was clear this was my own price as one that I would definitely accept. It was still not what I was suggesting MA would need to offer to everybody (just me) but you twisted all that into me claiming any bid would have a 'very small impact' on the sp.

So I will be crystal clear just for you (again). Any bid would have to be at a SIGNIFICANT premium to the current sp - how much I don't know but personally I would definitely accept 50p (a near 80% premium) and probably would accept lower (40p maybe but that is the very minimum) but everybody will have their own price they will accept. Happy's is 40p but I'm sure others will be much, much higher.

Well, it's a club that includes Happy and he's been one of BOO's biggest supporters on here so I don't think it's that small a club. I think it would need to be more than 40p so I would be hoping for at least 50p (and what I originally stated) and that's nearly 80% premium. Hardly 'very little impact' as you falsely claimed I said.

"And ofcourse the need to buy one of every two shares in issue would have very little impact on the sp according to Hexam."

I'm really not sure how you've managed to twist what I said into that but then that is what you specialise in. You take what a poster says, twist it into something completely different and then ridicule them for something they never said in the first place.

If MA makes an offer it will need to be at a significant premium to the current sp. How much is anybody's guess but he can probably have mine for 40p and certainly for 50p. If he goes higher then great.

It wasn’t a personal attack I was just concurring that pointing out the garbage needs to be done and since you post more of it than anybody (like, as you admit, posting a number you hadn’t properly researched and so was highly misleading) I referenced you.

Stop posting garbage and I’ll stop correcting it. Simple.

“Somebody needs to point out the garbage that gets posted on here”

I do. Yours.

Sorry, pounds not dollars

The $1bn includes lease liabilities which are not really ‘debt’ as such and certainly not in the context being spoke about here.

The why should be fairly straightforward - they want cash, now. Perhaps it's simply to pay back the £75m RCF that is not being renewed and make do with a reduced £250m RCF going forward? It will hit future profits going forwards and cashflow even more but they obviously think it is a good price to pay for an upfront cash injection. The numbers each year aren't that big in the scheme of things though.

Of course it may not be true but taken together with the debt renegotiation rumours it does suggest cash is perhaps more of an issue than the last accounts suggested. So might mean H1 is not going as well as expected?

🤣🤣🤣

I never said 55%. They just need over 50%. They have 25% now so just need another 25%. If they get to 30% and have to make a mandatory offer then they will only need another 20% from there but it is still 25% from where they are now. Silly attempt at point scoring.

"And you think people will accept less than 100% premium in that scenario?"

Quite possibly - but 50p was just my own 'price' - they could go lower or higher with any offer. They would obviously go for the lowest price they feel could/would be successful.

"Like wise your comments about debt are also strange. Do you not think that, if any discussions are ongoing, they will be subject to NDA"

Exactly - which adds to the suspicion that they ARE negotiating at the moment.

"Probably blames blames him for the the recent cliff-edge share price performance too."

Surely not as I'm not a pesky MM and I thought it was all their fault?

"But I would rather put my life savings into Baldricks turnip business."

Wow - I haven't seen that one. What's the ticker?