Member Info for WolfofWarks

Looks like a good retail play during recessionary times. The wealthy usually the least affected and bounce back the fastest also.

Good exposure to the growing US market.

Quiggers - Breakdown of fixed assets is:

£322.60m - Land and Buildings
£938.40m - Plant & Equipment (presumably fit outs of sites)
£357.60m - Fixtures & Fittings
£79.50m - Assets under construction
£1698.10m - Total NBV

Rights of use assets (Capitalised Leases) - £2,234.1m

FTH - those numbers Quiggers mentioned were up to 31/12/21. If the company is about to run out of cash then it's reasonably safe to assume that matters have got progressively worse since then.

Future cashflows are all well and good but the debt is strangling whatever underlying positive operations there are and until it is addressed the company cannot move forward.

Hexam - agree with some of what you say but a £1bn shortfall in the net current assets is not timing differences. It's a company that is in dire trouble.

I’ve bought two tranches so far and am already down nearly 25%. So I’m waiting for the right time to top up again.

"In short, due to cines debts, the business they are in, the sites that they occupy, the businesses that run off cines locations, the distributors, Hollywood, Xmas, the court case with cineplex and the mktcap."

Some times I think you might be on a wind up :)

Xmas lol

Looking at interest paid per screen per day is bit of a misnomer. Look at all the other overheads and how much they are all going up.

The bottom line is the debt has strangled this company, can't just blame it on Covid but the empire building on the run up all funded by piling more and more debt on what was a decent-ish business. Family run business with poor governance and no one seemingly questioning the executive on the rationale behind the acquisitions.\

If FTH numbers are true re the competitors then this looks to be a very poorly run company, regardless of the debt. The operational performance doesn't appear to be there.

I can almost guarantee what happened two years ago will not happen again. Firstly, the two year plan has failed. The recovery hasn't happened and worse point of it all is that the recovery seems dependant on the films studio producing good content so their destiny is not even in their own hands.

Secondly, the macro conditions at the moment do not exist to raise that kind of finance due to the high interest, high inflationary environment. Sophisticated investors use discounting models and in times of high interest and inflation the future value of cashflows are worth less. Anything 'jam tomorrow' gets murdered down on valuation.

Thirdly, even if good films do come out there is less cash in people pockets. If the margin is made on the food rather then the tickets it's quite as easy area to cut back on. Cinema's could theoretically be very busy but with folk only buying the ticket with minimal spend on extras.

Poor - when a highly leveraged company runs out of cash there aren’t many options available to it. The options usually come at the expense of existing shareholders.

That’s why heavily indebted companies are such high risk investments and why this has been shorted to death during the whole fiasco.

Gents you just need to learn how to interpret financial language and analyse events of the past two years.

A company with ‘near term’ liquidity issues is about to run out of cash (hence the option of chapter 11).

The comprehensive deleveraging transaction via D2E is the company telling you they are about to address the debt on the balance sheet by creating an absolute ******* load of shares in order to satisfy a haircut on the debt.

The very significant dilution is the company telling you your shares will be worth very little once this has taken place.

The people making money in this market are high risk traders and gamblers.

Red flags are very important - close family held shares usually come at the expense of good governance. Major institutions appear to have bailed - they guys are not daft and they know what is coming.

If the FT article is correct The family have leveraged their holdings on margin loans and other borrowing so it’s doubtful that they could sell their stake even if they wanted to as it would have most likely been put up as security.

The business is certainly not future proof - all chains are struggling and AMC only survived fortuitously because of the meme craze (in which loads of holders have been spiked). AA also used the surge to make several capital raises.

Same Maggie who sold off all the council houses which started the property bubble inflating.

Yeah unless you're British land owing buildings is pretty much tying up masses of working capital.

look at Boohoo as a case in point. Last year they spunked £70m on a corporate HQ in London for their acquired brands which for me is nothing more than a vanity purchase. Especially at a time when they are trying to build out new NDCs which automation, etc.

Most billionaires and wealthy folk rub along quite nicely in the UK and always have done.

RA had fallen foul of the UK government long before the war started. His visa expired and was not renewed in May 2018.

Hexam is right here - the interest in the leases is the unwinding of the discount used to capitalise them on the balance sheet. It’s not actually interest paid in pound notes.

They said clearly 2/3 of your profit being paid in interest is clearly not sustainable and the company cannot survive in it’s current from.

Hi Hexam - I bailed out of ARB in Jan and just hold BTC, Cardano and Tezos now, although wish I’d bailed out of them.

Have done well out of it in the past though so made money overall.

FTH - this is trading activity. It means nothing in terms of the fundamentals of the company or the dire situation it is in.

I doth my cap to you poor.

Take something off the table though mate.

FTH - you seem completely oblivious to what is going on here. There will not be a raise. The company is talking about a debt to equity transactions where they basically hand the creditors the company’s equity in order for them to take a haircut in the debt. This will be done as the expense of current shareholders.

Have a look at the decimation that happens when this occurred, and I don’t mean Hertz but the thousands of others.

CIneworld will survive but your slither of it will be fractional even compared to what you have now.

The AIM is an place for exciting new growth companies to try and hit the big time.

Not too sure they are going to want a clapped out Cinema chain stinking the place out.

Don't you need a Nomad in AIM? Some of the dodgy governance going on here might not go down too well on AIM.

'Sp could rise back towards 10-14p on speculation as we await news on Plex case - in 3 weeks. Why not?

That original outcome had an effect on the sp- no doubt about it 12months back.
It should prop up the valuation on news, back to where we were.'

The Cineplex claim is not the reason the SP is sat at these levels. It's because the company have told you twice that they are about to run out of cash and the value of the shares are about to be decimated via a D2E transaction.

'Allows them “favourable” strategic options to negotiate with creditors and landlords. Also not the worst scenario. Firstly the sp will have regained itself, stopping any stupid insolvency speculators, falacious dream shattered.'

Two things here, firstly even if the Cineplex appeal is successful it's the difference between £9bn and £10bn debt - not too sure how this gives them a 'stronger hand'. They are still screwed either way due to the lack of cash flow and assets.

Secondly, the SP has no bearing on Cinema's insolvency. If they run out of cash it matters not what the SP is as the company will be taken over by insolvency professionals and/or creditors. This is not a dream - the company have told you twice by RNS.

'£270m cap market =20;
Share Dilution at 10p -12p can be an option in the future
I.e. £540m market cap = 20p'.

A raise of £250m to keep the lights on at 10p would mean an issue of 2.5bn additional shares (currently 1.373bn in issue according to LSE fundamentals), that's before factoring in what will need to be a massive enticement discount. It's just not an option on the table hence the D4E.

'Some may not see £1.25, but 10p-60p possibly at some point again in the future.'

You're seriously misleading people here and I hope no one is buying based on the misinformation you are putting forward.

Dribble :)

No I wanted dribble.

That’s why is said it.