Member Info for Hexam

That's funny as I think you are the pompous one (not to mention thin-skinned and think that yours is the only opinion that counts).

As I said in one of the many posts that got deleted (after you got ripped apart this morning by everybody) unlike you I don't care if someone is invested or not or how much they are invested if they are. It's what they actually say that matters. I only focused on your tiny holding as it does seem to matter to you to the extent that you think those who are not invested have no right to post even though, hypocritically, you barely have any investment yourself. I hold over 10x more shares than you so presumably in your world that means my voice carries over 10x more weight?

Apologies, I thought you had 500,000 shares and retained just 20,000*. I'm pretty sure the 20,000 amount is correct and regardless of what your original investment actually was you only have a token amount left now so to call yourself an investor still is rather stretching the term and yet you behave like you own this board and only you are allowed to criticise QBT - anybody else who does so is a troll. God complex much?

*I would have scrolled back to check the numbers but you love the sound of your own voice so much that it would take ages with the amount that you post. In fact I believe you retained the token amount just because you felt it still gave you the 'right' to post as you simply love an audience too much to stop. Unfortunately for you most have already left the theatre.

“I sold a percentage as stated in my post at the time, but still hold in case of a miracle”

96% wasn’t it? So T0n1h saying you sold up was pretty close to the mark.

"Thing is Hexam if you WERE greedy all the way down to 10p here you'd be flying to a big win right now, instead many will have held off and will remain under water even when the transformation runs out of steam."

How do you know I wasn't? My lowest buy was 11.7p but admittedly it would have had to have bigger than I was prepared to risk for me to already be in profit let alone on a 'big win'. As it is 40p will give me a decent return and I'll be out then unless I see a realistic prospect of a proper company recovery (which I don't as of now). Just my view though and not suggesting anybody else follow it.

Sorry - but in my view that's crap advice (though I have been invested here for nearly four years now). Got any other lazy soundbites - there's always the 'Be greedy when others are fearful' classic?

One thing I never do on these boards is give investment advice. Another thing I never do is listen to it either.

"Hexam with your significant concerns, if I were you, I would not touch this stock."

As I explained I remain invested on what I feel is the realistic prospect of some form of capital transaction boosting the share price (rather than a company recovery) but thanks anyway for the unsolicited advice.

'Will it be sold directly by qbt? Or a partner?'

I don't believe it will be sold at all as I don't believe it works but if it did then I would suspect it would be in some form of partnership as I can't see it being as simple as downloading an iphone app and anything much more complicated would require a lot more infrastructure than QBT possess.

"How much will it cost?"

Even if it did work and did improve production by 10% then it couldn't be more than a few hundred dollars per machine given how much machines cost, their short expected useful lifetime and the risks of adding it on (it doesn't seem to 'work' for all machines anyway and will it continue to work)? Anything much higher and there won't be payback to the customer.

"Will it really benefit solo/amateur miners?"

Difficult to see how given the above.

'Will it be stackable with other methods?'

In theory yes but sadly that's all this has ever been - just theory.

How much will it cost?

Will it really benefit solo/amateur miners?

Will it be stackable with other methods?

Have finally read the Panmure note and though it contains some reasonable points it has is in my opinion two major flaws.

Firstly it seems to make an implicit assumption that revenue will not fall further even though it was down 23% at half-year (excl PLT). Any further drop in revenue will soon offset the modest expense savings it talks about disappear (just like the much bigger cost savings over the last year or two have been swallowed up by the falls in revenue that have already occured).

Secondly, it claims that £41m FCF could equate to £1bn mcap. This seems very optimistic. FCF of that amount doesn't allow for all costs and the actual cash flow is likely to be around half that. So they are really applying a 50x factor to a company where the GMV may be rising but the revenue may not be. In such circumstances to compare it to a 'scalable marketplace model' seems inappropriate. It might be appropriate if they were looking at Debenhams alone (and if the starting FCF was higher) but not with everything else that is dragging it back.

I can't believe that Panmure's view is independent any more than that of Proactive (who actually claimed that the sp had risen on the back of a 'stellar update on trading')!

So personally I don't read too much into the report that gives me confidence EXCEPT the comments on Burnley and PLT. I don't have much confidence in the company's recovery but if it can raise decent sums on either of those assets (or anything else) then that should lift the sp significantly and gives me reason to stay invested.

Sorry Alex, grovelling apology from me. I misread your statement - I see now that you said the ‘result’ was better (i.e. the outcome) rather than just the reported ‘results’ themselves as the actual numbers weren’t great and I’m pretty sure I wasn’t the only one who didn’t find them better than expected.

I don’t think anybody though beforehand would have expected that the outcome of the interims would be the sp more than doubling and even if they did they would be very odd ducks indeed and as you say your ‘well worn phrase’ would still be justified.

So I can fully understand your responses and this is me saying sorry, stamping on my soapbox and stuffing the wreckage into the bin!

…and of course Panmure Gordon are Boohoo’s in-house broker so I’d be dubious of anything they write before I even read it.

The reaction of the market is a different matter and that DID surprise me in a nice way.

I was just making the point that the results weren’t better than my expectations which is a fact and a proven one as I actually posted those expectations beforehand (only one of two posters I think that did).

I haven’t read Panmure Gordon’s analysis nor have I read those from Barclays or Goldman Sachs who have both published new targets under 20p.

“Whatever anyone thinks the result was better than any of us expected”

Sorry Alex but I don’t see how you can speak for everybody. I can only speak for myself and they weren’t better than I was expecting (and I did post what I was expecting before the results came out).

The revenue was a lot less than I thought and the profit marginally better (but only because of positive one-off going through). Cash flow was negative as expected.

What were others expecting though that was worse than they delivered?

Yes, it's that dramatic fall in revenue that means that despite all the cost savings the adjusted EBITDA for those brands has fallen slightly. Unless they halt the slide (not just slow it down) then they will struggle to achieve profitability on them.

I agree, on a standalone basis Debs would not be profitable which would become more transparent if they sold other brands as the fixed costs would have fewer places to land. Fixed costs are rarely truly 'fixed' and I'm sure they would be reduced somewhat if it was just Debs left standing, but clearly Debs would still pick up too much for it to remain in the black on its current revenue as its HY EBITDA is only £15m so its true profitability is probably under £10m as it is.

Even on an adjusted EBITDA basis the term 'barely profitable' would be a better description. In total the adjusted EBITDA is only £21m at HY but that includes around £15m for Debenhams. That means if the rest are all profitable then they are sharing just £6m between them. We know PLT is £1m and the rest must be similar to this i.e. barely 'profitable' at all and since the overall figure was virtually the same last year, and Debenhams has improved by £5m, then that means in aggregate the adjusted EBITDA of the rest of the business has actually fallen.

So as usual the headlines the way they say them sound good but not so much if you actually make the effort to drill down into the numbers.

And in any event the EBITDA is not enough to cover the rest of the expenses to give true profitability.

2027

There have been trades today, they are just not showing up here - some kind of glitch. Interest may be pitifully low on this stock but it's not quite that low.

That’s your opinion FED and of course your are fully entitled to it but I’m not sure how you can say with such certainty, as if it is a fact, that it is ‘fundamentally undervalued’.

It is still an unprofitable business and underlying losses haven’t improved much at all in the recent results.

Yes, they should get some short-term benefit to cash and the balance sheet from more asset sales and COULD then employ that extra capital to very good effect but until they can demonstrate they can run a profitable business again I would argue that any valuation is highly uncertain and ‘investing’ in it is a big risk whether you are long or short.

It is confusing but it is not an item at all for cash. It appears as a POSITIVE £35.4m in the loss for the period as it is a benefit from a reduction in lease liabilities. So it is in the starting point for the cash flow which is the ‘loss for the period’ of £14.7m (i.e. without the lease de-recognition the loss would have been 14.7+35.4=50.1m.

The loss for the period is then adjusted for the all the non-cash items to help arrive at the cash position which is why for example depreciation is ADDED as it was included as a negative in the profit and loss but has no impact on cash.

The lease liability reduction goes the other way. It was a positive in the profit and loss but is not a cash item so needs to be REMOVED to get to the cash-flow.

In short it appears as +£35.4m in the ‘loss for the period line’ and -£35.4m in the ‘Lease Writebacks’ line so that it nets off to zero which it should do as no cash is involved.

FED - The lease de-recognition was a non-cash one-off benefit to profit (a reduction in liabilities). It had no impact on cash which is why the benefit is removed in the profit to cash bridge.

Overall cash flow was negative by £33m in HY26. This is made up of FCF of £12.6m (the £22.1 you quote is an error in the report), lease payments of £9.1m and net interest payments of £11.2m.

*be by improving