Member Info for Beo1

Sorry for spam seems my connection wasn't the best and posted it multiple times

To be fair last few years, the invoices have been split out, service time + finance/phone cost probably for this reason, but yes very disingenuous to continue to pay for the finance element long after its been paid off

To be fair last few years, the invoices have been split out, service time + finance/phone cost probably for this reason, but yes very disingenuous to continue to pay for the finance element long after its been paid off

To be fair last few years, the invoices have been split out, service time + finance/phone cost probably for this reason, but yes very disingenuous to continue to pay for the finance element long after its been paid off

Yes implying most of the blame is at Labours door, which is wrong, Trump is mostly to blame here. But with regards tariffs, the UK element is pocket change to world markets, or are you suggesting all the imposed tariffs from US will be zero?

The Trump effect is far more of a hindrance that UK NI changes, NI didn't increase the cost of goods sold in any market by over 40%!

Also not just an element of trade deficit, it was solely the trade deficit.

It's been confirmed by the white house the Tariffs were trade deficit with country/ imports from that country, so not tariffs in any way.

Again, how do they back down? the tariffs don't exist in the 1st place

Apart from the fact he dressed up trade deficit's and labelled them as tariffs, its hard for the likes of vietnam to counter that though isn't it, they have next to no tariffs on US goods, so the only way to bring parity is to ship less to the US, which defeats the whole purpose doesn't it?

I don't typically agree with Mole, but taking £4b asset out of the business to invest in the Shares, is basically telling us, here have the money back because we can't make a better job of it than you! You can dress it up anyway you want, but we are at the free cash flow stage of the lifecycle, and yet we can't find anything to invest in that gives a return in excess of the cost of capital. Don't get me wrong, what was sold needed to be sold, as it was sub WACC, but that doesn't mean it should defacto be returned to shareholders, but it should be used to pay all debt down either

And try and keep it amicable please? I haven't insulted you, so please repay the favour. Just looking for something from you thats beyond the market values the company on a daily basis. Get off the fence and give some reasons for the valuation, as at the moment you sound like a broken record, one that no one really liked the tune of anyway.

Come on you say the market values the SP on a daily basis, give us your valuable insight into how that valuation is arrived at? Obviously supply and demand, but what creates the demand? come on we are waiting, what are investors looking for when deciding which share to buy, not the 1 or 2s PI but the big funds? what stoke there interest? Are you saying NAV and DCF holds no value to them?

Would you agree some investors (who are able to shape the SP in some way or another) use DCF to work out if they see value in a SP?

If yes, would you agree that part of DCF calculations use current held cash (or FCF from asset) to then work out that DCF?

If yes, then how can you claim the company spending £Bs of its cash doesn't have any impact on this DCF, the flip side to this is that there are fewer shares in issue, so that lower DCF (through less Cash) would be over fewer shares, and whilst not neutral as Current Cash is only a % of all future cashflows, but to say that Buyback is a zero sum game is just wrong!

Queue the muppet, saying "blah blah" it only reduces the shares in issue, "Blah blah" market values it on a daily basis, but always omit to mention that are many valuation basis held by funds etc who do care about DCF and NAV.

Thats exactly what I'm saying, Buy it, take it private, then 3 or 4 years time refloat on the US and spend all the excess cash on hookers and blow!

But the risk is the £18m loss of profits (and perhaps FCF) is potentially multi years and the compound effect of that vs time value of money, means its a little bit more complicated that that, You could say the company has dropped profit by 13% and that "Could" be the new base that future growth now comes from, so yes a 12% SP drop for a 13% drop in EPS (for what X years, NI costs will stay, so now your needing more growth just to get back to your starting point), obviously you could argue, a lot of this should be priced in, NI costs going up isnt new and the SP theorectically would have priced this downside in already, but markets always over react IMO

As an investor you look to invest or divest, everything else inbetween is noise on the journey to one or the other. My point is, most Private equity will look for one of the 2, at this point it makes zero sense to divest at this price, they don't need new capital if they hold on the inorganic growth, so why stay listed, invest at this cheap price and take in fully private, then 3 or 4 years time sell to another PE or relist (be it UK or US)

You stop aiming for M&A Revenue growth and new store growth, and just look for LfL growth whilst at the same time rationalise your cost base, thats what I mean by a period of consolidation

To be fair, if the aggressive growth is to slow to consolidate, whats the need for the excess capital being in the FTSE gives you, if i was pentland at this value if consolidation was of market position and a period of FCF is the medium term aspirations I'd be looking to buy back the 45% they don't own and take it private again.

Its not really like for like either, JD has very little own brand items, so trying to make margin on margin, Lululemon aren't