Member Info for Hexam

"Did someone post earlier that there was $800m of tax write-offs Cineworld have?"

At the end of June they had a deferred tax asset of $478m. Because of the losses since then this will have grown somewhat but not to as much as $800m (they value the losses for this at 25% so would need over a $1bn of further losses to approach that figure).

The 25% is only an estimate on their part though so it could end up having more or less value but not sure if it has any value at all to an acquirer - but I'm not a tax expert so could be wrong. It does though, I think, retain it's value in any D4E transaction so long as the lenders feel that CINE can make enough profits in the future to use it all up.

@WaffenBurret - Wow, sorry you took so much offence at my 'rude' post but I really think you invited it with your original post which I believed displayed many of the traits you accuse me of, as does your latest reply.

You accuse me of being 'arrogant' yet you are the one saying you are using your "copious knowledge of the industry (profit and loss inc)".

Also you are saying I am using numbers unlikely to accurate. Why not? They are profit figures published by CINE in court documents. Are you saying they are incompetent or being deliberately misleading. If it's the latter then Mooky has a lot more to worry about than losing the company - he's likely tp lose his freedom as well.

So unlike you I am not arrogant enough to think the numbers they present are incorrect and that somehow I know more then the executives and number crunchers at CINE. So when they publish documents that show the business (excl RoW) has lost $560m between September and December I believe them. If you have access to any better information that shows something different then I'd be only too pleased to see it.

All the numbers I post are either facts or estimates based on facts with reasoning given for those estimates. I'm always happy to be challenged on those numbers with a sound opposing view. What I find annoying is so many posters (both rampers and trolls) come up with misleading numbers or statements either through ignorance or I suspect more because they have an agenda. So sometimes I can't resist being blunt in response, such as to your suggestion that CINE are deliberately playing down the value of the business to get the lenders to accept a bigger haircut.

Finally my "umpteen" posts a day (actually around 3 or so on average) are not really aimed at you or other rampers, or trolls, as I know they will just fall on deaf ears. It's for the people like me who genuinely want to understand as much as possible about the position CINE but whether they agree, disagree or simply dismiss my posts is up to them.

There are enough out there who want to engage in sensible discussion to make it worthwhile though (Wolf, Bonkers, Wellington, Tegop, bullsbear etc etc)

“and pay down more debt in the meantime”

Still hasn’t sunk in has it?

JG - I think you're right but you are referring to the business exit items which are different to the adjustments I'm thinking off and the business exits items have been treated consistently in both years.

I agree the 2021 results were very confusing and they are (a bit) simpler this year but I think some of the 'adjusted' comparisons are misleading as they include what are really one-off items that ought to be excluded from both sets of numbers rather than included - notably the reorganisation costs.

Waffen - Almost didn't bother replying to you as you are talking complete nonsense and clearly don't understand the relationship between profit and debt. But FWIW:

I am quoting official figures not made up ones.

January and February figures were outperforming their expectations, they did NOT outperform December so they will very likely not cover interest (again).

Debt has increased about $1bn as that's what the new lenders have put in as new money. None has been paid back so overall debt is up by about a $1bn.

Losses have been $560m in that time but any losses or profits do not impact debt unless more debt is taken out or, if they make a profit, debt is actually paid off. That is why it is different to the $1bn above. Net debt (i.e. cash less debt) WILL automatically change but even then it will change by the cash flow NOT the amount of profit - but I wasn't talking about net debt anyway.

Your statement: "In order to persuade the lenders to take a haircut, Cineworld are likely to paint the most negative interpretation they can to get the best deal." is one of the most stupid things I've seen on this board for very obvious reasons and besides if you look at any of their presentations they go out of their way to talk up the numbers.

As to why I'm here it's because I'm invested and want to share and gain useful information - something it's clear I'm not going to get from you.

Btw - I think you meant apples and oranges? Apples and pears is ****ney rhyming slang for stairs :)

Stanley - yes they are paying off pre-petition debt with post-petition new money (so overall debt remains unchanged). I can't see the $9m administrative costs that you are referring to but if they are in 1297 then that will only be UK. By the way there seems to have been some intercompany movements in December so best to look at totals across all three.

Not really JG - they excluded those things in 2021 from the adjusted figures which gave them a better result against 2020 and now they've added them back which gives a more favourable comparison for 2022 vs 2021 too. Sneaky or clever depending on which way you look at it.

Certainly some attractive looking prices at the moment - just took a bit more MARA on that opening.

"The FTSE All Share-listed firm posted an adjusted pretax profit of £73.8mln for the year ended 31 December 2022 compared with a loss of £122.8mln a year earlier"

I think this is very misleading as the adjusted pre-tax figure reported last year was actually a profit of £93.5m not a loss of £122.8m. They have re-presented last year numbers as they have changed there approach to reporting the adjusted figures, in particular:

"The comparatives have been re-presented on the same basis, with significant restructuring (£147.5m), contract-related provisions and impairments (£43.1m) and certain litigation and claims (credit £2.3m) now included within adjusted results for the year ended 31 December 2021."

So basically the improvement is almost entirely due to the fact that these one-off items have improved so much rather than due to ongoing, underlying performance.

That said it is good to see the net debt reduce regardless of the reason and am certainly not complaining about how the market has reacted as the sp is now above my average. Just hope the business can maintain this progress as the things that have helped so much this year are largely things that can't be repeated.

"If you take away the debt and the likes of Avatar doesn't make you profitable than what will?"

Indeed, that's the issue - despite the likes of Avatar, even if they had zero debt they would still not be profitable at the moment. In answer to your question they need Box Office to get much closer to 2019 levels and so whilst films like Avatar, Black Panther and Ant-Man have boosted box office, because there hasn't been enough support from the rest of the film slate it hasn't been enough. The film slate does seem to be filling out a bit now though.

Reducing their costs would also help and they are obviously in the process of doing this, in particular with the rent rejections and renegotiations.

"My point is that if they're not repaying interest than they must be making profit."

Really don't understand what you mean by this as firstly they ARE paying interest (that is very different to repaying debt) but even if they are not paying interest then it doesn't mean they are making profit (usually it would mean the reverse actually as it would mean things really are dire).

The latest reported numbers, for December, are in dockets 1297 (UK). 1298 (Picturehouse) and 1299 (US) and the losses add up to $135m for December (Nov was $101m, Oct was $203m and Sep was $120m). So around $560m total losses whilst in Ch 11 up to the end of December.

RoW is not included as this sits outside Ch 11 and MAY help a little bit.

All the figures above are after interest payable but even if you exclude interest (just on loans and borrowings) then the figures would still be negative. (Note the interest figures on the dockets are misleading as these include a lot of other finance costs not just the interest on loans and borrowings.)

Sorry Stanley but I don't understand your comment. They are definitely not repaying debt currently in the Ch 11 process (just moved some about with some of the extra funding the DIP lenders have put in). The debt has grown from just over $5bn pre-Ch 11 to just over $6bn now. They are NOT making profits now as the regular information they provide us with clearly shows (they are losing over $100m per month).

The liquidity crisis was NOT caused by them repaying debts - it's because they ran out of money due to the losses they were making, breaking loan covenants and couldn't raise more funds.

If you can show me any evidence of a repayment of debt in Chapter 11 or of any profit being made then great but all the information that I can see that they have released clearly shows the opposite.

Nothing to do with cakes (though I do admittedly love eating them).

"Are you sure that Cine are paying down debt?"

I'm pretty sure he isn't as clearly the company is not paying down any debt at the moment (though they have shuffled some bits around). When they are profitable again and have some spare cash they may start doing this but the reorganisation (or sale) in whatever form it takes will impact the outstanding debt well before that.

Just another made-up comment from maidit I'm afraid.

BITF figures out and big drop in BTC mined from 486 in January to 387 in February due to cold weather in Quebec, difficulty increase and shorter month. Still very efficient for all that and most will see similar drops and almost all will show lower efficiency.

https://bitfarms.com/investors/news-events/press-releases/detail/179/bitfarms-mines-387-btc-in-february-exceeding-20000-btc

patience - I agree, that's a good option as they add nothing and are just an irritant but I just don't filter anybody for various reasons, though in their case (and a few others) it is very tempting. I just simply try to ignore - but not always successfully :)

Sorry Roxy - but have to disagree. The loudest voices on here are the ones who shout their own book like Sharebel and ChaChing. Both have flooded this board at different times, and both either ramping it or slating it depending on whether they are in or out (but want to get in more cheaply). Little of what they say is factual or makes any sense at all, it's just the way they operate as oddly they believe their frequent and repetitive nonsense will move the sp in the direction they want - whether that is up or down.

The only difference when they are ramping is that they get more likes.

This news broke well before close of trading yesterday and is related to two very technical items. It had negligible impact on sp and although I’m not MARA’s biggest fan I think this is much more ‘storm in a tea cup’ than ‘disaster’.

Still might be ‘cowboys’ though - but that label could be applied to many miners…

No Chae, it's to do with impairment of digital assets (i.e BTC valuation) and also how they've treated revenues and costs from a mining pool that also has other participants.

The surprising thing is how close to release this happened although this seems to be because it was from something raised late in the day by the SEC.

But if it isn't PI money, with 6.6% of shares they would show up as a major shareholder - either through TR-1s or in the company accounts. They don't appear in either and I would trust those sources a lot more tbh.

HNS - I presume HBOS and AJ Bell actually represents PI money in the shares services of those companies. Not sure about the rest but can't imagine any ii risking client money on CINE though conceivably they might be taking a punt themselves.