Member Info for Hexam

Why do you engage with him at all Wolf? You know Ian just makes things up. His catalogue of crazy pronouncements that have all been made with such confidence and a seeming certainty have all crumbled to dust. A list of his best ones could make for an entertaining book one day. Perhaps HSBC or Barclays will fund it?

Yes, it’s really odd Wolf. A trading update without any update on trading! Just saying execution of strategy continues apace and guidance is unchanged.

Maybe it’s more for Revb shareholders than us?

No. It’s not. Guidance unchanged means just that. So same increase in EBITDA as before.

I was actually picking up on something factually incorrect rather than positive.

I ignore any sp predictions including low ones (like Pedro) or high ones (plenty to choose from). All equally pointless to me.

So I treat them all the same. What’s ‘strange’ is that you bang on about low sp predictions and even report them but let the high sp predictions go completely unchallenged - even the absurd ones.

It’s also strange that you said Pedro’s posts are irrelevant but have still responded to him over a dozen times today and so producing a board full of tiresome, squabbling content. Again.

“they are expecting to exceed their forecasted editda.”

They are not saying that at all. They say guidance remains unchanged so presumably all the numbers forecast remain the same as indicated just last month.

A nothing update really especially so soon after the guidance was given and with no additional information - in fact very little information at all.

So not good news, nor bad - nor any sort of news really.

I’m not a believer in a rosy long term future for ARB but to say that the only way to make money on a share that has more than doubled in the last few days is to short it is particularly daft.

And PW left ages ago - and has already got at least one new job.

Agreed, if they just base the value on the existing CINE forecasts it's not possible to come up with a value close to what is needed for shareholders to be in the money (at least $8bn). So they'll have to either project much higher future revenues or lower costs (probably both) than CINE included in their valuation to get a big enough increase. How they justify such large differences without stretching credulity too far will be interesting and as you say will be the area of contention.

The first challenge though is to pay for the valuation.

That’s reassuring HC, well in way. I wasn’t on the call but if that is what was said then great even though it contradicts what is in that paragraph within the going concern statement. So incompetence rather than a more worrying liquidity position - which I suppose is the lesser of two evils!

“All the factors you mention were known pre drop.”

No - they weren’t, in fact most of them are relevant now and/or happened since the results.

My point is that you are stating your opinion as fact which is odd as that is one of the things you frequently berate others for.

So yes, it is your view and you are entitled to it but you shouldn’t pretend it is fact.

T4G - Any ‘proof’ that relies basically on ‘how else do you explain’ is not a proof at all. It can equally applied to any of the following:

- Results that showed a loss and (excluding working capital movements) negative cash flow

- Lack of belief Boo can turn things around

- Poor reaction to MA’s move

- Negative view on Boo’s stake and/or latest actions with respect to RevB

- Dim view of Boo’s dealings with suppliers

- Uncertainty over RCF management (why have they drawn it all down and so incurring interest when they don’t seem to have needed to)

- simple poor sentiment

Those are just ones off the top of my head and I’m not saying any are contributing to the moribund sp performance - but they could be.

I couldn’t say they definitely are though, I’d just be speculating just as you are about MM’s.

My main reason for dismissing the MM one is that it appears frequently on most nearly every board, and if is to be believed, every share is being ‘walked down’, ‘held back’ or whatever without any logic as to how the MM’s gain from this continued suppression of the whole market.

Personally I believe Boo will move up nicely at some point but it needs to provide compelling reasons to the market to do so beyond hope and hype. So hopefully the numbers can start to do the talking soon.

CWWX - the original valuation was done for free, not under any terms of agreement, so understandable that whoever provided it wanted to remain anonymous - especially as it contained errors.

This new valuation if done will have proper terms (scope, limitations, caveats, sensitivity tests etc.) so no issues with confidentiality.

"None taken CW, just reinforcing the truth."

But it's not the truth, just your speculation. It may be true but I'm pretty sure it's not, instead just the usual lazy excuse trotted out as to why a share is performing badly.

Shave, it seems like the latter (they definitely didn't do the last one). This group certainly appear well qualified so it will be interesting to see what they do come up with, and the reasons why, if they do perform one. I presume it is still hoped that CINE will be made to pay for it.

Fair enough HC and I'm fairly new to this stock so appreciate that you're far more clued up about it than I am.

I'm not sure what you mean though by 'this was last year'. If that relates to the cash flow position then I agree, as things appear to be improving, but if it relates to the going concern statement then that statement is forward looking so not sure what you are trying to suggest. It will also take into account up to date information (not just up to 31st Dec).

Companies don't put warnings into their going concern statements lightly and I've seen other examples being dismissed as being overly cautious (e.g. CINE) that turned out to be all too real. So for me it is a definite risk but personally I can see enough upside potential to make that risk worth taking.

"A highly cash generating company that has just raised $45m does not need further liquidity to survive. It's as simply as that."

HC - I can't quite reconcile your statement with the part in the results that says:

"The Group's ability to continue as a going concern is dependent on its ability to complete the refinance of the Orion convertible loan note, and obtain the necessary additional funding required through a capital raise or alternative funding sources. Although the Group has been successful in the past in obtaining additional liquidity, there is no assurance that it will be able to do so in the future or that such arrangements will be on terms advantageous to the Group."

This seems explicit in that they need more than what you are suggesting but perhaps I am missing something?

Also I don't think they generated any meaningful cash in 2022. They quote a FCF of $14.6m but (unusually) they do not include all capex in their definition of FCF, instead they exclude capex they class as investing for growth - which is not normal. In all 'Cash used in other investing activities' is $13m. In addition FCF is before finance costs.

Of course you can view the growth spend as non-recurring if it has been exceptional in which case the $14.6m may be closer to the ongoing cash flow position. Nevertheless I'm not too surprised by the market reaction to the results today as the headline loss is again very large (at over $35m - though contains significant impairments) and the going concern statement is pretty stark in my view.

Having said that there does seem good grounds for optimism in the forward looking position if the short term liquidity concerns can be addressed so happy to stay invested for now and see how things progress from here.

Irrelevant as the company is not being liquidated (but would make no difference even if it was).

Did you post on the wrong board?

HaHa Wolf - I was thinking exactly the same thing. My bubble of optimism on reading the RNS has quickly been burst :)

“Hexam you also need to account for the £91m they spent on Sheffield automation and US DC”

Not really and certainly not all of it as capex happens every year. It’s fair to say it may have been higher than normal but they won’t stop investing completely (or at least I hope not).

JN - My point is that I don't think there will be any debt in the shell company. They will all either be paid or disappear (unpaid) if and when the proposal goes through according to the terms. My view is that there will be no tax asset and no debt in the shell company. Whether there is anything at all remains to be seen.

Yes Broke, fully agree that reduction in inventory is a good thing including because it reduces potential wastage and frees up cash but that freeing up of cash is a one-off (unless they reduce inventory even more - but there is obviously a limit) so FCF is temporarily distorted.

There were undoubtedly some good signs in the latest report but still plenty of uncertainty and current poor sentiment will take some time to budge I think.