Member Info for BrokeNSmoke

1msn - Yes - I don't recall if it was Auston or Redwine (probably both) make the argument that a business should really be valued based on its earnings.

I have to agree, we are currently at like 0.26 times earnings, which is crazy. If S4 capital could even make a 1% net profit margin, then they could pay close to 4% dividend. Prior to adjusting items and tax last year we arrived at a good 9% margin so this should be attainable and that is without factoring in future growth once the macro turns. The downside is that I suspect there will be quite a few impairment losses to come over the next few years that will kill our profit margins from an accounting standpoint.

That they could also bring a wealth of AI utilisation knowledge with them to any business acquiring them makes them look like an absolute steal right now.

I have to agree with lse2000 though, that S4 is probably not going anywhere soon, but I think for going long this is a decent future investment.

I trimmed at 40p during Santa rally as I didn't think it would hold come the new year but rebought in at 33.63p. I don't think I will be trimming at 40p this time though as I think there is something to the CFO being booted and a new one brought in. I think the theories that this may try going private have some weight to them.

'That could be done with buying 5%. I think this is personal.'

Gents - i really don't think this is personal. It really just looks like vulture capitalism to me - build cash reserves in good times, use said cash to acquire business on the cheap in the bad times.

Poker - I agree that its a tool and not a replacement, but based on Q3 TU here and at Meta, I do think that is the direction and I am personally expecting the revenue reduction to be segmented towards tech. Just my own assumptions.

I am not saying I therefore think S4 is redundant, plenty of opportunities still. I wouldn't be holding here otherwise.

Matt - A decent point. I remember in the Q3 update that Meta spend was down whilst simultaneously Meta were recording beats on advertising income and margins. I think this does point to big tech likely doing more inhouse. I wouldn't be surprised to see the tech segmentation to reduce further when we get the full accounts.

'Maybe SMS will have to capitulate and seek a buyer or liquidator....'

'Liquidator' what utter tosh. Just because investors don't see this as an attractive investment to yield returns in 2024 doesn't mean the company is in any distress. Stop fearmongering.

404 - That's the picture I get re being overly keen. The RNS date edit kind of says that to me too, like rushing and being a bit sloppy.

Poker - If I recall correctly, at Q3 horrific update they stated that net debt was going to come in at the top of predications but on the latest TU they have revised it to be to bottom end? I can see what you mean by pushing the £10m back which I thought, but as you say it doesn't push it up to higher levels. The only thing I can think of is that they have maintained revenue while the drop off in employees made some saving to cash and hence lower net debt.

Personally, I am surprised that this share wasn't shorted more from its peaks down to this point, which somewhat gives me comfort that there was glaring issues with the business model.

My view of the update was largely positive. -4% YoY revenue decline is acceptable for the year that it was plus less employees we had to generate said returns. I suspect that net of inflation that figure is probably lower, but still acceptable in my view given the challenges. Net debt on the lower end is much welcomed given that last update we were expecting to come in at the top end of the range, and from this there are likely some margin improvements in the YE figures. Finally, I welcomed the honesty that next year will be another challenging year, much better than overpromising and underdelivering.

Just a date change - save you peeps from playing wheres wally with the text.

BDF - the whole market seemed to drop on opening up for 2024 though, with the escalation of conflict in the Middle East and the threat to global shipping lanes. I highly doubt this is manipulation and more just Frasers taking advantage of a devastated SP. Vulture capitalist seems to be his/their MO.

Agreed - on target or underperform. I think if they underperform and delay the bad news it will be worse for them as it come across as sneaky.

The USDC is partially running isn't it? If so then some of the delay could be due to more complex reporting and maybe time delays getting information from the states.

Pearls, I think. If there was ever a time for him to relinquish the golden share then the lowest of lows is probably the least attractive time for him to do it.

Do we know if it is still tomorrow? Investor relations upcoming events is still blank.

LSE - I share your concerns. Q1 & 2, it was stated that profit will be rear loaded into 2nd half of year. Q3 the narrative was it will be in Q4. Now we are coming up to Q4 TU and if the promises don't materialise then I can see it being bloody.

JPL - Pretty much agree 100%

Lets all hope Q4 not as bad as we fear!

Splunge –No your real loss would still be a real loss. If the repurchase went down further, then you would have a realised loss and a paper (unrealised) loss. You’re right though, both are losses whichever way you look at it, only the former you have locked in and no chance of recovery.

Disagree, the market can be irrational. Business fundamentals are what matters, share price should be downriver of these.

'But that’s what this board is. Ridiculous. All about petty, polarised squabbles. And the post office it seems. Are Boo about to diversify into delivering letters? Maybe that’s what the US distribution centre is really for?'

Hexam - I don't know why you still bother trying to tame this board mate, I'm pretty sure this is the only way they can get their kicks anymore.

Jaga - probably not ok, but people are only bothered about it because it is in the UK. Using slave labour overseas is ok it seems.

My word, talk about semantics. I agree with the sentiment to not place too much value on the Umar buy. It shouldn't influence your TU assumptions in any form. Especially since we have a precedent of it meaning b*llocks all!

Dtn/Bon - it was a tiny percentage of his position, it's not like he flipped all his shares after influencing the market. Speculation but it appears to me that he just needed the equity 🤷