Member Info for Hexam

Sorry Poor - I think you're delusional if you think CINE is of such strategic importance that it won't be allowed to go bankrupt. If CINE was the only cinema chain in the UK/US then there might be a weak case but as it is there are plenty of others to take up the slack - either by taking over sites/opening new sites or taking over the customers where competitor sites already exist.

"Some have suggested the news wasn't news at all, that anyone who understands the restructuring process the company is going through would have known preparing to file for bankruptcy was part of that process. But if that was the case, the share price shouldn't have reacted like it did"

It's about how the story is presented. Many read into the way it was headlined in the WSJ that CINE ARE filing for bankruptcy - certainly judging by many of the posts on this board. Not surprisingly the SP tanked.

Spot on poker. I think you’ve just described the difference between an investor and a gambler.

Dan - couple of articles on Chapter 11 that might help (apologies if you've already found them in your research). I'm afraid inconclusive in terms of what it means for shareholders. Anything from oblivion to salvation or something in between it seems. I'm not an expert so not going to draw any more conclusions than that, summarise them or comment on their accuracy. Best read them yourself and make your own mind up if you're interested.

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/debt-relief/chapter-11-bankruptcy/

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/10/stock-holder-lose-equity-chapter-11.asp

Agreed - it it part of a path, an option, to make what they want possible if they cannot do it directly through a rescue package negotiated with lenders but you can see what just the word ‘bankruptcy’ did in the article (and what the word ‘dilution’ did in the RNS). So personally I think it is covered but I can see why you think it is not.

I don’t think the RNS was worded well at all but personally I can’t blame them for omitting such an incendiary word like bankruptcy especially as many just equate it, wrongly, with ceasing to trade.

Calarmari - I would argue that it can be as I believe it allows them to keep trading and achieve the aims they describe. It’s a complex area though so if there are any experts in this field it would be good to hear from them…

Thanks Bonkers. I'm well and hope you are too. I'm not in nearly as deep as some here and can only sympathise with what they, or anybody, may be going through if they have got more in this share than they are 'comfortable' (for want of a better word) potentially losing.

I agree with you totally. The posts that annoy me most are the ones that profess to absolutely know the future and tell you what to do. That applies equally to the rampers and the de-rampers, and I actually feel it is, if anything, generally more 'dangerous' when it comes from the ramping side. You are correct it is against the rules as it amounts to financial advice rather than just giving an opinion. But unfortunately these boards will be forever so.

"What ever happens I guarantee us share holders will be wiped out"

I agree there's a high chance of this but it's not something you can say is 'guaranteed'. Many ways this can play out and personally I'm not optimistic but dealing in absolutes is misleading.

The article isn't fake (probably) but it only says they are preparing for it not that they are actually doing it (yet). It's very much an option but not the only option. I'm not sure why this so hard to understand.

It could actually end with them going down that route. You don't know. I don't know.

"If the news in the public domain is correct then this share should be suspended from trading from Monday."

What news exactly? If they are actually filing for bankruptcy then yes, there should an RNS to this effect and the share should be suspended in my view. But the news story isn't saying that and it is telling us nothing new. They have already put out an RNS saying that the:

"Group remains in active discussions with various stakeholders and is evaluating various strategic options to both obtain additional liquidity and potentially restructure its balance sheet through a comprehensive deleveraging transaction."

A possible filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy is just one such option.

I agree they could put out another RNS starting with the line "Further to recent press speculation and to the RNS we issued Wednesdqy..." to clarify that it is one possibility of many - but unfortunately CINE aren't known for their communication to shareholders - more for their lack of it. It is also a tricky one to write without giving either undue hope or unnecessary alarm. The RNS they did put out wasn't exactly worded very well so maybe they're better off not trying with another one...

"The derampers are in for a very uncomfortable weekend as I imagine they have locked in a juicy short with high leverage as they have mistaken a rumour for fact."

It is not about mistaking rumour for fact but the interpretation of what it means.

Of course it is very probable that CINE is preparing to file for bankruptcy. They would be negligent if didn't plan, and prepare, for each possible outcome. What we don't know is whether the chapter 11 bankruptcy route is Plan A, Plan B or Plan J. Or what any of these plans really mean for shareholders.

The article was designed to scare and obviously succeeded but didn't really add any news.

Anybody considering buying, holding or selling at the moment is just gambling on things they can't possibly know and that could mean the sp does anything from go to zero very quickly or recover substantially. If I wasn't a holder I wouldn't touch this (shorting or buying) as I think I'd be better off just trying to pick a winner in 3 o'clock at York. But as I am holding I don't have that luxury. I don't know what I'll end up doing but one thing for sure is that I won't be swayed by any of the leeches on the this board or by those smoking hopium. Good luck to all holders in a similar position with whatever you decide. My only suggestion is please just try to ignore the noise from both sides and make it your call not somebody else's.

"The fact is, they are filling for bankruptcy"

The fact is they are not (at least yet).

We obviously see things differently Insider. I've fallen foul of the 'pack' as you call them myself on this board (e.g. for repeatedly saying that they clearly hadn't got the waiver (and that this may be serious) and for trying to rein in some of the more insanely optimistic views on earnings. Plenty of other occasions too. But Bonkers was never one of then and indeed often gave negative views himself.

He has though been particularly vociferous towards posters he thought were overstepping the line, especially yourself, and maybe his view of you is as clouded as your view of him. Others can judge for themselves but for me what you say about each other just has to be taken with a large handful of salt.

ah - you mean like you when the trolls are at play on EZJ, IAG and NEX? If I got even half as uptight and angry as you seem to get on a regular basis then I would indeed be concerned. As it is I was just calling you out for saying something that was blatantly and demonstrably untrue - no more, no less.

Insider - you are right, this board has been full of rampers of the kind that see no problems whatever the situation and attack anybody with a negative view which is both arrogant and stupid. If you want to understand the company you are invested in you need to look at both sides and arguably it is more important to examine the possible downsides.

However, I believe the rest of your diatribe is simply the result of your own personal feud with Bonkers. There are plenty of other posters here who have been far more bullish than him, much more unwilling to consider contrary views (as long as they are well reasoned and not just trolling) and that have been abusive to such posters. So why aren't you singling out any of them?

By contrast I have always found Bonkers more balanced than most on here - just look at his posting history without your blinkers on perhaps?

So not 'literally' then at all? Just another troll post.

"Take a look at the balance sheet. CINE will never be able to trade their way out of this hole.

Cinema is a dying industry....Look at the debt, look at the forward lease obligations, looks at the free cash flow. If you think CiNE can overcome that then I’ll have some of what you’re smoking my friend."

Wolf - I think you wrong here on two counts - and I can read balance sheets and haven't been smoking anything.

First - Cinema is clearly not a dying industry. You only have to look at box office figures properly to see that the appetite to see films is still there as much it was in 2019 and the reason the overall numbers aren't as high is simply that the number of releases is way down as studios are still ramping up production from Covid. The thing that will kill cinema is not the lack of audience numbers willing to go but the studios themselves deciding on a different way forward i.e. the number of releases doesn't ever catch up.

As to the balance sheet if BO figures do get closer to 2019 levels then it will generate enough cash to service debt, pay rents and other costs and have enough left over to start reducing the debt - albeit slowly. However, the recovery has been slower than expected and this hasn't happened yet (though in Q4 2021 they were already cash positive and probably have been for much of the summer too as revenue has been much higher than then - but there have been too many other, bad months where they haven't been and from now until November also looks poor).

The crunch has come I feel because they have failed a convenant test (the RCF one) and I believe the lenders have run out of patience and see a better way forward for them, than just waiting or pouring more money in, as the recovery is too slow and with the court case still hanging over them.

Yes, the balance sheet is very weak but CINE is a profitable business so long as box office recovers a bit more (it doesn't need to fully get back to 2019 levels). It looks like it may not get that chance though sadly.

Jtan: "Cineworld: literally filing for bankruptcy"

I think you need to look up what the word 'literally' means. They are preparing for it and even this is from a rumour. However, I believe the rumour is likely to be true but only as an option should discussion with lenders fail. There is no 'literally' here.

Even if they do end up filing for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy then the business will continue in some form and the prospects for shareholders will not be hopeless. They will though be even more grim than they already are - there is no hiding from that I'm afraid.

@Wellington - yes the ones on the impact of dilution and on the process in general that they're now in have been particularly misleading - whether through ignorance or deliberate intent is another matter.

To be fair though there have been some gems going the other way too ('it all may just be a Mooky ploy to deal with Cineplex' and 'with all that revenue they must be making millions' to name just two themes).

It really may be better to stay away from this board altogether - but it's hard to resist.

"Also I haven’t seen many gloaters." Seriously?

And I never said you were one of those saying it was definitely game over - but plenty have.

I do agree with you on ramping. I usually find it more irritating, and think it is often more dangerous, than de-ramping. Just not today.