Member Info for Hexam

There is no investment case here as it has been made clear there is no long (or even medium) term future for shareholders so it is just a gamble now totally unrelated to any longer term prospects - just like all day-trading is. Nothing wrong with that - each to their own. And yes, chasing down an sp just to reduce an average is just as big a sign of an addiction (chasing losses).

Yes, it's a share that's just attracting the gambling addicts now. It might be fun whilst the music's playing but won't be when it stops.

"Gazillions... If demand for a share is high then generally the share price will rise. and 1 plus 1 is 2."

Agreed - but ultimately the number of shares bought will still equal the number of shares sold. It's just that if demand is strong this will take place at a higher price and if it is weak then it will take place at a lower price.

CB - The way this is described it doesn't sound like a 'payoff' but just payments made instead of insisting that they work their notice period, though PW's payment looks a bit high especially as he was still meant to be around for a while.

No, not least because that guy is no longer there.

Early contender for post of the month. Made me chuckle anyway - thx.

Hi Oke, as Wolf says it may not necessarily go above the line i.e. in headline PBT until they sell it. More likely below the line in other comprehensive income - but not sure nor whether all companies do the same.

In any event if they get control of Revb via the board or shares I think it will probably become academic as can’t then see how they can then claim ‘significant influence does not exist’ so would have to switch to look through profits for determining their own profit and change in asset value.

Hi Oke - I was just.saying it wasn’t classed as investment in associates as where it sits on the balance sheet actually does make a difference since these are valued differently from Financial Assets. For example from what I understand on one method the rise in Revb sp shows up on the balance sheet - on the other it makes no difference (it’s the look through profits instead).

So boring finance stuff but actually does impact the perceived strength of the balance sheet (and profit emergence).

Actually Oke it's under Financial Assets (for now):

"Investments in equity instruments

During the year 26.47% of the issued share capital of Revolution Beauty Group plc ("REVB") was obtained for consideration of £15.0m. On 1 September 2022 REVB was temporarily suspended from trading on the Alternative Investment Market pending publication of the company's annual audited. As at 28 February 2023 REVB shares remain suspended from trading. The equity accounting requirements of IAS 28 (Investments in associates and joint ventures) were considered and it was determined that significant influence did not exist. The investment has therefore been accounted for as a financial asset under IFRS 9."

Hi Wolf - Oke is correct actually. The RevB purchases were all made before the end of November last year so the £400m does include them. I know it only seems like yesterday but it really was over 7 months ago!

"You can't steal anything by paying for it."

I agree. Completely. As I said, you've misunderstood my post. Read it again carefully, in full, and maybe you'll get it. If you still don't then so be it, that's fine.

It makes sense because you haven't read or understood my post properly. Too keen too confront and criticise. Again.

No I don't agree as in my view they are stealing the company by taking over the board but that is by my definition of what it means to 'steal the company' - and can understand you disagreeing if you feel that means instead owning 100% the business which is fair enough.

It would also make it easier for them to takeover the company completely in the future - but not without paying for it.

It depends what you mean by 'steal the company'. If it means get all the shares of that company without paying anything then of course not. If it means get control of that company and get it to do whatever you want to it to do (short of things that need shareholder approval but even then they already have 26% of the shares) then yes, they can.

Seriously?

You take control of the board.

"They were not trying to buy the rest of the shares available cheap"

Redhammy didn't say that, he said "they tried to steal the company without paying anything for it" - which I believe to be true as they as they were trying (and still are) to get a majority representation on the board.

Whether they could send the company into administration is unclear although that is what Revb are claiming. Personally I'm not convinced but it could have been the case.

Or his thumb.

OK - You said you were not being confrontational but you posted negative comments about me on a post that wasn't to you or about you i.e. you 'confronted' me. You started the response with 'Oh dear' (common patronising beginning among certain posters) and then called me comical. All of which I'm not in the slightly bit bothered about as your one-sided and predictable opinions mean nothing to me but I do find your hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness both bemusing and amusing.

I could post thousands of other examples of you being confrontational, abusive and mendacious but that would be very boring for everybody as this is board about BOO, not you (whatever you may think).

I don't filter people as I like to see all views but I don't see what you contribute other than ruining the board so maybe you'll be the exception to my rule...

As I said, comical. You really need to look in the mirror rather than keep projecting your own behaviour onto other people.