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.
Agree I have only been posting here for a few weeks and I am a holder having gone in after one of Ashley’s purchases but understanding it was speculative. I have been trying to provide balance based on transactional experience to all those inexperienced individuals who may have taken notice of posts suggesting massive share price increases, ruling out CVAs and administration and thinking deals with large landlords are either quick or easy. By all means buy the shares if you can afford to lose but it as a gamble not an investment.
In fact as Knigelk is no longer a shareholder and clearly had no understanding of circumstances and failed to call it right, should he not stop posting on this board i.e. take his own advice?
Franalex, I've been discussing Admin possibility with Knigelk for weeks but he wouldn't believe it was possible. Maybe he's a lost case.
Franalex, excuse me but understand some of the posters concerns. A few posters like you only appeared recently and it's too late in the day to help the shareholders on here. The advice would have been helpful weeks ago. Your advice now can only help in relation to posters avoiding similar situations although sometimes problems happen without warning like over on PV
Thanks. Not the qualification, but the other two, yes. Interested to see how the board will respond, but I imagine MA has little leverage given the terms of his offers (ie making him CEO)
Do. It know who they are but everything I have read has been sound advice and suggests someone with an Insolvency qualification, a corporate finance background or a lot of transactional experience. Generally good input that should be noted.
I think Daniel is been paid by Debenhams board to convince on different platforms that SH are not entitled for anything and what they are doing is a moral, legal and ethical.
Is that right?
No person will waste their time talking when they hold ZERO interest and just sharing their knowledge?
Would this count as a tax write off for M.A?
Because shareholders, in economic terms, are only entitled to any value left after the repayment of debt. If that value is 0, shareholders no longer have an economic interest in the company and at that point, it shifts from "I started a business to make money" to "everyone loses if this gets liquidated". As an indispensable CEO, you might be given a MIP in a restructuring to continue to share in the upside. But if you think of shares as more of a security, you'll see that the Company and its creditors are making a compromise, it just doesn't involve you. They are working hard to keep the company alive, but you just have no interest in it. I couldn't disagree with you more on this point. What's more, it legally makes no sense as it would mean creditors would have to compromise when they're legally entitled to payment ahead of you.
“Jwood1 would you really prefer that all employees lose their jobs to only the shareholders losing out? That's a pretty nihilistic viewpoint. Getting wiped out is exactly the risk you take as a shareholder. Every day you hold the shares (and don't sell them) you are making a decision to trust the current board and to have faith in the industry. You could've sold out months or years ago. Keeping businesses alive with a new capital structure is infinitely better for the economy, employees, auxiliary industries, etc. than liquidating them.”
If all stakeholders were affected by the company’s problems, then all stakeholders would be willing to cooperate and find a solution to fix the problem and keep the company alive. But since they can just wipe the shareholders without their consent and continue the business as if nothing happened, the other stakeholders are not willing to compromise.
Why should the workers and the BOD keep their jobs when the shareholders get wiped out entirely? Why should the stores be kept open and rent kept being paid when the shareholders are wiped out? If shareholders had the power to close the business instead of being wiped out, everybody else would have been willing to negotiate. Maybe workers would accept a temporary pay cut until things improve, maybe landlords would accept a lower rent rather than lose thier tenant and maybe creditors would be willing to extend the debt maturities instead of facing the prospect of fighting for the assets in a liquidation. Of course, you could also add the city counsels who may be willing to revise their parking fees and business rates rather than losing out a major retail chain.
But of course, it is easier to wipe the shareholders entirely while everyone else keeps their jobs/rents. There would be enormous pressure on the board to make a compromise with MA if the alternative was liquidating the business.
As for your last sentence “Keeping businesses alive with a new capital structure is infinitely better for the economy, employees, auxiliary industries, etc. than liquidating them”, you are of course correct about that. The problem is, a company should not be run in the interst of the economy, the employees or auxiliary industries. A company should be run in the interest of its shareholders. Nobody starts a business with the purpose of improving the economy, creating jobs or heloing auxiliary industries. People start businesses because they want to earn money themselves. If you were a small business owner, you would not continue to operate the business just to keep people employed and to pay rent, if you knew that you will never ever make a profit for yourself anymore (aka new capital structure for current shareholders).
Why doesnt offer the 200 million instead? or even 250 million.
Or buy out the debt from the lenders making him in charge over Debs?
Or what he can do is recind his fire the board threat. Then offer 150 million cash with MSD as security and 100 million loan with zero interest for first year and then 3%.
This would exceed the 200million on offer from the other lenders and be decisive and low cost.His 150 million would be guranteed by MSD and the other would be 100 million loan.
All his offers have had a sting in the tail or been parsimoniousor just falling short or been indecisive.
his big mistake was saying he would fire the board. shoot own foot.
What he can do recind his fire the board and offer 150 million cash with MSD as security and 100 million loan with zero interest for first year and then 3%.
Jwood1 would you really prefer that all employees lose their jobs to only the shareholders losing out? That's a pretty nihilistic viewpoint. Getting wiped out is exactly the risk you take as a shareholder. Every day you hold the shares (and don't sell them) you are making a decision to trust the current board and to have faith in the industry. You could've sold out months or years ago. Keeping businesses alive with a new capital structure is infinitely better for the economy, employees, auxiliary industries, etc. than liquidating them.
Jwood unfortunately it’s a fact we have to face now and carry on with our lives, it was a very costly lesson for me and going forward I won’t take BoD announcements for granted and do a deep research despite the fact how attractive the share price look
It is very frustrating as a shareholder to get wiped out and see the company still alive. I wouldn’t mind it if the company would shut down like Lehman Brothers. That was fair fo all parties involved. Shareholders lost their equity, the BOD and the employees lost their jobs, and the creditors had to see what can they salvage from the scraps.
But when a company gets restructured with debt for equity swaps and shareholders lose everything while all the rest continue as before, it feels extremely unfair and unethical. The shareholders are not the only ones responsible for the company’s downfall. The BOD managed the company poorly and mislead investors with false presentations, the landlords were greedy and drained the company with huge rent bills, the employees earned their wages while the creditors earned interest. All of that at the expense of shareholders who had their dividend cut first, and now are getting wiped out entirely.
When a company goes down, it should go down for all stakeholders, not only for the shareholders while continuing to pay money to all other parties involved.
I sold out on Friday with a 12k loss.. I think we may see admin this week and then they secure the new loan facility.. sad end for shareholders. All the best if you’re still holding