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.
stxx I am genuinely interested in your thought process that turnover is a guide to valuation?
You believe it is over sold so what do you think it is worth based on turnover?
I don't see how that was a strawman argument?
Hi Geeman, thanks for posting the response and I too find that a positive compared to what we feared.
Pingu, I agree with you - advertising these jobs is a positive.
Just waiting to sell some other stock any day now and I will be bringing my Eve average down by adding a few more.
stxx, are you saying that due to the SP ratio to annual sales is the compelling and over riding reason to invest here?
Vern, well yeah I guess I would have on the basis that after careful consideration i thought it was worth the bet.
To me thats logical. I think the stock will rise because of XYZ and post my reasons. What's the issue?
I do get that my quick buying and selling can seem somewhat flip flop to others but i am just trying to scalp 2-5% a week from my various positions. Eve is different because of the spread so I need (personally) more convincing reasoning that the increased risk of greater loss is worth the gamble.
(Most of my posts are responsive to other posts querying their ideas.)
I didn't copy the short covering note from IR as didn't seem important. But here it is. I only copy now for the 'reassures'.
'Hi D-Geeman
See below. I hope this clarifies and reassures.
Best
Mark'
Wyn you talked the stock up when skin in game. Nuff said
Hi Wyn- thanks for ur question. Always good to learn ur perspective. I think these could be mostly old vacancies and new. Probably more to replace some staff leaving. I think the board has told HR and the staff to operate business as usual, I believe the average employee may not know the funding situation so they probably have orders to continue doing business as usual as if no funding issues. So you are right... in such situations it can't really be considered as positive.. or negative. I just want to believe it is positive... ;) It's definitely emotional bias...not so good for investing.
Ping, these BB's (and its an observation) are naturally stuffed almost full of posters who are invested and therefore the vast majority are in fact to some degree or another, blinkered and do not want to hear a different view.
Take all my posts here out and what would you be left with? there would be hardly any but, but, but posts would there.
And I do agree that the recruitment might well be good news. but it might not. I for one would not buy the stock just on the back of that info. As you say you have a leg in both camps so it equals itself out at a non-event?
As DGU and others have found to their cost, that all the RNS's interviews and updates over the last couple of years have not got over the most glaringly obvious consistent fact of the business.
It has never run at a profit.
That's a red, red flag (for all stocks).
To me reading this BB over the years that that is a fact worth repeating.
Yes indeed. Eve is still turning over products though and earning revenue and therefore assumedly meeting payments on the inventory funding.
Sounds like the facility is still open now. I would have assumed if the lender didnt like the risk of EVE going into administration they would have halted the facility by now.
Seems they used supply-chain financing inventory/stock to bridge the payment gap between the supplier and customer point of sale. They will be actively using those facilities to improve cash flow. Could the service provider stop offering their short-term loans as Eve is now high risk, I guess they could in which cash they would have to pay back those loans. However, if Eve Sleep survives then they wud lose a important customer so I guess they are also currently taking risks to loan Eve the money. IMO, DYOR.
Hi Wyn, just nipped out.
I don't know; you undoubtedly have more accounting experience than me (as I have almost zero) so we are both guessing. Even if the facility has been used, or partially used, it's not like there bank where they could shut eve down at the point the bank balance goes to nothing. It sounds like they would be a creditor in the fall-out process. So eve do still have around £1.5m before they hit the buffers, which gives longer than we feared to find a buyer.
That's my amateur take anyway.
Ok, the age old 'no one likes to hear the negatives' is a potentially plausible angle.
Its not that I dont want to hear the views. You simply only post negatively devaluing your observations similarly to a happy clapper imo. As I said before, Is it not logical to assume if you were simply of a contrarian style looking to oppose most posts then would you not offer alternative views to more negative posts too?
Recruiting is not RNsable news. But people piece together the scraps of info available as best they can. One could say the info has influenced the SP more buoyantly the last few days from how low it has been.
Eve is indeed in quite the precipitous position. You're 'but, but, but' posting style finally got to the point of me needing to comment. Apologies if you think I am a blinkered investor.
For the record, if we are dropping 'recruiting staff' into either a negative, neutral or positive category of info then my view it has one leg in neutral and one leg in positive.
My agenda, Pingu, is to highlight potential "assumptions" and to explore the reasoning behind them.
Once you have skin in the game its completely natural to want to hear corroborating views for emotional reassurance. Particularly if you are over-invested (my definition being more than you can comfortably afford to lose).
It becomes just as natural to not want to hear views that might suggest the initial reasoning for purchase was flawed.
But as I say, once the stock is bought it is very easy to just look at every bit of news as a potential positive and not even consider that there might be another (negative) explanation.
So to your last point. I don't know why they would be recruiting staff if they are going into administration.
But maybe they are just key replacement posts that in no event can be left vacant? Could they be spoofs to give the impression they are not going into admin? Perhaps it still looks grim but they think they can hang on to the end of the year and need these posts filled?
If it is positive why hasn't the SP rocketed?
Again this and many other BB's dismiss views they don't like for spurious reasons.
Yours that I am not invested is one such.
What difference does it make to the validity point(s) I raise as to whether I hold stock or not?
And how do you know whether I am stock holder or not?
Because I never hold too much of any one stock I really don't care too much what happens. It leaves me open minded to the possibility i have made a mistake and to exit my position without incurring too much of a loss.
Finally if people raise negative points and I can reason them away then it makes me feel more likely that my bet will pay off. But if someone brings up a negative that I had not thought of, then fore warned is fore armed and all that.
Wyndrum
Although you claim to act as a voice of reason countering positive posts with plenty of alternative whataboutery
I don’t see you countering negative posts with any positive whataboutery
This behaviour is indeed in line with someone who is not invested
So although you do make the odd valid point I find reading your posts ultimately quite tedious as you have a clear agenda
Whether replacing staff or not, tell me why they would be recruiting staff if they are going into administration?
CI, how do you know these are new jobs and not replacement for staff who may have left?
Just asking.
Nice one D-G.
Further good news. Two additional job openings: E-commerce Specialist and Operations Specialist. Total 6 job openings... https://app.beapplied.com/org/1264/eve-sleep
Does that imply the board is confident funding will be secured?! If this was about to go into administration, why on earth wud u be recruiting now... GLA, IMO, DYOR.
Well done DG that clarifies the situation, but it sounds to me (happy to be corrected as my accounting skills are pretty limited), but it reads as though the £900k credit facility (albeit through a 3rd party), has been used?
So if thats the case I'm not sure it is "good news"?
From IR:
'As at 30 June eve had cash in the bank of £1.5m and no bank debt/or overdrafts. The working capital facility of £0.9m referred to in the statement is short-term revenue based funding for stock and marketing purposes only, provided by a third party. This is a common way for ecommerce businesses to scale and invest in stock and marketing. This is not bank debt with fixed repayments. Repayments fluctuate directly with revenue. From an accounting perspective it is treated as a trade creditor and does not net off against cash.'
(I think this is good news; I resisted the temptation to top up just now but only 'cos I'm too deep already.)