MajorLosses, a good chunk of our market will buy new gear just for posting on their Instagram etc. I also read a piece in a local paper about large groups of young people gathering in a park after dark for nefarious purposes, a local resident commented that they were dressed up as if going for a night out in town.
MW93, in the advertising world 'sell the sizzle, not the sausage' is pretty well known. There's been sizzle aplenty here over the five years I've followed 88e... little sign of any sausages to date.
MindTheRamp, we had a serious resistance at 270 so some of the upward pressure would perhaps be lost in breaking through to 275. This will have been a big payday for those who bought in the low 200s but wanted to get off the ride, leaving a higher proportion of those wanting to see 400+.
09:40 point 1. Don't think anyone would disagree that fashion/clothing as a sector will be down this year. The real question is looking at the winners and losers within it. My take on what you're saying is that it is a fair point to consider regarding Boohoo but there are many other factors too; gaining market share from the high street being closed, replacing garments bought last summer that are coming apart at the seems and the fact that images on social media count for a great deal with under 30s.
To read your posts anyone would think we were all still under house arrest and the younger people were allowed 15 minutes on the bakelite landline telephone - after 6pm of course. Did you not see the reports of the major incident with half a million people on Bournemouth beaches in June?
As I've posted before, think supermarkets during austerity - sector was down but Aldi/Lidl boomed because they were doing the right thing at the right time - just as I think BOO is now in its market.
Mattywright, if you've been reading the board I don't know how on earth you've managed to miss the literally daily discussion regarding the UT as each day for the last three weeks someone has posted to comment on the huge buy/sell after close as you have done today.
Anyway, good luck, think you will do well with boo.
I remember NOT buying Next when it tanked to 13p in 1990 - despite my then girlfriend being a customer of the mail order collection or whatever it was called and being impressed with the offer. Never mind 150x for Amazon, 13p to Next's high of £70+ is a 500+ bagger.
Agree Pmoran1969. My take also from general reading on the Leicester situation is there won't necessarily be a significant increase in costs. Like everything these days state of the art technology allows higher productivity per worker. What has been happening is the 'blind eye' being turned to UK garment manufacturing has led to a lack of incentive to invest in modern machinery and instead pay low wages for low productivity. If the latter is not an option then garments will not be made in the same inefficient way in future.
19:03 wow, really? I took the trouble a few days ago to give some basic information on this when a previous poster misunderstood. As I said at the time, Donald Trump may have an agenda, CLNs may not be used but anyone calling themselves an investor should really know what they are.
To recap, the lender receives CLNs. They can convert these to shares, usually based on a volume weighed average price over a certain number of days and some restriction on the amount they can convert on one occasion. Basically the lower the price goes the more shares are issued - they can't lose unless the company is delisted.
IIRC, I've been in at least 3 companies, UKOG, AST and PREM who have used them. Basically when not enough sophs are willing to take shares at a discount at a particular point in time (a standard placing) then CLNs redeemable without regard to a lower limit on the sp provided by a company who specialises in them would be a next step option. That's not to say it is on the cards here.
10:38 'If they borrowed money in early exploration' Who would have a business model to lend, unsecured, for that risk?
Fair enough a company could borrow against proven reserves or other tangibles and use that money to further explore but apart from the arrangement with Bank of America involving the long awaited tax credits I think it rather misleading to make a virtue of declining something that wouldn't be available to 88e if they wanted it.
Peoplepower1, good summary although I would add the buy/sell flag is triggered by which side of the 'official' mid price the trade falls. When the quoted spread is large it is rather an inaccurate benchmark.
STEVE 1964, serious attention seeking behaviour with your various hugely random share price posts to the detriment of this chat board. You're not really doing yourself any favours more than anything else.
For all we know Boohoo are taking the opportunity of altering their business model and not supplying through Next and ASOS in the future. Some sales will be lost but then again those specifically seeking our products will potentially buy more BOO products when browsing BOO websites rather than third party with only a small percentage of our lines. I wouldn't rule it out.
applegarth, there were follow up articles in last weekends Sunday Times (I've bought the print version for years). One was the story of a legit manufacturer in Leicester and the struggle he had to get enough workers to go on the books to scale his business to the right size to turn a profit whilst complying with all regs.
Obviously workers without NI numbers etc not eligible to be employed and he said the first question he was often asked was 'how much tax do we have to pay? ie they wanted 'flexible' arrangements themselves as obviously this aspect is fixed by HMRC. Also problems with getting workers to accept basic rules and health and safety, such as not eating and drinking on the work floor according to him. Claimed he couldn't get enough staff to run a legitimate factory at scale and had found a niche in a small operation making swimwear.
I have no direct experience of manufacturing but have been a residential landlord for 30 years and see the current press/government stance of landlord = greedy heartless rogue and tenant = automatic victim being exploited in virtually all coverage.
Whilst not denying there appear to be significant issues in both the above sectors, it is so easy to get carried away with rhetoric. Just like the original undercover ST reporter who was quite happy to libel the former owner of Jaswal Fashions who seemed a thoroughly decent man.
Hopefully the independent review will shed more light and licensing of factories is an obvious idea. Again going back to the Private rented sector as an example , licencing such as for HMOs or rented housing in areas where there are poor conditions has been in force for years, administered by local authorities. Why wasn't this put in place or at least being considered by government as it seems it was all actually hidden in plain sight? Someone posted last night as to why 'The taxpayer' should have to pay for this licencing. Easy answer again demonstrated by licensing in the PRS, they won't! If a landlord needs a licence to let a property, they pay a fee to cover the LAs costs in administering the scheme. It would be the same with a clothing factory licencing scheme.
The fact their is a legal challenge by Jaswal against Sunday Times is not price sensitive - ST have added a statement to say the article is the subject of a legal challenge above the original online article on their website.
It's not just about the rate of pay, for those who have entered the country illegally it is an offence to employ them and it is also a criminal offence for a landlord to rent out housing to anyone who cannot prove they have a right to rent.