Member Info for Hexam

Yeah, ARB will do very well to get to 150 in June, maybe closer to 140 or even lower perhaps.

That may be the case but to be fair I'm not sure where the information has come from that they are releasing earnings tomorrow (other than on this board).

We know that already, or at least the unaudited version anyway. Loss of $3.5bn including all the various impairments etc. or around $1bn loss without these.

“Cineworld holding is not a shell company. If so they could have wound it up long ago.”

No it is not now, but it soon will be. I wouldn’t have thought it possible but your posts just keep getting worse.

Gazillions - some of the shares schemes do involve dilution, others do not. This one doesn’t.

I politely suggest that we are not looking through rose tinted glasses but are understanding the situation for what it is - but instead it is you that is being blinded by the red mist from being a Revb holder following the actions of Boo and not seeing things for what that are.

"PLEASE SEE BELOW FROM THE ANNUAL REPORT - DILUTION IS DEFINITE!"

No - it is not. The total number of shares remains unchanged. All this shows is just that the number of shares that is used in the EPS calculation went down when BOO purchased the shares and will go back up again when then give them to employees - so back to square one.

If you want to try to argue that this means dilution when they are issued then you are saying they were the opposite of diluted (strengthened? concentrated?) when they were purchased by the EBT. In reality I don't think either applies as it is simply the temporary moving around of the same shares.

They are shares that were purchased on the market and paid for by BOO. The total number of shares remains unchanged.

I know, that's why there is no dilution here as no new shares have been created to fund these awards.

"Revb's was roughly double the amount of dilution to less than half the amount of people".

There is no dilution here though from what I can see.

"That is, are you going to stop claiming that Boo need the RCF to keep the lights on?"

If fluctuating working capital requirements are indeed the primary reason for drawing down the full amount then technically the 'keeping the lights on' tagline is true - but no big deal as that's what RCFs are generally for. Of course it could be other reasons - we just don't know. Storm in a teacup.

PP1 - It was a very good question as it costs them few million more a year by doing this. I think the biggest reason could simply be that their working capital requirements fluctuate so much from time to time. The accounts only provide a snapshot on the day and there has been a swing of £160m in contribution to cash flow from last year to this for example. The other obvious reason is that they expect at least one big one-off cash outgo over and above the capex they are forecasting (e.g. possible acquisition).

I don't think they are in any danger of running out of cash over the next 12 months but assuming the RCF can be drawn down readily it is still odd, notwithstanding the possible reasons above and others, that they have already drawn it down fully. Curious but to me personally not a big deal and hopefully we'll get more insight at the half year.

Oke - don’t you mean leases are taken below the line as EBITDA includes nothing for them? Sorry if I’ve misunderstood you.

But that's my point, they don't. They just need to break-even. Or, if you prefer, their revenues need to exceed their costs (excluding lease payments i.e. rents) by at least the amount of those rents. So for example if they make a net profit of £5m in 2025 as you suggest then they will have paid all the rents for that year and have £5m profit left over to do with as they choose.

(It's not that simple because of the way leases are now treated in the accounts but that's the gist.)

PP1 - the £17m and £5m you describe are presumably the Profit Before Tax (or after tax) which is AFTER allowing for lease obligations. They don't need to find anything extra to meet the lease liabilities.

PP1 - Then I suggest that is not a great idea in terms of historical figures as the accounts are correct and audited as such. So unless you think there has been fraud and/or incompetence on both the part of the company and its auditors they should be trusted. Otherwise they get into heaps of trouble (see Revb).

More importantly if you look at the accounts it is possible to see where the numbers come from. On third party sites you just have a number with little clue usually of how they got to it which makes it difficult to trust and even harder to interpret (as seen by this thread).

"What is the £136.4m for on the balance sheet?"

It is the value in the accounts of the right-of-use assets i.e. of the properties etc. that the company lease.

Hi Oke,

Net Debt is Cash - Debt so only part of the assets and part of the liabilities.

The £400m is Net Assets and is all of the assets minus all of the liabilities.

Yes, of course I forgot, sharing information and asking questions about a share isn't what an investment forum is for. How silly of me.

PP1 - £136.4m

T4G - I agree with your conclusion but not your reason for getting there.