Member Info for Bfdinvestor

Kat, as far as I'm aware i was the only person quoting contract lengths as i have a bit of background in that industry.

My view now, as then, is that it will be either a three or five year contract.

Nobody as far as I'm aware ever said ten years as that would be a massive outlier

The outlook stated explicitly GMV growth and positive FCF this year. I don't see how they achieve both of those things without either a decent revenue or margin increase, even after a substantial drop in capex.

Looking at the year end accounts, labels accounted for just about half of the revenue drop in the first half and across the year. So it my well be, for comparative purposes label sales have dropped to a sustainable run rate. Brands accounted for half the fall in revenue in the first half but only a third axcross the year (before market place effect) So it seems there are grounds for optimism here. Increase in market place as a percentage of sales caused the remainder of the drop across the year (over 20%) and this is likely to be a bigger impact this year. So it may well be that margin improves more than revenue, although with better targeted marketing on just the brands i'd hope for both to grow.

You keep referring to a growing market. The market last year was at best flat in volume terms and only grew in value due to inflation, which Boo chose not to pass on. Whether this was a good strategic decision, poor pricing choice or a changed market dynamic remains to be seen imo. Hence first half results being important.

WRT website views, the last couple of months are the only time i can recall BOO as a group looking like a stand out performer, especially Debenhams.

What a bizarre time for what looks like concerted selling first thing in the morning after the RNS comes out!

Depends on the revenue figures for the first half I think.

It seems strange that the analyst's are forecasting a revenue decline in a growing market based on no numbers whatsoever.

Especially when the economy is improving, real wages are going up and website figures look decent

Yep deal off although I never saw it impinging on us anyway

I'm guessing it's down to the far reduced shorting activity Jeremy

Except you didn't respond to my point Hexam, you waffled on about revenue. And resorted to cheap name calling.

Anyway, let's move on

It also probably in part just reflects a recovery from a dismal April.

For the high st yes, but as Lyttle said on the investor call a bit of sun benefits all retailers

April website views were really strong for Boo brands

Hexam, i'm not attributing revenue fall to the Ukraine war, although it has played its part with the cost of living crisis

What I am saying is that the two warehouses have been closed and the labels impaired because market growth hasn't happened in the way forecast before Russia invaded Ukraine. The strategy has had to change due to the war, simple as that, and the impairment costs are a fall out.

The change in trajectory from H1 TO H2 IN core brands gives me confidence the revenue picture is improving, as do the website visits. It also looks like sales of labels have fallen to about as low as they can, so they should stop being such a drag going forward.

And maybe you should have copied and pasted my entire paragraph which gave context...

Ok so I got my words a little wrong. There will always be one offs

What's your reading of what caused the impairments then

Hexam, I never said one offs would fall by £100m. This year's won't be repeated and the figure should fall rapidly. There will undoubtedly still be some one offs.

The impairment costs are primarily around warehouse closures and deprioritisation of labels and the associated intangible values. Both the labels and warehouses were part of a strategy that was based on growth continuing post COVID. Something that was scuppered by the Ukraine invasion.

So yes, I believe the impairment this year is due to a changed strategy predicated by a totally unforeseeable event.

What is your alternative view

Bon Scott this is what you posted. Point one, they aren't still spending like crazy. Point two, the costs have stopped dead. That is what an impairment charge is when it is described as non recurring. Still, keep digging, it is more than a little amusing

Still going crazy, splashing cash on facilities (some complete white elephants, some dubious as to whether they'll truly pay off). These costs would be great if they just stopped dead

Sam perhaps it's more reasonable to say how much will the loss automatically reduce next year when one offs fall by c100m and we start to see the benefits of revenue growth from focussing on core brands. Revenue growth that is already underway

Or to put it in a more balanced way Hexam.

Assets that were invested in prior to the first major land war in Europe for a lifetime when a different economic out turn was expected by most people.

A strategy that proved to be wrong but atleast they have acted quickly to address.

The FD said he anticipates capex to be £20m or so for the foreseeable, compared with £120m just a few years ago.

So not sure what could be a white elephant based on that level of maintenance spend, perhaps you could elaborate

But thanks for commenting Hexam, it's good to see

Another one for Hexam lol

What, you don't think they have made cost savings already?

Interesting thanks Jeremy

I'm not a big fan of Invezz.com, but they have certainly chang d their stance from total doom and gloom in the past few months

Kat,read my post, the volume has cratered, so nobody is selling and certainly not to buy back as you posted before.

The brokers now have an issue, they have destroyed liquidity and continuing a down trend doesn't seem to be working for them.

What is the most likely thing they will do?

Kat there is nothing wrong with sharing two sides of an argument on a discussion board.

But a discussion is better if it is based on some form of data. The data here doesn't support your contention that people are selling and buying back. Volumes here are somewhere near historic lows.

What we are seeing i think is a replica of what happened on Kod a few months ago.

Brokers forced the price down to line their own pockets, killed the volume and then tried to drop it some more to encourage volume. A ploy which rarely, if ever, works.

What happened there is the price has more than doubled from lows and looks like it will continue to only go the one way as the business derisks

My view is that is exactly what will happen here,as long as the BOD continue to do what they say they will do.

It's just a matter of when