Member Info for WolfofWarks

'Yes I know however I like to use the full figures and work it out for myself. '

Then you are not analysing working capital.

The accounts tell you the number you just need to understand what you are looking at.

So there you have it the judge affirming that in order for shareholders to be 'in the money' creditors have to paid first which means patience needs to prove a valuation not only above the level of the ad hoc lenders but everyone who stands ahead in the queue.

Also, with regards to Elvis's comments about the judge having the PIs back - he forget to ring the poor chap to start with.

Even with this in mind I wish you and your group well in this Patience.

Pee Pee - the working capital is simply the net current assets - £16,693m.

These are the amounts due under one year that you could use as part of the assessment of liquidity and/or going concern, although not in isolation as these are only a snapshot at a given point in time.

Worth pointing out as well within those liabilities is the deferred consideration for the botched purchase of Medichem which is currently being re-negotiated.

Plus during this terrible period with all the skullduggery going on they reduced borrowings from £79.6m to £23.6m, presumably from the proceeds of the IPO.

'It looks to me like Boohoo's current assets including cash for end of year 2022 were £117m with liabilities including borrowings at £118m. That makes minus £1m working capital so hence probably why Okehurst1 sees a fund raise needed based on these final 2022 accounts.

You're deliberately trying to mislead people . The figure you are looking for to make your point should be net current assets which are £17m. You are taking short term assets and knocking off all liabilities including those due over one year.

You are either deliberately misleading or stupid given a couple of posts before you said this"

'I think working capital is current assets minus current liabilities. '

This is net current assets £16,693,000

The going concern statement by the auditors is in relation to the breach of covenants in the banking aggreement - not that they are gong to run out of cash. If the banks were to pull the plug, and they haven't as they have issued waivers in respect of the breaches, then yes the company would have liquidity issues.

They finish off with 'In auditing the Group financial statements, we have concluded that the Directors’ use of the going concern basis of accounting in the preparation of the Group financial statements is appropriate.'

So there is no massive red flag, there is no worry over cash running out only the security of the RCF relating to the breaches.

‘REVB will need to publish their end of year results for 2023 to get relisted. The management accounts won't cut it for this.’

They are not even due yet! They cannot keep them on suspension based on a condition that they are not required to meet yet!

I would think the AIM has regulations in respect of this :)

‘Analysts need the most up to date information which for REVB is end of year results for 2023. ‘

No they don’t they make their calls well in advance of the accounts coming out. They research the company inside out. Its management, its market, its customers, its suppliers, etc, etc. Their full time job is literally to research the companies they cover. They are not sitting there waiting for the annual report.

‘ If you think the LSE rules for AIM are enough to regulate AIM then that's your choice. For me, they're not.’

Based on …..? Elaborate on something for once rather than farting and then leaving the room.

‘ he only one sticking up for us is patience and the judge.

Well that should tell you something. You have no idea on the judges - he’s going through the motions.

Well splitting up the company is obviously a different kettle of fish, but you never said that did you Elvis?

'The AIM Market doesn't come under authorities like the Financial Conduct Authority or the Financial Reporting Council. It is not regulated. It is governed by the LSE rules. So not the same as the ftse markets. '

It's still regulation though. Or are you claiming that the only regulation that counts is that of the FCA, who by the way let plenty of shareholders down time and time again.

'If a company is going to relist then investors, analysts, etc need the end of year results for 2023 for their models.'

No they dont, that's the point of analysts. They live and breathe the companies they cover. The accounts only confirm what whether what they thought was going to happen happened.

'Personally, I don't think the AIM Market being governed by the London Stock Exchange Rules for Aim is regulation. It may be called regulation. For me, it's not regulation.'

Can you elaborate on this?

'Okehurst1 - I may be wrong'

More than likely'

'as I see it they can extend the suspension until the final year results for 28 February 2023 are released. I don't know how long they would take to publish them.

For me, investors would need the final year results for 2023 to work out a share price for REVB.

The suspension for REVB has already been extended from the six months rule under AIM so there's no reason it can't be extended further.'

This isn't how the stock market works. The share price is based on all known information at a given point - it is forward looking which is why we have investment banks and analysts creating models to work out where the company should be in order to place their valuation on them.

'Boohoo's free cash flow of £30 was only as a result of reducing their stock inventory by £101m. This reduction of stock inventory was a one off and so won't be repeated.

The same for Boohoo's net cash of £5.9m, this was also a result of Boohoo's reduction to their stock inventory. '

The also increased their debtors and decreased their creditor payments - it's called working capital management,. They have made some very sensible and prudent decisions in order to work the company through 18 difficult months. ASOS were not able to do it and the analysts were miles out with their forecasts.

'Whether or not you believe the £44.9m of exceptional items should be in cost of goods. It's important to look at the figures if this had been put into cost of goods. Gross Profit would have been £850.3m and gross margin would have been 48.07% as opposed to 50.6%. A huge reduction to the gross margin of 2.53%. '

Only items relating to cost of goods sold should be put into cost of goods sold believe it or not. If you can point me towards the accountant standard that has all of a sudden decided that indirect sales costs now go in cost of goods sold. Just because you keep repeating something over and over again does not mean it will start to become true.'

'I can't see REVB being bought out by Boohoo because they'd need 75% of shareholders' votes to do so. '

Like any other takeover ....

'Also for me I can't see the suspension being lifted for REVB until they release their results for the year ending 28 February 2023. '

No shi t sherlock.

'The AIM Market is not regulated like the FTSE markets. AIM is governed by the London Stock Exchange Rules for it. Yes AIM companies have to have a nominated adviser (Nomad) who advises the company on AIM rules. The Nomad for REVB didn't stop and wouldn't be able to stop what was going on in REVB. Nomads wouldn't even know about what was going on in REVB. Nomads can be brokers as well as being Nomads to AIM companies. Conflict of interest.

AIM is seen as a high risk market because it's not regulated like the FTSE Markets.'

You've finally looked this up then after telling us the other day that AIM was unregulated! There are far more requirements for AIM companies than those on the standard FTSE listing (not premium), so therefore more protection for shareholders when investing in AIM. Not to say it isn't a crap shoot mind but these companies have to start somewhere right?

Regarding REVB if the management are that determined I'm sure they will find there way around most things, NOMAD or not. There's no way in the world it would have had a different outcome on a standard listing.

RevB were quite explicit that once the reporting is up to date they will start the process to resist.

Until we have the interims for the end of august it's impossible to talk about fund raising, takeovers, etc, etc, as we do not know the current position both in terms of trading and liquidity.

Regarding the takeover you don't need 75% of the shares, only to start the process and have the BOD recommend to shareholders that's it's in their interest to accept the offer.

So like Okehurst said if BH have control of the board then that recommendation can be put to the shareholders.

Of course Kamani might well have invested into RevB knowing if was up shi t creek so we can pick it up on the cheap at a later date - bit like Mike Ashely does.

Speculation on my part of course.

PeePee is back :)

Er .... it's already a public company ..... Grow up, this childishness does you no credit.

The spoils of the future do not get shared with the incumbents, that's not how these things work. The price of the debt has to be paid paid first.

Once it had been taken private and turned around it can then be IPO'd and current shareholders will be free to purchase shares along with anyone else.

Tegop - It was JohnNth who sent you the link mate.

Plus Tegop - the quote I posted was from when they were running the marketing process for the whole group. You are fixated on ROW but the thread is referring to the valuation for the whole company.

What exactly are you trying to argue here? If the bids were decent ROW would have been sold. Or are you saying the lenders didn’t really want their money back so turned down decent offers?

Tegop - it doesn't matter whether we are talking about the offers for the whole group or ROW - none of them met the lenders expectation of what they would consider and executable offer. In every case they were lowball. The thread is actually in relation to the valuation of the whole group which is to what my post was referring it terms of the offers received.

'Personally I would favour the closed shop basis of all this, debtors and creditors and lenders and advisors have been in each others pockets from the start. '

This is the point though Elvis and I've been saying this from the very start. This process is aimed at making the creditors whole. The creditors form a queue and the adhoc/DIP lenders are at the head of that queue. They have the interest and the power and also the regal right to their whole recovery. That's the way the cookie crumbles in a bankruptcy. Shareholders are at the back of the queue and that is the risk you take to have limited liability for the debts of the company.