Member Info for bon_scott

"Are you really that stupid Bon Scott. Most brokers don't pay pi's, it's just written in to the T&C's that shares can be loaned out. "

Oh, tradey, you do embarrass yourself far too often. You see, with your arrogance and insatiable need to domineer, you reveal yourself to be completely behind the times. There are plenty of brokers who pay clients for loaning their shares out. It's the only beneficial outcome of this whole sorry saga for Boohoo since 2021. As for HL... Broker?! Ha ha! Ha ha, HL?! Trading systems which are completely trapped in the past. Can't even do a partial fill.

Where else is there some money to be made concerning Boohoo? No where else other than loaning out the shares. After all, your much heralded dividends aren't anywhere to be seen, no matter how much you and your concubine coasty keep banging on about them. Profits? Er, nope. Absoutely none to be seen. And because of the almost total destruction of business prosperity by the management, there's no chance of the share price rising. That's why you're locked in in the high 300s, a mistake which has obviously driven you potty.

Oh, I forgot, there is money to be made in one more way: be a board member, and award oneself a mega salary and try one's utmost to award special bonuses even though the company is in dire straits.

Shorters just sense company weakness and capitalise on it. Stop doling out excuses for poor management. It is their appalling decision making which placed the company in the crosshairs of shorting hedge funds. Hats off to them - shorters were right in an astonishingly successful way and rode this thing all the way to glory.

"Or use a broker like HL who never loan out shares"

Loaning out shares is an excellent idea. You get paid for doing so.

If anyone lives around Bradford, look outside and you'll spot exactly where tradey lives by the plumes of steam belching up into the sky.

Oh dear tradey, you seem upset. Again. Probably because you continue to deny the obvious. So, let's go through it. Try not to blow your top.

Firstly, you have absolutely no right to advise or demand that anyone make any trading decisions. That is against the rules of the LSE board, for which you will be reported. If the share price recovers and I break even, then so be it. If not, then hey ho. That is my right. For sure though, 77p is far closer than your high 300s breakeven price. That's why you're constantly so angry, I suspect!

Boohoo does have a debt mountain. Some call it a debt wall. 300 odd million is a considerable amount, and lenders are clearly nervous according to recent reports. This is debt they took on irresponsibly, to load up on failing brands, buy overpriced properties and open failing facilities that they shut or tried to sell only months later. What you're suggesting is that Boohoo could easily clear the debt, but would have to liquidate most of their assets, which you fail to acknowledge. That's rather a silly statement from you!

That's great that Debenhams is "oh so very special". That's lovely pillow talk. Ooh la la. Does it make the group profitable? Er, nope. Boohoo don't make profits. This is because year after year they keep blasting hundreds of millions of pounds on failed capital vanity projects which do not bear fruit. One good player in a team of own-goal-scoring underperformers doesn't cut it.

You seem very resentful, always accusing others of all sorts. Can't accept how wrong you were in going all-in at 400p?!

No surprise whatsoever. The company doesn't make a profit, hasn't done for years. It's capital allocation is the most disgraceful and erratic I've seen of any organisation. Total hit and hope, knee jerk, done on impulse (and vanity), and the consequences are financially crippling. Taking on debt to mask the financial black hole left by the squandered capital. And they just keep doing it. Year upon year. No reporting, no meaningful comms, and to top it off, the management tries to award themselves bonuses for inflicting all of the above. I just don't understand how anyone can be surprised or outraged when the share price fails to rise sustainably.

"Looks like there's another village missing it's idiot."

Oh, here's Walter Mitty with his 4 grand per penny spread bet claim. Of course, in his haste to fake-brag, he forgets that having a position like that open for nearly two years would attract ruinous rollover and admin costs.

Quick, quick, talk about the watch. Waffle on vaguely about "the caribbean" or something. Deflectors up!

"A year ago today they released interim results.

Now they are holding off. It’s clear something big is about to be announced and explains why they can’t release figures yet if talks are at an advanced level.

They’ll want to announce it all together, whatever “it” is."

Wouldn't surprise me if between now and whenever "it" is, the management succeed in squandering another £30-50M on some needless, excessive, value-destroying white elephant vanity acquisition, before abandoning it shortly after. Thurmaston Lane. Daventry. Elizabethtown. Soho. Seems to be their hobby, ahead of (God forbid) making a simple profit.

Hexam's fault.

"Plenty of plummets on stocks that don't issue "profit warnings " prior when an update lands."

Exactly right, Spidey. Take this lot for instance... despite the horrendous underperformance (dare say non-performance) of the US DC since opening, and the near certainty that they were aware of it, they said absolutely nothing during May's results.

Taking on staggering amounts of debt despite not even being profitable, and blasting it on numerous failing white elephants - there's another highly questionable behaviour.

Doesn't take a genius to work out that this Kamani Ashley Green situation is going to end in tears for all.

I'm at 77p, BlackfoxTrading. Coasty's at 280p, hence the wild-eyed dreams of some glorious rescue.

"Btw, you still haven't explained the supposed staggering amount of debt you referred to yesterday"

Trolls like you don't deserve explanations, tradey. Hopefully the mods see sense a second time and ban you again.

"Lol the black sheep ain't fooling nobody."

Says the Walter Mitty of the Canaries with his knock-off timepiece.

The article is extremely ominous. Perhaps there is theoretically a way for all of the mentioned characters to work together for an everyone-wins outcome. But in my opinion they're all too maniacal, stubborn and vindictive to capitalise on the opportunity. Prepare for a corporate slugfest resulting in devastation. Us small shareholders are but kites, dancing in a hurricane.

"why would that be the case? if it all got sold off, sure, theyd have money in the bank but no business left? why would it value them higher if they had sold all thier sales avenues?"

Well said, therealelogo. Of course, I got shot down earlier today for suggesting the same thing. Be very careful, for these pumpers have fragile egos.

"/Poor old troll hasn't worked out this is being done to benefit shareholders....

EVERY SHAREHOLDER..... "

If you think this is being done to benefit every shareholder, then you're utterly deluded. This is likely being done to benefit five major shareholders. Rest assured, you and I don't even register. Returns of five to ten fold? That's sheer delirium. You're desperate. This stitch up is being devised so that Ashley or another shark gets vast swathes of the company on the cheap, the current management team get a handsome reward for letting it happen, and to hell with everyone else. Dodgy in every sense.

Maybe you could sell your watch to help the company, coasty? Would knock at least 30 quid off the debt wall.

Oh dear coasty, you sound quite upset. Maybe take a walk or something to clear your head.

Lovely story about Kaiser. From 1977. Quality example, absolutely recent and relevant, said no-one ever. Not so long ago, you were crowing about Superdry having turned the corner. What's their current situation, dare I ask?

Boohoo is being lined up for some brutal asset stripping. Time to face up to it. All your top-ups (if indeed they ever occurred) will have amounted to nothing.

I have to wonder how is this going to help the share price or the long term prospects of the business. A sale of Boohoo's best brands generates some cash once-only to help square up the staggering amounts of debt accumulated for no good reason in only a few short years by the clueless management.

So once those brands are gone, there will be no more individual brand profit to derive from them, which was the only thing preventing Boohoo as a whole from being a complete out-and-out fiscal disaster. And after the disposal, what remains is a shell, saddled with several perpetually failing brands, making ever more losses, dragging the company immeidately into debt again, before the administrators are called in.

And because Boohoo management seem to be brilliant at making utterly idiotic decisions which defy logic and good business sense, they'll probably go for it. There'll be a lovely sweetener in it for the management no doubt.

"It looks like daytroll has stopped posting altogether

Seems his only reason for doing so was to pick arguments and try to trash this business.

So sad and a cautionary tale for the remaining trolls imo"

And you would know first-hand, tradey. When you were Trading4good, you spent an enormous amount of time belittling and abusing others, even those with whom you may have fundamentally agreed. Incredible behaviour. You alienated literally everyone. Eventually the moderators got so sick of your behaviour that they banned you. A cautionary tale indeed. Not that you'll heed it though.

"Im expecting the h1 update to be rather large..... A bit like the trolls ego when posting anonymous..."

... says the guy who started offering everyone out when people clocked that 1) his watch was a fake, 2) his "Caribbean" jaunts were cheapies to the Canaries and 3) his average stands at 280p.