We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey 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.
European Central Bank (ECB) Vice-President Luis de Guindos expects the bank to reach its 2% target in 2025. However, the move is anticipated to face some resistance in the service sector.
"We have gone from 10% headline inflation to 2.4%. Core inflation is also falling and is now below 3%. All the indicators are moving in the right direction. We're not there yet, but the end is in sight. We think we will reach our 2% target in 2025," de Guindos said in an interview with Le Monde on Tuesday.
Asked about when the key interest rates would be reduced, de Guindos added that if the conditions continue to move in the same direction, that will likely happen in June. Commenting on the pace of the rate cut, he further stated that based on the data, the geopolitical situation, and "the potential impact on oil prices."
Baha Breaking News (BBN) / JG
European stock exchanges traded mostly higher during premarket hours on Tuesday in anticipation of reports on the region's manufacturing and services sectors, with respective data rolling out for Germany and the United Kingdom.
Earlier this morning, Novartis AG and Renault Group shared their results for the opening quarter of fiscal 2024.
Frankfurt's DAX rose 0.42%. The Euro Stoxx 100 rose 0.23%. The CAC 40 was down 0.06%. London's FTSE 100 climbed 0.37%. The euro and the pound sterling were flat against the dollar, going for 1.06511 and 1.23442 respectively at 7:57 am CET.
Baha Breaking News (BBN) / AB
No real entrepreneur or investor judges the viability of a new business by looking at 1 or 2 years of numbers, let alone a business that has 15 years of near flawless performance until it was hit with post pandemic problems....
You can tell the people here that have owned businesses in the real world and not just fantasy companies.
Let's wait and see Hexam, assuming either of us are still here in three years time
"What I've said is that it's a viable business at the operational level"
Disagree I'm afraid as to be a viable business at the operating level it's got to be making enough money on that basis to at least cover its interest and lease obligations which sit outside that figure. Fair enough you can exclude D&A from this as that money has already been spent but that doesn't hold forever as at some point the assets will need replacing for the business to continue to remain viable.
"Hexam thanks for your view, I'm not sure I buy it but each to their own and it's good to have a civilised debate"
Agreed but the depreciation and amortisation point I'm making is not really a view, it's simply a fact of how it works. This will continue rise for BOO unless the company starts to contract and I'm assuming you don't think that's very likely? Even then there will be a lag before it starts to fall (unless there are a lot of immediate write-offs).
So you will see it increasing this year and next year etc. just as it has in previous years.
I've not said it is making massive profits.
What I've said is that it's a viable business at the operational level that is valued as if it is totally failing. Which it clearly isnt
"Hexam, it's quite simple I'm looking at the day to day actual running costs of the business, which remains profitable."
The profits on that basis still have to cover the impact of any investments (via D&A), interest, lease costs and any exceptional costs. So I wouldn't see being profitable on that basis as anything to shout about but as the very minimum it should be achieving. To achieve overall and sustainable profitability and positive cash flows its got to be making significant profits on that basis.
Hexam thanks for your view, I'm not sure I buy it but each to their own and it's good to have a civilised debate
"I'm interested in why you think depreciation and amortisation will continually rise."
I said it will rise for the foreseeable future, not continually. Just the way it works really. The only way it will decrease is if the business starts to shrink and even then it will take time to feed through.
They depreciate/amortise over various timescales between 3 and 50 years - depending on the assets and their perceived useful lifetimes. As BOO is still relatively young those assets are still building up (especially over the last few years) so the amount to depreciate/amortise continues to accumulate even if the capex etc. then begins to fall. It's only when the end of the D or A time period is reached for an asset that it stops contributing towards the annual charge - but unless the business starts to contract that asset should be replaced and it all starts over. Of course if it turns out to be a poor asset investment then it may be impaired earlier - but again if that leads to an overall drop it implies a failing and/or shrinking business.
So any business that is relatively young or is still growing will see D&A grow as it's fixed asset base etc. increases. Even if it reaches maturity the D&A should still rise as the assets that need periodically replacing will cost more each time they do because of inflation.
Naturally some assets may prove useful beyond their initial estimate so they don't need replacing when the D or A schedule ends but BOO was growing rapidly until only very recently so that is not going to be a major influence for them anytime soon.
In short D and A continues to rise for healthy businesses (and more so if they are still growing) because of the accumulative nature of the charge and the increasing costs of replacing assets - even though capex etc. may vary considerably from year to year or even fall for several years.
Hexam, it's quite simple I'm looking at the day to day actual running costs of the business, which remains profitable.
I'm interested in why you think depreciation and amortisation will continually rise. Capex by and large drives depreciation and that has fallen significantly and will fall further. Likewise brand purchases predominantly drive amortisation and they will flat line before dropping.
Let's remember than Boo is valued at not much more than net balance sheet assets, the assets of which are valued on a historic basis.
So in essence the business currently has virtually zero value as a going concern, not realistic imho
Bon Scott, which of the acquisitions do you believe to be poor.
At the time Boo invested in the UK warehouses, the Ukraine invasion wasn't even a thought, so what would you have done differently when the economic outlook was for growth
Atleast Boo have acted quickly to address the issues.
Maybe try some logical and rational thinking rather than the faux rage
Seems to most here that Hexam is tying poor old tradey up in knots with all the relevent figures.
And only yesterday tradey was calling him a "troll".
As simple as it is, the sp,continues to tell the tale, should oone take off the welding glasses.
Still don't get you as depreciation and amortisation will continue to rise each year for the foreseeable future and operating costs are higher than operating revenue - hence the reported operating loss of £21m. They do in places also show operating costs excluding D&A (maybe you mean this) but it is a fairly meaningless number and if they can't cover these with revenue then that really would be alarming!
If anything the figures flatter BOO - HOWEVER they are taking action to improve profitability and this may start to feed through in the year end results.
"The point I'm making is that, just looking at the day to day running of the business it remains in the blue. Revenue less cost of sales and operating costs is a positive number.
Depreciation and amortization are now significant numbers but the actual costs were largely incurred several years ago with automation and brand purchases and will have little impact on the actual business going forward.
So the numbers aren't entirely terrible which the market cap implies.
There remains an underlying viable business"
Oh my dear God, it still hasn't sunk in, has it? The business is wrecked because despite its operating profitability, the board consistently obliterates this with ill-judged acquisitions, write-downs, write-offs, chasing the dream with poorly thought-out facility investments/closures, all sorts. Until this is corrected, expect many more woefully underperforming years. Rest assured, the top bods will all take home millions regardless.
The point I'm making is that, just looking at the day to day running of the business it remains in the blue. Revenue less cost of sales and operating costs is a positive number.
Depreciation and amortization are now significant numbers but the actual costs were largely incurred several years ago with automation and brand purchases and will have little impact on the actual business going forward.
So the numbers aren't entirely terrible which the market cap implies.
There remains an underlying viable business
Not sure of the point you are making as depreciation and amortisation is used in order to give a fairer view of profit - if it wasn't done that way the profit line would look even worse. The cash figure is directly affected by capex but there would have been a net outflow even without any capex and only a small net inflow if you excluded the EBT share purchase as well. So even if the capex had not been elevated (just 'normal') and there were no share purchases then there would still have been a net cash outflow.
They also made an operating loss of £21m so they are not currently profitable at the operating level - maybe you are referring to adjusted EBITDA (?) but that is a different thing to operating P/L and excludes all manner of costs.
I would hope though that they've reached the bottom as far as profitability goes and the FY results will see a change in direction with losses starting to reduce and a clear path back to profits even if the headlines themselves aren't great.
Hexam yes the business made a loss at the half year, but the loss was based c£50m or so of depreciation and amortization. Cash outflow was based on elevated capex and shares issued.
At the operating level the business was profitable. Not as profitable as in the previous year but profitable still.
It will be interesting to see if this is maintained at the full year
"as in the business is fundamentally massively profitable other than boohoos intent on buying DCs etc?"
Not sure how you work that out. BOO made a loss at half-year and it still would have been a loss with no DC purchases. It is not fundamentally profitable at the moment, let alone massively, which is a big factor in why the sp is where it is just now.
Hopefully the full year results will show clear signs of a route back to profitability with progress on improving margins, in particular from cost savings and possibly pricing too.
Ocean - boohoo are still aggressively chasing growth in one of the toughest times, a multitude of exterior forces have dramatically hit profitability over the last 2 years.
I don't think there are many clothing retailers that haven't hit a tough point in their history, next, sports direct and many more have all bounced back strong....
Regardless of whats posted here, the online clothing market is set to treble in the uk over the next 5 years...
Boohoo are in a position now to capture a nice chunk of that market...
Just skimmed through the HY24 results a couple of other comments:
- pre-tax profit appears to be in line with projections
- underlying £75M capex spend with further spend intended supported by cost savings
Would be say banks would view this favourably? as in the business is fundamentally massively profitable other than boohoos intent on buying DCs etc?
Near term for me BofA called it right in commenting the current share price implies the business is not a going concern, and, that when this becomes clear the share price will re-rate. In my view 60p easy on favourable news, and complete collapse on a failed return to profit. At this stage I think Boohoo will return to profit. And I think we will find out the answer to this question fairly soon. barlcays profit projections indicate FY24 driving the most profit growth.
Its all "manipulation" i tell you.
Definately worth £6.50 at least - all day long.
For a big boxful
Seems old tradeys warpdrive deflector running on 4* superleaded now lol.
At least one on here who has posted honestly he'd take the 80p if offered. Others posted a week back they'd took under 40p.
Seems Only old tradey that needs £4 to come out even
Still to shy to post his average though - bit of a Prince Harry that one
Shame boohoo could not purchase it.
If ts/tm and plt where put up for sale simultaneously, which would be more in demand?