Member Info for Mike12345

Josey agree with you but remember notional debt is £5.3m, so add £8m (circa 23p) on to the valuation if you are basing on EBITDA. Net assets after notional debt is £18m. Recurring revenue of circa £6m pa with a gross profit of 90%, with some multiple like this of 3x-5x. i have seen businesses with recurring revenue of £1m go for £4m-£5m with a profit nowhere near as close. So many ways to value the business.

Apologies moniman misquoted you there, was looking at one of your older negative posts and got confused. Back to my point can you elaborate? or will you continue to avoid?

Moniman you may be right but you state no facts, mostly, in my opinion, negtaive comments. Please can you oppose me with hard facts as to why this is a 10p buy out and why that damian hanson has more money than sense.

Hi Josey,

Yes i agree it will be a leaner more profitable business. Any one would rather have a company generating say £50m of revenue and profit of £12-15m rather than a business of £120m making a loss of £3m and certainly that business would be valued at more than MMAG given it is profitable i.e. you could "buy mmag" now for circa £7m and get a profit f £15m in one year. I think they have over reached and have realised which is why they are becoming leaner and looking for funding (through a sale) to push this further. Yes the clothing opportunity is certainly something that could move the business further forward, hopefully some meaningful updates on that soon.

Just to further comment, with notional debt reducing, interest rates likely to reduce, cost cutting measures increasing, profit margins increase, this is really only heading one way in my opinion. I imagine in the next report (if not bought) will show increase net assets, lower debt, higher EBITDA and lower capex due to fewer rentals. I imagine YE end revenue perhaps could be lower at circa at £120m. This is a presumption of course.

Just updating this based on a previous post before:

- Net assets: £9.5m ( 9.63p per share), adding back projected revenue and rental assets of £8.4m increases this to 18.15p NAV. see page 7 of most recent report.

- MCAP: £6.74m

- Damian Hanson invested £100k in Jan/Feb, he is a business phone CEO startup. Invested further £20k in April.

- Peter Hagreaves Invested circa £280,000 in June.

- delist requires 75% shareholder approval, management combined own 27% and according to website only 48% is in private hands (according to MMAG website). It is not in the incentive for private firms e.g. Schroders, to want to de list, as well as any other new investors.

- the most recent report in June stated cash is sustainable to June 2025, based on significant adverse unlikely scenarios.

- HSBC and NatWest Banks backing until 2026, with interest rates likely to fall at this point, financing expenses will definitely fall. Furthermore, given that now we will be completing less rentals, debt is likely to reduce and therefore financing expense.

- debt has increased due to more handsets for rentals, however, they are also considered assets as they have an outright sale value. This is why they have been added on as a notional value as above, increasing NAV per share.

- delisting would negatively impact the employee benefit trust scheme, as employees would have difficulty selling, so imagine they would not be happy.

- gross margin has improved on tech and cost cutting measures are being implemented. The company are trying to become leaner definitely. Perhaps based on the most recent report it is still being fed through the business.

- Information in the most recent report was already apparent in the most recent trading update, therefore the share was certainly oversold, which is why it recovered so much. Revenue was disappointing but is due to US exit.

- This business has potential and needs the right buyer. over £100m of sales is hard to do, this just needs to be a bit leaner and have more investment to make it more efficient, clearly why the business is looking to sell. I think fair value is still in the range of £25m-£35m in my opinion. Its assets alone are circa £18m.

- i am interest to know others thoughts

Why would there be a placing Thunder2040? interested to know the thought process behind this. I imagine a billionaire peter hargreaves would be privy to a placing and certainly would not buy 4% of a company if he was about to be diluted.

Robswire, what is the point in posting non factual negative comments? If you this is share is toast why not just leave it and find a better investment opportunity? It is genuinely a waste of time for you

I completely agree, so they must be in conversation still. Otherwise there would be no point at all, so perhaps they are waiting on certain information i have no idea. Yes i imagine there would be director buys but obviously they cannot.

It is a tough situation but this is a potential multi bagger over night in my opinion. I think regardless of whether we are bought, coming out of the offer period will boost the share price as there will be a bit more certainty. No one is really making a profit at these prices and there is not enough stock in issue to short this share. With so little trades this needs a wake up and hopefully management can do something.

Report states gross margin increase of 1.4%, have you read it? almost accessible within 5 seconds to see gross margin has increased. Yes so rental is very profitable as the person rents and MMAG still owns the asset, so they get rental income and own the asset which is then sold. Yes its true rental reduction will reduce the gross profit as its very profitable, however, in this environment of high interest rates it is a necessary requirement. It is simply too expensive to continue investing in more phones at the moment, as more debt is required. The company could complete a capital raise but they are fully aware that this is not in the interest of shareholders, or themselves so they are taking correct measures.

I certainly am not basing my investment solely on gross profit, it is based on many factors. I hope you are not solely making an investment based the potential / speculation of a business going into administration, when the facts state otherwise.

Why would a bank ask a business to return the debt when it would cause distress for no reason?

1. interest rates are about to reduce

2. economy returning to normality due to reduced inflation

3. gross margin up 1.4% and EBITDA up £1m. With more debt being repaid due to less rentals and interest rate drops, finance expense will reduce based on capital repayment and lower rates.

4. we are within covenants and are likely to continue to do so especially with reducing rates and less rental capital expense.

I am not ignoring the fact that the business is not in perfect shape. What I am saying it that it is worth more than the Market cap and share price it stands at now. I cant see this being worth £1 but its certainly worth more than the bid price of 5.5p.

I would like someone to reply to me with some logic, all I am reading is opinions based on very little fact. “ To build the rental book requires a carefully balanced approach to opportunity cost, because each phone rented has the lost opportunity of an outright sale, and while the rental over the long term provides more profits, an outright sale in the short term provides immediate cash. ” “ Total Rental revenues for 2023 were £8.3m (2022: £5.3m), and gross profit was £7.4m (2022: £4.2m). With the current refined product, we expect to see similar levels of revenues in 2024, but without the requirement for significant capital investment. ” This is quoted from the most recent report. Basically the debt increase has come from rental phones as MMAG have had to purchase and rent the product. Now that this channel will reduce, we will have more cash to pay back debt. Not only this but interest rates are likely to fall, which is great news for any one with debt. Please can you elaborate on why we would go into administration given that we are heading into lower debt, lower interest rates, higher margin?

Why would administrators come calling? enough liquidity until march 2025...please elaborate

Why would delisting be a threat? I have made a few posts about MMAG in the past and have generally be correct based on logic and facts. Personally if I were the board of MMAG I would not de-list, it does not make any sense, as they would have lower liquidity for selling shares and the firm does not need to raise capital.

Here are the facts:

- Net assets: £12.3 (11.4p per share)

- MCAP: £7.2m

- Damian Hanson invested £100k in Jan/Feb, he is a business phone CEO startup.

- Price has been downward since Cannacord Genuity started selling their entire share, they have stopped selling 28th Jan. Supply and Demand has impacted us here and we have had no catalyst for a boost.

- delist requires 75% shareholder approval, management combined own 27% and according to website only 48% is in private hands (according to MMAG website). It is not in the incentive for private firms e.g. Schroders, to want to de list, as well as any other new investors.

- the most recent report stated cash is sustainable to march 2025, based on significant adverse unlikely scenarios.

- HSBC and NatWest Banks backing until 2026, with interest rates likely to fall at this point, financing expenses will definitely fall. Furthermore, given that now we will be completing less rentals, debt is likely to reduce and therefore financing expense.

- debt has increased due to more handsets for rentals, however, they are also considered assets as they have an outright sale value.

- delisting would negatively impact the employee benefit trust scheme, as employees would have difficulty selling, so imagine they would not be happy.

- gross margin has improved on tech and cost cutting measures are being implemented. The company are trying to become leaner definitely.

- sales of £136.6m is no small feat. If more investment from a new buyer can invest in efficiencies, gross margin could be improved significantly. Therefore, this could mean a profitable firm in the long run in terms of net margin.

- so the minimum i would expect (this is based on various assumptions) NAV + rental assets as debt and reduced finance (£7m) brand name and sales channel (£15m) inc Walmart, Asda, Declutrr. Circa £35m so around £0.325 per share.

This is my opinion only.

Broker forecast likely it be having an impact. Again not sure on the drop but it is opportunity.

- £4bn revenue

- £400m liquidity as well as CEO confirming no raise needed

- ASOS global reach Asos has, so I think there there could be a seller.

Economy is slowly coming back and hopefully Asos will too

The stock is being treated as if it’s going bust, makes no sense. Not going bust at all.

Pros

- £4bn pa revenue, this is being leaned down to produce more profit and is currently working.

- cost cutting

- leaner stock management

- £400m liquidity, with no need to raise in the next year.

- economy in the UK improving and globally in terms of inflation. ( mainly food prices still inflating)

- market cap only £460m

- huge global presence

- NAV per share: £7.94, current SP £4.57

Cons

- lower revenue by 8%( although explained that 50% of this was on purpose, so reality is 4% drop)

- lower profit significantly (although, stock write off was already know if £100m)

- uncertainty on economy and if no improvement in economics would reduce growth (still increases gross profit by 2% in H2, reduced inventory of 20%, FCF £150m, CAPEX in line,

Strange behaviour of this stock and expect blue end of day in my opinion

From what I have found Islandmagee is being contested based on environmental grounds?

Hi All,

New to this board and have done a bit of research, please correct me on below of anything sounds incorrect:

Pros
- FSS contract secured with revenue to be in £100ms of coming years
- significant pipeline in billions (although not won)
- cheap considering market cap of only £27m
- Ismandgee closure could see a huge spike in further revenues in £100ms
- increased facility to $ 100m while new £200m facility closes. Reducing needs for capital raise, the company also states they have looked at long term asset financing instead (instead of capital raise?)
- UK export finance talks could improve financing position. One would hope that this would be in HARL favour due to nature of green business and targets of net zero.

Risks
- debt facility potentially delayed or not closing?
- potential placing for capital investment required (although less probable IMO)
- Ismandgee review, please could someone elaborate on this point? I have not been able to conclude what the issue is? What are we waiting for conclusion wise?