Member Info for Hexam

They are not responding at all to the share building of MA (by words or deeds such as insiders buying more shares) or defending against the stories of debt issues etc. Of course they don't have to but remaining quiet just helps the uncertainty grow.

As to a takeover being virtually impossible surely they only have to take another 25% under any offer to take them over 50% and thus gain control of the business. That's my understanding anyway but happy to be proved wrong if anybody can produce any information which shows that is not the case. I'm not saying that is what they will do but I don't see what makes it 'impossible' if that's what they want to do. They can certainly have my shares for 50p and I'm sure a lot of others would be only too happy to sell at that price. I'd even be tempted at 40p as that's my average now.

Just look at what BOO pushed through at RevB with a similar holding to what Frasers have here. It depends on what they want and how much they try to influence things. Or they could make a formal offer (which they would have to do if they got to 30%) in which case, as I understand it, they would just need to get another 25% of the company shares to bring BOO into the Frasers fold as the majority owned subsidiary.

I obviously don't know what their play is here but I don't think they are in it just to trade shares (if they are then that's going really badly so far). So I think they have a definite end game in mind involving some or all of BOO, just not sure what that is or if BOO are compliant in it (as would have thought if not they would be fighting back a bit more but not a peep from them).

"It’s the only way to live."

I agree but many on here don't seem to share that view, instead dealing in certainties that are from certain and insults rather than reasoned debate. Shame, as the board could be quite useful otherwise.

Brew - I agree that just looking at current run rate suggests they will run out of cash close to the year end but most of their cash spend looks discretionary (on R&D and consultancy etc.) so they should easily be able to scale back activity if they need to. Also they said they believed that although tight they would not need to raise until next July (without any court money or revenue) and they would have allowed for expected (possibly further reduced if need be) outgo to come to that conclusion unless they were lying and I don't think the auditors would have let them get away with being too optimistic (let alone with lying outright).

We should get a much clearer picture from the interims though which aren't that far away now.

Haha AWL though I would say you are cleverer than most on this board as you know you don't know everything and respect the opinions of others even if you don't agree with them - so are willing to debate rather than just resort to insults. Top banana :-)

Also - I disagree with Brew. I don’t think they will need to raise this year as to me they seem to have enough funds to last until Christmas even if no court money or revenue comes through.

I think Q1 2025 is more likely, though if they do get a meaningful part of the court award in the meantime then obviously they won’t need to.

“I was only pointing out that there could be another side to brew’s post.”

Fair enough AWL. I think saying ‘50/50’ is misleading but I agree there is another side (just not as likely). Let’s just hope this is one of the lucky raffle tickets!

You tell more lies than most KK - even your previous post to me that all my posts are negative is just another lie.

Your representation of their funding position is also misleading. Put simply they believe they have cash for 12 months but they are not sure.

AWL- with respect it is not a 50/50 coin toss. Just because there are two extreme options (plenty in between too actually) doesn't mean they are equally likely and from the sp it clear that method B working with a client on board is not a 50% chance.

It is a high risk, high reward gamble and that means a chance of much, much more than doubling your money but the chances of doing so are correspondingly low - as with any potential multi-bagger, not just QBT.

Clearly you haven't read what is actually being posted here as very few are singing the praises of ARB - quite the opposite and with plenty of contempt for PW thrown in. So a wasted deramp and a poor one at that. At least most others being critical of ARB articulate their reasons why (which are good and many) as opposed to your lazy and mean rhetoric.

Don't worry Reardon I don't think that all (or maybe any?) of that triumvirate will survive much longer. The article was a hatchet job and in places just personal attacks largely irrelevant to business performance but it was substantially true in the important bits. With poor performance, a plummeting sp (not being helped by the general market turmoil), Frasers up to 25% and seemingly little defence being putting up then something has surely got to give soon?

Given the mining margin of around 25% and run-rate for overheads + interest (which should be a little lower than last disclosed in Q1) the cash loss is probably around $1m for July. August already looking a lot worse though and it won't be too long before all the money from the placing is eaten up just by the monthly losses - goodness knows what Armistice were thinking - or what they were smoking?

"Which altogether makes a hostile take over impossible"

Does it? I'm not sure it is Frasers' endgame but they can take control of BOO without needing any of the family's shares.

I just think it’s uncertainty over the debt position exacerbated by the general market turmoil at the end of the week. There may well be nothing much to worry about the debt and they may renegotiate a satisfactory facility with few problems when the time comes (if they aren’t renegotiating already) but it will no doubt concern some in the absence of hard news.

Any posts I've had deleted have I believe just been collateral damage in whole threads that have been removed (along with your posts and plenty from others). I've never been suspended or even warned by LSE admin so do not think I have broken any rules and once again you have failed to point out exactly what it is that makes you think I am breaking them.

Tbh I hope this thread does get removed as it is very tiresome and I'm sure of little interest to anybody else.

Best thing for me to do is filter you since, as I say, you offer absolutely nothing to this board as far as I'm concerned so cheerio :-)

PS...and you Hawk - whoever you were before and however short-lived your presence is...

Fair enough Mikey but you consistently fail to point out any posts of mine (or some others come to that) and explain exactly what it is that you feel is misleading or abusive or disruptive. If you did then I could either challenge you or, if I agree, hold my hand up and apologise. Just saying something is worth reporting without explaining why or correcting it adds no value imo.

As far as I'm concerned I do not break any LSE rules but if you can find any examples where you believe I have then would be happy to reconsider. Btw being negative is not on its own something to be reported just as being positive isn't either.

On the other hand I consider your last post to be non factual, misleading, disruptive and even a tiny bit abusive - but don't worry, I'm not the reporting type :-)

There's really no need for your incessant reporting either but it seems to be the only thing that you offer to this board. Odd.

Thanks Mikey but it's obviously OK in your book for banned posters to keep coming back under different names, spamming the board and misleading people as long as they are being positive about the company in doing so? Gotcha.

Interesting analysis and numbers KevinC and I agree the mcap looks far too low given where reported profits can potentially go over the next couple of years and to a lesser extent where they already are now.

One small thing though is that interest will not go to zero even if the debt disappears as part of the interest number (nearly half at present) comes from how the cost of leases are reported so they need to remain part of the bridge from EBITDA to reported profits (along with the part of the lease cost that goes through depreciation). Or you could start with the lower pre-IFRS 16 EBITDA figure (around £150m) and then you don't need to take off anything for lease costs to get to reported profits.

Regardless, as you say, there is good reason why the sp should increase ASSUMING the company can keep the momentum going so that the profit line really starts to highlight the gap between the 'true' value of the business and the sp.

“Why would there be a fund raise”

I don’t think there will be but if they don’t start making cash soon (not just FCF which misses off at least £30m of outflow) and don’t replace the £75m of RCF they are about to lose and don’t successfully renegotiate the rest then it becomes a much more likely possibility.

Certainly something seems to be spooking the market at the moment.