Member Info for Hexam

"Hexam the trading profitably was in the context of now"

Seriously? So the 'now' in the actual results is different to the 'now' in the actual results presentation? Just plain daft.

How can every brand be trading profitably on an EBITDA or PBT basis when both those metrics are negative in total for all brands? Whatever they said in the presentation it is clear that the basis for 'profitably' was adjusted EBITDA (as was spelled out explicitly in the RNS).

Not 'nearly every CFO' uses EBITDA but even if they did that doesn't mean it's a decent metric just that it's 'decent' for them (partly for the reasons I gave).

At the end of the day it's profit and cash that really matter not EBITDA or in BOO's case adjusted EBITDA and without PLT.

"It is, however, a metric that is used by nearly every business CWWX."

That doesn't make it good metric and a couple of reasons companies like EBITDA so much are that they can come with their own definition (BOO exclude share based compensation which others don't) and it nearly always makes them look more profitable than they actually are because of all the things it excludes.

As if flag waving EBITDA so much wasn't bad enough they have heavily adjusted it (actual unadjusted EBITDA was negative) and they have conveniently left out a significant loss making part of the business on the grounds that they might sell it in the next year. It's a red flag for me when companies start messing with the presentation of their numbers so much and BOO have certainly gone into overdrive on this - even more than usual.

Claiming all brands are trading 'profitably' is also really stretching it as they are clearly talking about this also in terms of the adjusted EBITDA metric rather than overall profitability or even plain EBITDA.

Still it's a distraction from the over £300m of losses, the large negative cash flow and the total assets now barely exceeding the liabilities.

They haven't even given any guidance on cash flow or overall profit so presumably these are not expected to turn positive any time soon.

Let's just hope the interims are a bit cleaner and with more clarity on outlook but I'm not holding my breath.

You forget, Mikey’s definition of libellous is anything posted that he disapproves of.

"The only reason plt has been "put up for sale" is to remove the embarrassment of telling the market how poor the current performance is"

Well, it is actually easy to work out with PLT losing over 23% revenue and showing a small adjusted EBITDA loss. What it allows them to do though is separate out PLT which means they can talk about a slightly increased adjusted EBITDA on the 'continuing business' whereas including PLT it has gone down.

A good use of smoke an mirrors there - as are some of the 'adjustments' in the adjusted EBITDA including £25m for stock clearance and £11m of 'dual running costs' - along with restructuring costs etc. They say they expect the adjusted EBITDA will increase but of course they could have a whole new set of adjustments by then!

That may be a bit cynical but of more concern is that I can't see any outlook on cash flow or profit before tax (adjusted or not). So lots of words about achievements and turning things around but precious little on how that is actually expected to translate to the bottom line.

Another concern is that by kitchen sinking the numbers and writing off so much of the assets (including £16m for their RevB holding) they are now barely showing a net asset position above zero (just £3.9m) - and that despite the equity raise. With no indication of a positive cash flow for FY26 there is every chance of liabilities exceeding assets soon unless they get a reasonable price for PLT (though the sale looks in very early stages, not far beyond an idea it seems). That's largely a paper thing though but more seriously, with cash at just £44m it looks like the improved RCF is going to start to be eaten into pretty quickly - and no wonder they settled for such poor terms on the loan.

Overall a very messy set of results what with all the adjustments (over £200m in total for profit on the continuing business), the changing treatment of PLT and the lack of clarity or detail in the outlook. There are obviously some good bits in there (cost savings etc.) but overall it is hard (for me anyway) to feel too encouraged without evidence of (or an even expressed expectation of) improvements in the bottom line (cash or profit) let alone a positive number for either.

Bfd - SCB was closer on the losses than me. He said £300m and I only said £250m - They came in over £300m so he was still optimistic!

"Hats off to Coasty and Hexam, who both correctly predicted a >£250M loss"

To be fair I understated the losses. I didn't think they would be as high as £326m!! Very difficult to pick through the results as they've hyphened off the PLT numbers and lots of other smoke and mirrors stuff going on. Dan certainly talks a good game though even if some of it is sounding a little desperate and excitable.

"It’s a real shame Scottwins got banned. Despite the noise he sometimes made, he consistently brought sharp, insightful information"

Nope - he spammed the board relentlessly with the same, repeated information regurgitated from RNS and interviews but added to or twisted in order to claim they said things that they didn't. Also none of his many predictions have come true.

Don't worry though, he'll no doubt be back under a new name soon and will be as easy to spot as always.

Yes, but they've been wrong each time you've posted their predicted date previously. One in three chance though for tomorrow so they could finally be right!

The next news will most likely be yet more can kicking so all that means is that a few more diehards will probably switch sides and join the sceptics (adding to the many that have done so already) as the band of dreamers gets ever smaller.

“it’s only you and scottwins left who hold a candle for FG now”

Except scottwins (aka Jambone etc) has been banned…yet again. Haven’t you noticed how quiet it has been on the board in the last few days without him (apart from OSD’s meltdown)?

I'm not sure Frasers paid as much as that for any shares Oke. My guess would be around 35p is the highest they have paid and hence the minimum they would have to bid - not that I expect them to do so given the entrenched holdings of others and it being more than double the current sp.

“The business has refinanced and now has ample liquidity locked in until 2028”

I’m not so sure FED as unless they improve their cash flow they haven’t got enough cash to last that long even with the new financing. If it does improve they should be ok but that’s no guarantee given this shower.

I suspect they are still looking at other ways to raise funds like an asset sale.

“Maybe bring back quarterly trading statements”

They’ll only do that if the business starts performing - to be fair nobody likes to update the market so regularly if it isn’t.

That said the level of shareholder engagement has been truly awful notwithstanding that.

If they are acting so much in concert then I look forward to the mandatory bid!

"Am I Hexam?

£4.6m is the approximate value of the shares sold as part of the placing minus the director purchases"

Yes, you are. Firstly the value of shares not taken up by BOO etc. is £6m (£15m total less the £9m set out for BOO etc.) and as I said the £4.6m relates to the FY accounts and so is clearly nothing to do with today's placing etc. at all.

RevB reported a loss of £17.2m today. BOO hold about 27% of RevB shares and therefore the share of that loss which BOO will have to report for FY25 as a result of that investment is 0.27 x 17.2 = 4.6m (and the value of the asset held will go down by the same amount).

In terms of ownership of RevB this is broadly as before (before the retail offer) so not a case of 'In essence, to all intents and purposes, they have purchased the business' as you claimed and neither have they 'done it via equity' - they have simply bought more shares with cash to maintain broadly the share of the business that they own.

Well, that will have decreased by £4.6m anyway but yes, they might choose to impair the value by some amount but I doubt it.

No - I'm not saying that, in fact I'm not referring to the placement at all with the £4.6m as should be obvious since I'm talking about the FY25 results.

You really are having a bit of a mare today trying to understand what is going on.

Oke - I don't know the history of RevB well enough to answer that I'm afraid.

It seems a further £4.6m to add to BOO's losses for FY25 because of their investment in RevB - mind you that's a drop in the ocean given the £250m or so losses they are probably going to report anyway (eventually).