George Frangeskides, Chairman at ALBA, explains why the Pilbara Lithium option ‘was too good to miss’. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
@Pmoran, see you really don't get my points
I'm not saying you don't understand context. My point is that when I gave you the context you never seem to go "oh yeah, bit unfair by rag"
I explained how months of conversation were "shut down" by rag dragging up points about topshop from1996 yet in another convo he seems to, well i can't say accept it as he's still misunderstood (Debs had same data as boohoo - god what does he know!). So is this a factually incorrect statement or just claim "it's an opinion, i hold a share so can't tell me otherwise"
Like I said does holding a wrench make me just as valid as a highly skilled plumber with lots of experience? Or would it be better if every time the plumber (CF professional) was trying to make points from the manual (Management) I just tell them they are wrong by saying the victoria used to fix chimny by sending a boy up with a brush?
This is my point. I've only come across like this as rag won't ever be corrected, dispite the direct quotes from boohoo or anyone, it's jsut references to pennywise etc or topshop "platform" from 1996
The other day how boohoo is having sucess by making "micro changes" when Carol laid out for use exactly what they had done to have sucess - move pricing significantly, pivot offer to trend and then imply test and repeat
Rag said no this is wrong it's just micro. Somehow I was wrong despite Carol literally telling us - explain that to me
Oh and add to that that "test and repeat" is due to fail and isn't sustainable. So boohoo is buying a load of brands and putting in place a strategy that will fail yet rag is saying they will be the "main money makers" wnat to give me the context for that?
Pmoran the troll is suckibg you in, the guy has issues, you can see the way he works so its s futile, wouldn't waste anymore time on him.
Dan - you are absolutely right. This board if full of plumbers blacksmiths ex sales people and gamblers who don’t know their ass from their elbow and with the exception of whoever you deem worthy of an ‘at last someone who understands’ couldn’t value a share any better than they could value a Monet.
Clearly rag hasn’t got a clue about the fashion world and is stuck in the penny wise era, I have no clue what the word context even means and am prone to picking on you for some reason unknown to everyone including me.
But I have seen the light and concede that you are indeed the cleverest bloke in the room and I would like to offer my sincere apologies for not recognising that you are merely trying to educate us all so that one day we might be able to value the shares we hold rather than merely owning appreciation tokens and think because we own said tokens we have the right to an opinion about the company we hold.
Sorry it took so long for me to realise but thanks for sticking with it and helping me to get to this stage.
Now if you wouldn’t mind furthering my education please tell me. What should the boohoo share price be based on your extensive knowledge and expertise and at what price should I consider selling my appreciation tokens?
You stated their “valid” opinion. Just because I hold a wrench wouldn’t mean I have a valid view on how to fix a sink. Same as someone who doesn’t understand this business, sector or business valuation doesn’t have a valid opinion on a stock as they are just guessing or a hunch ie rag
You also stated “ I don’t see why that should make them any less qualified to have an opinion about a share they own than you me or anyone else” which contradicts the above. So just because someone can buy a stock makes them just as qualified. I’ll buy a scalpel tomorrow and I’m a surgeon?
My point re private equity etc is that if you think that what those multi million/ billion funds are doing is just driving round looking for greggs or saying “I reckon buy boohoo as they now have mantary” then again it might support why lots of people invest and lots lose money
But look you again only want to call me out. Look at rag in the other thread just being schooled and taking it nicely. God when I told him the data boohoo had was better than what topshop had it was “what do you know ginger prick do you even know who pennywise was?” (Sorry that was after he shared a link to a topshop online concept from 1996 in which it directly stated topshop wouldn’t keep data ie useless)
And that’s why the board fell apart. As rather than own up to the misunderstandings he has I have to go through months of explaining just for him to get all angry (platform saga…wow! All that I said there was “invalid” as I didn’t know the camera Asos used) really? We’re discussing the point of a c.£1billion platform and because rag claims it’s just a website (despite quotes from boohoo, next, hut and Asos ceos and his own trade rags). I had to be a “ginger prick” as I didn’t know the camera
So no. I’m not like this. It’s that he doesn’t understand his own sector. It upsets him so through pride he continues to share further misinformation or ramps
Now we don’t like Kallu? Well rag is his inverse. You should treat both the same
Dan, you took my post out of context mate. You deliberately left off part of the post and then presented it to us as the worst post ever on LSE and suggested that I was somehow claiming that the, as you put it, plumbers blacksmiths and ex sales people on here were qualified to work at a private equity firm.
I’m not here to defend rag or anyone else for that matter and if you think he needs calling out then feel free to do it yourself but don’t take the comments others make out of context to suit your argument.
My personal view is that you simply cheapen some of the good stuff you want to say by constantly dragging up your past arguments with ragtrade. The constant ‘this is what rag doesn’t understand’ when responding to unrelated posts from other individuals isn’t particularly endearing and as someone else pointed out a few posts back makes you come across as trying to establish yourself as the cleverest bloke in the room.
Maybe when you ask a question you are genuinely looking for someone to give you their honest answer but in all fairness the way you ask and then respond can come across as someone asking so that they can then dismiss or ridicule the answer given.
The ways to skin a cat are plentiful and all I am really trying to convey is that if someone is invested in a share then we should allow them to have an opinion and to share it with us and if we disagree with their point of view there is a more polite and positive way to go about offering them an alternative view point than the one you sometimes choose to take.
No it seems you've missed my point. My point is not that you shouldn't be allowed to own the share. My point is how "valid" your opinion is (I laid this out quite clear tbh with the three points below)
My point is that when someone how been wrong about the business 8/9 times, disagrees with the plan of management (can give you 3/ 4 examples of this) and also doesn't understand what they have actually bought. When does their opinion become invalid? Apparently never?
So I think what you're point is is that everyone can have an opinion but what you might want to try and refine is how "valid" an opinion
Rag doesn't understand the sector
Doesn't understand the business model (or even some basic business items)
Doesn't understand or agree with the strategy from management
Confuses a lot of facts re the business
Doesn't understand what he's bought (but claims it's a "steal")
So want to let me know where you stake the "valid" part? Or just want to blindly defend him forever?
Why not ask him some of the points I've called him out for an we can have the debates? As every time he loses he blocks me and goes to attack me personally. So as I say why not get the points back out so we can all conclude and learn?
Be bold Pmoran. I know you have it in you
Dan, I can’t break it down anymore simply for you. My point is that regardless of what or who you think you are everyone who owns a share gets a vote so unless you want to make it that only people who are ‘a corporate finance professional, IPOs, reverse takeovers, buy-side, sell-side most things tbh’ are able to own shares and therefore own companies and therefore vote at the agm then everyone who owns a share has a valid opinion.
Now if you want to change that it’s probably best to go back in time and argue with Thatcher rather than me but given that’s how it is you and me have to accept that some people who own shares may or may not have the best background or knowledge to explain why they actually are invested but that still does not invalidate their point of view given that they have put their hard earned cash into a given share. He who pays the piper and all that.
As for context you simply took a portion of my earlier post and declared it was the worst post ever on LSE suggesting that I had said that anyone was qualified to work for a private equity fund when in reality what I said was that when someone is invested in a company their opinion is just as valid as mine or yours.
If you can’t understand that then it really doesn’t matter what profession you claim to be in you lack either logic or common sense or perhaps both.
Sorry to put here so the point isn't lost
Really would like to see which points are out of context? My points are not out of context (rag tried this last week so I copied all the context for him in a single place re wrangler/ debs and then oh I went green). So it seems I don't take stuff out of context but rather everyone once to claim "out of context" they are wrong
I fully got your point but it's just incorrect and you should be better on this. You think just because the number of people looking to invest somehow validates their view? Of course not. Just because investing has become more accessible doesn't mean they know what they are doing. Rag is a case in point. Doesn't have a clue what he has bought. Rather than conconding gambling you should be telling him to stop. The same way you wouldn't condone someone sat at the poker table saying "I think i'm doing well as I have all the red ones"
I'm a corporate finance professional, IPOs, reverse takeovers, buy-side, sell-side most things tbh but just because I can buy a wrench doesn't make me have a valid opinion about how to fix the sink does it?
And again, in the case of rag, is he has shown with his "industry insight" to be magnificently wrong on so many points. So at what point does his opinion become invalid?
1) doesn't know what he's bought (but claims "absolute bargain")
2) doesn't understand the industry
3) disagrees with the strategy laid out with management
At least in your point re Greggs he met points 2 & 3
So when are you going to play fair and tell us where the mark lies where someone is "invalid" because I've got rag down for 8/9 big errors on this business/ industry. Coupled with the no knowledge of valuation at what point are you being irresponsible just telling everyone to "have a go"
So I'm sorry but my view on you has turned as as I say you won't call out rag at all. Play the middle road and call out his 8/9 errors (I'll give them you) and maybe we will get some middle ground on this board and we can educate people on how to value a share and maybe have a better time
But you won't...