We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Customisable watchlists with full streaming quotes from leading exchanges, such as LSE, NASDAQ, NYSE, AMEX, Bovespa, BIT and more.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Luminar Grp | LMR | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 0.71 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.71 | 0.71 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 24/10/2011 12:41 by bahrain2 Jongleurs, the comedy-club group founded by Maria Kempinska, is planning to raise £500,000 through a private placing as it looks to expand the brand internationally before a possible listing on AIM in 18 months. Kempinska, who took back control of the Jongleurs name when Regent Inns went through a pre-pack administration, said the company would use the fund-raising to launch the brand internationally through comedy clubs, TV shows and a talent agency. She said the group, in talks over opening a club in New York, would look at opportunities in Australia, the Far East and the Middle East. She said: "Jongleurs' ability to develop comic talent is second to none through our live operation and, with investment, we will do the same in media. "We need investors who understand the zeitgeist of comedy. We have such a strong operation we can franchise the brand globally." The company, which has hired Webb Capital to advise on the fund-raising, is forecast to show an increase in revenue from £1.9m this year to £10.3m in 2013. Much of this increased revenue arises from its profitable deal with Luminar PLC, and indicates how important Jongleurs evenings are to Luminar where they occupy slots pre the nightclub openings. Luminar is expected to next update the market on 27th October and it is hoped that the Jongleurs events will have aided it to further stabilise its revenues since it last updated the market in late September. |
Posted at 13/1/2011 16:40 by jeffian I can't think what they were, other than of the 'not quite so dire as you might have expected' variety.LMR actually need to stabilise the downward spiral of their business. They are still nowehere near doing that and the best they can say is that the trend of downward spiral is flattening slightly if you take out the effects of the weather. ("Excluding those weeks affected by the weather, same outlet sales for the 12 weeks to 6 January 2011 fell by 13.6% (compared to 16.9% for the 7 weeks to 14 October). Over the trading weeks of Christmas and New Year same outlet sales were ahead of anticipated levels and forecast. Including those weeks affected by weather same outlet sales for the 12 weeks to 6 January 2011 fell by 19.4%. Overall, same outlet sales for the 45 weeks to 6 January 2011 fell by 19.6%.") -13.6% vs -16.9% (but actually -20%) may not have been sufficient to tempt that commentator to recommend a buy. The clue may be in the title of the publication - Growth Investor. |
Posted at 27/10/2010 09:56 by cockneyrebel I think I'd spend your time worrying about who's knicking your MUBL off you HateTrader - and by how much lol - you shrewd investor you. You hadn't even looked into the co's they are dealing with.CR |
Posted at 26/10/2010 14:42 by cockneyrebel HateTrader - I'm not discussing any stock with you because you don't listen - MUBL - I warned you. RGT, MPS, CLTV, WET - I warned you.You are to investing what woodworm is to a walking stick. I don't care what you've made - you're a peanut playing chimp, not a shrewd investor - if you were you wouldn't hav been buying back into MUBL at 170p recently - but I did warn you. Do some research - the silence on that thread speaks volumes. CR |
Posted at 08/9/2010 09:51 by jeffian baldeagle,You said "The last purchases were northe of £3." They weren't, they were at 111/112p on 8/9 July as detailed above. You said "the directors bought MUCH higher before they grasped the difficulties with the business". The Directors bought immediately on and after the IMS issued on 8 July which announced the removal of both the CEO and FD (a clue there?!) and just before the bombshell 'Update' on 26 July saying they'd run out of money. If they hadn't "grasped the difficulties with the business" by then, they must have had an inkling! Look, I'm not trying to pick a fight! I was only using CNT as an example. All I was saying in the context of LMR, in answer to post 367 ("Ive seen it before where directors buy small amounts and then bad news follows.Might not be the case here but it does happen.Thats all.") is that Directors' share purchases are not necessarily a good signal to other investors. |
Posted at 02/9/2010 21:26 by 72stevie Was talking from an investors perspective. Good place to put my liquid assets as this is going one way for me and that's up! Calvin Harris doing the rounds |
Posted at 18/6/2010 17:39 by jeffian Yes, skookum, another example was Regus RGU (although not in the same sector, another company whose 'assets' were all leases) which very nearly went bust but provided a staggering return to brave investorsI have no idea whether LMR will get through its current difficulties but as you say, if it does, there's an opportunity for those prepared to risk the lot. |
Posted at 17/6/2010 13:14 by jeffian skookum,According to the Prospectus for the 2009 share placing, LMR's property interests look like this - "The Group has 88 trading units, comprised of short leasehold properties, long leasehold properties and freehold properties. Some of these trading units are formed by a combination of short leasehold, long leasehold and freehold interests. The Group has 77 short leaseholds (including units in development and sub-let units), which are subject to regular rent reviews. These rent reviews could either significantly increase or decrease the level of the Group's fixed cost base, which could affect the economic viability of any of the Group's units. In addition, the Group holds 24 freeholds and 12 long leaseholds, therefore any changes to the UK property market could lead to changes in the value of the Group's property portfolio. The property market is subject to fluctuations, and if the current downturn in the market continues it could lead to a sustained reduction in the Group's freehold property values over time. There can be no certainty that property values will recover at any particular time, or at all. In addition, valuations of the Group's venues are impacted by the trading performance of those venues with poorer trading generally leading to lower valuations." The document also warns they are on the hook for the leases disposed of to 3D Entertainment, which may come back to them. Why would one pull the plug, you ask? Because a Liquidator or Receiver can walk away from onerous leases and cherry-pick the viable ones into a new company. If you are losing money in leased premises, you can't "trade through", that simply increases your losses. As for sale & leaseback, well there appear to be 24 out of 88 properties which are freehold but investors who put up capital on the basis that they will be receiving rent do so on the basis that they have a reasonable expectation that the company will be able to pay them for the length of the lease. That's far from certain with LMR! Also, why would the banks sanction the sale of the only real asset they could get their hands on to at least mitigate their losses, only to see the resultant proceeds ploughed back into expensive leased property and, most probably, lost? I have no idea whether LMR can struggle through and survive, but before anyone calls bottom the downside here is that the plug is pulled, the onerous leases are ditched and the banks recover whatever they can from the few real assets remaining. |
Posted at 10/6/2010 10:17 by bobsidian And that is appreciated.I was just providing some current context to tax recovery. This liability has existed for some time and there is no reason to suggest that this could be a reason for the inexorable decline in the LMR share price. LMR did raise substantial funds and have retained these for use. Their own debt profile and its maturity is a different question. If the tax position is approaching resolution whilst debt maturity is increasingly becoming an issue, then the reaction by the share price of LMR would be understandable. But as always any private investor would be the last to know about prevailing circumstances. |
Posted at 27/5/2010 13:11 by bobsidian I do apologise to the users of the LMR board in advance for making use of their board to provide the following response.jeffian When private investors look at PUB they think it to be grossly undervalued. The problem with PUB is the design of its corporate structure. What many a private investor does not appreciate is that when they are buying shares in PUB, they are in fact only buying shares in the holding company. The holding company in turn holds shares in its subsidiaries that play host to the properties and their related and attached debt. Cash generative though PUB may appear to be, if the cash trap covenant were triggered in a subsidiary company then the holding company would be denied the free cash flow (after deduction of interest) generated by the properties held in that subsidiary. Thereafter, the subsidiary involved would be detached from the group structure as a whole, effectively ceasing to represent any value to the holding company. 1.6x interest cover is not a healthy margin when the cash trap covenant itself is triggered at 1.25x interest cover. To the credit of their management, I do recall the speed with which PUB was able to "get away" a capital raising exercise to provide the holding company with much needed cash to forestall a loss of control of at least one of its key subsidiaries - Punch A, Punch B and Spirit - by paying down some debt as it fell due for repayment. But if the U.K. economy once more descends into recession on the back of a diminishing discretionary spend, then PUB once more could be battling to preserve control. And it is true that the loss of control of the subsidiaries would not automatically mean all properties would be put on the market by the debtholders. But debtholders are not renowned for their business acumen and are far more likely to seek to offload the properties in sizeable tranches for less than their recognised open market value if only to stand to recover their initial investment. And the nature of the legalities triggered by such a change of ownership would not necessarily be known and fully understood by the holders of leases or sub-leases until after any such event. |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
