Member Info for Hexam

Fair enough Oke if them’s the rules - seems harsh though given there are a lot of AIM companies in a much worse state.

In any event I agree that if BOO do manage to pick it up for a reasonable price then I think it would be a good move as it complements the existing business well.

Hi Oke - I don’t know the AIM rules but it seems odd that they would demand 12 months cash when there are plenty of AIM listed companies that don’t have that.

Also not signing-off and signing off with qualifications are two different things.

As you say though, we’ll see what happens.

I don’t know how you reach those conclusions Oke.

From what I can see the ‘material risk’ relates to failure of convents OR not being able to relist - and lenders then demanding their money back immediately.

The covenant failure could be non-financial (auditors qualifying accounts again) but though this is likely the lenders have indicated they will again provide a waiver for this.

The financial ones are profit and liquidity related and the first will require waiving under their “severe but plausible downside scenario”.

So they EXPECT to meet their financial covenants but recognise they may not if things go badly.

I can’t see anything that suggests they need to pay back the debts or do the other things you suggest. Either you’re reading things that aren’t there or I’m missing things that are?

In any event it is not uncommon for companies to have ‘material risk’ quoted in their going concern statement but still be listed.

Oh believe it Bonkers!

As to a pull back it’s always quite likely after a rapid rise as people top-slice or take their money (and profits) out completely.

Must admit I tend to top slice to bank gains and so I’m thinking about it here too. It doesn’t mean I don’t have confidence in CCL long-term it’s just that I’m cautious that way. I’ve also top-sliced a few times on CCL before and bought back cheaper but this feels a stronger push up than others we’ve had in the last year or so.

If it gets close to £11 I’ll definitely be banking some profits though and if I can’t buy back cheaper then so be it and I’ll just enjoy the further ride up with what I have left.

Yes Bonkers, I’m invested here and quite a few other travel shares. I’ve actually been invested here even longer than in CINE so can’t match your impressive average (well done) despite averaging down a fair bit. I’m well in profit now though and obviously happy with the direction it seems to be going in.

I’ve more or less given up on the CINE board as the posts have become even more ridiculous and out of touch with reality - and I even picked up my own stalker (not the same one you had though).

Still, happier times now :)

Hi Bonkers,

Good to be getting those CINE losses back bit by bit. Both were in danger of running out of road because of the pandemic. Unfortunately CINE did as the recovery didn’t quite come in time for them but CCL have not only survived but seem to have well and truly turned the corner and look like the first of the travel stocks to really break loose.

Hopefully a few more will follow soon.

Never said I was an 'expert' at anything - that was just all in Elvis's head :)

I'm certainly not a tax expert and don't know where this deferred tax asset will end up and who, if anybody, it might benefit from it.

One thing though is that at the interims this has risen to $478m. Also there is no need to apply 20% (or any rate) to it as an estimated tax rate has already been applied to the losses to get this value (CINE used 25%). So this estimated DTA value would have grown by 25% of whatever losses have occurred since June 22 and so are probably worth around $600m or so now.

As I say I don't know who might stand to gain from this but hard to believe it would be existing shareholders as otherwise the sp would surely be much higher now than a penny? My guess is that the new company would get this value, just like that of all the other assets - but it's just a guess.

Quite possibly. It's a broad heading and any 'redundancy' costs would almost certainly end up there. So normal redundancy payouts to other staff (given cost cutting), and possibly other things too, are likely to be included in addition to any payout to Alex and PW.

We should find out more at half-year.

Agree CB. Most, if not all, of the increase is down to the higher fees so a nerve to lead on operational improvements which are no more than a small fraction of the reason.

Nevertheless the figures are good news and is a paying down (a little) of the debt with what seems like the demise of Argo Labs.

Yes HC, I would think they were cash flow positive for the month assuming cost base was similar to Q1 AND no capex spend, no significant adverse movement from WC or no other one-off cash spend.

That's of course your call rather than consider all the other information out there (most of which comes from CINE, not the creditors) rather than just dismiss it. Even if you get audited accounts they will only be up to the end of 2022 so they'll be well out of date anyway so what are you going to look to then?

As has been said by others if you only base your decisions on audited accounts you'll always be at least three steps behind everybody else but your money, your choice so good luck with it. Can't see Judge Isgur caring too much as a plan is on the table that is supported by the creditors and saves an awful lot of jobs - and he probably assumes that in his court of law that CINE are not providing heaps of false information and so being in contempt of that court.

Doesn't change the fact that the $743m in simply wrong as this is not the FCF in the audited accounts for the latest reported twelve months up to June 2022. And you can check that for yourself and be happy to believe what you will find.

It's amazing that maidit gets 5 recommends for what he claims to be a Yahoo article but is actually a Motley Fool one and like most Motley Fool ones is just full of garbage.

https://www.fool.co.uk/2023/05/25/down-to-only-1p-what-hope-is-left-for-cineworld-shares/

For example the quoted trailing 12-month Free Cash Flow of $743m is actually the Operational Cash Flow and so to get the FCF you need to take off capex and rents which come to $875m sending it negative and that's before interest that also had be paid.

The company is indeed bringing in lots of revenue but still not enough to cover costs (including interest) which is why things have been getting worse, not better. So the debt is not reducing as is claimed but who cares so long as it paints a pretty, if completely false, picture?

Just shows again people hear what they want to hear rather than face what is really going on.

Hi CB - my best guess is that even though it all relates to $'s the differences are still related to movement in exchange rates.

The balance sheet figures will automatically include the impact of exchange rate movements whereas on the cash flows the exchange rate impact is shown separately.

Cynically I'd translate that as "We haven't got a clue how but we obviously need to think of something".

Less cynically their best bet would seem to be some kind of placing/JV but even this seems a long shot. Still, shorter odds perhaps than an RI, raising unsecured debts or selling-off/borrowing against any crumbs of assets they still have left that are unencumbered. All of these seem remote possibilities to me. The wildcard is Pluto and whether anything meaningful can be got from this (I doubt it but who knows)?

They are in a very tight spot though and I think they are just giving out a bland and vague statement of the obvious.

Yes, that's a fair point on difficulty but on the other hand Jan production was very poor so would not expect their own production to mirror difficulty increases. Also I suspect the full impact of cost savings already made would not be in Q1.

But essentially I agree which is why I stressed the issue with growth. If they don't grow then the costs per BTC obviously will rise (as difficulty increases), if not Q2 then Q3 or whenever. The only thing that will save them then is a sufficiently increasing BTC (but even then that will likely feed into more difficulty).

So I think we agree on the challenge - just disagree a little on just how much extra time these results may have bought. That extra time is only in months though, not years, without help from BTC.

“even if they sneak into cashflow positive territory they'll still be burning through the remaining cash pretty quickly”

Why? My figures included interest so unless I’ve got them wrong they shouldn’t be losing any cash at the moment - just have very little left over to expand unless they can somehow raise more.

As I said I think all-in cash cost (including interest) is around $25k per BTC mined - or at least was in Q1. If it is similar now then they should be marginally cash flow positive (before capex).

Must admit I'm pleasantly surprised so disagree with you a bit there HC.

Cash from operations was actually positive ($778k) whilst interest paid was $2.7m. So a net loss of $2m but this includes a one-off $806m for restructuring - so on an ongoing basis they lost just over $1m or less than $0.5m per month which means they should be positive cash flow with BTC now higher.

The reason the cash positions looks much worse than this is mainly down to changes in working capital (trade payables) which tend to fluctuate depending on timing of bill payments etc.

In Q1 the direct cash costs per BTC mined were $11.8k, (ongoing) overheads $7.6k and interest $5.6k giving $25k overall. Much lower and much more sustainable than last year - if I've got my sums right - especially with BTC higher.

It's a shame that this just buys time though, the much bigger challenge is how to effect meaningful growth.

HC - that fall in BTC is worth about $1-1.5m. If they’ve only burnt that much in Q1 then I think that would be reasonably good.

I’m looking for the ‘normal’ cash burn figure so revenue less mining costs and cash overheads. If this is less than $1m outflow per month I’d be ok with that. Less than $0.5m pm and it’s looking encouraging to me (still the growth issue though).

The actual cash figure could be distorted by capex, working capital movements or one-offs so I’ll be looking less at that (unless they’ve nearly run out)!

Their cash spend was around $5m per month in Q4 last year and in Q1 they've brought in just over £11m revenue so all else being equal they should have only lost around $4-5m (capex and other one-offs aside). That would still be worrying for me as I would have thought electricity prices were a bit lower and they got some benefits from the hosting deal. If they've lost $10m+ though then that would really be a concern in my view and indicate they are still burning money pretty fast even at $27k BTC.

Why only $15m CB? At the year end they had around $20m of cash. Unless I've missed or forgotten about some one-off item, if they only have $15m left that would be worrying. If they only have $10m that would be alarming (unless they've used some on capex).

It's all about the hosting deal. If this has pushed them close to breakeven in cash terms then this at least gives them breathing space (limited scope for growth still the issue). If it has actually increased their costs then they are in even bigger trouble than they already were.

I agree though that it will be interesting to find out.