Member Info for mf12

The revenue point you make is fair but that in itself is probably a bigger assumption than mine. Per their latest investor presentation, new and repeat revenue is falling YoY. Their customer churn looks to be too high, it would be very interesting to see the average customer tenure.

To the company has not been able to show that the top line can grow fast enough without marketing spend eating up too much margin, never mind factoring in the wider macro environment (inflation in supply chain, lower expendable income of their target customers, etc.) that will negatively impact.

I have not followed the shares that you mention, and this may well bag from here, but it will be a short-lived unless something drastic changes in the business model.

In the last half year, stripping out the share issue, the company burned through £3.2m of cash, or c.£0.54m per month. Between June and Oct, this burn-rate has maintained (if not sped up) leaving cash at the trading update RNS of c.£3.5m. This leaves no more than 7 months runway until they run out of cash - perhaps less, as when suppliers see things like this they will tighten credit.

How do you see any value in the cash they have on the balance sheet given the above?

This all depends on whether the final sale (if there is one) is fully cash or cash plus shares in NAS. The latter is not preferential due to where NAS are listed.

A random question. Can the company announce, while it’s trading is suspended, resignation of any director?

This looks to be some posturing. Basically allow the market to give its impression on what the FCA said, and the judge’s question around an RI now to add to the pot. The board will be expecting the share price to sharply decrease to back up their assertion that this won’t be a possibility in spite of the actions of the share price recently.

The only question I would have is around the availability of information to the market around what happened at the court case. Those who attended clearly had a greater advantage in hearing the arguments and tone over those who couldn’t in forming their own lay opinion.

For me I will not be selling. Between the start of the case and now nothing has changed, I was fully under the impression it was the court sanctions or the company is insolvent. The enterprise value in the former will be realised if the case passes eventually, despite the market probably valuing like the latter tomorrow.

Well summarised ISA. The point around bond holders is critical. The fact that they were not willing to enter negotiations and were forceful in that they rank above other creditors speaks volumes. If they can get 100p in the pound now through insolvency, why wouldn’t they force that as opposed to the infinite other [likely worse] alternatives.

All a bit embarrassing for the FCA really, unless the FCA can suggest who would provide such funding for Amigo 2.0. Without that the equity is worthless, in trust nor not. I'm not sure the claimants - in receipt of the equity - would be in any particular position to contribute to any rights issue or the like and they would have most [all] of the equity one would presume.

More good news... expanding the footprint globally with United and diversifying further with cargo: https://menziesaviation.com/news/menzies-aviation-grows-united-airlines-relationship-in-australia-with-cargo-contract-wins/

Let’s be honest, if you’re building a position you would want to disclose this as slowly as the regs allow to get the shares for as low a price as possible - we all know that a share price typically goes up with TRs that are disclosing gradually accumulating share holdings.

Happy to be corrected but it could be the case that a threshold was not crossed on 26 Feb therefore no need for disclosure. The buyer gets 2 trading days to disclose, meaning I believe they would have until COB today/tomorrow morning to disclose a change in threshold from Mon 1 Apr (if any).

bransonbull - on the point of why not lower the interest rates, I suppose it’s still a risk reward game. I think the quality of the covenant/collateral Amigo are able to get over their customer is still low hence the premium over credit card or bank debt. That in addition to the lower the premium the less wiggle room if there are complaints.

I don’t recall seeing that section either, so good spot XEL - the news looks hopefully promising for a return to lending soon!

I think this is the relevant grant rules, which does not mention any repayment term: https://beta.sam.gov/fal/452213b102ac45bab7cf467f4127fd77/view?keywords=CARES&sort=-relevance&index=&is_active=true&page=1.

Very strong cash position and as I expected, the US fared a lot better than EMEA.

Does anyone know how the CARES grant works? The update says that the Company received £62.9m in grants (separate to the £25.6m CARES loan) which will be released to the P&L in the months to 31 March 2021. Are these amounts repayable? If not, that's a significant tailwind to the P&L. Granted, the Company has to incur associated costs, but can these costs be revenue generating?

Tweet reads that he thinks he's won and he wants the speedbrakes to go on so he can get in cheaper!

As a shareholder, even despite the BoD being borderline useless, you’ll not find me voting for a voluntary winding up.

Even if book value is 35p per share, rest assured the liquidator will make sure their fees turn that into something far off that!

Much better outcome for all if we get a management team in place who have a vision.

Agreed - to be only 30% behind last year when airlines throughout the same period were operating 70%+ less than their 2019 schedules bodes well.

One thing I think people forget with Menzies is that it has the majority of its revenue coming from outside Europe - the US and Asia got back flying a lot sooner than we did in Europe.

Peoplepower, you’ve made your point. No need to continue repeating, move on.

If you’re short, that’s your prerogative but don’t think you posting what you on this board (or any other board for that matter) is going to make this share price move! Good luck, you’ll need it.

Mark I think the boards point around making JB is even more nuanced (ridiculous) than you make out... they are highlighting that he can’t be de-facto CEO until approved by the FCA (I don’t think this needs another co vote) - until that point he will be “interim” CEO as GC is just now.

Such a terrible RNS, it is just full of spite. They should have instead set out what they have done/are doing/will do to allay investors concerns that they are not working for them!

The 20% approval point the BoD make may even come back to bite them. On the FCA website:

Situations that do not require prior approval
- Increasing or decreasing control within an approved control band. Unless you are a controller of a directive firm and the increase will result in you becoming a new parent undertaking of the authorised firm.

RG will already have a control band. If JB can get legal advice on whether this band is lost and/or RG is considered a “new” parent undertaking then the authorisation may well carry over?

The other question is re the shareholders agmt in place. If this was to drop away I would imagine this is key in the change in control aspect (as I believe RG we’re not able to vote above 10%)?

What a strange RNS from the perspective that it misses on the key information you’d expect to see when reporting a material new loan - repayment terms, interest rate and covenants.

Given the equity raise last year, can’t see how this is required now. Potentially gives a faster route to market with contacts and their support. I can only see this as positive given the additional due diligence over the product by the CCR - and perhaps indicates that going forward any capital requirements may be fulfilled by the board by the debt market (cheap) as opposed to equity markets.

Presentation referenced is the '2019 full year analyst presentation' on the EZY website.