Conviviality Share Discussion Threads

[s1zematters] 14/3/2018 22:22

Lol that Wrexham cemetery post had me out of action for 10 mins, and it takes a bit to make me smile. Only you can use words to such comic effect.
Brilliant stuff BR, you're the best advfn has ever seen! ;)

[killer bee] 14/3/2018 19:19

Hi Typo

My family had to blow up my uni tuition fees fund paying lawyers for my dad :(.

Mr Judge still sent him down for a long time.


KB

[typo56] 14/3/2018 19:16

kcr69, you are quite right, I have regressed and I should leave the bone alone. I should be spending my time doing something more creative with the rest of my life. But the stock market is such fun, so much drama.

I may be a simple kid with poor ability in reading and comprehension but when you're lacking in one sense you tend to compensate with another. How's your sense of smell?

I'm being serious about the care home fees. That's where my modest fortune will probably end up, if I can't find a better solution.

[killer bee] 14/3/2018 19:12

Hello

How come it did not get out of suspension today?

is that good or bad?

How long does temporary mean?

Where can I learn about reading account statements?


Thanks in advance.

KB

[cookies monster] 14/3/2018 18:57

Illogical for you.

But for others it's logical.

why use some other person analysis to promote yours?

If you are good enough you should be able to demonstrate your narrative on your own. Hope you get my drift, but if you don't, then it's too bad.

[tsmith2] 14/3/2018 18:54

ermm. How does that form an argument? Your post is illogical

[cookies monster] 14/3/2018 18:51

Tsmith

if you have so much convictions about the account why do you keep referring to that Scott?


Clearly you are not that confident that's why you feel the need to use additional analysis.

[kcr69] 14/3/2018 18:50

Typo 56

You appear to have regressed somewhat from your improved position this afternoon, and to quote your own words "In the absence of more information there's probably not much more mileage in thinking about this too hard,...." to your previous stance of uneducated, unsubstantiated supposition and conjecture.

Given your barrage of uneducated questions over the past two days, based I believe on your acceptance that "you are not very good with accounts" it appears somewhat ironic that you are now criticising others of gleaning and using information from sources they may respect and trust.

Of course even though you freely admit your deficiency in knowledge on just about everything to do with debt structure of the business, and quite possibly this business in its entirety, it would now appear, based on your recent words, that you know exactly what the business has the remit remit to draw or not draw in meeting its short term financial obligations.

I can't wait to hear your qualification of this knowledge, and please no more supposition, conjecture or questions that a 15 year old studying GCSE English could work out for themselves. Patience slightly wained having tried to help you not lose your future care home fees......I didn't really believe all that!

[galatea99] 14/3/2018 18:49

Invoice discounting does, I believe, cost about 1.25% of the value of the invoices being discounted, I can't remember where I saw that figure quoted, sorry. That would be quite a chunk out of nett margin so CVR may prefer to use it sparingly, as they appear to do. It would seem to be an available solution or part of the solution where CVR are today, although a very expensive one. There ought to be cheaper solutions available, perhaps?

[tsmith2] 14/3/2018 18:41

Now you are clutching at straws..

[tsmith2] 14/3/2018 18:39

You are assuming they can't. I would have thought in the absence of changes to the facility they can.

[typo56] 14/3/2018 18:34

tsmith2, if they could draw down more, why wouldn't they have done. They could have spared all the drama about the HMRC bill and no-one would have been any the wiser?

Nah, doesn't stack up!

[typo56] 14/3/2018 18:31

FWIW, someone who I'm sure understands accounts better than I do also thinks that the 2016 leverage calculation looks wrong, at least if it is performed on the 2017 basis. They also think it is 2.5, perhaps a tad over, not the 1.96 as stated. The covenant limit is 2.5. They think the specific calculations on Page 11 of the 2018 interim presentation were included in response to the questions the company received on the 2016 reported numbers.

[tsmith2] 14/3/2018 18:27

I happen to agree with him. I happen to at times disagree with him too...Why not draw down more, and use that to settle the HMRC bill?- yes, that's one solution. Very much a sensible solution.this is about liquidity..?

[bullet ant] 14/3/2018 18:23

why bin bags companies on the Aim need to pay a div?

Because they are bin bags aim companies. Paying div in a growth mode is a big no no. That's the whole point being a growth company, they would use cash for growth.

Now now, they have cancelled DIV exactly for that reason, cash is king for these kind of bin bags companies.

Clue companies pay dividend to reward shareholders when they cannot grow. That's how this works. If a company is growing, shareholders get rewarded with a growing share price


Lesson given by your KING.


BA
Stealing is good.

[typo56] 14/3/2018 18:08

tsmith2, don't rely on other people's analysis. Think for yourself! Why's it in this state?

[youthstockperspective] 14/3/2018 18:07

https://www.google.com/amp/s/youthstockperspective.com/2018/02/23/snapchat-update-help-sales/amp/

[typo56] 14/3/2018 18:06

"The Company is fully drawn under its term loans and revolving credit facility..."

The RCF (£30m) and accordian option (£15m) were stated as being unutilised at 30 April 2017. So there's £45m eaten into for starters, for a company that is so cash generative!

We don't know exactly what they've drawn on the trade receivables facility. I find it odd that today's statement seems to suggest they're forecasting it to be just £37m at 29 April 2018. Is that correct? Can you trust that? Why not draw down more, and use that to settle the HMRC bill? Has the facility been frozen? Someone pointed out that drawing down would incur costs that would negatively impact EBITDA. I've not done the detailed sums but I can't see that being significant enough to breach the leverage covenant, not on its own.

[cookies monster] 14/3/2018 18:04

Dear god

can someone tell the loons, if the statement were to be trusted and accurate, they would not be calling the auditors in?

Yet some plonkers still going about some statement which not be valid anymore.

[chick with 2 dicks] 14/3/2018 17:57

Did the person Scots write a note about 70% decline coming before last week?

if not, then clearly he's not expert in F.A.

[tsmith2] 14/3/2018 17:57

see hereCurrent position - fully drawnThe Company is fully drawn under its term loans and revolving credit facilityThe last Annual Report shows facilities (provided by a consortium of RBS, HSBC, and Barclays) as at 30 April 2017, as follows;Term loan of £95.8mRevolving credit facility (i.e. an overdraft) of £30m + £15m accordion facilityThere is also a £130m receivables facility (i.e. invoice discounting) - let's ignore this for the moment, as it's outside the scope of the bank covenants (since it is secured on CVR's sales invoices)The term loan will have had repayments made by CVR since 30 April 2017, of £1.25m on 31 May 2017, £6,361k on 29 Oct 2017, which will have reduced the term loan to £88.2m. There will also be interest charges of about 10.5 months to add to that, which is charged at LIBOR + 2.5%, so I make that roughly £2.4m, so by my rough calculations, the term loan probably currently stands at c.£90.6m. The next repayment is £6,631k, due on 29 April 2018, assuming that the banking arrangements are unchanged from the last Annual Report, where I got the above info.Forecast debt - the company says this today;... covenant net debt at 29 April 2018 is expected to be approximately 113.0 million (which excludes any amount drawn down under the Company's invoice discounting facility).This seems to tie in with my estimates above of £45m RCF facility (including the accordion) + c. £90.6m term loan = £135.6m, less say 3 days receivables cash in transit of £23.1m, which I've estimated at about £7.7m per day - based on £2bn VAT-inclusive sales p.a., divided by 260 working days p.a.) = £112.5m - which is only £0.5m away from what the RNS says. So I've therefore sense-checked the company's £113m estimate of covenant debt as at 29 April 2018 as being correct. Actually, thinking about it, since those calculations are based on the group having already maxed out its covenant facilities, covenant debt can't go any higher! (unless they exceed their overdraft limit, which the bank would probably prevent, by rejecting BACS runs that would breach the limit.Working backwards from the 2.5 times Net Debt: EBITDA covenant, and the maximum facilities less cash of £113m, this means that EBITDA would have to drop to below £45.2m to breach this covenant. The current estimate is about £56m, but if serious disruption to trade occurs due to the current funding crisis, then EBITDA could plunge, and trigger a breach of bank covenants later this year. So again, time is very much of the essence, they need to get the short-term funding crisis resolved in days, rather than weeks, in my view.Invoice discounting facility - historically, CVR seems to have drawn down relatively little of this facility, which is perplexing. With a large trade receivables book (of £184.2m in last Annual Report - as at 30 April 2017), then surely CVR could relieve the pressure on its maxed-out, and relatively small overdraft, by drawing down more heavily on its £130m invoice discounting facility - which, crucially, lies outside the scope of the bank covenants, so is better (i.e. safer) debt to incur. Unfortunately, today's announcement does not state how much headroom the company has on that particular facility.