Member Info for Hexam

I think you 'remaining polite' is a good example of 'fantasy and make believe'. How many times have you called me stupid, an idiot and other names? Still, I get off more lightly than others I suppose and don't care anyway other than it shows up your hypocrisy and complete lack of self-awareness.

Thank you but I still have a long way to go to match your arrogance - believing you are right and everybody else is wrong for starters.

"i don't know or care what Crawshaw says, he is filtered"

That's about as believable as your claim that you are not T4G, that your average is in the low 30's and that you only have 2% of your portfolio invested here - i.e. not at all.

Either that or you are psychic as your responses to the green boxes frequently show that you clearly know which ones are posting and what they are saying. Laughable, like your ridiculous claims of manipulation and apparent ignorance (or denial) of the distressed state BOO is in.

As Crawshaw has already said (but you already know he has) volume is low simply because of lack of interest in what was once a darling stock and prices can go up and down on any volume and indeed are more volatile when volumes are low.

The current sp and movement has very little to do with shorts or market manipulation and nearly all to do with a company making continued thumping losses, the financial distress it finds itself in as a consequence and the lack of certainty that they can turn things around (as highlighted by their extremely sparse guidance).

Volumes (and sp) will head up if there is anything really tangible to engender confidence (or if there are heightened prospects of a takeover etc.) but equally volumes can go up and the price sharply fall if there is further bad news. In the meantime though the low volumes and steadily drifting downward sp can be expected to continue without news of one kind or the other.

The fact that you are still chuntering on about shorts and manipulation shows either how blind you have become to events unfolding in front of your eyes or that you simply have an agenda of some kind.

The guy who calls everybody else an idiot is usually the idiot.

"I noticed Hexam said he heard Dan mention that debenahams was showing growth of 95 percent currently, which I'm assuming would be gmv. "

Yes, GMV (pre-returns) though actually it was just under 90% growth and that was for the marketplace only. Overall the Debenhams brand (including labels) saw GMV grow 34% as the labels fell 25% and so offset a lot of the MP growth. The revenue split between Debs MP and labels is not disclosed anywhere as far as I can tell but overall revenue for the Debenhams brand grew 12% (£22m).

The market hates BOO because of shrinking revenues and eye-watering losses (plus the odd scandal). If it starts growing again and making money then the market will love it again (like the companies quoted). It's not rocket science.

It's all about performance and BOO has been underperforming recently - big time.

“Hex, suggest it’s all about cash at this point with a £200M m/cap and £175M RCF”

Oke - Cash is certainly the most important thing short term but ultimately cash and profit are the same thing - it is only the timing that differs (which is where the balance sheet comes in). So they are all connected and what it will come down to is whether they can be profitable again (real profits not the adjusted EBITDA mirage). If they can’t then the cash will eventually go the same way and the value of the business will continue to languish.

Of course someone may be willing to pay more than what the business is currently valued at (either the market value for the whole business - the £200m or more accurately the EV of c.£300m) or for parts of the business held on the balance sheet (but then also have to look at the value of what’s left behind).

So does £200m mcap represent fair value for the business? Who knows but obviously there is as much sentiment saying it is worth more as there is that it is worth less - hence the sp (and so mcap) being where it is.

You keep focusing on one part of the assets and ignoring the over £200m of other assets written down over the last few years as they were worth less than the value held in the balance sheet. They are history now but history has a way of repeating itself.

And obviously any value they get for any brand won’t be comparable to just the value of intangibles (which in turn is not simply the ‘value of the brands’ anyway).

I suspect if they sell a brand it is quite likely that will lead to an overall profit on the balance sheet but I’m not counting my chickens and there are other assets on the balance sheet, not just brands.

You seem obsessed with Topshop but this isn’t Topshop.

"So let's be clear Hexam you are saying that the real world value of all the brands is less than the cost price of Debenhams and the former Arcadia brands"

No, I'm not saying that at all. All I'm saying is that the value of some of the assets on the balance sheet have actually been overvalued significantly in the last few years and this can be seen clearly by the level of impairments they have suffered (including brands). So it is bit presumptuous to assume that the total of those assets that remain is undervalued. They may be worth much more or much less as book value is obviously not the same as market value but to assume market value is automatically more is foolish - especially given recent history when the opposite has been shown to be the case.

Yes FED but those impairments include £40m on the brands themselves in the last two years!

I understood your point but you seem to have missed mine. In the real world the value has been proven to be much lower than the cost less depreciation and amortisation shown in the balance sheet - hence the impairments.

"maybe go and see how assets are valued in the balance sheet"

£13m of impairments in 2023

£75m of impairments in 2024

£143m of impairments in 2025

I would say overvalued is the answer to that question.

"Percy, Where did you get the info that HY results are 25 Sept?"

He made it up. No way are they going to release interims that early only having just finished cobbling together the FY results (and making a hash of it).

FED - Percy is just NeilHumphreys back again to periodically spam the board with inanities and make believe. Best Ignored.

"Well Hexam, lets start with your reference to a "hopeless AIM gambler" should we"

As I said that was my OPINION based on your comments. On that basis you have lied all the times you've called me 'thick', 'dumb', 'angry' 'stupid', arrogant', mendacious' etc. etc. They are just your opinions of me which of course you are entitled to and any or all of which may be valid just you being a hopeless aim gambler may or may not be valid - just my opinion.

What have I supposedly lied about?

I have given my opinion on the comment in the video about the sale of PLT and on you for your interpretation of it so they are just that, opinions.

And I have proved I have watched the video by mentioning something relating to Debs MP which, as far as I know, hasn't been covered by anybody else on this board previously.

As to sounding angry, I accept that is just your opinion rather than a lie - wrong as it is.

You are odd at times.

I have already given my answer and unlike you I'm not a hopeless AIM gambler that makes too much of a single word that was said and joins imaginary dots to something else that was said so as to conclude something really significant but somehow missed by the rest of the market.

Also love the way you keep suggesting I haven't watched the video. The video that revealed in an answer to another question the performance of Debs MP. Up about 90% in the year!! Surprised you haven't been all over that!?

Must admit I didn’t have Bfd down as the sort of desperate AIM investor you often see on these boards that latches on to a single word spoken on a subject that doesn’t appear anywhere else that subject is spoken of or written about and then runs a mile with it.

Guess I was wrong.

I’ll believe there is a ‘strategic partner’ when they tell us so in writing. In the meantime I’ll stick with what they have told us many times. Exploring a sale and seeking a strategic buyer.

“they are hoping the PLT sale is to be sold before the end of the year.”

Where did they say that? What I read was ‘in the next year’. Alluding to Topshop means nothing in terms of progress in my view.

Yes. The only difference is the word ‘partner’ which is not used any of the times the sale is written about and so assume he just means a future party rather than anybody they are working with at the moment. I think it was just poor phrasing in response to a question.

Everything else screams that they are in the very early stages.