Member Info for Beo1

Sure as hell, the that was the 0.5% decline the SP would have been punished again, yet here we are some positive macro news and despite the initial spike the SP hardly moves.

You mean the same ASOS, who went from a small profit in the good years, to widening losses since? Whereas JD has been growing top line and bottom line, yes this year might be flat but its still in a lot better shape, Its nothing like ASOS

Death by 1000 cuts this!

Its all relative though isn't it. The market will know they are always cautious and price the SP accordingly to what they estimate not what they have provided. I would suspect had they forecast these results prior, the SP would still have been where it was as the market would have doubted it or the SP would have been higher earlier? the end results is the same the SP is where its at to some degree because of the results, not the under/over performance vs there forecast. I get thats very black and white and in reality sentiment does play a part but it shouldn't.

Confused

Are you saying your selling your JD shares that you bought at 98p and buying them back in the 70s, and implying this is a good thing?

They "should" take away from competitors but also from other stores of the company (and/or online). LfL sales are always seen more advantagous due to the ability to leverage fixed costs, new stores come with new fixed costs (Staff, Property Leases) but even new stores leverage fixed costs (CSS costs and logistics etc) so always strange when the market appears to hold little credence to organic growth vs LfL growth

What are you on about? Tesco Yield is 3.85%, VOD will be approx 5% on todays SP. Just because the absolute value might luck more, you have to pay more in the SP to get it, Hence you should use the Yield

Most of the liabilities are future commitments on property leases, which in old money were just treated as operating expenses. But under IFRS16 now go on the balance sheet, but I'd argue they are not the same as term debt.

To be fair, your correct it doesn't mean is dying, It does mean that they are unable to spend that "ALL" available cash on growth at returns > cost of capital. And some would argue if your not standing still your going backwards. In Apple's case they are in the FCF stage, where they have more cash than they could invest, thats not the case with VOD, they just don't see a way to invest that cash profitably

Do you buy goods/service for the past use or do you buy them for what you will get out of them during your period of ownership?

Both wrong tbf, the 900m is adjusted net income. The unadjusted PAT will be lower due to one offs, mainly due to deal transactions, Actual PE uses unadjusted PAT, which will give a higher PE, but strip out one offs, then the adjusted (and forward PE) is more closer to 7.

Not the greatest of forward guidance, Dicks sporting down on pre market and a bad read across for us.

Could be 100 shares, the yield is the yield, volume of share have zero impact on the yield

But, yes the rest is true, they have been funding growth, using mainly equity, at some point they move onto the next phase of the "lifecycle" and grow mainly organically and spin off the free cash flow.

I agree, the Lloyd's and VOD trades are not linked, you can claim they are so you can sleep at night but they are not. You didn't have to sell VOD to bank the gain on Lloyd's and vice versa, you may have sold yourself that reason to book the realised trades but you booked a loss on vod you didn't come out square, you booked one loss and booked one gain, either could have happened independently.

You sound very similar to JohnJo, Bi polar type attitude, one minutes you are John Snow, the next minute Einstein.

And yet we are dropping again, appreciate the whole FTSE downward pressure and sector pressure, but with that much buying upward why are we still down where we are? MM's filling the orders? surely if there aren't enough sellers at these values then they need to move it up?

I'll go for 66.5, seems to be a cycle of getting to 70p and dropping back down, hope I'm wrong though

Thats the UT, it is not a sell, just gets recorded as a sell as they outnumbered the buys in the closing auction

But JD is only 50% of nike, and less of adidas, Nike are on public record of saying they are pivoting away from direct to consumer, and neither of those want to have a subsidiary where its success is in part predicated in the success of their competitors.

Makes zero strategic sense for Nike at this time IMO. They have just pivoted await from Direct to consumer, so why would they spend £8b and effectively make more of their sales direct to consumer