Member Info for Hexam

Actually SCB his total remuneration for FY25 was closer to £5m as the £4.5m only relates to his time during the year as a director. So I can argue it! ;-)

Just to add there is also another £290k share award but I haven't included this as it vests after year end. So the £4.5m as shown on page 99 just relates to the remuneration he has actually received in the year SINCE he became CEO. (The total he actually received is a bit higher as need to add his pre-CEO salary as well).

...and it also clearly states his full year salary is £650,000 (page 98) so the £216k is definitely just the 4 months pay received that falls within FY25.

Mt - He probably did get over £2m in cash:

£216k from his CEO salary from November to Feb

£400k bonus

£1.1m buyout of legacy Debs arrangement

That's over £1.7m and need to add his 8 months' pay as Debs CEO which would likely mean he picked up over £2m cash for FY25. It is less than half of his total benefits received though so you are correct in that respect. I also agree that it is too much for what has (or rather hasn't) been achieved.

Mt - I think the salary you're looking at (£216,667?) is just that actually received for the 4 months since he took over the CEO role in November - so a full year would be £650k.

On top of this he also received the £400k cash bonus plus £1.1m also in cash as part of buying out his legacy arrangement for his Debs Role.

On top of that he also got £2.8m in shares (plus £290k discretionary but that was vesting after year end so not included in his £4.5m total) and so the £4.5m comprises:

Salary £216,667 (so DOESN'T include his salary before he became CEO

Annual Bonus £400,000

Cash £1.1m in respect of buy-out of legacy Debs arrangement

Equity £1.1m in respect of buy-out of legacy Debs arrangement

Equity £1.7m LTIP from his Debs role

Pension Equivalent £10,833

Other Benefits £893

Total £4,528,393 as per report plus whatever he was paid pre-CEO

Yes SCB, Bfd is wrong if he is on one of usual blaming the MMs rants. All I'm saying is that although saying 'every share sold has a buyer' is technically true that is not the same as suggesting that there are equal buyers and sellers in the market, just that the MM is buying the shares off me for the price he is offering - it doesn't mean someone else out there is immediately willing to buy those shares (and when they do they won't be paying the same price).

So if there are more buys than sells it does in essence mean more buying is going on in the market but eventually it will even out as MMs adjust their stock and keep the market moving.

This notion that every trade is 'matched' is false as this suggests if I sell 11,856 shares then the market maker has found someone to buy those 11,856 shares. He hasn't (yet). He just adds 11,856 shares to his stockpile which will increase if more people keep selling to him but will reduce if people start buying. There is no immediate 'matching' - that only really happens in auctions.

It does matter in the context of what was being discussed. So not 'End of' at all.

At the risk of disagreeing with you (again!) SCB (and others) it is not the whole story saying every trade has a buyer and a seller. Strictly speaking this is of course true. However, a buy occurs is when shares are purchased by an investor (us, institutions or even other market makers) off the market maker at their ask price and a sell occurs when we are selling shares to the market maker at their bid price. So when you say 'Each completed trade requires one party to buy and the other to sell at a specific price' that does not mean both parties are investors, only one is and the other is a market maker.

So investors aren't typically 'brought together' immediately, instead the amount the MM holds will fluctuate.

So when more buys are recorded than sells it means more of us are buying than selling at that particular time (and conversely that MMs are selling more than they are buying).

That said it does not imply that the price will automatically go up simply because more investors are buying as there are plenty of reasons for the opposite to happen. For example there may be a big seller in the background, MMs may have excess stock they want to run down quickly etc. etc.

Ultimately though if there remains more buying pressure from investors then the MMs will soon raise the price as otherwise they would run out of stock eventually and so need to attract sellers. The opposite is clearly true for BOO though and they have continually lowered the price as it is the selling pressure that has dominated for so long (through poor sentiment from persistent company underperformance) and they need to keep lowering the price to try to attract buyers. Simple market dynamics with MMs trying to move as many shares as possible as they respond to market supply and demand (as you rightly say) and no need for the the conspiracy theories of some. The only place one needs to look to explain the share price is the company's woeful performance. If there are signs it is turning around then so will the share price.

Possibly more influenced by ASOS's weak trading update?

"Until then we have to put up with our resident shorters posting 10,15 ,20 times a day unfortunately"

No you don't. Even if they are shorters you don't have to put up with them at all. If you are not interested in what they have to say just filter them like I have with Bfd and now I don't have to put up with him posting 10, 15, 20 times a day. Sorted :-)

I assume from your comment SCB that greenboxman is whinging about me not disagreeing with any of your comments? Must say it's nice not having to read his bile at the moment, endlessly playing the victim (from other posters, MMs etc.) or disagreeing with something I haven't said.

However, for the record there are quite a few things we disagree on in addition to the 5p.

- I've already said that unlike you I don't think that Debs MP will show a loss for FY25 and given my reasons why. Obviously I could be wrong though

- I disagreed with your prediction that losses would be over £300m and in that case I WAS wrong

- I agreed that suspension was nailed on but only IF they didn't produce the results by the end of August (which in the end they did - just, and clearly rushed! I didn't know the rules around AGM timing so never commented on that.

- I don't think there are any ulterior motives for the BODs behaviour in driving the sp lower, I simply think they are incompetent

- I don't think though it is nearly as doomed as you make out. If I did I would have sold up my (more than 2% of my portfolio) holding already but I do think the best chance of recovery is under different management, as a result of a takeover (made difficult though by the existing major shareholders) or getting an inflated price for part(s) of the business. I have little faith in the marketplace being enough or that current management can revive the rest of the business

- I don't think they are running out of cash quite as quickly as you do although I do agree that the situation is pretty grim and although the new RCF has helped they are not out of the woods yet

- I don't agree with you that BOO will be 5-7p after H1 results as I think the market has such low expectations that even BOO will find it difficult to undershoot them

I'm sure there are other things as well but generally I agree with most of what you post and certainly more than when you were bullish on the stock (and we had one or two run-ins then!) and definitely more than what the delusional, argumentative and twisty chief ramper posts. Though to be fair as I can no longer see what he is flooding the board with for all I know he could be making sense and discussing things in a grown-up manner now? Hope springs eternal!

“Well if these are the best counter arguments on here i will follow the director buys. Im pretty confident the directors will have invested more in the last couple of weeks than the rest of this chat board put together”

Great strategy, though might want to consider how well all the previous director buys have worked out…

They may have more information but clearly they don’t know the future any better than the rest of us.

I think you meant 'knell' rather than 'kneel' though I'd like to see a death kneel :-) New wrestling move?

Otherwise I agree with you. Most of the fanatics have either given up or been banned now and the only excitement is when the pump and dump crew show up. Hopefully they can reappear one more time so I can take maybe a final profit but meanwhile we just have the inane mutterings from a Greek island and the people that successfully wind him up.

Next attempted raise is due just before, or maybe just after, Christmas and the success or otherwise of that will determine whether this charade continues much longer.

Don't worry, as soon as the shorts and MMs stop playing their games this will shoot to £4 in the blink of an eye ;-)

"Bit to help you stats show that only 50% of Sme's are successful at getting a loan."

I'm not surprised but that just supports your interpretation of SCB's statement and is not an argument against what he actually said.

This is what you always do. You make out someone said B when they actually said A and then argue why B is wrong.

It's become too boring now so a spell in the green box for you. Bye for now.

I don't know of an example offhand where it isn't true - but in any event I agree with the sentiment of the statement and the point in making it, that just because a company got a loan doesn't make administration unlikely. Rather than debate you just dismissed it in your usual high-handed style saying "That could be one of the dumbest things you have said" when it wasn't dumb at all. You just misunderstood it - deliberately or otherwise.

Or I should say that they are two very different statements that can both be true - confused myself there with so much twisting going on!

"That's a ridiculous argument to say a business is able to get a loan... Every business that ever went into administration was able to get a loan..."

Most likely true at least to a very large extent.

"every business can't get finance"

Also true.

Two very different statements but Mr Twisty is at it again trying to make out that they are one and the same.

Sigh.

"Lenders may not lose but they are required to do due diligence on who they are lending to. That includes ensuring the entity they are lending to is able to meet the payments and is using the funds as discussed."

Surely all they are interested in is whether they think it is a good business transaction not just a narrow view of whether they can pay back or not (and not exactly who they are required to do such due diligence by)? This is not a high street bank doing the lending.

"Why Debenhams paid off a £97m loan months early if they have a cash crunch? Especially since the RCF wasn't signed until August, so they still had time if it was related to overall debt."

It may have been part of the conditions for the refinancing or they 'went early' as they thought waiting to get longer term funding would have made it more difficult to get. The very high interest rate on the loan they did get shows they were not in a strong bargaining position.

"- How a company can get a new RCF in August 2025 yet be facing an imminent cash crunch? (I can see a case for it collapsing over time depending on their execution going forward)."

The lenders don't lose out either way. They either get their sizeable interest plus money back or the company defaults and they recover their money that way from the assets and/or gain control of the business.

"- What people want from Debenhams/Boohoo Group going forward? Do you all want to see it die? Sold off to Mike Ashley? Another party?"

I want to see a business making real profits not pretend ones and the sp will then reflect this. Not just soundbites like 'laser focused', 'online powerhouse', 'all our brands are trading profitability' (just don't look at the overall loss). Or that they get inflated sums for all or parts of the business and that is reflected in the sp instead.

"- Talking of Mike Ashley. Why has he spent £250m of Frasers' funds trying to acquire Debenhams without any backlash from Fraser investors? If he wants it so badly then why doesn't he make a sensible offer, after all it doesn't matter if the board agrees or not, he can make an offer to make them look bad? What has or Frasers done since calling out Tim Morris? Why don't they publish the full terms of the better financing deal?"

Can't see him making a bid for what would have to be for at least around triple the current sp. Not sure what he has in mind but I don't see him as either the white knight or the bogeyman. It is more important to me that BOO put their own house in order by either turning the business around or flogging it (or part of it) for a decent price - rather then obsess over what MA may or may not do.

" Why people care so much to point multiple times per/day? I guess, I better do some self-reflection on this ;)"

So what? People can post as much as they like and although I wish some didn't post so often it their life and if they annoy me that much I can always use the filter button. It's what it is there for.