Member Info for Hexam

There seems to be a lot more posts on ITS here than on the ITS board. Clearly desperate to drum up interest in a business that literally has no business.

Evraz - The total all in cost of ARB mining a single BTC was around $50k before Galaxy. We don’t know what it is now but do you truly believe it is under $30k? And if so why?

If they are lucky $30k may be enough to cover ongoing cash costs but that still means nothing is left for investment and with the large non-cash costs (depreciation and share scheme) is likely to leave them some considerable way off a profit.

@shazabo. If only it was just today. I fear we've got at least a fortnight of at least 20 posts a day of the same kind of garbage as before when the sp was a lot higher. I didn't think things could look much bleaker but here he is to prove me wrong - all we're missing now is Sharebel.

Not sure how investing a lot more is the 'safest' approach. It may well turn out to be the best approach but since it involves risking a lot more money I think 'safest' is an unfortunate choice of word.

Agree beatroot - too many fall for the marketing trick and think the discount somehow implies a bargain.

Closing date for votes is May 23rd.

Tegop - It is absolutely clear in several places in both the RSA and the disclosure statement that the $1.935bn DIP financing will be fully repaid and the new loan that is raised (the Exit First Lien Facility) will be $1.46bn but reduced by whatever the RoW sells for. So if the RoW sells for $800m then the new loan raised will become $660m.

It is as Wolf says I’m afraid. We are not getting anything from any ROW sale under this plan. I had hoped we might but that hope was dashed by the very explicit and unambiguous wording in both the RSA and the Disclosure statement.

That’s assuming of course that the plan gets approved as is.

Must admit I don't really get your point Stanley. Going forward on the plan they only have $1.4bn of debt and yes they should start making profits from 2024 (not immediately). The problem was CINE couldn't convince the lenders, or any potential buyer, that the business could support $6bn debt - hence the debt had to go and our equity (and a lot of what unsecured creditors are owed) is the price.

Again MIKODX - Please understand the difference between revenue and cash flow. They DO require funding and the plan outlines where this funding is coming from and what it will be used for - in part to repay the DIP financing but also to meet Ch11 related costs and provide necessary working capital.

Yes Waffen, but as I say I don't expect a major surprise in the numbers given how poorly the box office has done since the last official numbers (the interims) and the kind of figures that others have been reporting (eg amc).

So I have no reason to doubt they will be that far off so happy to take them at face value rather than just take the view that they can't be trusted at all and the company are deliberately releasing highly dubious numbers or even being deliberately misleading (which nothing obvious to gain by doing so).

So sorry, I'll take what's in front of me rather than your suspicions.

Hi Stanley - 'Gross Profit' is a line before a lot of other costs are allowed for including leases, selling expenses, general overheads etc. as well as interest.

Waffen - Are you seriously suggesting that Mooky would present deliberately misleading and weak numbers so that he will lose all his family's shareholding? What's his motivation?

All the numbers they have presented are broadly consistent with previous financials given recent box office performance and with actual figures from comparable cinema chains so I'm not sure where you expect a big surprise in the numbers to come from?

So yes, I would rather take note of the wealth of data the company has provided (even if it is unaudited as they are still numbers provided to a court of law) rather than your conjecture which appears to be based on no substance at all other than wishful thinking and a general conspiracy theory.

"Who is voting on this"

Basically the creditors though those that don't lose anything are assumed to accept it appears.

Shareholders don't get a vote.

Hi Stanley - I'm not seeing a big loss from interest in February and in fact they appear to have missed out interest in respect of leases again so if anything are overstating the results (again)?

I certainly don't see that CINE have any motive for downplaying the numbers - it just isn't in their interest.

"This means that at any point the court in Texas could rubber stamp it"

They can't do that at least until it has been voted on - and the deadline for voting is May 23rd.

"Either your Bankrupt or your not, cant have it both ways."

They are in bankruptcy proceedings but Chapter 11, not Chapter 7. They had $4m cash left in the bank before the DIP financing. If that financing had not arrived they would have been properly bankrupt (Chapter 7). If they don't get further funding they will go into Chapter 7 anyway as they are still losing money.

I think you're rather missed the whole point/nuance of Chapter 11.

MIXODX - The interims showed them losing cash ($217m) and all the figures since have showed them losing more money and the projections show them running out of cash hence the need to raise a further $800m.

I suggest instead that you 'use your loaf' and realise that revenue is not the same as profit or cash flow. They are also not turning over nearly as much as they were pre-covid - and what they are is not enough to cover costs.

"the company is still going to continue to trade, and is still going to be earning tens of millions every month."

Where do see that it is earning tens of millions each month?

They are expected to run of cash without a further injection of funds.

“as there is just no reason that i can see for this RNS”

It is because they have now filed the plan and more importantly they have also filed the disclosure statement (docket 1510). The disclosure statement is really useful as unlike the RSA it is written in plain English (or at least much closer to it) and confirms that any RoW sales proceeds will simply reduce the amount of Exit First Lien Facility on a dollar for dollar basis.

It also states that if the plan is not approved then the most likely outcome is then liquidation.

I suggest though that people read this much more accessible document for themselves rather than be swayed by the interpretation of anybody on this board (especially of the more zealous rampers and derampers) and make their own mind up.

“Still nothing about RoW”

It was mentioned explicitly in the last RNS. It is also mentioned in the RSA where it seems to suggest that any sale amount will, if I’ve read it right, just reduce the amount of new loans being sought ($1.46bn) on a pound for pound basis.

As you say George the offering is fully underwritten but Golitha is correct in what this means in practice i.e. that it is the taking up of the new shares that is underwritten not the actual rights (which cease to exist past the deadline). One slight correction though is that the new shares in respect of sold rights will still form part of the rump placing if they were not exercised by those that bought them.

So the company still get their 1.8bn (the key thing) but the money may come from those that take up the rights, subscribers to the rump placing or the underwriters (though I personally don’t know of any previous RI where the underwriters were left holding any shares).