Member Info for badjob

Emergency capital raise is allowed - they have raised from selected shareholders before. Think of Barclays and Qatar but Asos have done it before more than once.

I think there's nervousness with a lot at stake because if this is going to turn, it needs to do so fairly quickly because the cash burn has been quite serious. That needs to be firmly under control and I hope the release shows that it is. Jam tomorrow doesn't cut it unless the cash flow is under control. If the figures are poor, there will come a point when the big shareholders dilute the rest of us down to virtually nothing in an emergency cash raise. They won't lose.

I wish they would make a dent in their borrowings. Market cap is a fraction of the debt.

West - Much as I hope you're right, i struggle to share your faith in the board. I think the refi was a 'rushing in desperation' and if this update is not positive - I don't mean waffle about how the plan is working but real positive cashflow etc - this could be in even more trouble if that is possible for a share which is already more than 90% down from its peak. At the end of the day, the likes of Next and M&S have achieved huge profit growth in the same environment that ASOS bemoans and blames for its failures. If it does have a quality business, it needs to show it with the next update. At the moment, indications are that the market is not expecting good news and I'm slightly leaning that way myself despite hanging on to my holding.

I don't think people underestimate the seriousness. However, the value is now really quite low and so it is increasingly more like an option play. Huge risk of losing everything but, if he company gets through this, huge upside. So big risk for potentially big reward. Feels logical to me but you wouldn't want too much in it.

Would be nice if they are comfortably at the top of guidance for once rather than just scraping in at the bottom. I don't think it would take too much to ignite this in a positive way.

It's a fair call to sell - I've been close to it. I will though hang on for now - 50% down - as i think on balance the company will survive. It is not short of cash as such so hopefully finds a workaround.

Vague on profits for next year and resumption of dividends but very clear on expenditure. There is clearly some reason for the hesitation on the likely level of shareholder returns but, notwithstanding that, I still think this is significantly undervalued. Pity the CEO doesn't seem too keen on the shares.

Plus whether the rule of law operates properly in Ukraine

I think issue is whether the government want to effectively requisition the company for nothing. Freezing bank accounts is a way of potentially putting it out of business. The 58k is irrelevant - it's the existential threat that is the concern. The state prosecutor has been claiming amounts which are ludicrous on any analysis, freezing bank accounts and behaving in a manner which, at best, seems inconsistent with the rule of law. I don't think it's isolated behaviour either.

'We are pleased by these contract wins and have a strong pipeline of opportunities. This new business has been secured with good pricing discipline and demonstrates the attractiveness of Speedy's customer offering'. This suggests new business rather than just the same again so if it is just a rolling of existing contracts they would be putting out a misleading release.

Knowbodyyouknow - I hope you're right about the Barker buys negating any concerns about the CEO's low holdings. I am, unfortunately, a long way under on my holding here - as no doubt quite a few others are - and perhaps I have become overly pessimistic. The rushed refi on what looked pretty harsh terms didn't help my feelings but a good update would more than make up for it. Let's hope we get it.

US banks seem to be going ok from what I can see.

The CEO's holding is derisory which suggests he hasn't seen any compelling reasons to buy. I expect he'd be filling his boots if this had turned a corner. I'm not optimistic for the next set of figures.

I think a lot of that was exercise by staff of options under share save schemes. But it is a good point you make. Barclays should be satisfying share awards to employees from shares it buys in the market which it is entitled to do. It gets tax relief when shares are issued to employees based on the actual value of the shares over the amounts paid for the shares by employees and also reflects that difference in its profits. I don't know why it doesn't do this other perhaps that it allows it to exaggerate the amount of its buyback because clearly only the net reduction in shares overall is relevant to shareholders.

Thanks Bmeister. An excellent read which probably nails it.

I think that the share buy-backs should be stated net of any shares being issued under various share schemes. Lloyds includes the cost of those share issues (the value of the shares less employee contributions) as a tax deductible expense in computing its profits. By not paying out an equivalent amount of cash, it is effectively raising capital. It really should satisfy those share awards by buying equivalent shares in the market as it is entitled to do. I think a lot of companies avoid doing that to create the impression that they are giving more back to shareholders than they actually are. Still, it is undeniable that the shares in issue have decreased by a material amount and will continue to do so at a time when the dividend is also decent. Should be reflected in the share price at some point.

Agree FCA are shocking. The car finance issue is at their door but they will blame the banks - easy target with the money. Brokers/dealers were clearly only offering their clients the loans which paid the highest commissions rather than the ones which were best for the clients. The banks had to offer those commissions or they wouldn't have got the loans. It seems that their mistake was to offer a choice of rates presumably something they had to do as they had no idea what the sweet spot was to get the loan. They were also under pressure to lend s they are and certainty were awash with cash in their ring fenced businesses - another FCA creation. Any profiteering is by the brokers who patently did not look for the best deal for their customers but I guess they have trousered the money and won't pay it back. Having said that, if the banks were better managed, they should have approached the FCA to alert them to the practice so that it could have been binned earlier because it was clearly not getting customers the best deal.

If they can make progress with Venkat's objectives, the share price should rerate. Approx £6bn splashed on buybacks at current price would reduce share count to around 11.5bn. If profits are rising at the same time, the share price ought to track quite a bit higher. As others have said, a lot can go wrong. If the financials are good over the next 12 months, that might be enough to convince the doubters. Time will tell. Fingers crossed.

I'm struggling to see the cost savings that Venkat's restructuring is supposed to bring factored into any of these figures which suggest analysts think the whole exercise to be a waste of shareholders' money.