Rainbow Rare Earths Phalaborwa project shaping up to be one of the lowest cost producers globally. Watch the video here.
A point to remember, even if customers drift away to more more upmarket brands as they mature into their thirties and beyond, there is a constant supply of new customers as children become teenagers and begin spending their own money on clothes and fashion.
14:44, Topshop, majority owned by Arcadia. Think the pension regulator would have something to say about taking over boohoo whilst the matter of the huge pension deficit is hanging over Arcadia. No substance again in what you are saying claresmith.
claresmith, whilst Market Makers have some power on Aim shares and a sharp dip and then retrace where no one can seem to buy is obviously in their favour, I don't agree with your portrayal of how they generally work (just as I didn't agree with your hypothesis that Sir Philip is going to wipe the floor with boohoo in the coming winter and spring)
MMs generally don't take big positions with £millions at risk! Why would they, they make money on margin between bid and ask whatever the sp of the companies on their book. It's volume they seek and volatility helps this.
I don't filter, but I can't take you seriously I'm afraid. Looks like you're just coming out with anything to get your entry (good luck with 250, I'll double up with another £40k before it gets down anywhere near there)
Newguy76, it does raise some interesting points. Say boohoo had checked some of the pay records of their supplies who were subsequently found to have underpaid. I can virtually guarantee they would have shown pay at the minimum wage. Is that enough though?- it's pretty obvious that it will have been the hours recorded that will have been manipulated. So we are then looking at some basic checks to establish whether the actual hours worked by individuals match those on wage records as the being the minimum needed to have any usefulness or credibility.
Mr.neutral, Considering the original poster was using the example of employing a gardener in relation to the boohoo supply chain, my example of another type of small cash job was quite reasonable I think.
You point out that by checking the relevant licence/insurance is in place the employer/borrower in my examples has covered themselves. That's the point, it's not just up to the other party to have complied with the law, with no comeback if they haven't. There is obviously going to be a difference between the checks an individual is expected to make in those examples and those of a large company with multiple suppliers. It's generally the principle that the larger the business, the more they are expected to comply with increased regulation and scrutiny in their dealings.
Harveyspectre. For context, if you have some rubbish you want removing and give the job to the bloke with a van who charges the least, do you think that's all there is to it as he drives away? If so think again - if there is anything that traces it back to you, you will be getting a summons and typically £400 fine if your local council is similar to mine. You are held responsible for checking that the bloke was legit with a waste disposal licence. Similar if you lend your car to someone who isn't insured themselves and is not covered under your own policy - you have committed an offence.
When we already have examples like this binding us as individuals to take responsibility for checking that others are acting within the law, I would be a bit miffed if multi million business contracts by big business were completely exempt from any such considerations.
That said, the conditions in the supply chain should have been more vigorously investigated by the various government agencies who have primary responsibility for enforcement of the various regulations.
Wish I had some of my losses from various AIM garbage OUTSIDE ISAs. They're great if you pick a winner, but I've been selling down my properties and on the hook with the special reward of an 8% residential property surcharge on top of the standard 20% higher rate CGT. A bit of an anomaly, but apparently you pay 20% higher rate CGT if you make gains on shares above the allowance, but if you have property gains at 28% you can use share losses to offset.
My experience with CGT over the last 30 years is.. .. just when you think you have it sussed, they change the bl00dy rules!
Not sure I understand this requirement to update the market only if it would move the price downward.
Just to point out the obvious, a price higher than it would otherwise be may be good news for those holding the share but it means there is a false market for those buying the share at a price in excess of fair value.
All the rules are in the interest of a fair market overall, that means buyers as well as sellers.
Any so called ethical funds exiting now would draw attention to themselves with the question "Did you miss the story two months ago?". Would make them look a bit silly, especially as fast fashion was obviously never compatible with sustainability and environmental concerns.
I'm not worried about iis leaving, more likely to be taking positions for results at end of summer sale prices.
Billyn, the context to bleating about 'where was government' in this case is there seems to be acceptance that there was a thick folder marked 'Leicester rag trade' on various government desks from some years back, yet it seems to be just Boohoo's problem. There is a difference between asinine 'bleating' that 'they' should have known, done something etc and justification in asking why more was not done about an issue that is not new.
Without trying to a absolve boohoo from their responsibilities to take reasonable steps to ensure suppliers are not in a race to the bottom on wages etc , let's ask the bigger question; What on earth were the various government departments and agencies doing (or rather not doing) about all these businesses (that are NOT part of boohoo group) and had, over a number of years, unacceptable and insufficient paperwork regarding minimum wage, right to work etc?Back in the eighties, way before minimum wage as it is now, I had an inspector turn up at the small retail business I ran as a sole trader to ensure the wages I paid complied with an agreed minimum for shop workers. It's not a difficult concept - a business operating from a fixed location and officials with powers of entry should be like shooting fish in a barrel over significant breaches.Surely it is not solely down to boohoo to police these factories?
It would be reasonable to argue that another company doing similar exploration in the same broad area will be a direct competitor for the most precious of resources. Obviously that problem regarding XCD and 88e has been removed now as they are one and the same, but prior to the takeover, a possible for a FO may have had both 88e and XCD on a prospect list as potential partners ie one gets the deal and one doesn't. That sounds like direct competition to me and I recall a poster strongly defending the recent sponsored piece as 'all companies advertise and we have to do the same'. Why so, if we don't have any competition for investment or partners?
DC2007, so, as per my post, how do you ever get an inquiry off the ground as you can always say the piper is calling the tune. It is the terms of reference that are relevant, Boohoo is not employing Alison Levitt QC in a defence capacity. Let's see what she has to say.
I note the ETI cast aspersions on the integrity of Alison Levitt QC by saying they do not trust the result as it can't be truly independent if Boohoo are paying.
Just a thought, someone has to pay the highly qualified professional leading such an investigation, in this case it's Boohoo but could be the government or even the ETI themselves perhaps. On their rather childish and flawed logic, there could never be an inquiry that was worth doing because there is never anyone entirely neutral to pay for it!
The ETI sounds like the usual bunch of clowns that tie themselves in knots politicising, grandstanding and virtue signalling having completely lost sight of their initial aims that might have had some merit and sincerity.
Now I've read the piece in the print version (I missed it first time and had to go back and search, it's a small article below a double page on how Jeremy Corbyn sabotaged his election campaign) I see it's actually Priti's reply to the letter John Lyttle wrote to her about the failure of various parts of government to do anything about an issue that has been known about for years.
To be fair, she is obviously going to come back to him on the front foot. Nothing unexpected and that can't be dealt with as we move forward.