Member Info for Hexam

If only

Yes, that balance sheet wasn't quite as 'robust' as they claimed following the cut-price sale of about half the land and buildings, the overvalued RevB stake and the bloated inventory leading to one of the big 'adjustments' to the results with the stock clearance hitting profits by over £50m. All told nearly £100m of the assets they were boasting about last year disappearing to nothing this year - and that's before the US write-offs!

So Dan got paid a bit more or a bit less than Debenhams made profit in their latest accounts (depending on whether you include the labels that were added or look at the gross or net profit). Either way the gist of the statement of them being 'the same' was correct and a good illustration of just how out of kilter his rewards are with the 'success' of the company - though a £4.5m payday in a company that has just seen losses balloon to nearly £350m shows it much more starkly.

Still, it enabled an opportunity for more pathetic attempts at sanctimonious point scoring and nit-picking.

If I was so inclined I could point out that the claim that cash outflow has reduced 'dramatically' is somewhat wide of the mark (some would say a lie) but hey ho. Instead I'll leave the interims to do the talking - either they will genuinely point to a turnaround or BOO will have to come up with even more tricks and camouflage than they did for the FY25 results to try to hide the woeful performance. Hopefully they'll at least be produced in a more timely manner this time and presented much more professionally...

Sorry, I meant the decision to explore a sale and rejig the accounts was last minute - the rebrand itself was last ditch in my view. Apologies for my poor wording.

Thanks Oke and agree if they sell enough assets they can wipe out debt and maybe PLT + Burnley + KM will be enough to do that, who knows?

As to PLT I think the rebrand has devalued it somewhat (as it's now lost its particularly identity I think) and also I believe points to it being a desperate, last minute play.

As to PLT's loss this is actually laid out in the accounts though I think the adjusted EBITDA metric has been mangled somewhat with the continuing business (it doesn't add up) and for the other metrics who knows what has been included in PLT to make the rest of the business look better?

"who knows we may see a FOMO afternoon trading"

Very much doubt it as it seems the pump and dump brigade that invaded the board yesterday have now moved on. Don't worry though, they'll be back to repeat the rinse in a few months or so.

I'm not assuming any explicit revenue figure just that the rightsizing (including annualised savings not seen yet seen fully in FY25 numbers) will offset any revenue fall so that, as stated, 'normal' activity cash flow won't be much different to last year. Of course it may turn out much better or worse but I see little sign of either so far (especially as rev in H2, albeit with Christmas in, was only slightly down on H1 so that they at least seem to have stabilised things - perhaps. Difficult to be sure though without any trading updates! (Though that's another clue probably that things aren't improving much.)

But please, stomp away ;-) - though I do agree with the your comments on PLT (its rebrand and the ham-fisted treatment of it in the accounts).

I didn’t say any property sales would be small beer.

"I don't believe that any sale of PLT will be for less than £180 valuation"

Even I think they will get a bit more than that for it!

(And those things you mention are small beer or, in the case of property sales, the 'other asset sales' that are possible and will help the net debt position.)

You may think it is pointless but I think it is sensible to try to look into the future to see how things like profit, cash and net debt may move) but each to their own - but it works quite well for me so I'll stick with it thanks all the same.

"What guestimates do we have for this with workings?"

This is a tricky one Ocean to try to put a figure on as there are some very volatile parts/unknowns (working capital movements, possible assets sales or equity raises etc.).

So I think it needs to be split into two parts - based on 'normal' activity and the rest.

For the first part the business lost £76m cash last year excluding cash from property sales and the equity raise - so this is FCF outflow (£40m) plus interest (£22m) and lease payments (£14m). This includes 'one-off' items though such as redundancy costs and changes to WC (including the stock clearances). Stripping all these out and the cash burn looks to be around £20 to £30m and possibly improving slightly over the year).

So given net debt at FY26 was £78m I would estimate a net debt for both FY26 and H127 of maybe just over £100m ASSUMING no significant improvement or worsening of performance (no reason to suspect either at the moment). Their reluctance to offer any cash guidance also suggests to me that a net outflow is on the cards and perhaps larger than I've guessed.

That's the easy part! Of course the rest is full of uncertain things though a sale of PLT appears the most likely big ticket item at the moment. I would be very surprised though if that alone raises enough to put them into a net cash position and so an equity raise or other asset sales would be needed (as I think it is unlikely much more can be found from WC given the reductions already in inventory and current 'robust' position on returns, suppliers etc.). One thing we can be quite sure of though is that there will be more 'one-off' cash expenses (more restructuring, dual running costs etc.) - maybe £20m?

So in short I think the net debt may be just over £120m less whatever the net proceeds will be for any PLT sale but to move them into net cash they would need other funds from assets sales and/or new equity.

I’d guess they weren’t but I suppose we will never know for sure.

I also agree with the view that BOO sailed very close to suspension - and perhaps worse.

Arguably the real number is £475m as that was the GMV of just the marketplace (i.e. without the labels added on). This would then be well short of the £650m threshold for the £1.7m share award (which was hit, including labels, by just £4m).

A more 'real' target would have been a post returns number or, even better, a revenue figure in my view.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that then.

Yes SCB, those things listed by Bfd are basically BAU but there is a whole section in the report describing 'Our Turnaround Strategy' (though in the report itself there is another good example of how rushed it all seems with some sloppy numbering)! Amateurish.

Must disagree with ('challenge'!) some of those SCB as I think for example they have done (and still seemingly doing) a strategic review and they highlight the outcomes (so far) in the latest report. However, some I definitely agree on such as the shareholder engagement as that appears to be a case of only when it suits them and the capital markets day. Maximising shareholder value though can be put down more to incompetence than lying I think.

"Just look at the raft of posts about criminality by uninvested trolls that virtually all supposed investors were silent on."

That's just the kind of hyperbole that is seen on just about every underperforming AIM share so I just ignore (and of course could end up being true anyway). There's a certainly a lot of dubious things that have gone on in the last few years to raise suspicion but maybe it is all just simple incompetence and greed after all?

Is Jambone back yet again? (Usually starts like this...)

The are even more 'dozens of things' of yours that I don't challenge on top of those that I do. I just don't spend as much time on here as you do or want to get in as many arguments.

"yet supposed investors like you never challenge them."

I do, so that's another lie. I just agree with a lot more of what they say than what you say, ignoring the hyperbole, and they have certainly been right a lot more about the direction of this company than you have over the last few years (see share price and the accounts).

You certainly have called me those things...and worse.

And it isn't that only a troll agenda is allowed here it is that you are the practically the last one yet to wake up and smell the coffee so naturally most disagree with you. Still, since you have allegedly filtered so many you are presumably blissfully unaware of a lot of those 'attacks'.

I only 'attack' you because of the silly things you keep saying say and I'm sure it is the same with others though I obviously can't speak for them.