Our latest Investing Matters Podcast episode with QuotedData's Edward Marten 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.
A debt figure is shown on the accounts, without explanation that it relates pretty much wholly to contracted future lease payments not overdue. Debt is a fundamental factor, and though a couple of websites have picked up on it I have the impression it’s not widely understood. A difference of opinion . To the future things may moderate after a hectic period, and though I think there’s probably something in it I don’t push some analysts’ view of the model continuing to increase revenue in competition and even better margin as it sharpens up as a standalone over future years with a new bunch of home improvers - too far off - I am simply persuaded it’s too cheap anyway and will turn when those who never wanted the Wickes shares finish their selling, whatever, whenever. Anyway, there’ll be confirmation of the promise Thursday, and little else I suspect .
Thank you Culpepper. I could be wrong, but I don’t think the debate about leases and debt is holding the stock down. I think it is clear for most that debt and leases are different kind of liabilities... The reason why the stock is so cheap IMO is the market is taking the view that 2021 profits are not sustainable and that’s why I was trying to see if I could find any reason to agree with the market (cost inflation for example...). But I agree there are multiple facets to that: for example, as management argued, shortages have the effect to differ revenue to future periods and this might mean 2021 earnings could be sustained more easily than the current P/E ratio would suggest. Strong outlook on housing market another factor probably. I agree with all you are writing about wickes and enjoying your analysis... Personally I believe the focus should be more on profits sustainability than debt. But you have discussed it in several previous posts as well... So again... thank you for your answer.
I was just looking to remake a serious point on Wickes published debt - there’s very very little in the layman’s sense, something I think is not well-understood, and then you drag me off into inflation. I guess as you refer to the model ( giving rise to the staff ) that the question you pose boils down in practice to whether there is any particular reason to believe Wickes is disproportionately affected by iinflation when compared to its UK competitors. I cannot think of such a reason.
Future inflation, GDP, employment market? Above my pay grade - even the experts can be out.
But I think you refer more to wage inflation. Seems to me they are likely to be no more disadvantaged by that prospect than their competitors - it is an issue for the construction sector generally, more so on skilled tradespeople than generic labourers or store assistants, so, you know, what of the builders’ business models? And I read Kingfisher has 80000 across its businesses.
And on skilled workers, under Do It For Me, Wickes increased it’s numbers of prior 2yrs. experienced fitters by 300 I think, during last year. It’s still advertising for more - there’s a backlog of installations before cash can be credited - and now for more flooring fitters/tilers after providing that service since October last. These are “Wickes approved” rather than on the payroll. Wickes will have to pay the rate, but that will be/have been incorporated into the costings - inevitably the end consumer will pick up much, if not all, of the tab - in the same way as product price inflation due to the said shortages - and PBT has been on the up.
The housing market is of course a driver. For everyone buying a new home there is very probably an existing house move chain, and prospects that the new owners of perhaps several properties will want to upgrade in due course - there’s usually something not quite right. And for those who do not move, perhaps it’s about time we did this or that, new bathroom or something.
I can’t see there’s anything wrong with the e-commerce backed balanced business model, whatever the environment - covering smaller local trades who know what they want, DIY’ers who have at least half an idea, and those looking for a complete bathroom or kitchen fit out and what might go with it - from a smaller curated range of products in right-sized stores, enabling stockturn to fall roughly in line with the payment cycle, so the business is working capital neutral.
At the moment, the top of my own agenda is that this is a dividend paying, debt free, cash-generating company, and the consensus view that it is substantially undervalued.