Member Info for jane201120

Thanks jg.

Bal sheet / debt situation is obviously horrid, what will the overall position be after n. american sale? Cant see which rns gives numbers, is there one?

Also anyone know what are 1.25bn of "other liabilities"?

Looking at (pro/institutional) shorts recorded here, I see the total shorts increasing from 1.nn% to 3.25% late apr to mid june when sp was 60ish and under then dropping sharply to 1.25% end oct when sp was 70ish.

Is it correct to conclude that on average those pro/big shorters recorded on shorts page here have lost / called this wrong in the last year at least in the last year?

They've now increased shorts = a buy signal maybe?

My position lth but engaged in bednisa to rinse rachel a bit or at least pay 3% cgt instead of 24% on gains taken elsewhere. Impossible to resist trying to buy and sell with a bit of profit.

Looking at trends now ... is in an up range since mid june and now at bottom of that range. i'd guess it may drop a bit nextcwerk but ruse strongly post jan nn when pro.s are back to work. or of course, it may break out of its up range and head down again. ;)

For clarity:

by no market value, I mean that no value can be established because they are no longer listed.

The argument [if there is one] is that the zero value only came to pass later aftter courts have rubber stamped the stealing-deal. Therefore the value ascribed at time they are transferred out of the isa due to no longer qualifying is the book value as it was on the isa since no other value is available.

"I guess the question is that when the broker transfers the shares in that situation [when they are no longer traded and there is therefore no market value], what is their book value for CGT purposes according to ISA legislation. "

That's what I thought until I looked at the documentation from iweb just now.

On my ISA acct they sent a corporate action notification dated 2 august 2023 saying CINE cancelled admission to trading ... on LSE Main Market.

3 paras later says as no longer listed on recognised exchange, they no longer qualify to be held within an ISA. .... therefore we will transfer ... to your share dealing account.

In statement at end Sept still shows cine as inward/ouward stock adjustment with no of shares and no value mentioned. For end month shows a line with CINE and book value probably what I paid when I bought in the ISA.

Then in Feb 2024 have a corporate action notification that they are removed with no compensation ftrom the share dealing account.

In general I use the statements and the book cost shown on previous statement after a sale to determine capital gain or loss for CGT.

AFAICS I can do exactly that with CINE and record the book cost shown on the previous statement as a loss.

If that's wrong [it is unexpected but usually I fill my tax form in according to what the statements from the broker say], can someone point me to some rules from HMRC. I guess the question is that when the broker transfers the shares in that situation [when they are no longer traded and there is therefore no market value], what is their book value for CGT purposes according to ISA legislation.

What have other brokers said when they give corporate action notifications and subsequent statements with ISA shares forcibly removed to a non-ISA account but not yet disappeared completely?

For me this is a 20k loss shown on the statements so potentially 4k of CGT reduction assuming I never get the chance to take the CG without tax otherwise.

"Even if interest payments were zero they would still have run out of cash, it would just have taken a few months longer - what then?"

Same treatment for rents? Again a creditor that has made a risk-reward choice.

Or bailout - gov pays cost of [ridiculous and unneccessary IMO] gov policy [lockdowns]. Did CINE have a lockdown loan of '00s millions from uk gov anyway? Like EZJ did, understandably - and many other FTSE listed corps.

Also depends when they were frozen. Guess you are taking frozen at Sept 22 / CH 11 start. If option was there, could also have frozen interest payments earlier. Of course that assumes we had a CEO / board here who acted smartly and in shareholder interest.

@Wolf @Hexam

My view on the lenders getting their money back is based on what I expect will happen in the future. I think they will get all their money plus interest plus get to own the whole company if it achieves anything like performance it achieved pre lockdowns [to be expected unless further exceptional events happen].

I have not misunderstood. This is mainly a victim of 2+ years of lockdown. Something that has never happened before. It would have been fairer for government to mandate debt and interest payments to be frozen [for a few years] in this exceptional situation. Every other measure in the emergency legislation both sides of the pond was unprecedented too.

Debtors had a contract with interest determined by risk pre lockdowns [guessing they got say 8% rather than 1% they would have got from gilts - don't know exact numbers but they chose some risk in exchange for extra reward]. If all stakeholders were to take a part of the financial results of lockdowns [because they chose to accept risk of rewards/losses] without bail outs the "loss" could have been shared. With all parties getting what they signed up for. In my opinion the, a more equtable way to do that would be to suspend interest payments [pay what is available from FCF, add rest to the debt owed] and give the company a chance to recover. Most likely debtors would get capital and interest in full but have to wait a bit longer, shareholders would eventually see shares worth something.

The creditors have been allowed to use the situation to pick up a company they think will get a good return from in the future at a price they couldn't have bought it for pre lockdown. How can anyone think creditors have written off anything to save the poor employees.

The valuation of the company is also being made at the point where it will be the lowest due to exceptional lockdowns. Last autumn half the world were still barely/not out of lockdown, other places it was fresh in memory and influencing behaviour, only now does that start to become history in people's mind. Revalue based on 2H 2023 revenues [or better 2025].

I am also not a fan of bailouts and in this case don't think it's neccessary but since I'm billed for bailouts to eveyone else [CGT tax free allowance 12k to 3k, div tax free allowance halved, frozen thresholds], a bailout for events which are a direct result of exceptional gov measures would be better than what's happenning.

I'm not looking for someone to blame for my mistake in buying these and doubling down twice. That was my mistake. Moderated by the fact that if I'd bought no shares and thus no CINE, interst received on capital would be far less than my total gain on shares even after deduction of loss on CINE.

At the same time, I don't think the process applied to CINE in the light of events is in any way correct and I think that's why the media are silent.

I suspect there are two reasons the press don't want to highlight this as legal but something that in every other respect looks like theft/scam.

1. IMO the law is inadequate. The reason the shareholders should not be wiped out is that the temporary inability to pay for the debt was down to exceptional events of lockdown. I assume the law doesn't allow this as a reason to wait a couple of [five?] years and look at finances then before allowing vulture creditors to take the lot. Ch 11 in it's name suggests it should do exactly that but needs a few years not 10 months. Since lockdown was emergency law, could easily have added an emergency measure to delay the events that took place here.

2. This complex web of companies and owner-directors being unwound with the bondholders taking the lot and likely ending up not only with all their capital and interest returned in addition to owning the company just makes the whole system of LSE and even FTSE100/250 shares look bent. How is that possible?

It's bigger than CINE and about confidence in the stock market, financial regulators and system. That's why the media are silent, they are instructed to be silent I would guess, there's no free press or markets IMO.

I lost 30k here [not sold but assume I will lose the lot] but gained 300k elsewhere in the last couple of years so will stay invested in shares but my trust that large company shares being a market that is properly regulated and protected from the unscrupulous is gone.

Fluid is polite. I'd say a mess is closer. why don't they all just put an answer to that question on their webpage?

I just called HL who said they don't accept incoming transfers of POLY.

Guy didn't know immediatedly and had to ask. My impression is his answer may not have been accurate.

Anyone know if AJBell / anyone else accept incoming transfers POLY shares. Would have been nice if iweb had told us which brokers accept transfers.

AJBell have custody charge of 0.2% per yr and transfer out charge of 25quid per holding so I would generally reject on this basis. Good side only 4 quid/trade vs iweb a fiver.

I would like to just hold what I have / would buy more if I could on present plan. Would accept the risk and no need to sell/trade until the whole Russian problem is over even if that's 5-10 years. Thanks for nothing iweb.

IMO brokers could be using this to get extra clients if they want them although with large portfolio and 100 or so trades a year, iweb is hard to beat on fees. Nevertheless I am inclined to add a broker and would choose ii from previous look at them all but ii not allowing POLY holds either so not pushed over the edge into actioning that atm.

Also in general anyone know if you can transfer a holding of one share [POLY] in an isa to an isa with a different broker without transferring the whole isa?

Annoyed with iweb as looks like I'm forced to sell at low price in a market which is not trading [no buys allowed] and price 1/3 of equivalent share in moscow. Really sticking it to those russians with this sort of thing eh?

" Far better to sell out while you still can - even a few pence is better than 0p."

This is nonsense advice IMO.

I always look at the worst case scenario for each alternative. Right now I could get 2-3k for shares I paid 30k for.

Comparing two options:
Keep em. Worse case: I get zero so I lost 2-3k in addition to the 27k I'm already down for a bad decision today. Big deal.
Sell em now. Worst case: they go back up so I get 2-3k but miss out on the 27k or maybe more I could have got if I'd held. Hige regret for the decision to sell.

The holding is around 10% of last 2 years portfolio gain so hurts but got to take the rough with the smooth, what's done is done. For me, no brainer whether I should sell or hold now.

"GI Jane so the best troops in Russia were sent to their deaths in Hostomel for a ruse? They would have be better used elsewhere I would have thought."
Putin doesn't care one jot how many people die AFAICS.

"Denazification, well there are plenty all over the planet including Russia."
TBC I wasn't suggesting Putin was right in his aims or reasons, just that he stated what his territorial aims were and it's different to what our "media"[better description: propagandist BSers] says.

"Let’s just accept its a land grab as it simplifies the situation. "
Agreed.

Putin's stated objectives before his invasion were to make the three eastern regions "independant republics". Probably more realistic to call them Russian puppet states if he achieves that aim. Has *he* changed this stated objective?
In the beginning Putin clearly sent troops direction Kiev as part of the battle to control the Eastern states. AFAIK it's only western media propaganda that has said Kiev was his target.

I think the delusion is to think Putin will not achieve HIS objective. I think former-comic-Zelensky is making a military strategic mess whilst he dresses up in fatigues and directs killing of young men from the relative safety of Kiev, sending them into areas they are encircled etc.

Delusion is thinking that the West/NATO are going to start a war with Russia. Exchange of nuclear bombs and/or WW3 would be the result. I suspect the West will allow Ukraine to join NATO once Russia has removed their control/possession on the ground of the eastern states. The problem for NATO is doing that in a way that UKR is not immediately allowed to claim they are invaded due to occupation of Crimea+3states whilst the West is able to maintain that they don't recognise that UKR has not lost soverignty of that territory. The West may for that reason alone choose to delay allowing rump UKR into NATO. That itself will probably result in a further Russian invasion some years later.

@Allkap

Idiot or Brilliant was a comment on Mooky not you.

Belly is clearly not in the interests of cineplex but max not be up to them, perhaps the Mooky thread is the more important question.

There are many scenarios in between the judgement being cancelled and cine belly up. I think judgement cancelled is very unlikely and the only scenario where cineplex gets nothing. Belly up possibly second worst outcome for cineplex and if they get 10pin the pound of 3x their market cap, that's still hugely beneficial for them. Belly up with unsecured creditors getting nowt seems unlikely whilst cine is making box office profits since the financiers would also be liquidating a haircut. Why would they not sit and wait to get all their money back.

"Don’t you think that we need to seem a losing company until the outcome for the appeal?"

So either total idiot or brilliant.

The signing of the deal with the wording it had [did he read it or rely on a lawyer telling him it was OK?] in case cineworld dropped out and then choosing to drop out [again what advice was taken/given?] when the contract said what it did were both huge mistakes AFACS. Difficult to see any other possibility.

At best he could claim the mistakes were those of his advisors but 100's of posters on this board seem to have a very clear and IMO accurate idea of what the contract means and what the obvious reaction to that should have been.

Where would we be now if the ciineplex deal had gone through? If the answer to that is bankrupt already then it was the contracts with the financiers that were inadequate. One way or another the deal as a whole was not tied up to be watertight as it should have been. If he comes out blaming covid or lockdowns, he's identifying himself as idiot not brilliant IMO.

Does anyone have a date for the next court judgement on the cineplex payment?

Like others here, I am sitting on a 50% loss [5 figures] but rather than crystalize the loss [very reluctant to do, rather sit it out and risk the rest], am considering buying some cineplex as a hedge.

If cine goes under because of the cineplex liability, it's to be assumed that cineplex will benefit somewhat even if not by the full amount of the fine. They would also benefit by less competition for cinemagoers if some of their markets are the same. Are they? My recollection was that the fine was a multiple [3x ?] the mkt cap of cineplex but their share price has not changed much since.
I am wondering if it's worth hedging some of my loss.

Thoughts?

So for year 20-21 HMSO paid out two scrip divis if you opted for them rather than the cash divi worth 10% of the share value.

The email from iweb said they are PIDs and thus have 20% witholding tax deducted before calculating no of shares to receive [well done iweb for allowing the scrip divi].

Both scrip divs and PIDs are entered on SA online form under other income with a seperate box for each. Problem appears to be that for scrip divs there is nowhere to enter the witholding tax that has been deducted.

Am assuming if you enter the HMSO scrip div as a PID instead of stating that it's a scrip div you will be asked to enter the witholding tax amount and that will be accounted for in the calculation. Does anyone know if that's the correct way to report?

[In case it helps anyone else] appears that for CGT you need to count the scrip shares as bought at scrip div amount after deduction of witholding tax.

To muddy the waters a little more, it appears the 21-22 scrip div has NOT been paid or classified as a PID [so no witholding tax]. Just curious, were HMSO divis prior to 2020 paid as a PID or not?

Thanks to all for the info on here. I am in for 20k+ and down 60% this morning. Have bought a few more to average down but am hesitant with that.

Two concerns:
1. Outright failure / total wipeout. Seems to be only likely Q2 next year assuming info is correct about appeal process meaning payment is delayed and debt not due before then. OK, have accepted the risk and I won't starve.
2. RI for an amount to cover the court judgement. That seems to be 150% or so of market cap now. Having experienced and bought in to the HMSO and RR RIs both of which are now in profit for me, anyone wanting to benefit needs to buy in. One issue that may stop this happenning is if Mooky/other major shareholders-directors has to buy in as well, therefore question: Does he hold/can he get the cash ? / How much of the stock do they hold? / Do they have a way to fiddle it so they [director shareholders / those making the decision] don't need to buy in-pay up but we small shareholders do?

Also like the idea that a RI would be to fund a hostile takeover at current share price of cineplex which would mean the court judgement only costs us the increase in cineplex price since the judgement ie 80M not 1.2B