Member Info for Hexam

So to sum up - no progress since last update, no deals, no sign of revenue, increased losses, increased cash burn and a guaranteed raise before very long - and still some of the campers are happy.

Never mind, according to some we shouldn’t waste time dissecting RNS so just ignore all the facts and hold on to your dreams.

Not three weeks but 29 weeks. True the extra £50m has only been there for a minimum of four weeks but they could have been holding back as much as possible until that arrived so a chunky amount of spend could have occurred as soon as the funds became available. They also can't run the business effectively if the cash goes too close to zero so it's not a case of all £94m disappearing. If it is down to below £25m or so then I think they'd be doing the sort of things the Telegraph is suggesting.

FED - Nearly seven months ago it only had £44m cash. Even with the higher RCF that only increases it to £94m. From that has to be deducted the cash losses for the last seven months including any increase in inventory. How much is left is hard to say but the Telegraph article suggests not that much and I'm not sure that should be a big surprise. A surprise maybe but not a big one.

(The RCF shouldn't take long to draw down otherwise it doesn't meet its purpose.)

"In any event what you are challenging seems to be the Top Shop £180m valuation"

NO, I am not, how can you possibly still think that? And nobody ever thought it was incorrect so there is nothing to 'ascertain'? And I did read the whole thread but I was replying to the specific comment in your post immediately preceding mine which you twice denied making. And 'as to jumping in with both feet on something that has nothing to do with you' isn't the whole point of a discussion forum to 'jump in' on any thread and give one's view - after all it is what you do all the time!

I should filter you but I was always taught to stick up to stupid bullies rather than run away. Instead I'll just try to ignore you as much as possible unless you say something really daft (which unfortunately won't cut it down very much).

No, Bfd this is where YOU are going wrong as this is the post I was responding to NOT the one you keep suggesting I was simply because it suits you more:

Bfdinvestor

Posts: 7,715

Price: 12.80

No Opinion

RE: Europe flat to higher premarket with PMI reports in focusToday 11:46

So are you saying Top Shop didn't sell for an overall valuation of £180m CWWX?

Now who should we believe. The poster who said suspension was nailed on or the guy with two decades experience in online retail

It's a tough choice....

--------

Glad to clear that up for you.

No, I jumped on the comment where you suggested that CWWX was saying Topshop wasn't worth £180m i.e. you were twisting what he had said in his first post (and the one you keep referring to). It was that twisting I was remarking on NOT the original post itself but you still don't (or won't) get it but keep referring to the original post which I DIDN'T jump in on at all. And you call me dim?

This is getting to be like a bad comedy sketch. Enough.

"Hexam as I have posted multiple times, that isn't what I said at all."

Really. So you didn't say:

"So are you saying Top Shop didn't sell for an overall valuation of £180m CWWX?" which I then 'jumped in on' saying he didn't say that at all.

or then

"Strange Hexam, this looks very much like a £180m overall valuation to me. Care to explain why it isn't?" when I hadn't said it wasn't.

You keep reiterating the same line about 'what Finley says Bfd believes' which is irrelevant and which I haven't commented on at all. Bizarre behaviour.

“The only thing I'm struggling to understand Hexam is your lack of any logic.”

I really don’t think it is the only thing!

My logic is sound. You are simply claiming we both said something very specific (that Topshop was not valued at £180m) which neither of us did.

If you think we did then please reproduce where either of did say exactly that and not something completely different that you have drawn your own (incorrect) conclusions from. Or better still, just shut up. Please.

I agree, it is a £180m valuation. I never say it wasn't, nor did CWWX. You really are struggling on the comprehension front (again) today aren't you?

He didn't say that TopShop didn't sell for an overall valuation of £180m. That was your own twist - just like you do to all of us.

And no, I don't think it is a valid comparator. A rather stupid one in fact I think.

Not sure about Mr Sad or Mr Funny but Mr Twisty is certainly at it again.

So you can't point out any financial advice from me and so just another one of your inventions/lies. And that you have trouble following sentences.

Still, you may be right, perhaps time to do something else, like watch IMM continue its merry fall back down? The parallels between it and QBT are uncanny - it's no surprise that you're invested in both!

£50m sounds toppy to me.

Cheers, Mr Sad... or Funny.

AWL - thanks, but just to point out I'm actually one of the invested - just more sceptical than most. Also you have contributed plenty that is useful to this board, and much more than most, including on the 'subject matter' so please don't put yourself down too much!

"But keep up the inept financial advice - I will now be holding until I feel the time is right. I hope that not too many potential investors don’t take your advice also as it is not impartial."

Please point out where I have ever given any financial advice, impartial or otherwise. I have never given advice to anybody on these boards as to what to with their money only that in this instance you failed to follow your own advice (on several occasions).

I don't think losing just PLT would be that big an issue but it's a valid point and one that keeps being ignored by the those pushing the 'sum of the parts being worth more than the whole' argument. It doesn't necessarily mean the sp is improved by selling bits of the business as it not only depends on what price you get but the state of what is left behind. So even if they got more than the current mcap from two or three brand sales the sp may not improve.

The profitability of what is left behind would worsen, not only directly from losing part of the business (unless it has a negative contribution which we're told they don't) but of fixed costs being spread over a smaller base, buying power reduced, loans becoming more expensive etc.

So unless they get really inflated money for any sales the only way to really improve the sp is to improve the profitability of the business as a whole, something that they have not demonstrated that they can do yet.

Turnthecorner - I see you have nothing to offer either to substantiate your investment other than blind faith and conspiracy theories.

Some of us though would prefer actual evidence of their ‘progress’ and of the interest of others in their products that they claim.

An odd, sabre rattling post from someone who said that they would get out on the next spike but didn't. And still nothing meaningful about QBT just repeating the same waffle as FG like 'Method C is showing real-time mining capability with measurable gains'. Really? If you knew anything about BTC mining you would know that statement doesn't hold water based on their approach.

Still, you crack on trying to get all the validation you need in your life but I'm here if you actually want to debate QBT properly. Otherwise you are best ignored.

If they get as much as £50m for PLT then I'll be jumping for joy!

"P.S. Hexam - my Sunday sermon over on IMM collected over 20 likes - something that you no doubt are in envy of having obtained NO more than 3 from your fellow bedwetters :)"

As I've said before, you seem to crave and need validation. I don't.