Member Info for alex1621

I like the idea of Ashley as a large shareholder because he has the clout to ensure that the Board don't act only in the interests of the Kamani family. His presence lessens the risk.

Ashley as a CEO makes sense if it is done under the Frasers banner, because I can see many synergies with the Frasers retail empire. Debenhams would grow even faster with an online presence and store network, and Ashley has the retail space to make that happen. Similarly Karen Millen, it could develop online and as part of the Frasers store offering. The fashion brands might also thrive in the same way that Primark does on the high street, and it would help to lessen the returns problem. So I can see how it makes sense for Ashley to takeover the business, as he might be able to do more than the Kamani's. Possible approach is cash plus Frasers paper?

I wonder after today if Ashley has enough votes to get the motion over the line? The shenanigans of today suggest that Kamani has increased his ownership % alongside the ownership % of the US investor.

The reason that Boo expanded in the US is that they believed that demand would accelerate there, and to be fair many critics were urging them to set up operations to be closer to that customer. I think it would have worked but for the market share grab of Shein. So any policy that knocks out Shein is good for Boo. If Europe takes the same route then the UK will not be an outlier. Retail is one of the most important industries in the UK and it is not just online operators who are lobbying against Shein. The industry body are too.

So, who knows, 2025 might turn out better than expected.

That is the big outlier that would transform the fortunes of the young fashion business. I am convinced that Trump is going to apply savage tariffs on China and rip the business models of Shein and Temu. When Jeff Bezos stopped the Washington Post from supporting Harris I thought there must be something in it for him. And perhaps Amazon will gain from the trampling of Temu.

The EU are already planning moves on the tax advantages of de minimis rules, so expect something there too.

I am not convinced that Shein will be allowed to continue as they are. So if they can hang on to the business a little longer the environment I might look better for trading.

I gave the Kamani’s the benefit of the doubt after the post pandemic supply issues and inflation that everyone had to deal with, and online in particular. I could even see how the sales from the pandemic would be less as the land retailers opened up. But they have taken large amounts of cash and wasted those resources, in the US for example. They have only been destructive for the business. So I am not inclined to support them, as I really don’t trust them. Ashley would take the job more seriously, but I’d rather he just made a half decent offer and then he is open to do what he wants. I think he can turn the business into bricks and clicks, and that would help develop Debenhams and remove the returns issue. Next have made this work, so could Frasers.

Ashley, after the placing, still has 27.4%. He can only buy another 2.5% without triggering a takeover offer.

I suspect that option will be looked at after the result of the EGM. If he loses who knows what can happen? Any offer would need to be at a substantial premium to get institutional support, but it would not be very high unless a competitor bid shows up.

I don’t believe that this placing/subscription was undertaken without having the buyers in place. Neither do I believe that Ashley was aware of it or invited to participate. I suspect his participation came following discussions between his corporate lawyers and Zeus Capital. And that might explain the oversubscription.

The RNS was scathing of Ashley, so there is no thaw in relations that I can detect. Kamani ponies up because he can see himself losing the business.

Frasers "conditionally agreed to subscribe" has the feeling that Frasers read the RNS and insisted that they participate and purchase an amount of shares that maintains their shareholding % of the company. I wondered whether it would be legal to exclude Ashley from this arrangement, as it looks pretty underhand.

Nevertheless, it remains to be seen whether the new Kamani holding together with the other participants in this holding have enough shares to thwart Ashley (and retail investors who would support him).

On another topic, the Reuters piece that I reported below suggests that Shein are showing large falls in year on year sales and margin erosion. Also the impact of a hawkish Trump and EU is viewed as a risk to their business model.

If they are impacted by legislation in 2025 this could be a game changer for Boohoo and others. There might be life in this business yet. Imagine a growing Debenhams together with a rejuvenated young fashion business? Food for thought.

The RNS on the EGM is scathing about Ashley. I can't see that Ashley was on the placing list or had prior knowledge of the fundraise.

No, Frasers shareholding has not changed, still 27.4% after the placing.

Their shareholding has gone from 343,170,174 to 382,289,962

Total shares in issue after placing is 1,395,992,878.

Divide new Frasers shareholding by new Total shareholding and you get 27.4%.

So no change.

Kachrafilter - Frasers have spent just over £12m.

Https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/shein-margin-wobble-takes-bite-out-ipo-value-2024-11-14/

Suggestion that not all is well at Shein. I do wonder if the company can get through this period it might enter a better period for trading.

Could well be Camelot. It will be someone friendly to Kamani interests.

Who knows?

SCB - not my take. The RNS on the EGM was pretty scathing about Ashley and his motivations. I don’t think these two are working hand in hand. My guess is that Frasers have insisted on participating in the placing last night, and agreed to conditionally buy as many shares as they could.

Frasers have “conditionally agreed to subscribe”. That sounds like they insisted on participation subject to conditions. I can’t work out if they were consulted earlier in the week and agreed to participate or they insisted on participating in the main placing after the RNS was issued.

Reardon - he could see his company slipping away from him. Question is what happens next?

It looks like Frasers have participated in the fund raising? I don’t know whether they were consulted and involved prior to the announcement or their “conditional” participation was indicated after the announcement?

I wonder whether this move is legal? It looks like the fund raise is solely for the purpose of wresting control from Ashley (and retail shareholders who would have backed him). Other fund raising options are available.

Can the Board truly claim to be acting in the interests of all shareholders?

That

I believe funds can be considered part of a concert party. If they all colluded to freeze out Ashley I wonder how legal it all is? Ashley could argue that their actions denied retail shareholders the right to appoint him as CEO.

It's all very interesting. No idea where this goes from here?

BFD - if a concert party (Kamani plus others) control 30%-50% of the shares then they may be required to make a mandatory cash offer to all other shareholders, under the UK Takeover Code.

It is very odd, even the amount raised is odd. I think it is all about control, and the new investors are confident that the asset backing is there to justify the price paid. Ashley is not included in the fundraiser.

Would anyone be surprised if we find out later that the placing/subscription shares are the exact amount needed to allow a group of investors to own over 50%?