Member Info for Hexam

Agree Wolf - the sp is irrelevant to the creditors. If dilution was by way of a fund raise through an RI or placing it would be a different story as the higher the sp then the fewer new shares would be required to raise the same amount of capital but I think a D4E is far more likely than either of those two options.

@Penta - agreed, though as you say there can be timing issues. For example if I sold my CINE shares now the MM may not have a buyer ready but will still take them off me if they are confident they can sell quickly for a higher price. The danger is that the MM builds up too much that he can’t sell it at a high enough price to make a profit.

There are other times though where an equal numbers of shares are traded both ways at the same instant. A UT is an obvious example and yet it too always shows up as just a buy or a sell - thus highlighting one of your points!

But ultimately yes - buys equals sells.

Shaz - I agree. Anybody that gets worked up by the trolling is probably better off filtering as they wouldn’t be missing anything useful anyway.

If taken too far though it can also filter out negative views that could be useful to know as it’s always important to consider both sides of a debate. In my view though the outright trolls have nothing to add in that respect. Likewise the everything is always awesome type of ramper.

Tbf Shaz I’ll be surprised if you haven’t engaged more in the past with aim and the rest of the crew than the rest of us put together.

I usually ignore them as generally I find their rhetoric and double standards more amusing than anything.

But when they make so much of not being trolls and only stating ‘the truth’ or ‘facts’ it’s just hilarious when they come out with such blatant nonsense.

“Everyone's average is 30+ which is why they're getting so mad at aim simply for stating facts”

Well, there’s another ‘fact’ that isn’t a fact at all - just another trollism.

I just think the data isn't credible. It doesn't know what are buys and what are sells. It guesses based on price as I understand it but whatever the method plenty of people report their own buys going through as sells and vice versa. Could be other reasons too but if the data is so unreliable in the first place then I don't think there's much point in delving any further in to what it is telling us.

The UT IS the close price - it's what actually sets it each day - so it is 2.358.

Those are the total voting rights attaching to what they hold (shares+options) not the number attaching to just the shares.

It’s in black and white for goodness sake. They have not bought further shares.

In fact you've read something else entirely as you've quoted the options previously held and the total of shares and options previously held.

Those are not the shares - they are the options. The shares appear under the first column.

But he's already answered it.

It does says so in the RNS. Not quite zero but close to it now (from 0.597061% to 0.007108%). Wolf explained what the increase related to which is shown under 'financial instruments' NOT shares.

FTH - I think your response to me just proves my point.

"Large shorters from £1 , be it hedgefunds, will now see significant value in going long....heavy"

Pie in the sky ramping. Every bit as non-sensical and annoying as the constant de-ramping here.

Seems to be a board now made up mostly of fly-by-night chancers who descend on distressed stocks trying to pump it for all it's worth and de-rampers trying to convince everybody it is already game over - and neither seems to have any clue whatsoever about the actual business itself.

"The one thing that we all know for certain because the BOD's have said is, there will be a very big rights / placing coming don the track at any day soon"

We don't know it at all. The RNS suggested some form of D4E is very much a possibility but a rights/placing seems extremely unlikely in these circumstances. Who on earth would buy them?

They have done several raises which is what has kept them afloat but they are not flush with cash even after those. That's why they issued the APEs as a backdoor way of trying to raise more cash (as the shareholders voted against another straight equity raise).

“I read about AMC having double the debt today”.

Where did you read that as it is simply not true. They have similar debt (around $5bn excluding lease liabilities) and are in similar bad shape - the big difference in terms of financials is that AMC hasn’t got the crisis in liquidity that CINE now has (yet).

"They will value it at the net present value of future cash-flows"

Exactly. I just disagree in that I think it could be more than $5bn on that basis. I know this is a stretch but the profit before interest was around $400-500m p.a. pre-pandemic and actions taken/insisted upon have scope to increase that further and generate additional cash flow. But I accept I may be too optimistic especially as the lenders are likely to be cautious in their own evaluation.

“That would depend on the fair market value of the debt. But I don't think anyone would pay 100% for that debt, or even 50%.”

Calamari - I think you misunderstood my point when I said the company is hopefully worth at least $5bn despite the paltry mcap. I wasn’t talking about the worth in terms of what a third party may pay for it now but the value of the business in the eyes of the lenders.

I would expect lenders to try to work out if there was any way the business can pay their money back as an ongoing concern. That means can CINE generate enough cash to pay interest and pay back all the debt at some point in the future.

If they think it can then the chances are much higher that shareholders can come out if it not too badly.

If they don’t then it’s hard to see why lenders would leave much to shareholders if they can’t get all their own money back. Surely they would try to get as much as possible by whatever route they feel is most likely to achieve it and that means leaving as little as possible to shareholders.

I know it’s not as simple as that as there are multiple lenders involved, many practicalities involved, risk assessment, short-term issues like the court-case etc.

But my point was that the current mcap of $30m is not a reflection of the value of the business in the eyes of the creditors.

It is clearly worth at least the value they can get for simply flogging all the assets (I’m guessing $1bn-2bn) but hopefully much more as an ongoing concern and, for the sake of shareholders, more than enough for lenders to feel that they can get their money back - eventually.

FP - the 19.2m is in GBP not USD.