Member Info for Senator1

Looking at your posts your another waffler, no financial substance, just lots of words. Waste of time.

You talk around in circles. He gets the nil costs but is required over a 12 month period to build a shareholding of a % of the volume of options/multiple of salary/whatever. Should he not have this holding the options dont vest, until they have this shareholding. What do you not understand about this, it is very common at the top level that the Board motivates the top team to have skin in the game apart from time commitment and the subsidised shares. There is nothing like have a CEO spend his own capital to ensure he is focused and committed. You do write a lot of waffle.

Your an idiot

Thats ridiculous. He made a mess of his first guidance (whatever the reason, he is quarter-backing this rodeo) and that has shot his credibility. It might not have been his direct responsibility on how numbers are put together but he gets to choose or dump anyone so the fault lies squarely with him. He will get no credit for over delivering on new guidance. He will be remembered as the fool that revised his guidance in a matter of weeks. It was obvious the CFO was weak & in his first month he should have asked for a review on the accounts. He didnt, he trusted the existing guy and will now pay the price. The market is very slow to forgive stupidity.

I covered the point that he is not required to buy BUT motivated to buy. Learn to read!

Wake up. You dont give someone a million nil cost options before he has even done a days work without him making a commitment. The only question is does he match it to 50%, 60%, 75% or 100% or some other number. Nil cost is a dressed up way of just giving him the shares so if you are going to do that you need to see him commit to the project. Its more a guerss on the participation % than the fact he was financially motivated to buy the shares as the world and his granny knows the masses will think this is a confidence signal. Its greed, pure and simple, the basic commercial instinct.

He has bought 527.K shares for £1.3M but was given nil cost options on over a million shares making his average holding price 87p on 1.5M shares. I havent seen his contract unlike some alleging they have seen it but I would strongly suspect while he is not forced to buy shares I am pretty sure a condition of getting a nil cost option on over a million shares was that he match it with purchases to at least 50%. Who wouldnt take that deal, his purchases mean nothing just delivering on his end to get 1m free shares. There is no confidence signal there when your breakeven is 87p. Total rubbish thinking that is a sign of confidence, just feeding at the trough, pure greed.

Thats about your level of contribution, thanks for posting idiot

The £135 was mistyped, meant to be £155, smart arse. If your so clever lets see your calcs big mouth.

We have been told adj ebitda to Sept is now £191M out of that they have to finance w/c investment, capex and interest on the non lease debt which I think comes to a total £135M or so, leaving £36M. The interim DVD at 5.3p costs £53.3M so they will need to use some of the opening cash of £217M but its quite marginal and if capex and w/c is well managed they might have enough cash from operations but knowing this bunch of clowns they have messed that up, Im pretty sure. That will be the focus in the short term, did they need to increase debt to maintain the interim DVD and of course did they only lose the freight costs in the first half of the year or were they always lost. Cant wait to hear what bs they come up with to explain that.

Even with adj ebitda of £470M it is not excessive. £35-40M of interest on the real debt, it just isnt an issue. As a Lux entity there were issues with the buyback and thats why they are moving to Jersey. If I remember right something to do with required reserves under Lux law. By moving to jersey they are signalling that buybacks will be a feature going forward although it wont be meaningful this year because they wont have the cash if they maintain DVD and adj ebitda comes in at lower range and capex is roughly same as last few years at about £130M. Watch to make sure these clowns dont award themselves any bonuses or share options. If they attempt to vote against every resolution proposed.

No I havent. I have used adj ebitda and so only depr on freehold and not the ifrs 16 bull..t. as i have taken the lease payment as the real cost and put interest at same as last. I do think -24% wil be best case but in any event that is not the issue. We now have got a taste of the judgement of the CEO with the RNS and it is that judgement that market is hammering, not the £40m adjustment to guidance but the stupidity that thought putting out such a school boy/girl RNS would cover his a.s and allow him to adjust again in a matter of weeks. He is now a marked CEO and put in the hopeless group. He will find it hard to crawl out of there.

Adj EBITDA last year was £620M, at low end of guidance adj EBITDA is down 24% so i would expect the same on EPS of 31.8p last year meaning this year will be 24p. So at 175p trading at 7.3x. That is cheap if they had given a much more complete explanation of how they lost the freight costs from their P&L and what else they might have lost. I have the feeling that their accounting system is crap, why did they just lose freight costs in the last 6 months. What about previous years, did they find them last year but loose them this year. It's all a bit of a joke and gives strong impression the village idiots have been let loose in BME head office. Ignoring the issue never ever works and the genuis that thought the RNS released would work has seriously poor judgement and that is another real concern because that gets laid at the door of the CEO. I said a couple of weeks ago if he doesnt deliver on his guidance his credibility is blown. His credibility is now blown in my eyes as he takes sole responsibility for the most stupid RNS I have seen in a long time. They say, an idiot only hires an idiot. Lot of truth in these sayings.

No it wont. a £7m first half not accounting for freight doesnt translate in to an extra £33m in the second half. They are lying.

Also how does a £7M cost in first half result in a £40M reduction in their full year guidance. They are lying and its not even a good lie as it doesnt make sense. Lying to your shareholders is the issue and the clowns at BME thought this would be an acceptable way to present the lie that they are lost, hopelessly lost. Non cash errors in accounting can take longer to discover but anything that generates an outflow in cash (probably 3-4 times a year) is total incompetence, no ifs,buts maybes. He should have been fired not let sail off with no blame.

Email: Investor.relations@bandmretail.com

innundate these clowns with question: Where was it accounted for? When the bills paid how did you reconcile the cash payment?

Make it known you think the RNS a joke

If it wasnt accounted for in COGS, where was it accounted for? Nowhere? The amount is irrelevant, its the fact their aqccounting systems totally ignored a real cost. This was the most idiotic RNS that leaves as many questions as it answers. How can you miss a cost that ultimately requires a cash payment, that is unbelievable. He should have been fired. I always knew he was weak and his days numbered, but this is incompetence. I said before the new CEO needs to make a clean sweep and if I were him I would be all over the buyers and checking their abilities.

That makes no sense. Nobody knows what happens if they breach the 50% gearing test but my guess is that cash gets trapped lower down the structure and is not allowed to go upstream to give NESF the cash to make payments. It is obvious things are tight as they have stopped their participation in the buyback, on which they have only about £9M to do, that is telling you loud and clear there is an issue, to say nothing of a 14% DVD yield.

I would redo those back of the envelope calculations if I were you. Im convinced they need to sell the two remaining assets to continue with the DVD and even then Im not sure as they need to create some headroom on the gearing by paying a chunk down.

FSFL do make that information available. Their presentation of the required data is a million times better than NESF. They shame NESF and NESF should be left in no doubt they have to do much better or more and more investors will leave them to their own devices. Apart from retail they mostly have. There will never be a merger between FSFL and NESF as the NESF crew know they are way outclassed and it would be a disaster for FSFL shareholders to even contemplate letting NESF management and Board be in control. Next Energy have their little goldmine and they wont give that up. The £2m or so they have invested relative to the £10M they take out every year is an irrelevance.

Absolutely that is the perfect scenario. Your share price anticipating more growth, the co doing well so able to accelerate the progress by buying more shares. That is the perfect scenario rather than the desperation of increasing leverage to buy a falling stock as no one else will buy it. if you dont understand the difference between those two examples you will definitely lose in the long term. retail love to catch falling knifes and bottom fish and so they mostly lose.