Member Info for Hexam

Fair enough Tegop, poor choice of words on my part but what I really meant was anything to get excited about. I think we are very much in the endgame now and the dockets simply reflect that.

Yes Tegop, the Kroll site is working fine, though no dockets of any real interest posted recently. So not sure where maid is getting his information from - but then that's always been the case as he just seems to make it up as he goes along. Maybe he should borrow Ian's binoculars? Then again, maybe not.

Pianista - Agree (sort of) but that wasn’t the point of the original claim which was how the debt was huge and the cost so much to service it that the company had to make lots of ‘profit’ just to stand still.

What really matters actually on lease payments is the total amounts that have to be paid and these all need to be met out of revenue (not profit else double-counting). The way it is represented in the accounts for profitability though is via depreciation and interest which just affects the timing and split of those payments - not the total to be paid at all.

Saying part of those payments have to be met out of ‘profits’ but not the rest makes no sense unless you specify it as being met out of EBIT (so before ALL interest) which pre-pandemic was running at around €1.2m - comfortably enough to meet the total interest of €300-400m so not standing still at all.

"The company have worked miracles to squeeze a profit before tax given the nigh on £20b of borrowings"

They didn't squeeze a profit before tax I'm afraid. They made a loss before tax of €121m.

They squeezed an 'operating profit' of €9m but that is not profit before tax as it before finance expenses - including the cost of all that borrowing.

This is still in my view a very good result and promises well for the future but it's not quite the 'miracle' that you think it is though to be fair the way they presented the results is very misleading especially in the headline table by only showing operating profit and profit after tax but missing out profit before tax (which is only shown in later tables).

Chae - I said yesterday I didn’t think Mara would be profitable for Q1 but looking more closely I see they sold about 2000 BTC in the quarter. Any profit from these will be recognised so there should be decent gains from these which may push them into profits after all so you may get your wish!

Operationally though (i.e. costs per BTC mined) they are still weak and were well behind peers in Q4 but let’s see if that is still the case in Q1.

I agree that healthy debate is good and can only increase collective knowledge and hopefully chances of success.

Net interest expected in recent presentation = c€420m.

Deduct estimate of interest saved from loans repaid as part of RI and pay down of cash RCF since report - say €100m based on figures in RNS.

Deduct lease liability interest at 4 times level in quarterly report = €170m.

420 - 100 - 170 = 150.

Only an estimate but gives ballpark figure of interest they have to pay this year on loans.

Apologies for responding (again) Mike but it was a fair question.

@ForeverNever - which bit is it that you are saying is silly. The first bit is factually correct as the €9m is profit before interest and is not enough to cover it.

The second bit I agree is questionable and I don’t agree with it.

Overall I was impressed with the results but them saying that they had made a profit left a bit of a sour taste and was disingenuous at best as the total loss was actually €87m. Otherwise very happy with the results just wish they didn’t spin it so much - no need with results that are good anyway.

“So the company is forecasting approx. £2bn of profit this year but only has a market cap of <£8bn. Seems cheap to me.”

It would amazingly cheap if that was the total profit figure but they are only referring to operating profit - total net earnings will be much less. Still healthy looking numbers though.

Penta - I not sure offhand what that 99% represents but I don’t think it’s all them (just the top one or two tiers)?

It’s all academic though as whether the value is $3bn, $4bn or $5bn it’s not the level we need in order to see something back for us.

Agree Tegop - they must think it is worth more than what they were offered. My own guesstimate of what it is worth is anywhere between $500m and a €1bn but obviously I’ve no idea what they value it at or what they were actually offered.

I don’t see what the relevance the AUM of bidders has? However deep their pockets they wouldn’t pay more than they think it’s worth as that would be bad business and just a vanity purchase.

Penta - I think you may be right if all the lenders with the $6bn were taking a full part in the new company but they are not so their money will all or partially be lost.

Also it is about getting back as much as they can. The actual assets on breakup aren’t worth more than $2bn I think but if they think the company is worth $4bn say then what they’ve done still makes sense compared to the Chapter 7 alternative.

Tegop - they probably did get an offer more than $271m for RoW - that figure is just its debt. The lenders would want a lot more than that though to help make big inroads into the $6bn debt of the rest of the group - they clearly didn’t get a figure which matched their own valuation (whatever that was).

Must admit I don’t follow your logic Penta.

“Wolf, you're wrong with every one of your assumptions so I'm not going to argue anymore. Just because nobody has bought Cineworld (yet) on the proposed terms doesn't mean the business is worthless.”

I don’t think Wolf is wrong with any of his assumptions and he is not suggesting it is worthless just that it is not worth $6bn.

If you can suggest how it might be then I’m all ears but I don’t think there is any of the many ways of valuing a business that can come close to this. Certainly no bidder thought so and that I’m afraid is a fact.

Mike - Thanks. I do generally ignore him and he is not in my head at all so don’t worry about that.

I only respond to trolls like him (and excessive rampers who I feel can be just as bad) when they put out false or deliberately misleading information.

I think some might be concerned when he starts quoting numbers which on the face of it may seem reasonable. Not everyone will understand all the financials, or have the time to look in to them, and you don’t really need to to invest - after all I bet on horses and have never ridden one or know much about them beyond reading the form. I also don’t bother with the detailed financials myself on most of my investments - it would be a full time job and very tedious.

So just trying to fight fiction with fact which might help some with less of a financial background or that don’t have the time or inclination to dig into the numbers themselves. ATB

Really good summing up AB. The only small detail I’d argue with is that I think they are mining to around 1.8 EH rather than 1.5EH. Still rubbish though. Their weird allegiance to Intel whilst selling so cheaply machines they already had was very odd - presumably contractual.

Lack of capacity for growth by far the biggest issue now.

“How much do TUI have to pay in debt interest every year?”

About €150m so not at all prohibitive. The rest is interest on lease liabilities which is part of the €600m plus payments they make on these each year.

They should make more than enough revenue this year and beyond to comfortably cover all costs including wages, fuel, leases, interest etc.

“Shareholder equity is negative, so what is everyone buying into?”

No. It isn’t. Even if it was that’s not what you but into - you buy into a share of future profits which as I say I believe will be very healthy.

“Debt getting more expensive every month”

No, it isn’t, as they’ve just paid off a big chunk of it and it had already reduced before that. Now about €1.5bn less than it was at the end of the last quarter reported - the numbers are in the RNS. Also about €500m of what’s left is on fixed rates.

If you’re going to argue financials then you’d be better doing so with someone who doesn’t understand them.

Might I suggest a mirror - or would that be advice?

"as this is getting silly with asset worth C $20B"

Just stupid - where on earth do you get $20bn from???

I never give advice so you'll be a long time waiting for that.

Nice of you to bring up CINE. Irrelevant, but nice. I'm a cautious investor so split my investments over many companies and so like most people I have lots of winners and losers. The difference between CINE and TUI is that I recognise (unlike some on that board) that's it is a lost cause now - whereas TUI has already survived what should be the worst and I believe the financials, returning customers and trends in their figures all point to a rosy future and a much higher sp.

But I could be wrong, and even if I'm right another curveball could wreck things so it's just my view and everybody should make their own mind up and not be led by me, you or anybody else.

It was trailed a long time before it was actually announced so I'm not sure how much further ahead of the curve we could have been.

Anyway a big thank you to yourself and Quickdip whose endless questioning of the company made me double check all the financials as I welcome constructive negativity on boards as it's always better to know something even if it is bad rather than stick your fingers in your ears and pretend that it is good.

However, seems all your negativity is just that and not constructive at all. Just false or twisted information to try to put people off TUI. So by digging deeper I've increased my confidence in TUI. I know that the unexpected can happen (as has unfortunately been shown many times in the last few years) so it's certainly not a sure thing but thank you again for helping to reassure me. Much appreciated!