Member Info for Hexam

Dracula, I think they've boxed themselves into a corner now with their history of broken promises and their latest pronouncement of being so close now and with the revenue 'after summer' comment. I think the respect of 'level headed LTSHs' will only return if there is actually a deal this time and not another 'next the round corner' RNS.

It will interesting though how long 'after summer' it will be before the not so level headed diehards start questioning FG if no deal is forthcoming. I suspect Scott (aka Jambone) will still be backing QBT well into the next decade even if there are no deals and the company survives that long but I think most will go the way of others (like KK) and start having doubts.

So an interesting few months ahead. Either there will be a deal and SHs will be celebrating big time and will be able to stick two fingers up to all the non-believers on this board or it will turn increasingly one-sided with more joining the ranks of the doubters. Will Jambone be last man standing?

"Troll Gang, your time to depart is coming"

So the company is about to go bust and anybody with a sceptical view will be proved correct and will no longer need to post?

Steady on Obelix, I don't think things are quite that bad as I believe they have at least a few months cash runway left before that happens (and they can always do another raise to keep the gravy train running anyway).

Fair enough but I'm not sure how much that could be trusted as they've missed guidance (and badly) for the last few years.

"I am quietly hopeful that the silence is adding to the suspense of better than anticipated results."

How better? They've already told us the revenue and the cash. We don't know the profit figure but even if it is 'better than anticipated' it will still be a loss of over £200m so not exactly something to crack open the bubbly for.

There may be some good news about trading since year-end, a more optimistic outlook or some promising nuggets in the detail but the headline numbers are already public apart from knowing just how big the loss before tax will be (my guess is around £250m but it could easily be higher if they really kitchen sink it).

"If FG had sold shares then why can he buy them back" - Well done, you've answered your own question. You can't buy something back that you haven't sold in the first place. I think you are being a bit disparaging and disrespectful in saying he has 'pawned' them. Mikeydj will be on your case if you're not careful.

"try posting the truth Allfor, FG hasn’t sold any, he has borrowed some cash against a few, can you not read or does telling the truth not help your agenda?"

Quite clearly it is you Jambone who either can't read or are incapable of telling the truth. FG hasn't 'borrowed' some cash against a few he actually SOLD 5m shares to MCS (to fund paying a tax bill apparently) and under the agreement can buy them back (with interest). From PRN 15/12/21:

"The Agreement provides for MCS to buy 5,000,000 shares from Professor Gardin on 16 December 2021 for 3p per share and for Professor Gardin to repurchase the same number of shares from MCS on 16 June 2022 for 3.185p per share."

He has not yet bought back the shares which is hardly surprising as it would now cost him 3.657p which is nearly five times what he could buy them for in the market (though he hasn't bought any at that much cheaper price either - which doesn't exactly scream confidence)!

"nobody takes note of bashers now."

Seemingly you do as virtually every post you make is about them.

"Hands up if you expepected the 2 Million placing !"

Me, and a fair few others but of course we were all shot down by the rampers who couldn't add up. £2 million is a bit more than their recent annual spending so unless they've increased their rate of spend significantly, or need a sizeable lump for a specific development, they should have enough cash to last into early 2026 even without any revenue emerging 'after summer'.

"Next Sunday sermon will be soon."

I'm guessing Sunday???

Look forward to not reading it but knock yourself out as everybody can find an audience - even you.

OSD - I can't really compare you to him as I only saw your own particularly shameful post. I didn't comment at the time (others did) as I thought it was just another sick comment on social media and so let it go but it's getting really tiresome how you keep referring to his alleged post as if you're some kind of angel. As you say, if others did see it then they can judge for themselves without your help and constant reminders - though if it was that bad I'm surprised he wasn't banned? Perhaps instead talk about QBT or do some more of your cringingly unfunny, self-important, religious-like sermons?

!There is only one person on this forum who deserves all he gets - and my disgust is firmly laid at his door - please don't stoop to defend the nasty little non entity.

He will never be forgiven for what he posted."

I never saw the post you keep referring to so can't comment on that or judge it for myself - but I did see yours and remember it clearly. So I don't think you can keep trying to take the moral high ground. Instead it may be better to just shut up about the post you allege was made, given your own dubious history.

“Isn’t one of the first resolutions in an AGM for shareholders to approve accounts?”

Sort of FED but it is not strictly to ‘approve’ the accounts as that is not the shareholders role, instead it is to ‘receive’ or ‘accept’ them and we could in theory vote not to do so (so arguably it is a sort of approval even if not officially called that and different to the approval required by directors).

The point is that the 21 days gives the shareholders the chance to look at the accounts and any other relevant AGM document regarding the resolutions. So there does need to be at least 21 days between publishing the accounts and the AGM (part of which is to vote on ‘receiving’ them) but I don’t think the need to hold the AGM within six months of year end is as serious as publishing the results within that period.

If a company fails to publish results it is suspended but plenty hold the AGM later than six months and face no apparent comeback.

“Benchmarking is the easiest way of assessing the likely value of a business.”

It’s also the laziest and probably the most inaccurate.

A benchmark is only as good as a comparison allows and on first glance there doesn’t seem too much in common between the companies to draw any meaningful conclusion in this case.

“the reason revenue didn’t happen in 2024 was due to issues with porting, can you not read?”

So no doubt you’ll be happy when a new reason is given why there is no revenue ‘after summer’. As long as there is an excuse, you’re satisfied?

Anyway, the ‘after summer’ was a throwaway, wishful comment in an interview not a RNS statement so I don’t think they’ll come up with a reason this time. They’ll probably just keep quiet - which is currently exactly what they are doing - before moving onto the next thing.

The assets had a value in the balance sheet because they were expected to produce future benefits which would at least pay back the original investment - unless they knew they were pouring money down the drain in advance! (In which case the auditors shouldn’t have signed off the asset valuations).

Any write-off means that the future expectation of benefits has lessened or disappeared altogether.

This is indeed due to poor, PAST decisions but there is no escaping that future benefits which were assumed to be there are now not.

So it may have been clear to you that revenue was never going to happen anyway but the management and auditors clearly didn’t think that. Maybe you should be doing their jobs or have made it clear it was always going to be a white elephant (but I don’t remember you being scathing about the US DC and other expansion from the start)?

“Hence why the historic results aren't important to me”

Obviously missed my point. The cash position by its nature is always historic (or the present if being generous). The write-offs represent a downgrade of FUTURE expected cash flows and that is why they are important to me.

“As I've posted before, and I know you disagree, statutory loss is far less important to me than the cash position for this year”

Well, we already know the cash so you won’t get any more from the results unless they talk about post closure events and outlook.

Given the precarious position at the moment then I would agree cash is more important right now.

The huge losses they’ll be putting through the accounts though are in effect the loss of future cash and the future is more important than what is happening now in my view (once they remove the survival threat from the current cash position).

“Large tax write off only relevant if we have taxable profits.”

Indeed, and to get to those of the US DC there is an awful lot of other losses to get through first.

Whether I’m arrogant or not is for others to judge so I’ll let that go and people can think whatever they like but you have clearly not understood what I have said (or have deliberately misunderstood it). No matter.

On the impact though the 1.2% reduction is, as you say, already included in H1 but is in addition to the £100m.

So the full impact on FY 2025 is the margin loss in H1 PLUS the over £100m of one-offs LESS any improvements from H2. That may end up being a bit more than £100m in total or a bit less but either way it won’t be too much different.

So in short, SCB was correct - as that point seems to have got lost in all this.

No Bfd, I was clearly talking about the 1.2% REDUCTION in margin that you quoted (as this was your starting point for the loss not being so high as SCB claimed) which will actually ADD to the £100m. Yes there may well be benefits in H2 but overall they will be small beer compared to the £100m+.

Once again you try to turn being wrong into somehow suggesting you are right.