Innobox Share Discussion Threads

[tonyx] 02/9/2005 17:32

latestarter,

Thanks for the info. Im interested in what he said about BDT. Will you post on that thread or e-mail info to me if you prefer.

Cheers

[latestarter] 02/9/2005 17:27

the first 2 were a tester to see if the concept worked, bearing in mind he is an accountant this is his second career, but he has 3 of his own in the SW, the plc will be grown until it gets taken out, he will then retire on his own portfolio. He seems to have a nose for a deal all property is sourced by him and planning /building is overseen by him.

[marvelman] 02/9/2005 17:18

Nice post LS.Fog is beginning to clear.

Regards

[latestarter] 02/9/2005 17:15

LOL i tried for 100k at 4.5 no way sir, we can do 50 at 4.75 ok ill take em, oh sorry price has just moved you will have to pay 5p errrrr pi55 off... gits
ok spoke for a long term friendly guy and very approachable, we met at 1 of his hotels in the SW.
Three tuns is on the market for 850k with Britannia business sales, moss cottage goes on next week for 880k, so we were about right with valuations, he belives they should sell quick at that money.
leominster, the plan is to refurbish half the rooms only as they pick up a lot of local trade who will sleep in unmodernised rooms and still pay £40 for the privilige, trade is increasing week by week, the upstairs function room is to be turned into a pile it high sell cheap carvery by october. Planning permission has been applied for 2 det houses in part of the grounds of the royal oak, if and he seems to think it probable it is approved then the plots will be sold off so there is another 150k, interviews/2nd interviews are taking place to find investing/managing couple to replace the other couple they should be in place soon.
Fishmore hall is to be turned into a country house hotel with a gym in the grounds etc targetting weddings and corperate activity, it is unlikely to be ready before may/june. 500k will cover the cost of the work, plan here is to trade it for 2 years and look for a sale >2m
there is another in the pipe line but he is waiting for the price to come back before taking it on.
the plan is to stick with the M5 corridor working south towards Devon.
no struggle to get the placing away city still has appetite for bricks and mortar, he did not rule out another placing if the right deal came along, but that would be the only reason. i got stuff on BDT as well if anyone is interested, if you think of anything ask and i will answer it we coverd pretty much everything i think, but it would take ages to write it all up. Spend per head is down, but we are in busines of buying cheap assetts and building them back up. there will be no more purchases like the first 2, he is targeting money areas. im around all w/e so ask away. his take on the NAV is 7p and he believes he could get it tommorow

[bozzy_s] 02/9/2005 16:39

Looks like Latestarter had a good meeting today, I guess it's his unreported buy waiting to appear.

Anything you can share with us LS?

[bozzy_s] 02/9/2005 14:38

Added 20k to the collection at 5p. These bloomin' trading fees will be the end of me!

[shawzie] 31/8/2005 12:14

rbryant
What do you have in mind - a nav based on the balance sheet or break-up value of the business? I tried to keep my rough calculation as basic and simple as possible.

[rbryant] 31/8/2005 11:30

Shawzie and others, surely we are overcomplicating this. A NAV calculation should not show -£700k for the original ARX investment. The NAV is the sum of what exists at this instant in time, ie the assets less the debts, so is just the cash, property and shares less mortgages and maybe any large creditors for caution.

[shawzie] 30/8/2005 23:18

apologies to all
Full year estimated losses should not have been used in above calculation, it should be losses incurred in second half of year.
This would give a possible nav of between 6 and 7p per share, assuming no additional losses in the second half of the year.

[shawzie] 30/8/2005 22:25

At October 31,2004 H/Y Total capital employed . £1,238,813
Add proceeds from share issue of 9M x 5.6p ........ 504,000
Add proceeds from disposal of Aerobox shares ...... 140,271
Add back remaining investment in Aerobox .......... 280,000
-----------------------------------------------------------
................................................. 2,163,084
Deduct investment in Aerobox at October 31,2004 ... 700,000
-----------------------------------------------------------
................................................. 1,463,084
less full year losses estimated not less than...... 163,084
-----------------------------------------------------------
................................................ 1,300,000
-----------------------------------------------------------
1,300,000 / 21.5M shares = nav about 6p per share.

The £74,000 profit on shares at Royal Oak paid off the loan of £73,500
received from the management couple.
The Fishmore Hall project assumed not to have added value to the balance sheet.

My best guess would be a nav between 5 and 6p per share.

[latestarter] 30/8/2005 17:15

when i did mine i was harsh and did the worst case, i have a meeting on friday afternoon with russell stevens so hopefully get some better idea then, anything between 7 -8p i dont think is wide of the mark

[rbryant] 30/8/2005 16:48

So even if Fishmore is nil for now, assets are £1.917m or 8.9 p per share right?

[infinity] 30/8/2005 16:15

Taken the plunge & bought back into these after selling for a small loss earlier this year - IMHO look a worthwhile "gamble" at current levels.

[latestarter] 30/8/2005 14:39

fishmore hall you have showing no debt

[rbryant] 30/8/2005 14:38

Am I wrong somewhere, coz that is NAV of 11.4 p per share?

[rbryant] 30/8/2005 14:36

To quote latestarter (please correct if wrong)

1.4m ARX shares ................................................. 100k
Cash raised ......................................................500k
Moss cottage value 900k with a debt of 275k x 80% ................500k
Three tuns value 800k with debt of 437,500 balance ...............362k
royal oak 90% owned sold 10% recently for 75k balance 220k
so again lets say its worth 750k less the debt ...................455k
Fishmore hall bought 542,500 , 75% ...............................542k

Total £2.459m

[bozzy_s] 30/8/2005 12:39

LBO, don't forget the placing of shares too.

[lbo] 30/8/2005 12:20

It also seems Innobox needed only about £75,000 in cash at most to increase their holding in IM Hotels and they actully made a gain (£74,000) on the whole transaction by selling on 1000 shares. So overall, I would say that Innobox have circa £138,000 in cash now after the ARX sales and the IMHL transaction and loan. So they have no need to sell any more ARX shares due to a short cash flow problem.

See RNS

The Company's shareholding in IMHL has been increased following the acquisition
of 2,255 ordinary shares in IMHL ("Ordinary Shares"), equal to 22.55 per cent.
of the issued share capital of IMHL, from the management couple and the
subsequent sale of 1,000 Ordinary Shares, equal to 10 per cent. of the issued
share capital of IMHL, to a third party investor for £75,000, which was paid in
cash. The Company has made a profit on the disposal of the 1,000 Ordinary
Shares of £74,000. The Company has used the majority of the sale proceeds to
make a loan to IMHL, which has enabled IMHL to repay the outstanding loan to
the management couple. The management couple have now exited IMHL in terms of
both their investment and their operational involvement in the running of the
Royal Oak Hotel. The assistant manager at the Royal Oak Hotel has been promoted
to manager and he has a good knowledge of the running of the hotel.

[lbo] 30/8/2005 12:07

Biswell you muppet! You can't even do basic sums!


biswell - 28 Aug'05 - 12:28 - 1269 of 1280
Since then ARX had a rise on 350 orders being recieved, which I pointed out was daft as the margins would be next to nothing or even at a loss to try to encourage orders.


Lets take it slow for Biswell who is obviously very mentally challanged!
500 orders from American Ailines and 250 orders from Virgin Atlantic = 750 (not 350 you fool!)

Also you fool, even if Innobox sold their remaining shares at 5p (doubtful!) they make a cash gain and only a book loss. (something you obviously cant understand)

Innobox has actually done very well in the Aerobox investment

Innobox got shares via a convertible loan

2002 ( It plans to make a two-year £200,000 convertible loan to the New Mexico-based company, called ACS, to cover the cost of applying of its products. Innobox received 4,423,902 ordinary shares in AeroBox in exchange for its investment in ACS.


Innobox said last October it has advanced a secured convertible loan to ACS
of 200,000 stg plus expenses, and said today that at Feb 28 2003, the loan
balance including costs, expenses and accrued interest was 245,123 stg.
Innobox said its investment in ACS will be converted into equity in
Brookspey immediately prior to the acquisition by Greatstride, and afterwards,
Innobox will hold 4,423,902 shares in Greatstride, representing 5.7 pct of the
enlarged share capital on admission.At the acquisition and placing price of 20p per share for each of the 42 mln Greatstride shares offered to Brooksprey shareholders, Innobox's shareholding in Greatstride will have a value of 884,780 stg, it said.


23/1/2004 Innobox Sold 1m ARX at 34.25p (Realised £342,500)(booked celerly at IPO price at 20p in INO accounts!) (made £142,500 book profit but really made more!)

19/07/2005 sold 1.34m ARX at 7p (realised £93,800) (1.91m Arx shares left)
12/08/2005 sells 500,000 at 9p (reaslised £45,000) (1,41m Arx shares left)

So for a total investment out lay of £250k in 2002 they have got back £480k (nearly 100% return in 3 years) already!!! and still have 1.41m shares in ARX

[rbryant] 30/8/2005 11:01

Look

1.4 m shares in ARX cannot have a negative value.

A realistic NAV will be as latestarter has it.

Keep it simple, stupid

[bozzy_s] 28/8/2005 21:48

Let's post it AGAIN for everyone to see. Final time because I think we all know it's wrong.

Biswell's NAV calculation, happily forgetting to balance the ARX shares loss with the original cost, forgetting to account for cash raised through placings and ARX shares sold...

Net Asset Value Estimate / NAV as follows...

1.9M ARX shares @ 5.25p , remainder sold ......... = Loss of - £400,000
Moss Cottage Property = £0.9 mn.Est x 80% share = £720,000
Unreported Trading Profit from Moss Cottage = Say £50,000
Cash (again this isn't known, but a guess)..... = £50,000Est
Three Tuns chg.in property value since purchase = £ 30,000Est

------------------------------Approx Net Assets = £450K
------------------------------Which is approx 3.6p per share.

[latestarter] 28/8/2005 14:07

?? your post is based on a header from june 04, the NAV above that i have given i believe is correct, who on earth would buy shares based on the header???? they would deserve what they got.
If that is your point then you are correct, but it is hardly relevant to the company as it trades today.

[biswell] 28/8/2005 13:59

You have missed the point

ARX shares are on INO books at 20p per share , so the NAV on the header value at ..... oo look someone has put some ? marks alongside the valuations

The original ARX holding was valued at £ 830,000, when we know that figure should be more like -£400,000 based on the last two lots of sales and the current price of ARX to book.

A mere £1.23m difference

Let us see what they get ammended to...this is what they were till a few minutes ago

Net Asset Value Estimate / NAV as follows...

3.5m ARX shares @ 23.75p ...................... = £830,000
Moss Cottage Property = £1.0 mn.Est x 80% share = £800,000
Unreported Trading Profit from Moss Cottage = Say £100,000
Cash (again this isn't known, but a guess)..... = £200,000Est
Three Tuns chg.in property value since purchase = £ 50,000Est

------------------------------Approx Net Assets = £2,000K
------------------------------Which is approx 16p per share.



B

[latestarter] 28/8/2005 13:51

I cant see what you are driving at fella, the holding of ARX will not drive this share price, if it does then it is being valued incorrectly 1.4m shares have a value of lets say 100k end of story.
we know they raised 500k less expenses that has not been used, lets be down beat and say they have no cash prior to then,lets be even harder and say it cost 20% to raise the cash.
balance 500k
for the sake of balanced argument
moss cottage value 900k with a debt of 275k 80% balance 500k

three tuns value 800k with debt of 437 500 balance 362 500

royal oak 90% owned sold 10% recently for 75k balance 220k
so again lets say its worth 750k less the debt 455k
this ignores completly the cap ex spent on the entire
ground floor and the opening of the wine bar

fishmore hall bought 542 500 75% owned no increase in value and not refurb'd so nil to add

lets add no value to the people who run the company (both with a proven track record) and assume no profit has been made
that by my school boy calcs gives a NAV of 7.36p
it is a complete nonsense to say property will fall by 30% so lets take that off as well, im not aware of any financial institution that applies that calculation when working out loan/value ratios or NAV.on commercial property it is valued by yield.
the above is based on fact/research and dialogue with both the chairman and russell stevens BUT is entirely my own calcs not the companies

you have ignored the 500k raised but added the 9m shares issued, you have given no value for the royal oak, in fact if we add in your numbers for the increase 50k trade profit, 50k cash, 30k three tuns increase in value, it would be higher still