Member Info for Hexam

Again speculation and there is plenty of ‘smart’ institutional money that gets it completely wrong. And it certainly wasn’t smart institutional money that got ARB from pennies to over £3, that was smart (or lucky) PI money - though it wasn’t so smart of those who stayed - or got in afterwards…like me :(

“Looking at the big gains on mining stocks - That's not your private investors pilling in they are too bombed out and scared.”

That’s just pure speculation - and my own would be that it is mainly PI money either directly or via or the crypto funds that institutions have set up (BLOK, Valkyrie etc). I haven’t seen any evidence of much direct institutional investment but would be happy to be see some.

Actually Vodger I think the net debt has reduced £169.4m since the end of the year and this is broadly in line with the sales proceeds of £223m less the amount of cash (just over £50m) passed across in those deals. The free cash flow was just £12m so not much came from that.

They do explain all this in the report (including an adjustment of £8.9m for claims and litigation that goes the other way) and make brief mention in the headlines but I think it would have been better to quote any change in adjusted profit and free cash flow on a consistent basis to how last year was reported especially as the items they now include are not business as usual. Otherwise it looks a bit like we'll exclude them when it doesn't help the growth figures but include them when they do.

I know the change may be more to do with lower materiality and to 'simplify' reporting by adjusting for less but even if it wasn't done deliberately to help how the numbers look, it is still misleading in my view.

"Adjusted profit before tax1 for the half year increased by £35.9m to £37.0m (H1 2021: £1.1m)."

Did it really? The company has been somewhat sneaky in the way it has presented the figures. In last year's report the adjusted H1 profit before tax was not £1.1m but £45.3m. Pert of this is difference is reasonable as they have update both years for all business exits but most is simply due to the fact that they have changed what they adjust for!

In particular the 'significant cost of restructuring that was removed for the adjusted result last year is now included. This has resulted in a misleading increase of £30m as this is not due to the change in profits from the underlying business that the metric is supposed to represent. For cash the pension deficit funding payments have also been removed (increasing adjusted free cash flow a further £40m compared to last year).

I believe Capita will turn things around but it is not happening as quickly as the numbers presented might suggest. Both the increase in adjusted profit and particularly the increase in adjusted free cash flow would be a lot less if they reported in the same way as last year. A bit naughty really, especially as they've made such a song and dance about it.

Yes, they have lots of revenue but they also have lots of costs and although the revenue has increased significantly this year it hasn't quite reached the level to be enough to offset all the costs even in Q2 (for AMC at least)

For example in Q2 AMC has revenues from ticket sales of $1.16bn but their cost of running the business was $1.18bn so a slight loss and that's before things like interest and overall they made a loss of $121m.

So although they make margin of showing the films (after they've paid the studios) and really high margins on concessions they still have a lot of additional, largely fixed costs (staff, rent, power etc.). They need to reach a certain threshold in those margins in order to offset these 'fixed' costs and as revenue is still a long way from 2019 levels it still isn't quite enough (though for Q2 I thought it might just be, but clearly not as far as AMC is concerned - maybe it will be different for CINE)?

There is not a lot of breakdown of the costs but for info they broadly breakdown for AMC as:

Film exhibition costs - £328m (about half of the ticket revenue)
Food costs - $64m (about a sixth of the concession revenue)
Staff, power etc - $470m
Rent/Depreciation - $320m
Loan Interest - $80m
Other - $30m

Because of all these costs that soak up things like the very high margins on concessions the business is not quite the money-printing machine that some people think. Even in 2019 CINE only made around $200m profit from over $4bn revenue.

But my understanding is that the (main) reason they are issuing these shares is precisely so that they CAN dilute in the future and thereby get round the vote on more shares that they recently lost. Sneaky.

In any event I still don’t see the relevance to CINE aside from opening up this Machiavellian move to them possibly in the future if they do list there.

AMC market share is DOWN so they are losing it to competitors NOT taking it. Whether CINE benefit is another question.

Fair enough - I didn’t see those.

"...which none the less shows a strong recovery in the US market"

We don't need AMC results to tell as that - BO Mojo tells us that every day which is great for all cinemas. It also says that box office increased by 74% from Q1 to Q2 whereas AMC admissions only went up 68% and revenue from ticket sales by only 61%. So AMC figures don't really look that great.

The amc results were bad (no-one has come up with a good reason why they were good), particularly running at a cash loss in Q2 and a fall in concession sales per patron compared to last year. That's not a good sign for CINE but it doesn't necessarily mean our performance will follow. We could have fared better on market share, cost control, international revenue and concession sales to name just a few areas.

As to sp AMC is a meme stock so we should never read too much into how that moves and besides at the same time as the results they announced a 'special dividend' that is actually a double-edged sword in the way they've done it and that could be affecting sp either way too and which is not relevant to CINE at all.

“Some people had been quick to point out that there was a 10% drop on amc after hours soon after the results were posted and so would affect cine in the same way the next day with an almighty crash but obviously that didn't materialise. Should expect a bounce Monday then”

Who said that? I think I was the only person that mentioned a 10% drop after hours and I certainly didn’t suggest the CINE sp would follow with a ‘crash’ the next day - and neither did anybody else that I can see? Are you just making stuff up?

Huss - can we? The AMC results suggest the opposite. However, I agree 2023 is looking good as the appetite for cinema is still clearly there if the films are.

Agree Jamesy, and Krauty.

They have actually employed a specialist in this area recently which is good if a little late.

“If you were to made huge generalizations and and say 2022 released 910 films at an average of 17m per film sales figures would be 15.48b which would be 4.1b over 2019“

That doesn’t really work as the average is higher this year mainly because there is nearly as many blockbusters as in 2019 but a lot fewer ‘smaller’
films.

If we get back to the number of 2019 releases we should get back to the box office of that year plus a bit of inflation.

*sorry - I think they were bad. Some not very encouraging signs but as I say hopefully we’ve performed better (e.g. market share wise, cost control and concession sales).

“If you step back from the hullabaloo this morning - amc results were not too bad plus comparing amc current valuations to Cine is chalk and cheese“

I don’t think they were actually, I can’t see any positives but agree with your second point and hopefully CINE’s results will be better. It’s just that a lot were saying how great AMC’s results were going to be and how we’d bounce on the back of that…

I agree Jamesy that 0.5 EH per month is close to what they were projecting but the reason I’m not sure they will achieve it is that they haven’t got funding yet for the intel rigs and that could be tricky. They’ve already said they may push back delivery.

Even if they do get there they still need to improve productivity to offset difficulty increases to get the sort of numbers you’re talking about.

…and we won’t get an extra day each month :)

"If we could increase haul by 22% month on month we'd exceed 500 coins/month by December."

Yes, but difficulty won't decrease 4% every month and it's unclear how long they can keep adding 0.5 EH each month (though on the flip side productivity should hopefully improve considerably and we won't switch off any more machines).

Yes but only if the unexpected happened - which it didn't - apart from the shutting down of old machines which wasn't significant enough to get it below 200 but was enough to push it below my estimated range, along with the curtailment which thankfully didn't seem anywhere near as bad as RIOT's.