The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen 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.
Exactly the FT states that two people who are familiar with the situation.
Hardly a statement from PWC how newspapers can get away with anonymous statements like this us unbelievable. That said Boo should be asking PWC to make a statement or has the relationship broken down completely since Boo started the search for a new auditor. Was it not part of the Levitt enquiry that auditing should be tightened up and thus maybe the start of it
Porsche 2121. There are a lot of shares in circulation. 1.26 billion of them. Do the maths they can’t give a dividend on that many shares with the profit they generate. I get that they are a high growth company and profits should be ploughed back. But someone asked the question. You stick to Aviva as it obviously serves you well
anon, PWC have not made a statement. What is signalling an intention to quit?
Boohoo have started a tender process to appoint a new auditor. PWC have not been invited to tender.
Biddwolf,
"Not surprised Boohoo did not invite them to tender for the cyclical auditor change."
Please don't distort the facts.
PwC are walking away and there's a big difference to what you're suggesting.
These companies don't usually walk away, as signing the books off has been easy money, for years.
The big complaint is that they've been doing their job very poorly and it's only now that things are starting to be taken seriously.
Why do you think this is such a big issue?
For clarity, here's the news story., that was pulled from Alliance news, via the FT;
https://www.lse.co.uk/news/BOO/uk-winners-and-losers-summary-boohoo-down-11-as-weekend-press-weighs-heqpvusw4pewehd.html
"PwC has signalled its intention to quit as boohoo's auditor."
2angleterre
What are you on about, they wouldn’t pay a dividend because they are a high growth company, but, if they were ever to, the amount of shares in circulation (which are not that many in fact) would have nothing to do with it, the yield is the yield full stop.
well said cheereful, bruce and angleterre. Boohoo have not been found guilty of any wrongdoing, unlike pwc who have recently had a massive fine. Not surprised Boohoo did not invite them to tender for the cyclical auditor change. Auditor change is a non story blown up by the press (some who have personal connections to other large fashion retailers) this is another great opportunity to buy in at a low price for a steady £1 gain per share come next results update. GLA (apart from shorters)
The number of outstanding shares would have no impact on a dividend payment.
Companies generally pay a dividend when they believe it is the best use of cash. Boohoo are a high growth company, focussed on acquisitions, and probably viewing the Covid situation as an opportunity to accelerate their business growth trajectory for as number of years (I know from the institutional side that we’ve been talking about some businesses seeing a decade of growth over the Covid period).
I would be more concerned if they suddenly if a dividend, because I want them to use that cash to grow the business.
Wise words Brucejamieson. Regarding the dividend though Boo cannot pay a dividend as they have so many shares in circulation it would be meaningless. The stress levels the people on here are going through with the ups and downs of Boo share price tells me they should not be investing. They can’t hack it.
You see if you employ the Warren Buffett method buy and hold relieves all the stress. My heart did not skip one beat with all the goings on. Fundamentals very good. Wish they paid a dividend think what the yield would have been the last few days
Another point is all the work from other companies (Boohoo does not) that have sub contracted to China. Of course they pay their workers well, no sweat shops there. What a bunch of hypocrites who criticise Boohoo
This is farcical! Boohoo does/did not run the factories!!!
The suppliers hire and fire workers whether legal or illegal workers.You can not blame Boohoo directors for the suppliers behaviour.
Whatever agreement the workers had with the suppler bosses cash in hand to avoid losing their benefits.
It is utterly absurd to blame Boohoo for others conduct!
Where were the HMRC inspectors to check the employment laws were followed? What happenned to the accountants submitting the suppliers accounts?
This is not right , Boohoo is blameless for others faults!
Not unless they have a direct employment contract with Boohoo. So No.
Haha obviously they can’t.
They are not employed by boohoo, the supplier is liable.
The suppliers in Leicester don’t just sell to boohoo, People need to understand this.
Those same suppliers do work for plenty of other buyers to name a few select fashion, ASOS until recently and many other smaller start ups no doubt from similar kamani families
No.
They are may be illegal workers so chances are no... Or workers are bad as BOOHOO... cash in hand to avoid tax... But more blame is on factory employing them and BOOHOO have made that clear
Does anyone know if the workers can proceed with and liable charges against boohoo or sue for compensations?