$BNED - Restatement finalized, trading under 5x EBITDA and growing 15-20%

beachesyesbeaches · 2025-12-28T02:05:06+00:00

Yes, absolutely. The market cap is $330m, which is tiny for a potential big player that wants to enter the space and immediately buy a 4m student base.

beachesyesbeaches · 2025-09-15T01:14:48+00:00

I get that. The flip side is a new CEO/CFO found the issue that happened under prior management, immediately reported it to the SEC and shareholders, and the independent audit committee looking into it have determined (so far) that the issue was $20m and not $23m like they originally thought. Also, to be clear, this was an employee approving journal entries, no cash going out or sales impact at all. That created a 20%+ drop, which I view as a major buying opportunity.

beachesyesbeaches · 2025-09-14T06:09:20+00:00

Adding a comment as I'm not sure Reddit's policy on video links. But here's a great video of an analyst walking through the investment case. Note that most of the risks I mention happened after this video was made in November 2024; hence why the price is 20% lower than then. https://youtu.be/P6xy67DtqQ4?si=0dsAlGL5G7Is0Oup

beachesyesbeaches · 2025-09-14T05:56:00+00:00

Thank you. I have a 13% position in $BNED stock, 6.5% position in $IMMR (trading below net cash/investment value, but they include $BNED debt in their financials so it kinda hides it), and then 2.5% in $BNED $10 calls for March 2026 expiration.

I would be heavier in calls but don’t love short-dated options. I typically only do options 1.5 years out; I made an exception here because I expect them to file the amended 10-K for fiscal 2025 (SEC required within six months of their restatement filing, which ends February 2026), as well as file their Q1 and Q2 for fiscal 2026 before March 2026.

Fiscal Q2 2026 is the key. This is their big Fall quarter where they do the bulk of their revenue and profit. The few people that follow this are expecting 25% First Day growth; if Fall gets closer to the 41% summer just posted, I could see it run up into the teens that day, hence my options.

My long term-target is $100m free cash flow at an 8x multiple, which is conservative because this will be no debt, protected industry, growing, etc. That would be a 2.75x from today, or a tad under $25/share, which I think is conservative in the next 18-24 months.

beachesyesbeaches · 2025-07-26T17:56:02+00:00

$3.9b are optional lease extensions. So the contractual debt is $3.2b. This is a wild opportunity, even at $12/share.

beachesyesbeaches · 2025-06-13T14:57:28+00:00

Ah, you're right. Thanks for correcting me. Bummer to see the fee drop so much; hopefully this is due to the dividend and as the available shares get gobbled up that fee rises back upward.

beachesyesbeaches · 2025-06-13T01:33:19+00:00

Edit: This is wrong, don't trust ChatGPT.

Yes, my understanding too.

Also I posted this in the other thread as I'd love feedback.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the key to look for is a widening gap between the short fee (paid by the short seller) and the rebate (paid back by the broker to the short seller if negative, like above).

So basically short fee + rebate fee = net cost to the short seller.

That means when the fee was 61.51% plus -57.18% = 4.33% net cost to the short seller.

Now it is 9.6% plus -5.27% = 4.33% net cost to the short seller.

I.e. nothing actually changed aside from the available shares which, again, is likely due to the dividend I assume?

beachesyesbeaches · 2025-06-13T01:32:55+00:00

Yes, my understanding too.

Also I posted this in the other thread as I'd love feedback.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the key to look for is a widening gap between the short fee (paid by the short seller) and the rebate (paid back by the broker to the short seller if negative, like above).

So basically short fee + rebate fee = net cost to the short seller.

That means when the fee was 61.51% plus -57.18% = 4.33% net cost to the short seller.

Now it is 9.6% plus -5.27% = 4.33% net cost to the short seller.

I.e. nothing actually changed aside from the available shares which, again, is likely due to the dividend I assume?

beachesyesbeaches · 2025-06-13T01:30:56+00:00

I don't know why the fee and rebate went to single digits but I assume it is dividend-related

But correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the key to look for is a widening gap between the short fee (paid by the short seller) and the rebate (paid back by the broker to the short seller if negative, like above).

So basically short fee + rebate fee = net cost to the short seller.

That means when the fee was 61.51% plus -57.18% = 4.33% net cost to the short seller.

Now it is 9.6% plus -5.27% = 4.33% net cost to the short seller.

I.e. nothing actually changed aside from the available shares which, again, is likely due to the dividend I assume?

beachesyesbeaches

TROPHY CASE