Member Info for Hexam

FED - the cash flows on page 155 are negative (£24.1m outflow from operating activities and £6.2m from investing activities so FCF over £30m negative) - not sure where you are seeing a positive number? (Note one of the errors in the report is at the bottom of the page - though it is still negative).

"I actually think PLT is a lot further down the line than you do, although neither of us have anything real to back up our respective views"

I'm just going on what BOO have said. They have just appointed agents, are now 'exploring' a sale and are talking about 'in the next year'. I haven't seen anything that suggests it is anywhere much down the track but happy to be pointed in the direction of something that suggests it might be.

i think suggesting it could change 'the next few months' significantly is just wishful thinking (putting it kindly).

We are obviously reading a different report and accounts so would be happy to see the version you're referring to that is error free, has the explanations you'd expect in the report and doesn't look like the badly put together results of school project.

FED - With Debs at £25m adjusted EBITDA all the others must be single digit (and PLT is negative). In terms of FCF most, if not all, of the brands were negative and certainly PLT was (and significantly) so not sure why you are thinking it was positive on a standalone basis?

None of what you describe has much immediate effect and besides any sale does not look very imminent anyway - so I don't think I'm being daft at at all. They could give guidance assuming none of those knock-on effects and any upside can then be a bonus.

If they get over £100m from PLT I'll be amazed (though very pleased) so I can't see it having the massive impacts you are envisaging.

As to glossy report and accounts clearly many CEO's disagree with you. It looks far more professional than what seems like something bashed out hurriedly in Word. I suppose you think the revamp of their website is a waste of money too then?

"Wrt glossies, there is a 178 page annual report and accounts on the new investor website."

I know. Is that your definition of glossy??? Just compare it to last year, and the year before and...

As I've just said the results presented already exclude PLT so they can simply provide guidance on that basis and whatever happens to PLT doesn't affect that guidance. I have also given my reasons already why the results looked rushed through to me (another of course is simply how close to the deadline they came).

Are you expecting other changes then aside from PLT FED? They could easily have given guidance excluding PLT since they've already presented the results without it.

"The results actually didnt seem as bad as predicted."

In what way FED? The cash and revenue were pretty much as they had already told us and we knew already about the subsequent refinancing but I don't think anybody (apart from SCB) was expecting losses over £300m whilst the adjusted EBITDA is a can or worms with all the adjustments and splitting of the business (and still not very good for all that). They still could have been 'better' with some upbeat guidance but, as you say, they have been very sketchy on this.

I would have thought they HAVE kitchen sinked the results (given the magnitude of the 'one-off' losses and as is quite common for new CEO's to do at the start of their reign when faced by poor numbers).

The PLT separation though is very iffy and looks like it has been rushed through.

Kachra - Totally agree with your comments. Three brokers reducing their targets (13p, 15p and 16p) in the last few days and the sp currently languishing in the middle of them. Seems very few are impressed by the sloppily put together results with the huge losses, weak balance sheet and lack of detail on what the jam tomorrow promises will mean to the numbers.

Even the questionable decision to hive off PLT figures (given that they are only exploring a sale at this stage) to make the rest of the results look better doesn't seem to have fooled anybody. It looks like it was a late decision given the messy presentation of the results (sloppy mistakes, incomplete/missing explanations and no glossy report and accounts - yet). I'm still not convinced some of the numbers are correct but there are certainly wording errors and if the numbers aren't wrong then they've put some things into some very odd boxes (without explanations).

Hopefully some of their bullish talk will soon translate into actual numbers (and not just the smoke and mirror adjusted kind or conveniently excluding parts of the business). At least we shouldn't have too long to find out with the interims not too far away!

I have no idea what they have done. Whatever they have included in PLT shouldn't make it not add up unless they have simply not used the same number to take off for the continuing business that they have included in the PLT numbers (which is what you may have meant)? I can't believe they would get something like that wrong though.

The Adjusted EBITDA has been talked about a lot but putting aside for one moment its merits or otherwise can anybody explain how BOO got to their number of £41.6m?

I just can't get to it from the numbers they have posted (which unfortunately don't go into as much detail as usual, especially on PLT) and in particular cannot agree their deprecation and amortisation figure used of £62.6m to get from EBIT to EBITDA and which appears in the report and accounts (but not in the results RNS). According to the rest of the accounts this number should I think be nearly £13m lower at £49.8m (which is just the total figure showing in the cash flow excl PLT of £56.6m less the £6.8m of amortisation for acquired intangibles that is already excluded from EBIT). The same number can also be got from adding up the numbers from the assets schedules (notes 10 to 12) and deducting the PLT amount (note 17) and the £6.8m again.

Has the adjusted EBITDA been overstated, the overall profit understated or (I assume much more likely) is there another c. £13m that's included as 'depreciation' that I've missed and that for some reason doesn't appear in the cash flow or the asset schedules?

Hopefully there is an accountant or someone else nerdy enough out there that is able to shed some light or at least check my numbers to make sure I haven't done anything stupid!? Apologies for the geeky question but I just hate it when things don't appear to add up and I can't find the reason why.

Kach - the presentation was just repeating exactly the same five bullet points in the outlook that appeared in the results - they were just shortened so just the 'all our brands are now trading profitably' part appeared on the slide.

They were obviously not presenting anything different to what they had already said in the report - just with fewer words.

"I don't have the adjusted ebitda for PLT at hand but even at 10x, to get to £200m..."

I hope it doesn't follow that formula as the adjusted EBITDA of PLT was negative!

Bfd - The presentation shows without doubt that what they are referring to is adjusted EBITDA when they talk about all brands trading profitably now.

In fact it is was all very much just a regurgitation what was in the results RNS (as you'd expect really) - delivered in an extremely underwhelming way.

FED - the company have put through adjustments of over £25m for the last four years (that's in addition to impairments). I think what you were told about looking out for perennial adjustments was right - it is also the case that companies push through more adjustments when results are poorer especially if it helps the year on comparison (funny how there are just enough adjustments to show a very slight improvement in the adjusted EBITDA).

I also agree that FCF doesn't look like it will be positive in FY26 given the absence of any forecast or guidance on this.

I have watched it.

Why? So that I can see that it is in the outlook section that they mention it in the presentation?

Blimey, are you STILL claiming they are not referring to adjusted EBITDA in the results presentation when they talk about all brands ‘trading profitably now’ when just the day before they made in clear in the results report that they were? So they changed both the metric and the definition of ‘now’ overnight?

Stubborn much?

Priceless