The notes are related to the RE in Pennsylvania. The warehouse has an appraised value of $18m. Paying down the related $8.8m notes, it should net them $10m in cash before fees.
Chef has always had lower margins, IVFH on the other hand had 10% margins on the B2B Business and management also aims to reach this margin again.
The notes are related to the RE in Pennsylvania. The warehouse has an appraised value of $18m. Paying down the related $8.8m notes, it should net them $10m in cash before fees.
Chef has always had lower margins, IVFH on the other hand had 10% margins on the B2B Business and management also aims to reach this margin again.
Hi Sebastian, for the 10% EBITDA margin in history, I looked it up a bit and found the main reason for the hike of profit from 2015 to 2016 & 2017 was the cut of 'non-cash compensation'. That is to say, either the shareholder took a share from the then management's mouth, or the expenses were paid to the management and booked in advance so the profit looked better in 16 & 17. In this sense, the former management team seemed to be well-incentivized, too. (They even took shares on leaving their positions!) And the new team will have quite a lot 'non-cash compensations' going forward. (I admit I lover their rhetorics a lot.) Does that make you think twice on your margin assumptions? (I'd comfort myself by arguing only when the stock price performs well would they get the money, so everyone wins in this case.)
But that does not change the fact, that the business is able to earn 10% EBITDA margins. Regarding the "non-cash compensation" going forward. I took the fully diluted share count, including all possible Stock options.
The notes are related to the RE in Pennsylvania. The warehouse has an appraised value of $18m. Paying down the related $8.8m notes, it should net them $10m in cash before fees.
Chef has always had lower margins, IVFH on the other hand had 10% margins on the B2B Business and management also aims to reach this margin again.
Hi Sebastian, for the 10% EBITDA margin in history, I looked it up a bit and found the main reason for the hike of profit from 2015 to 2016 & 2017 was the cut of 'non-cash compensation'. That is to say, either the shareholder took a share from the then management's mouth, or the expenses were paid to the management and booked in advance so the profit looked better in 16 & 17. In this sense, the former management team seemed to be well-incentivized, too. (They even took shares on leaving their positions!) And the new team will have quite a lot 'non-cash compensations' going forward. (I admit I lover their rhetorics a lot.) Does that make you think twice on your margin assumptions? (I'd comfort myself by arguing only when the stock price performs well would they get the money, so everyone wins in this case.)
But that does not change the fact, that the business is able to earn 10% EBITDA margins. Regarding the "non-cash compensation" going forward. I took the fully diluted share count, including all possible Stock options.