Member Info for WolfofWarks

They were never going to be specular. Positive cash flow and no net debt are positives.

Plenty of liquidity as well to see through what will be another tough year while the cost and efficiency measures work their way through.

L5 - this is the beauty of RCF - they are flexible so you don't need to draw them down fully and pay interest. You can draw down what you need when you need it and you pay a non-utilisation fee on the remainder but it's well below the interest rate.

I'm struggling to work out a decent commercial basis for fully drawing it down other than to look like they have loads of cash, which analysts/advances investors will see through, but perhaps Pis will not. I doubt they have a £300m cash spike on sale of £2bn.

I know what T4G is getting at. Back in 2020 they were sitting on a ton of cash and went on a capital spending spree buying new brands, offices, NDSs, automation, etc.

So there is a lot of capital spending that is fresh and BOO is depreciation heavy at the moment. I’m not too sure they bought the London office to be honest other than for their own vanity. That money would have served much better as working capital and could have leased a London HQ.

I’d expect a sale and leaseback at some point in the future.

L5 - aye my point was more around how revolvers work. You don’t repay them as much, or rather you’re constantly repaying and redrawing them again.

You wouldn’t need to pay it back at the end, just refinance it or move it to an other lender. The only thing I found strange in the last accounts was that they had chosen to draw it all in full and leave the cash in the balance sheet.

Tegop - I’m simply replying to the first sentence and pointing out that’s not what’s happening here. So it’s largely irrelevant.

Otherwise I’m not sure what the point of posting it up was.

FT is probably the best source of business news imo.

'I don't agree that complexity can't be made easily understood including investing and corporate finance. If you can't explain things easily, then, for me, you don't understand what you're talking about. '

PP1 - This wasn't a point I was making ...

'I guessing the US operation remains a drag on cash flow.

£197M free cash remaining out of the £325M RCF. So no money to payback this RCF until 2025. Economic climate still shakey but the BOO SP is a x5 Bagger on substantial news which appears as a dot in the universe at this moment.

Lots of upside ahead on the timeline.'

You dont pay off an RCF. It shrinks and grows depending on the working capital needs of a business. So when cash it tight, like at the end of the month when you pay your suppliers you draw down more loans and then once you've been paid by your customers you repay the loans which can then be drawn again. So Boohoo's optimism cash need is probably when they are stocking up on fabric for the start of the new seasons - expect loans to be higher and then lower towards the end of that particular cycle and then it starts all over again.

T4G - they should be depreciating an office building over more than three years - I'd say 50 years as a guide.

'It seems that Mooky & Co. are satisfied with the lender's solution and are not interested in keeping cineworld plc. I wrote an email to cineworld about 3-4 weeks ago regarding the "RoW" shareholder plan which in principle ticks all the boxes for the lenders and offers to buy RoW from the lenders via the combination of the highest bidder & equity raise. This would also allow to unlock the value of the current shares which benefits the current shareholders. The plan is sound imv but they're not interested because the current BoD would no longer be in control.'

In what sense was this plan sound? How on earth would you raise the hundreds or millions of dollars required to do it?

If this was an option on the table it would have already been done.

'Under English law, a public limited company, such as the Cineworld Parent, cannot cancel its existing equity interests and issue new shares of a company to creditors solely through a chapter 11 case. '

Tegop - The company isn't trying to do this though. The creditors are setting up a new company to which the assets will be transferred. It's not the same thing as Cineworld issuing more share.

‘I like things to be easily understood by everybody. I find people who don't understand what they're talking about make it complicated and complex because they don't understand it and so can't explain it easily. ‘

PP1 - investing and corporate finance is complex by its very nature. Accounts and shareholder information is written on the assumption that the reader understands the subject matter and has a high level of financial understanding. So your comment is oxymoronic as folk who don’t have an understanding are unable to make it overly complex.

If you are going to lecture folk on such things you need to up the quality of your research. Now I don’t subscribe to T4G’s market conspiracies but he’s got the MF spot on. It’s the tabloid equivalent.

The Plc is the parent. They cannot just move the companies to a Russian company. The Plc owns the shares. Therefore the Plc would have to sell the NA shares to the Russian holding company. You cannot sell or move a company you do not own. All roads ultimately lead back to the Plc which is why it's called a 'Holding' company.

The can re-organise the companies underneath the holding company, but even that would be at the behest of the Plc and may even require a license because of the sanctions.

They cannot buy the shares back while they are suspended. Only the Plc can buy back the stock.

PP1 - You don't do proper research though. What you are learning and posting about sometimes are the absolute basics which quite often you are copy and pasting from internet searches. You don't actually have any opinions of your own based on your own knowledge and most of your posts are in the manner of a reception teacher talking to five year olds, or at best GCSE business studies.

Then you start lecturing on levels of debt, gross margin, net revenue, etc.

It doesn’t really matter whether the shares are cancelled or not. Think what will they actually represent - no assets under then apart from a subsidiary or two which will also have no assets - I’m thinking that financing vehicle with the CLN in it.

For all intents and purposes they might as well be delisted and/or cancelled for what it’s worth.

I would have thought that the most likely time to have a large crash would have been during the banking crisis, when we had 100 mortgages and for a moment zero liquidity.

I think simply economics prevents one - there are far more people needing a house then house available. Even the pressure of landlords selling hasn't had an impact as all the houses that get put on the market get snapped up by people who want to actually live in them.

Yes it's tough for younger people to get a mortgage however many of them are also beneficiaries of inheritances containing houses worth hundreds of thousands at times. A massive leg up.

It's not quality journalism though.

It's GCSE grade.

PP you seem to be spectacularly missing the point. Unless you've got some serious bunch you dont actually need to speak to you broker in the modern world.

They should be RNSing about group reorganisation I would have thought.

It's all still within the Plc though.

'How can people invest in shares without even basic understanding of the concept of a limited liability company? '

You have to rub your eyes sometimes.

It will still trade as Cineworld. Newco owned by the lenders would have a different name but all the individual companies and brands would just slide underneath it in their current form.

Just like Boohoo now trades as Debenhams, ASOS trades as Topshop, etc, etc.