Member Info for Hexam

Mara may be right (haven't checked) but ARB isn't 16% since the start of 2021 and at least HUT8 and BITF are in better shape at the moment if just looking at admin costs (including bonuses) as a proportion of revenue. So at best I think it is misleading.

Don't disagree with that but just looking at this year ARB appear much worse than HUT8 and BITF on this basis (and only looked at these three) so wouldn't trust-the message here. Also bonuses tend to be shared based - still not good but much less critical than cash costs at the moment.

"Trolls, this is bad because......"

...the numbers are rubbish?

AB - did you look at all to see if these numbers were reasonable?

They look way off to me and if I remember correctly Arcane published some other nonsense stuff before favouring Argo, They appear to be like Boatman - but from the opposite view.

Wow - that’s a useful post. How about posting about Arb rather than pathetic posts like this?

No it’s not.

Patience - we know the revenue, costs, profit, cash flow, assets and liabilities. Nothing material is missing. Just the detail on these.

antmoss - I wouldn’t read too much into it. Going into Chapter 11 doesn’t change anything numbers wise (as all as at 30th June) but obviously the commentary will need overhauling and there may be other implications (e.g. clearly on any outlook statements). A bit of extra time to get everything squeaky clean isn’t a big surprise really.

What good results? We already know the results and they’re not good.

Hi Jeff - no worries. I don't think there are any experts on Chapter 11 here so we're all learning :)

Being part of the DIP certainly gives the lenders priority as far as that money is concerned (as it's clearly stated) but I don't think it pushes their existing loans up the queue (remember the judge pushed back, for now, their attempt to try to use some of the new funds to pay off some of the old loans to it seems do precisely that)!

I don't know exactly what the ramifications are for the existing loans though or, for that matter, the loans of those who choose not to participate in the DIP financing. Perhaps someone else does?

Anyway, see what you think of docket 221 though I don't think helps with this question - but does I think with your earlier one.

Wolf - page 12 (slide number 11) - shows the logos of the 3 advisors on the left and the 24 lenders on the right.

As I said, I don’t know if these are all the lenders or only those that had initially signed up for the DIP - I’m guessing the latter but not at all sure.

Jeff - If you read the court docs - in particular Docket 221 - you can draw your own conclusions. FWIW my reading is that all lenders are invited to take part in the arrangement as:

“Each Lender will be offered its pro rata share of the superpriority senior DIP term loan”

They had until Sep 15th to be part of the group and I think this means they are then providing a share of the financing and that this has priority over all other loans.

So my reading is that yes, they do have to put up money to join the DIP and this is in proportion to their share of the $4bn current outstanding secured debt.

Wolf - In the presentation you posted yesterday it lists 24 lenders who make up the ‘ad hoc loan group’ which is later indicated to cover the $4bn or so of current loans falling under the prepetition agreement.

What is not clear is whether these 24 make up all of the lenders so holding the full $4bn or, more likely I think, just those in the DIP already (covering ‘52%’ so around $2bn?) or something else. No indication either of what each holds though the three lenders Jeff mentioned are all on that list.

Haha - Sorry Wellington but I have tried to stop/given up responding to Ian (and others) who keep peddling the same bizarre messages about how there can’t be a D4E etc. but I was just trying to get to the bottom of the whole HSBC thing. It now seems that’s another myth too.

As to Wolf I’ve conversed with him on other boards and am pretty sure his motives are what he says they are but whatever they are he provides much more useful info than most and he clearly has good knowledge about company financials. He’s just a bit more bearish in what this all means for CINE than I am.

Ian, sorry but yep, I don’t believe you as can see no evidence that HSBC are major lenders and even the article you posted said they were brokers, not lenders, to the Regal deal.

Happy to be proved wrong and if there is a list of creditors out there somewhere I would love to see it.

The 52% of lenders represent I think $2bn of debt not $1bn (that’s the share of DIP). The other 48% have been invited to join in as I understand it.

Wolf - Regal was paid for by an RI plus debt.

Yes, it looks from what Ian has also posted that HSBC (and Barclays) were ‘selling’ the loans to finance the Regal deal and are not lenders themselves (at least not significant ones) so think we can dismiss all this stuff about HSBC scuppering any deal.

Poor - thx. I’ve seen them mentioned but only as advisors. They may be lenders too but I can’t find anything to verify this as CINE are quite tight-lipped on their creditors. A few have been mentioned but not HSBC in anything I’ve seen so it would be good to know one if they do actually hold any significance in this process or not.

Well, I can’t find any reference to them so am just looking for some evidence beyond hearsay that they are so key in this process - or just another lender - or a lender at all.

Wolf - have you seen anything that shows HSBC as a lender and, if so, how much roughly??

Ian - I think you are getting confused with carried forward losses. If a company makes a loss then they can offset it against profits in future years and keep doing this until they make enough profit to use up all of the previous losses. So if they make a loss of $2bn this year and a profit of $1bn next year and another $1bn the year after then they pay no tax for 3 years. They would still only get tax relief on the $2bn loss once though - so a value of around $400m. The number of years it takes to use it up will vary though.

Having looked at the loans in more detail I can find no evidence that HSBC are the main lender or even that they are a lender at all. The RNS's, accounts and press stories I've looked at confirm HSBC as being an advisor for the Regal deal, and one of the underwriters for the Rights Issue, but there is nothing to suggest they provided any substantial loan funding - instead it appears to be a group of unnamed lenders that provided it. If you've got anything that shows something different then happy to be enlightened otherwise I think I'll treat all this stuff about HSBC with a large pinch of salt.

“HSBC financed the deal to buy Regal. Their debts owed are over two billion. They are the main lenders and as such are the equivalent to having the first charge on Cineworld. Like your mortgage.

All other lenders, sign a paragraph which means they lend with the knowledge that HSBC debts comes first and there loans are subservient to theirs.
Hence why they have control of any deal.“

Do you have any evidence for any of this?

Also if they lose all $2bn (again I can’t see anywhere that it is $2bn) then they can offset it against profits when paying tax but that only means a benefit of around $400m assuming normalish tax rates. So that’s still $1.6bn net loss - surely they want to avoid this and D4E is in my view their best chance of doing so.

However many years they can offset tax they are still better off not making the loss in the first place. Also if they owned or part owned CINE then any losses from this would be allowable against tax too.

As to HSBC I don't know how much debt they have (cannot see any breakdown of loan by lender) but I don't see how they can veto a D4E if enough stakeholders - and the judge - are in favour.

Personally I cannot see a viable, or at least a better, option than a D4E for lenders but we shall see.