Member Info for Hexam

"I mean you could just answer one question hexam

Can a SHARE minus 10 bag?"

I have answered this several times already and always the same way but one more time just for you:

No if you are long. You can only ever lose 1 times your stake.

Yes if you are short as you can lose any number of times your stake - including ten.

Jeez. One last try and I'll try to keep it really, really simple.

I have already AGREED with YOU that DTN was WRONG as you CANNOT minus 10 bag on a share (assuming you are long). I knew what he really meant though - and so I'm sure did you.

YOU were WRONG however when you said you cannot minus 1 bag on a share as obviously that's exactly what happens if it goes to zero.

I only mentioned shorting at all because you CAN MINUS 10 bag on a short as losses are unlimited. I wish I hadn't now as somehow you read this as me saying you can make 100% profit on a short.

I really think you need a translator for this site.

Just keep digging that hole.

You really can't read posts can you. I said you can't minus 10 bag unless you are shorting i.e. you can minus 10 bag on a short as losses are unlimited so losing 10 times your stake is possible. I never said anything about making any profit on a short position let alone 100%. You can though minus one bag on a long position as you lose all your investment (i.e. 1 bag) if the company goes bust.

I've never known anybody misread posts so much. I'll be kind and suggest it's only because you are so keen to score cheap points that you read what you want other people to have said rather than what they have actually said.

"Also worth noting that no share can ever "minus 10 bag"". - TRUE (unless you're shorting)

"Not even "minus one bag"" - FALSE. Every share that goes to zero does.

Wow! Am I a superhero now that I apparently have my very own sidekick? Or is that just that another piece of misinformation - like the bit about how the company would never reduce its guidance at half year - "100%" - and that anybody who thinks they would, what with Umar buying, is an idiot?

I don't even know who you are referring to but if you say whoever it is did then of course I believe you. Well, perhaps...

For once I agree with you though, this would be a far better place if it wasn't full of lies and misinformation but much more of that comes from the rampers which is one of the reasons I have even less time for them than I do for the blatant derampers.

T4g called people a lot worse and no surprise if he was banned after picking fights with anybody who dared disagree with him. A much bigger surprise would be if he left instead by his own accord as he was wedded to this board where he behaved as if he owned it. Either way the board is all the better for his absence - though it still has its moments!

I agree sharehead - there is very little immediate chance of that for all sorts of reasons.

If you read the whole thread though you’ll see it was just a silly one liner from a poster suggesting the low sp could lead to the company going bust but it obviously doesn’t work like that.

A low sp doesn’t exactly help the company but it doesn’t on its own threaten solvency - hence the various responses.

"The main unwanted consequence is that we are losing a lot of money while the JL and the BOD have gone to ground while banking there great remuneration packages".

Indeed Terry but I was only commenting on the unwanted consequence on the company's solvency - not ours :(

"It's pathetic of you to affirm that because a punter invested in Capita and now taking a hit, that they've lacked the ability to forecast what was to happen to cpi."

I didn't affirm that at all. And besides, I'm one of those punters. As to naming you it just seems to be a general theme on these boards that the more that posters whine about MMs the less they actually understand. Usually it's opportunistic rampers like yourself who jump on distressed stocks and just gamble on the principle of what comes down must go up. You're just one of many such posters.

I topped up this morning as I think the business is undervalued but the turnaround relies on the management delivering and obviously an improvement in the economic environment would help too. It won't be anything to do with the MMs though nor will I be blaming them if it instead goes south from here.

Correct Capitalizer. It can have some unwanted consequences (like reduce ability to raise capital if needed) which could then affect solvency but otherwise the sp doesn't really matter in that respect.

"Bloody unscrupulous Market Makers."

It's not the MMs, it's Capita, and in particular their management, where the bulk of the blame lies for what the sp has done and continues to do. The MMs are just a convenient scapegoat or excuse for those that like to pretend they know how the market works and deflect from their own potentially poor choice of investment.

Capita can still turn things around but management needs to up their game and hopefully the new leader will provide the necessary spark.

"The question is whether there could be unanticipated impairments arising from the L&P business that would hit profit and FCF ??"

@ Capitalizer - The short answer is there could be although it is not really from 'unanticipated impairments'.

As Craig suggests the L&P business represents onerous contracts (Capita repeatedly tell us this themselves). In the 2021 accounts they reviewed all the contracts and set up a provision for the EXPECTED future losses on the contracts (together with impairing some related assets). In total this amounted to £43.1m. IF the business then developed in line with their expectations then there would be no further impact on profitability as it would have all been anticipated in advance in the £43.1m hit taken in 2021. FCF is different as that happen when it happens you can't provide for it in advance so it will continue to hit FCF as and when it occurs. All you can do is estimate what the future impact is.

However the experience already has been worse than expected as at this HY they say they have once more reviewed the contracts and increased the provision (all or part of the £7.8m included in the provision summary for new provisions under Customer Contract provision).

This means that future FCF is likely to be worse than they expected but unless experience deteriorates further there should be no further impact on profit because of the additional hit at HY that they have already taken.

If the losses (that they have already provided for) are worse than expected though then the profit will be hit again and FCF will be worse than expected but this is what I think they say they are working hard to ensure isn't the case.

That's my interpretation anyway and hope it helps but as usual they haven't covered themselves in glory in the confusing way they present the accounts or describe what is going on and in my view (in this case) have made it sound worse than it is.

MA is happy to buy at this price but clearly enough others are happy to sell at this price (and accommodate other buyers too). Hence the sp doesn't move much either way.

Probably very similar to my follicle status :-)

The HL reference was not specific to what you said but the ii percentage quoted usually includes them so they have to be deducted (like similar institutions that are just providing a platform to PIs) so that the real institution percentage is not nearly so high as some believe or make out. It is more to those who list the iis and include HL etc. - as someone else has already done today.

I actually agree with you that he will likely stop in the 20s and have little problem getting there but only MA knows his reasoning and endgame. I also agree that it could become increasingly uncomfortable for shorts (and so good for us).

So I think we agree on everything except the actual definition of free float which I don't think matters anyway as it is the availability of shares which counts which is plenty (whether you class it as 'free float' or not) - some are just harder perhaps to get than others. Even some insiders could sell too (like employees at times when they are allowed to).

@Shornryder (love the name by the way) - yes we'll have to agree to disagree. I actually do agree with your definition i.e. that free float is those shares that can be publicly traded but for me that includes iis as by public I take that to mean not insiders. In addition I've seen the free float quoted as over 60% when someone posted a link (think the link was to marketscreener) whereas Yahoo gives the float (using exactly the same definition as you quote) as being 620m shares (so just less than half).

The point is that whatever the 'definition' there are plenty of shares that Frasers can buy (as he is proving) though I agree it may be a bit more difficult prising them out of ii's hands (genuine ii hands that is NOT HL, Fidelity, Interactive etc. which may be listed as ii money but is actually retail money).

My quote for RevB (which is what you were questioning) was:

"RevB for the first bit (losing control) and any hostile takeover for the losing the company part." Not quite sure how you managed to misread that.

So as clearly stated RevB was an example of losing control NOT losing the company.

As to the process of losing the company that would just be a successful hostile takeover (or friendly one if the family go along with it which seems unlikely at this stage). If Frasers go to over 30% they would then have to make a formal offer though there is nothing stopping them doing that now. They would have to offer at least the highest price for shares they have bought at over the last year but would probably offer much more in order to get enough of them (over 50%).

"Err did rev b lose the company?"

No, as I clearly stated they (i.e. the then management) lost CONTROL of the company. To lose the company completely would need a hostile takeover, as I said. Maybe Frasers are looking to do what Boo did to RevB, maybe they will go for a takeover or maybe it's just an investment or maybe they are just looking to influence/partner. I don't know, and nobody does apart from Frasers, but if you are going to question my posts please read them properly first and not, as you are so apt to do to mine and to others, twist what they say, deliberately or otherwise.

Er...RevB for the first bit (losing control) and any hostile takeover for the losing the company part.

Maybe not Reardon but they can lose control, and even the company, without selling any.