The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
The Texas issue was classic smokes and mirrors by Greg. To use it as the reason for poor Q1 2024 sales is deluded. I went back and looked at their slide (yes their own slide) and Greg's words didn't seem to fit with the data they showed. So a person left in Texas that impacted Medicaid sales. In Q4 2023 total Texas sales were 9,400 and in Q1 2024 they dropped to 6,700, a total drop of roughly 2,700 or 28%.
This drop incidentally was not just due to Medicaid, the graph shows the non-Medicaid sales also dropped, although Greg ignored this.
So if Texas didn't have an issue sales would have been say 3k higher and total sales in period would have increased from 28,800 to 31,800. So the increase percentage quart to quarter would have increased from the actual 1% to c 11%.
As we were expecting c50% increases they are still well off.
The breakeven in Q2 2025 are just words. As has previously been mentioned if the CEO had any confidence in his own words he'll be buying shares at these silly prices - he earns well over £500k a year.
Of course it's an order, why would anyone think otherwise. It's in the wording of the RNS. For a single order you are not going to publish the amount, although when formal results are published it may be possible to work it out. Also, the 'order' will have an upfront payment and then additional fees for the gas, therefore, the total amount is unclear. Again another reason to not put figures in the RNS
Just for clarity, the $17.5m included $4.4m of money as part of the money given to STX to 'purchase' 45% of all future revenues. This was received in Q1 2023.
This is a one off payment that will not be repeated. As STX state revenues from sales were $13.1m ($11.6m from US and $1.5m from Europe).
So without this one off payment the covenant would have been breached.
Currently Quarterly revs are $4m in the US with maybe $0.5m from other sources.
In Q3 2024 the 12 month revenues jump from $16.5m to $22.5m, a jump of $6m in the quarter. This equates to an extra (not a total) sales of 40k prescriptions at $150 each. This is a big ask based on the last 2 quarters total sales have been 28k in each.
Already Q3 looks challenging. We are of course already in Q2 so not long to wait.
GordonB - you have clearly bought in in the last couple of days and are hoping for a quick profit. Good luck, there is nothing wrong with that.
However, over the years STX has had placings at 150p, 30p, 6p and recently at 8p. Many experienced investors have been burned by this company and CEO broken 'promises'.
I think many LTHs would be quite happy to have an average of 5p.
Just for balance this is what the CEO said in late Sept 2023 as he also announced Q3 2023 prescription numbers would exceed 28,000.
"We believe our standout H1 2023 results, KPI achievements and expectations for continued Q3 2023 growth put us on track to reach total 2023 Accrufer® prescriptions of 100,000 to 130,000. This is a major corporate milestone for Shield and forms the foundation for future growth. Looking ahead, we have defined additional initiatives to improve our gross-to-net, continue the growth in Accrufer® prescriptions and market adoption and expand market access. Our commercial results provide validation of our strategic plan and give us access to important growth capital. The new $20 million term loan announced today and an equity financing of up to $7.4 million will put us on a steady path to reach our guidance of cash flow breakeven, expected by year-end 2024."
So the breakeven has extended by over 6 months, the actual Q3 prescription numbers were miles off and the Q4 2023 and Q1 2024 are actually at the level we were told we were at 6 months ago. The fundraise was done at 8p and SP was over 10p the day before.
This is a terrible update, not sure where the positives are. A 1% quarterly increase in prescriptions, based on a disappointing Q4 2023 too, is terrible. This needs to be growing c50% minimum. We were meant to be at 50k per quarter 6 months ago. Still miles off.
CEO is clearly clueless, and has an excuse for everything.
$10m of cash will clearly not last the year
Yes, a big contract and good timing too - the SP was drifting down on no news.
This does show the time it takes to get these contracts confirmed though as the RNS states that "The Contract award follows the successful installation of a first solar trial site." So you do a pilot on 1 site and if ok then a larger contract can be signed.
I suspect there are many other similar scenarios currently being implemented. For example we know EAAS have a big presence in schools. A number of academies manage 10 to 20 schools. I suspect these organisations would start with a pilot in 1 school before committing to an academy wide installation.
Hollywood Bowl recently announced decent results and were bullish about prospects. This clearly bodes well for XPF being in the same leisure sector.
Things seem to be progressing well and the newer venues will now start increasing revenues and profits as they become more established. It is only the SP that is depressing! One day Rodders.
Yep, good results and no surprises. Cashflow looks fine and cash has only declined due to the divi and share buyback.
Bizarre SP action this morning. Thought they'd be a spike up early doors but the opposite has happened, albeit on very low volumes. Managed to buy a few more at 85p, something i thought was impossible at 7.30 when i read the RNS.
Really can't see why this isn't trading in the 120p range.
A solid business? It has never made a profit and now we are told revenues are no longer increasing. Neither indicate that it is a solid business. However, i do agree that in the medium term this could do well, however, many AIM investors are too impatient, hence the drop
YE results to be reported 30/4. Will we get a Q1 update then too, and if so can we believe them!!
I must admit selling a few in the mid 7s after the presentation because despite being massively undervalued it was clear that there was no imminent news on the horizons.
The sale of EMD was for a decent price and sorts out the balance sheet, and this has not been reflected in the SP. However, going for larger public sector business will take time as these organisations are slow decision makers and risk adverse.
Can't see mid year results (30/6/24) being stellar as we have essentially lost 2 months sorting out the sale.
However, longer term this should be a double digit SP and thus i have bought back all i sold (plus my original 5p shares) at c6.5p
Yes, amazing that one person can repeat the same potential issues so many times - even over the Easter break. I mean , get a life.
There are many companies i think have a 'questionable business model' - personally i don't invest in them and avoid posting on those BBs.
Decent increase in profits on flat revenues, but with improved margins and a reduction in debt. Divi up too.
Good start to 2024, so all looking positive.
RNS not being displayed on LSE (again)
Some interesting discussions over the last few days.
For me i'm somewhere in the middle - disappointed that overall PBT is a small loss but encouraged by revenue and EBITDA growth, EBITDA margins increasing and a healthy cash generated from operations figure.
Whilst EBITDA can be 'fudged' a bit it is still a useful, and dare i say it the main, indicator for a growing company where they are reinvesting all income so the PBT figure will always be low.
To say EBITDA is not important is also disingenuous. Many companies sell all or part of the business based on this, often between 7 to 10 times EBITDA. Two companies i own did this recently, Croma and EAAS.
Eaas is a good example. A growing company (rev increased from £22m to £33m 2022 to 2023) but due to cashflow issues and therefore high funding PBT is only c£1m. Total value of business was low at c£20m, yet they recently sold part of their business for £29m based on an EBITDA multiplier.
I suspect if either Escape or Boom was approached both would command more than the current SP so the growth is adding value.
Cash generation is key for me - in the results just published cash generated was c£9m, of which c£6m was used to invest in the business (new sites and buying franchises etc) and c£2m on finances (paying for leases etc). Therefore, bottom line cash increased by c£1m.
To say where has the gross profit gone maybe compare this to revolution bar group, RBG. It had revenues of over £150m and made gross profits of £117m, however, failed to make an overall profit. Both companies have a similar business model, however, compared to RBG i'd say XPF are doing quite well
Agree - we know PBT is c£62m and it was £52.4m last year so that's an impressive 18% increase.
I think the focus on online is a little misguided. Stamps are rising to 135p and delivery times are unreliable. Factory sells many cards at less than that.
The click and collect option and the in store add ons (chocolate, balloons, candles etc) are still quite immature and should add more value.
Happy for online rev to increase and also gettingpersonal.co.uk, but this is a small % of total revenues.
Incidentally a 3p div would be c£10m, which seems very affordable.
We know these will be good, at least 10% better than last year so PE should be in the low 6's yet the SP is going nowhere.
Hopefully the formal numbers and the reintroduction of a divi will kick start this share. Anything under £1 seems madness IMHO
You probably bought below the midprice quoted at the time.
Didn't think we'd see 90p again, however, happy to top up
I think the slower path to profitability has disappointed some, but when you look at the revenue growth combined with increased EBITDA margins you can see that XPF is just about to hit its 'hot spot'. At these prices i'm buying more
Agree with central costs - could do with a further breakdown as this is confusing. It appears £7.8m is 'unallocated' and in 2022 the equivalent was £6.8m - so not an excessive increase when revenues have almost doubled. As revenues continue to increase this should hopefully become less of an issue.
Would be interesting to know what % is marketing and also why this hasn't been allocated to the specific brands.