Member Info for alex1621

If you owned 1,000 Aviva shares at 190p you get 287 shares in Aviva. The value of those shares is obviously based on the market price on the day. The cost price is £1.90.

As of yesterday’s price the deal on 1,000 shares is £1297 cash + £50 dividend + £1387 in shares (@£4.835). A total of £2734, or £2.73 per share.

If you sell DLG on the market before the deal goes through you get £2.50 per share as of yesterday’s price.

As the deal gets closer and gets confirmed I would expect DLG price to increase closer to the deal price.

The next vote is 21 January 2025 - this is a vote to eject Mahmud Kamani.

The rest of the RNS is a re-hash of things we have already heard before. There is a clear indication that the London property could be sold to reduce debt.

I don’t understand the question you are asking? Can you elaborate?

The Capital Gains Tax calculation is a little tricky for a takeover that involves both cash and shares. You have to work out the capital gain or loss on the cash, and the capital gain or loss on the shares (which may be sold on the day or at a later date).

There is some guidance on the HMRC website.

The value of the Aviva shares are based on the share price on the day of the takeover. The problem I have is the lack of clarity on whether it is the share price on opening or the share price at the end of the trading day? My guess is that it is the share price at the end of the trading day?

If anyone knows for sure please confirm.

I missed the middlemen discussion. I just caught the tail end of it. I could not work out whether he was speculating that this was happening or he knew for a fact? Given that they are communicating with insiders he may well know something.

I missed the first few minutes because of the sign in screw up (never gave us a link with passcodes) so did not see the introduction or hear the points being made by the three member panel, two of whom were the Mike's, Lennon and Ashley. Another guy was there but I do not know who he was because I missed the introductions.

But that guy indicated that Boohoo insiders were contacting them. They acknowledged that some people would leave but they also indicated that there is a capable middle management who they can work with. And concluded that in some circles they might be welcomed.

SCB - I think when that person referred to management change he meant all of them. So his group would takeover and new management would have been put in place.

I just don't know whether it was a genuine person or not?

SCB - do you know who that person was?

To be fair I don't think that Ashley could have answered that question, regarding a takeover. It would be dumb for him to do so and I don't think the rules allow it.

No, to be clear. Someone (the first question) indicated that his group made two well funded offers to buy the company, and it would have been in 2022 and 2023, by my estimates. So it had nothing to do with the latest statements about asset sales. I think he spoke about the funding to indicate that the offers were serious and credible.

I recall that the person indicated that there were two well financed approaches, one when the SP was at 115p, and the other when the SP was at 48p.

I looked that up and that would have been around January 2022 for the first and May 2023 for the second. But the Board never told anyone that they'd received an approach?

If the person was legit it looks as if Boohoo rejected two approaches back then?

It was a strange question and I don't think the three man panel understood what the person was saying? They said they would go back to it but they never did? That part of the call was a bit strange?

The event was a bit of a screw up because you needed a Meeting ID and Passcode to enter the event. And I only got one by emailing Georgesons to say I could not get access?

One interesting question at the beginning came up, and I don’t think the panel understood what was being said. But someone indicated that two approaches had been made to Boohoo which were well financed. I think the person was telling them that his group tried to undertake M&A on two occasions? No one ever seen that on an RNS?

In terms of Ashley he did appear to be genuinely looking to turn the business around.

Warren Buffet is a fan of buybacks, but not blindly though. His view is that if a business is trading below its intrinsic value then it is beneficial, otherwise it is not. In other words, if you are spending 80p to buy £1 worth of value it makes sense.

The question then is LGEN trading above or below intrinsic value? Broker valuations suggest it is, so may be in the interests of shareholders.

I’d have more faith in ISS if they had recommended that shareholders vote against the outrageous “incentive” plan.

To be fair on Ashley his back side kicking efforts have been a greater incentive for the management to get their finger out.

I think what he will do is underwrite the debt, with the potential to simply takeover the company should the business not recover. And that’s the concern. If Mike Lennon was a well regarded online retailer I’d be a little bit more confident that Ashley is serious about turning the business around. But I suspect Mike Lennon hasn’t turned around anything - he’s either sold off a company as a going concern whilst it is under Administration or he’s broken one up for parts and sold the pieces.

And that’s why I’d be happy to have a Frasers board member, but not complete control. If this doesn’t go Ashley’s way he should bid for the company and then he can do what he likes.

If what Ashley is saying is true he has at least struck up some rapport with Dan Finley? I think Debenhams is a natural bricks and clicks operation and Frasers could help that outcome.

But the usual rationale for stake building is a wholesale takeover, where there is a premium paid for control. This would be control without that.

Trust is the issue - I’ll listen to what they have to say tomorrow.

The Sunday Times run another article on surveillance of Boohoo executives, by people who describe themselves as “ex forces”. Article mentions the Frasers Group but doesn’t say directly that they are behind it. I think they are, personally.

The question is why? Are they trying to find out who they are meeting, in order to find out if they are negotiating asset sales with third parties?

It is a tough decision to make, because I don't believe that the Boohoo team have our best interests at heart, and nor does Ashley. But each watching the other stops either from pulling a fast one.

My problem is that if Ashley wins the vote the power swings from 100% Kamani to 100% Ashley. The added issue is that quite capable and experienced operational retailers will leave immediately - Kamani, Carol, Dan and the two Kamani brothers. With no equivalent retailer coming in to plug the gap. That gets you closer to failure - an issue for retail shareholders, not an issue for Ashley.

There is an argument that if Ashley wants control of the business he needs to pay the required premium through a takeover, and make an offer for the business.

The business is suffering primarily due to a big competitive force in the shape of Shein. I don't believe that their advantages will last for ever, so a genuine turnaround is possible. 2025 will be an interesting year.

A Boohoo spokesman said: “It would be inappropriate to comment whilst a police investigation is ongoing.”

Michael Murray, chief executive of Frasers and the son-in-law of Ashley, said this week of the Boohoo allegations: “My thoughts are [that] we can’t comment at this stage.”

Business & Money

Today’s Times. Final paragraph of an article on the business section about Boohoo executives being surveilled.