Member Info for Hexam

"There are loads of posts on ARB board by alleged investors, claiming btc will fail. I agree they are downright stupid but they are claiming to be invested lol."

Who?

Its price has gone down over 70% so yes, correct BC, it has failed SO FAR (on this basis) as both a currency and a store of value.

If the price can stabalise then of course it could succeed as either of these things in the future (obviously makes little sense being both).

But appreciate the way you have twisted, as usual, what other people say into something they didn't say and then try to score a point from it.

"You can now use BTC to buy real estate in Dubai. Soon you’ll be able to do it in the Uk. It’s only a matter of time."

So what? Personally I don't believe it will ever gain 'mass adoption' (for all the reasons HC has given and more) but even if it did surely it can only do so if it is stable and that means no more opportunities for huge rises? I just don't understand why mass adoption automatically leads to a good thing from a BTC value viewpoint (other than stabalising that value).

It may indeed survive as a speculative investment but as a currency or a store of wealth it has shown itself singularly unfit for purpose - so far at least.

Yes, very similar. The goodwill has no value if it actually goes bust but any prospective buyer will simply do their own cash flow valuation of what that goodwill represents (which I imagine in this case mainly relates to future benefits from the Regal purchase).

“in other words who would want that asset if Cine went bust”

That’s the point - they are not assets of CINE in that sense (other than any fixtures and fittings they’ve added).

If they went bust the assets and liabilities would go to zero.

If somebody wanted to buy CINE they would value the leases by comparing the rents and other costs with the revenues they generate.

Elvis. The leases have to be capitalised for both assets and liabilities (and to the same amount less costs) or else the balance sheet wouldn’t balance.

The liability just reflects the value placed of future rents. To offset this an asset is set up of the same amount, less any costs of setting up the lease, and this represents the value of property they are able to use for a limited amount of time.

The only impact on profit initially is those costs.

Over time the impact on profit is from the reduction in the value of assets (via depreciation) plus the interest unwinding on the liability side.

It used to be far simpler when no asset or liability was set up and it was simply the rents themselves that went through the profit line.

All very boring but hope it helps.

Agree Wolf to an extent but the fact that 40 or so leases have already been rejected completely suggests their power is not as great as some others.

Obviously though they are trying to get as much of their leases honoured as possible just as the lenders are with their loans (in one way or another). The more parties that are happy the better chance any agreement has of succeeding.

“I wouldn’t exactly say I’m relaxed about the $4bn lease liability - sounds like each lease is being renegotiated, the other side of the balance sheet is $2bn odd of lease assets (being depreciated) that they will eventually own when they pay off the long term lease, years ahead”.

I’m more relaxed about this. The future lease payments (rents) are given a value on the balance sheet as both a liability (and as you say) an asset - in fact at the start of each lease this is more or less the same in each case.

So long as CINE is profitable then the rents will continue to be paid on time like all other costs. In the meantime they are being renegotiated (or even rejected) which will mean CINE has more chance of returning to profitability and more quickly.

Btw when the lease runs out CINE doesn’t own the property, that remains with the landlord. If CINE want to continue using it they have to renew the lease and a new asset and liability set up.

Elvis - for all we know all the Ad Hoc group may be playing ball already. The DIP financing is fixed at $1.9bn. Even if all the ad hoc group participated then it remains $1.9bn - it wouldn’t go up to $4bn.

Yes, those that do participate have the strongest hand - certainly in terms of being paid back (in respect of the $1.9bn as this has priority over all other loans) and probably in negotiations too.

The 12.9% nominees as far as I can see have no particular influence. They are just PIs like you and me who have individual votes but simply hold their shares together on the HL platform i.e. there is no collective 12.9% vote. That’s my understanding anyway, but if you do find anything that contradicts this though then would be interested in seeing it.

"Shareholders- Mooky 20% is held through the Dutch NV Global City Holdings I think, so what is the 20% HSBC shareholding?"

I believe they are all one and the same thing (HSBC is just the bank where they are held).

Elvis - I think there is some confusion between the DIP and the DIP lenders.

The DIP are Cineworld and naturally it is they who are in negotiation with the Ad Hoc Group and this is what docket 1040 that you posted says.

The DIP lenders are those within the Ad Hoc group (possibly all of them) who are providing the DIP financing to CINE.

So CINE negotiating with the Ad Hoc group (or DIP lenders) doesn't seem odd to me at all.

"So now I am really puzzled about the make up of Ad Hoc loans and DIP and it is DIP who are negotiating with Ad Hoc"

My understanding, as mentioned earlier, is that the DIP lenders are either the Ad Hoc group (in which case they are obviously not in any negotiations with themselves!) or they are a subset of the Ad Hoc group (and so may be negotiating with those in the group that are not also DIP lenders).

Must admit I haven't seen any explicit mention of such negotiations but I haven't read all 200 pages!

Among the errors:

HSBC do not hold 20% - it is just where the shares are held for other investors (presumably the Global City Holding - Mooky and Israel). Proof of this is that this 20% under HSBC does not appear in the accounts as a major holding.

HL Nominees are just those PIs that hold their shares with HL so the many thousands of individual PIs own those shares not HL.

Polaris have disinvested entirely (as notified via RNS a few months ago).

Sorry Elvis but that list has some obvious errors as covered before on this board. @patiencebringsit posted a much more accurate list that was consistent with both TR-1s and the major holdings as listed in the latest accounts.

What evidence is there for that??

Agree AB - there is no logical reason why the halving should lead to a pump in BTC other than a self-fulfilling one - but that may well be enough - who knows?

Yes, the Amazon thing is more significant I think and I agree, the signs look good.

bullsbears - I'm not sure of the reasons but it is not just a CW thing. The release is actually quite limited worldwide - only 600 or so theatres are showing it in North America for example. This suggests it is more to do with Netflix using it as an experiment and driving the number but whatever the reason it will be interesting to see how this experiment plays out in terms or audience figures and. ultimately, future policy.

"Estimates of fair value remain above $40k"

How does the notion of 'fair value' apply to BTC and, even if can apply, how is it calculated?

Must admit, I agree with HC - I can see no data that suggests a marked move towards mass adoption. It may well happen in the future but there seems nothing to suggest that it is happening now.

The rise from 2p to 9p came off the back of the RNS that made 'proper bankruptcy' much less likely.

If there is now news that there is a potential sale on much better terms for existing shareholders than today's sp, or there is a restructuring plan that does not significantly reduce our share in the company, then of course there could be a 200% rise. But to suggest such a rise could occur without any such news, or could be achieved 'easily', is just the usual nonsense.