Member Info for Hosai

I agree Oke, I remember being sceptical at the time but you were right (as was Golden).
Just seems bizarre to keep spending that much capex for what in 5 years would eventually be around £22 million EBITDA a year. Makes me wonder as you say if it's actually to keep the price down to enable a buyout because it truly doesn't make sense, the future payback isn't enough. It's a shame none of the analysts pressed them on this a bit more.
As I've said, I think Nutrition alone is worth more than current market cap but ingenuity is suppressing things.

There is no way Matt M is going to sell. He could have sold his shares between £6-£8 for a whole year only 2 years ago. Therefore imo Apollo would have to be buying with Matt M if it's going to happen before removal of golden share.

I don't see what the shorts are hoping for now, there is no new "loss" to be announced to scare retail investors. Nutrition alone is worth at-least the current market cap when you do a basic EBITDA comparison with other companies in terms of the downside. Beauty alone the same.
However shorts have the risk all month of this spiking a lot higher due to the bid potential buyout.

His absence is strange, he is known for being a "heavyweight chair" so it seems unlikely he's suddenly become bad at his job. Obv he has bought a lot of shares. This is another thing that makes me lean towards a Matt M buy out.

I did wonder about the ingenuity slide. It seemed they were saying they would get to "self funding" in 5 years but even then the external revs would only be £300 million, with 7.5% EBITDA so around £22.5 million a year. Didn't seem enough to justify keeping plugging the Beauty and Nutrition into growing it?
Beauty and Nutrition and very undervalued when you compare to peers valuations and both on their own cover the current market cap imo however the issue seems to be continuing to plug the money into commerce which it doesn't appear is going to give the kind of reward previously hoped for?

He did sell a portion at IPO yes, however I think it would be rare for a founder CEO to not sell some of their shares when they finally IPO after being private for years (for THG was after 12 years).

MM didn't sell, he had a year to sell at £6-£8 but didn't sell any. I do feel the essence of this video gives more a vibe of potentially going private, just not sure I'd buy the 150 circled stuff.

Video is 6:06 long...that's the sign for me - £6.06.

Think ppl might be misinterpreting the "pond scum" part, don't think it's aimed at anyone in particular is more the kind of vibe of the whole video of being broken down and rebuilding in that that kind of motivational talk way (not saying Matt M doesn't view them as pond scum privately however).

For Beauty I believe the 6% medium term EBITDA guidance is very achievable as they achieved in 2021. Revenues should at the least be able to hold at the same level around £1.235 billion, (as another q4 issue is unlikely). That would give regular EBITDA for Beauty of £74.1 million and that's assuming no more growth for beauty.
For Nutrition they should be able to return to 12% EBITDA margin as they made this in 2021 and now have New Jersey fully automated. Even with no growth (very unlikely) this would give £700 million revs x 0.12 = £84 million EBITDA.
So you have realistic prospect of conservatively around £158.1 million EBITDA moving forward from these two divisions.
As I mentioned before Fever tree are aiming for £39 million EBITDA this year and have a £1.5 billion market cap. THG market cap is currently £1.1 billion.
This is ignoring any potential of ingenuity commerce.
THG cash generated from operations = £37.7 million, for fever tree = £14.4 million.
Admittedly Fever tree have a better balance sheet with much less debt (though also less cash). However even if you removed the extra interest THG pay (circa £56m) from THGs EBITDA you have £102 million versus Fever Trees £39 million.
THG also have large tax losses to use moving forward.
On these figures I'd say THG Beauty and Nutrition together should be at the very least double Fever trees market cap i.e £3 billion or £2.10 (that's adjusting for all of THGs interest payments and not including potential EBITDA from commerce or the "other" division).

Surely you must be short Ocado then Barnet?
Significantly worse financial performance and forecast compared to THG but a £4.39 billion market cap. If THG had that market cap would give them a 308p share price.

Webcast is now on the website (might have been added earlier)
https://stream.brrmedia.co.uk/broadcast/64185dd837aa9c3b3147f16e/643ee314a00d5013a3a7c29b

A bit brutal to frame as "losing half a billion quid" in a year of the worst inflation in decades and whey prices rising 50-100%.
It's like calling Matt M a genius for growing the business 45% odd during 2020 lockdown year.
I'd say neither is quite fair.

Also Macdonalds comment - "Lesson learned". Obv might not mean anything, but usually means "not doing that again" (or anymore).

Iain Macdonald - "Interesting piece Matt. Even today we have had to deal with (deliberately?) sloppy and inaccurate reporting from analysts and media with zero repercussions. I can only imagine the commotion if we made such basic errors in our reporting. I really can’t imagine why any company would put themselves through it. Founder run businesses seem particularly in the cross hairs. The repercussions for the businesses themselves are very real - the ability to finance growth is curtailed which ultimately places the U.K. at a competitive disadvantage, particularly in growth sectors where a certain degree of vision is required to see through an investment phase. Lesson learned. Onwards as they say!"

He sounds quite bold? Like he knows he already has a deal? Not meaning to ramp (in a sense) just am starting to think that way.

THG Nutrition surely is worth the current market cap here, everything else is for free.
12% margin was already achieved in 2021 and now New Jersey warehouse is now automated from this month. Even if its revenue stalled around £700m (which would seem unlikely) that's still a nice £84 million a year EBITDA plus tax losses to bring forward.
Considering Fever tree made £39.7 million EBITDA for FY2022 (falling 36.8% from previous year) and are also predicting £39 million EBITDA for FY2023 and have a £1.5 billion market cap, it's hard to see how Nutrition alone doesn't at the least cover THGs current £1.1 billion odd market cap.

Agree Okehurst though not sure the tax losses would be quite that much unfortunately coz occasionally they have used small tax credits so must have "used" some of it. Still will be a substantial amount though as Kelso alluded to.

Ste to be pedantic was £270m and I guess I'd assumed these assets had been impaired in the markets eye already with the current share price where it is.

I guess with the lower assets there will be less depreciation moving forward? Obviously wouldn't effect EBITDA as that's already adjusted but helps get a little closer to net income moving forward?
I suppose that's why they say cash-flow is one of the best measures, did seem to get buried slightly that net debt dropped £20 million or so from £200m - 180m