Member Info for lejjb

That's a mug's game, don't try guessing that. In my 12 year amateur's experience, multiple scenarios are possible, typically:
- a run up to the results for people to place their positions.
- a massive drop due to an engineered "tree shake"
- a tree shake, then massive buys literally at 16:29.
- a run up then last minute profit taking.

All of them depend on the scale and intentions of the current shareholders and those interested in acquiring or divesting shares.

Don't try to guess.

There would still be an increase depending on the terms of the lending agreement - the base rate of a bank would be referred to - but you are still making a good point, thanks.

Hi all
Does anyone have an approximate calculation (and their sources for such a calculation) of how much more monthly debt repayments Cineworld will have to pay if the BoE increases rates by 0.5% as expected please?
Thanks in advance.

The value of NHC closed position was about £330k at yesterday's rough SP (0.11% of approximately £300m marcap yesterday - today being £283m at close), that's just not an amount that would make the SP jump considering the volume for this share.

onesharewonder - (sort of) apology accepted.
I appreciate the scenario that you are describing but based on 12 years of amateur trading and associated research, I think it is highly unlikely - at least not without an accompanying media blitz, and actually it's been relatively quiet for Cineworld recently,.

Do you know that to close its position, a shorter has to buy back the shares, i.e. the SP goes up when shorters close?...

Nancy Pelosi's trip to Taiwan and the Chinese threats of (unspecified) retaliation are rattling the markets. RR. is not spared from that, even more so as it is more viewed as a civil aviation dependent company. For whatever reason, its defence business is usually ignored (vs BAE, Qinetiq etc.).
Better stay away until the Chinese have made their show of force, if any.

Tegop - thank you.

Please could somebody (knowledgeable please) tell us what distinguishes Cineworld's business from that of Vue, to explain why Cineworld is less at risk to end up like Vue? (Apart form the fact that one is listed and the other one is not of course!)

Another instance is when there are too many sell orders but not matching buy orders, or conversely.
But some shares can be thundering up or down and not go on auction because there enough people on the other side of those traders to buy or sell share to make the drop or rise possible.
Bottom line: don't read too much into intraday market auctions.

A bit like that, but not exactly.
An auction is when the combined amount of shares requested or offered for sale (whether from a single or many traders) is too big to be processed. So it gives the chance to market makers and similar organisations to slow down the flow of trades (but they still take "negotiated trades", i.e. ones with a real time quote) while they get their books in order.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/call-auction.asp

Tegop - your post is materially wrong:
1- the convertible loan of March 2021 is akin to issuing more shares.
2- 2021 profit increased vs 2020 when cinemas were largely closed.
Wait till you see the March and April 2022 figures (which will be in a while) vs those of January and February 2021.
So far adjusted EBIDTA provided for 2019 was $1,580.3m (25 March 2021 RNS) vs $454.9m for 2021 (17 March 2022) RNS - so about 30% of 2019. There is still a mahoosive way to go.

@RS2002 and Mountainous
First, I appreciate the overall civility that you have kept - most people on this board are not classy (euphemism).
To clarify my overall point, I'm not talking in terms of all or nothing but in terms of degree.
Average working families may not stop spending on extras altogether. What I'm saying is that they are much more likely to spend less, which means less in the coffers of Cineworld - that's certainly the case for my family and most other people I know, even those we'd regard as relatively well-off.
And as shown by the results of the "value" consumer businesses that Boohoo and Netflix are, consumers have been making cut backs.
And spending, say, 20-30% less in food and drinks at the cinema won't seriously harm one's movie experience, but it will certainly have a big impact on the money that Cineworld makes at a time when it is desperate for cash.

Tegop - learn about profit and loss and balance sheet.
You are saying the same things as what Thomas Cook groupies were saying in 2019, i.e. "too big to be in serious risk"...

mountainous - saying that people will be fine to spend money on entertainment extras (i.e. food drinks, not the cinema ticket per se) because they are not spending money on holidays is extremely out-of-touch with a large proportion of working families.

Folks, Cineworld does not just need people to go to the cinema (which they will probably keep doing substantially, I don't doubt that), it needs them to spend plenty on food and drinks.

When you are a father / mother with a family of two kids and your basic bills etc. have increased by £150-£300 per month due to inflation, you MUST cut back in other areas. So for example just one pot of popcorn vs 2-3, fewer or small drinks etc.

So while cinema attendance figures are obviously important, the average expenditure by a visitor / group of visitors is also essential. This is the area where Cineworld WILL suffer: people must cut back when they can to survive or they cannot afford they food and heating bills or the mortgage.

Will Cineworld disappear in the near future? I don't think so. Will Cineworld be able to keep paying its debts (not even mentioning paying ANY money to cineplex)? It is highly uncertain and Cineworld MUST get a big fat wad of cash now to decrease its debts.

Recapitalisation looks very likely for the survival of Cineworld, even with Mooky being also an equity holder - which would explain why he has been paying himself more and more (salary and/or bonuses) as he has probably realised that he needs to make up for his upcoming losses to the value of his shareholding.

Just procedural stuff, it does not reflect any significant transaction. You can ignore.

Hosai - "indicative proposals" (MM's words) ain't much better, is it?

This is deliberate vague wording: if the offers were real, he would have had to report them in an RNS, which he did not.

Nobody can know where the bottom is with reasonable certainty.
However, if you know what "reality" is for this business, you might want to inform the multitude of analysts who have got the SP so wrong for the past 1.5 years...
EQLS seems to be doing much better, I don't see why you'd shift your money in a business with so much uncertainty and whose SP has been propped by "uncooked" rumours (using Betaville terminology) with no evidence of real offers (vs vague approaches).

OxfordBull - repeat that claim to Mark Minervini or Nathan Michaud and see their answers...