Member Info for Hexam

"How much has bitcoin gone up since its inception?"

Charts tell the past, not the future. Key point though is the one HarChris made earlier. It's one thing to go from next to nothing to where it is today (a huge percentage because it started at next to nothing) than to to go from where it is now to what that joker predicts.

It's the same flawed logic that is applied to ARB's sp (or any company that started off with a tiny mcap). The first step is hard, the next step is much, much harder.

"So you think the lenders are out for blood now and CINE is vulnerable?"

I'm not sure how you get that from responses. All I am saying is that the thing with the RCF '35%' is not negotiable from either side. It's like the leverage test itself - you pass or fail.

The negotiation is where the waiver comes in. This is where the lender can play hardball but we have no communication on this other than it is still being looked at and different people will read different things into that.

I have no doubt in the future of cinema given the recent trends in Box Office and believe for the last month or that CINE has been making good money so its long term fundamentals are sound and the sp is ridiculously low based on them. They just need to get over the immediate hurdles in front of them first, in any way they can.

"What if they intended to pay it, but exceed the 30 June date if necessary. Similar thing to the Regal shareholders."

Tegop - In my view it's not similar at all. If they exceed the 30 June then the test applies - it's a fixed condition, there is no negotiation, or rather the negotiation then becomes one of whether the test can be waived.

"What else could you expect IR to say? If an investor contacted them about the RCF they wouldn’t say ‘oh yes, we paid it off don’t worry’. Furthermore, IR doesn’t actually SAY that the company is considering those two options, it just simply states that an RNS would be required if either of those two things happened"

Fair points mountainous but I would have expected an RNS if they paid it off (so need to ask the question on RCF in the first place). If CINE did not think that merited an RNS then don't then see why IR would then have a problem answering the question directly as they clearly didn't think it sensitive enough for RNS disclosure.

I know they are not the best at communicating but to give the statement they did, then at the very best they are being disingenuous if the RCF has already been paid down. Put it this way, I will be delighted if they have paid down the RCF (as this for me is/was the best option) but will lose all confidence in what they say and just view them from now on as the corporate equivalent of BoJo.

No - the terms are in black and white. The test applies on the 30th June if they have drawn more than 65%. It doesn't matter what it is on June 29th or July 1st.

If you don't believe that then consider why this option wasn't mentioned by IR. Instead they only mentioned the waiver and refinancing - both of which they do indeed have 90 days to do.

Hi mountainous,

If they had paid it down by 30th June then there would be no need to seek a waiver, as the test would not be applied, or to refinance (as they would have the full amount of the RCF to draw upon again after 30th June.

The fact they are saying they are looking at doing either one of these things can only mean they are both still in play - which they would not be had they paid down the RCF to below 35%.

We do not have 90 days to pay it down. That day was June 30th and the IR response confirms this. They are seeking a waiver or refinancing - they are no longer talking about reducing the RCF amount drawn to below 35% i.e. they haven't done it already or are thinking of doing it.

I'm struggling to see why they are struggling to obtain a waiver as would have thought the business moving into profitability would make lenders more relaxed (in spite of the court case) so very hopeful this will be obtained (or refinancing) but reducing the RCF is off the table now - according to IR.

"12 million will be around 1million in todays money, i hear,"

That's an annual inflation rate of over 30% - for 9 years. I know things are bad, but they're not that bad.

This kind of prediction (i.e. $12.5m per BTC in 2031) doesn't help BTC's credibility at all but just leaves it open to ridicule. Luckily I don't think much notice will be paid to it beyond a few headlines.

You're deflecting.

You were also deflecting referring to dump and rebuy, trading patterns etc. What do they have to do with the size of UTs meaning corruption?

I've come to the conclusion you do not know what an uncrossing trade represents so here is an explanation:

https://www.shiftingshares.com/what-is-an-uncrossing-trade/

I've also come to the conclusion you're one of these posters that it is a complete waste of time engaging with. So I won't.

"The theory is there, it is very siimple."

So what is it? What's the (plentiful) evidence? I'm all ears.

The UT was almost a £1m today at 55.06p. That means £1m (or £0.5m not sure which) of shares were bought at 55.06p and the same number were sold for the same price. Who's gaining? The buyers? The sellers? Surely if half the traders are winning then the other half are losing? It's not PIs who are winning or losing as they are not involved or affected in anyway at all. So why as a PI are you complaining?

And as to small UTs being normal this is just not true amongst well traded stocks like BOO:

IAG - £6m today
EZJ -£5m
RR - £10m
WTB - £6m
NEX - £1m
etc. etc.

Are they all corrupt too?

T4G,

I don't need to give a theory as the I am not trying to claim the UT is anything untoward. It is just the closing auction between traders that ultimately sets the closing price. You have actually said nothing to back up your comment that the size of the UT spells corruption. To me it just means there is a lot of interest at the end of the day in a share.

I'm sorry but I just have a dim view of conspiracy theories even when some logic for them (bad though it usually is) is put forward - but they are even easier to dismiss when no logic is put forward at all.

"And there we go again,the massive UT.

It really is corrupt as"

Explain how a massive UT = Corruption? Especially as a poster on another board was complaining about a tiny UT and how corrupt that was.

To my understanding the UT signifies nothing apart from the closing price (which no PI can trade at anyway) and that price is just the price at auction that generated the most buyers and sellers (in equal numbers).

But happy to be educated.

@Tegop - They had three options to deal with the RCF but that is down to two now. The paying down of 65% to avoid the leverage test would have to have been done by the 30th June - which it clearly wasn't as they wouldn't still be pursuing the other two options (as per their own IR response).

They could of course still pay all the RCF down but that is actually the refinancing option.

So I don't think the issue is 'molehill. but I don't think it is a 'mountain' either. Just a very annoying hill and one they have to get over soon.

Have you never flown high enough to see the curvature of the earth? You don’t even need to go on a Dreamliner to see it."

Or you could take a 40,000km walk/paddle in a straight line and see where you end up. That should satisfy any lingering doubt.

Getting tired of the de-ramping vs ramping extremes.

Debt is normal and useful for businesses so in itself having $5bn of it isn't something to be alarmed about so long as there is no problem paying the interest, meeting the conditions and paying it back when it's due.

But it is clear from the whole dissenting shareholders/RCF situation, including the responses posted here yesterday from CINE IR, that they DO have problems at the moment dealing with the debt. By their own statement they are negotiating past the deadline for paying dissenting shareholders and on the RCF they are no longing talking about paying 65% down (that deadline has also passed) but the two remaining options they mention are a last-minute waiver or refinancing.

So it is not all doom or gloom as the derampers would have it but it is not all rosy in the garden as the more 'enthusiastic' rampers have it. The truth is somewhere in between. With increasing Box Office and clear signs things will 'return to normal' (and perhaps then some with the concessions doing so well) there is every chance today's sp is an absolute steal even if the the court case goes against us (as that hurdle should be able to be overcome if revenues are strong enough).

But there is clearly also a chance that CINE may not see that day given the struggles they are currently having satisfying different creditors. Personally I don't think that chance is high but it's a chance none the less.

It's not black or white. I agree the risks are priced into the sp but what the sp does from here depends on whether those risks are perceived to be increasing or whether they start to fade away - and the silence from CINE isn't exactly helping with that.

Yes, very badly written, especially this part:

"the company’s net interest expenses have jumped from $483 million to $548 million to $828 million. This means that the firm is spending over 40% of its revenue paying a debt"

This does NOT mean the firm is spending 40% of revenue paying a debt as:

a) It is not paying anywhere near this in interest as most of this figure is not a cash cost at all as it is just the unwinding of the interest rate used value lease liabilities - as covered on this board yesterday

b) It's revenue this year will be much higher, $4bn give or take.

As you say, amateur article designed to scare - or perhaps just sheer incompetence.

Hi mountainous.

They had several ways to deal with the RCF covenant test and there are many ways it could play out if they choose the route of trying to get a waiver and fail - it shouldn't only mean it is 'instantly finished'. All we can do is speculate (and there's been plenty of that) and wait. It would be good to have an update soon though as different people will reach different conclusions which could then be good or bad for the company. At the moment though, given the sp not moving much, it doesn't look like the market is too concerned yet.

The dissenting shareholders part is more puzzling. My read is simply that the negotiations are dragging on beyond the due date but again there could be other explanations both good (e.g. they've paid it and not bothered to tell us) or bad (they've tried and failed to get another extension and are working out what to do next). Again it is all speculation but in this case more surprising we haven't had an update since the deadline was last week and I feel there is more an obligation (legal or otherwise) to tell us. So again we just have to wait but also it is some comfort that the sp is not reacting adversely to this either.

"its good to know that even if they couldnt afford to pay it down so far they now have 90 days to either get a waiver or pay it down."

Only half true I'm afraid. Yes, they have 90 days to get a waiver but if they chose to pay it down instead this must have been done by June 30th as this was the date of the RCF test and to avoid it being applied the drawdown must have been less than 35% as of that date.

I'm not too concerned that there hasn't been an update on this but am surprised there has not been any regarding the dissenting shareholders given we are now past its due date.

"Hey Hexam it was negative $ 21m after paying the first part Regal shareholders ? I don’t remember sorry"

Hi Allkap. No, the loss of $21m is the 'adjusted loss' so it doesn't include any payment to Regal or any other impact (positive or negative) that the company feels is not in the normal course of business.

The actual loss before tax in H2 was $132m but the lower figure of $21m is a better indicator of ongoing profitability and therefore a better starting point when looking at this year's potential profits.

Indeed, and they've got a reasonable chance as the adjusted loss before tax was only $21m in the second half of 2021. The US box-office has been slightly better in the first six months of this year but there have been other plusses, minuses and unknowns so hard to say.