Member Info for casapinos

Late to this thread, but I haven't seen these points made .

Your target date is 13/14 years, there is (other than 1929.....onwards ) NO PERIOD of time in which the major markets haven't generated substantial profits.

So, patience is a virtue, set out your strategy, as others have said, in that time you can invest £1/4 mill for yourself, and a similar sum for any family members.

You would have to be incredibly inept or unlucky to fail to double your investment (that only needs 5% per annum).

To achieve that, you DON'T have to chase high-risk companies, a diversified portfolio of investment trusts, trackers or ETFs will give you an almost assured stable, profitable portfolio.

If you are interested in specific stock picking(as most here are), a balanced low-risk portfolio invested in an ISA, which grows while you learn, might be advisable, which as your knowledge and confidence become greater, you can begin to tweak to meet your changing needs.

A final word, this site is a useful resource BUT it contains more than its fair share of inaccurate, unfounded and downright stupid comment. learn over time whose views you can trust and whose to avoid.

Good luck (though luck plays a much smaller part than common sense!)

I've just added (tho not quite£220k)! As promised, I will post my rationale shortly, but TL;DR, I think, as usual, the market has overreacted to bad news, the strategy being applied is sound, and we all know that the SMWH high street offering was embarrassing, so whatever the short-term costs of ditching it, it was sound business. The review currently being conducted might well throw up more skeletons, and drive the price down further (in which case I may well add) but the move to do business in travel locations is sensible as the world is travelling far more (see China, India) despite the concerns about the environment, which, by the way, based on my recent travels in Oz and NZ, are regarded as terminally stupid by most of the rest of the planet.

Schwee, a glance at the figures in the interims on 16/4 shows that the bulk of the loss was down to an impairment of the value of the high street stores (£55M), which they have now sold. It is a one-off accounting adjustment, which will not be repeated and without which the company would have shown a modest profit. Scrutiny of the half-year shows it was a "Kitchen sink "effort to get all of the bad news out.

Before setting out my overall case for investment, I thought it would be useful to set out what has actually happened to prompt SMWH's RNS of 21/8.

So the issue arises from the use of accruals accounting, which has been in use in the US for decades and in the UK was introduced into government in FY 2001/2002. ( I know 'cos I was running a significant GOV agency then and it was a nightmare).

The big change is that receipts are booked WHEN THEY ARE PAID. That may seem obvious, but before that, organisations could book future revenues WHEN THEY WERE CONTRACTED.

It looks like in the case of SMWH some revenues were booked on the contract NOT on receipt of the cash.

Those revenues relate to payments contracted to be paid depending on the volume of sales of specific goods.

In the retail world, large shop chains can charge suppliers of their goods a fee for putting their goods on the shelves, and more depending on the volume of sales.

So let's say SMWH agreed with company X, that company X would pay them £100k to stock their goods and that if they sold 1 million units or more of company X's product, that fee would rise to £500k (numbers are for example only), if they sold 2 million fee rises further and so on. Those fees to be paid at the END OF THE YEAR.

Let's say the item costs SMWH £1 and they sell for £1.50, ie before expenses, 50p profit per item.

Accruals demand that the revenue from sales be booked to accounts regularly, daily, weekly, monthly or whatever.

BUT what appears to have happened is that some or all (depending on estimates of sales ) of the fees have been booked IN YEAR, ie though they know some or most of the money is contracted and will be paid, it is not yet appropriate to book it.

SO it isn't that these incomes aren't likely to accrue, it is just that they should NOT YET appear in the accounts.

The situation may be more complex than that, and there may be elements of over-optimism in sales projections, but broadly that's it.

Hope that somewhat cumbersome post is clear, if not ,feel free to respond

Before setting out my overall case for investment, I thought it would be useful to set out what has actually happened to prompt SMWH's RNS of 21/8.

So the issue arises from the use of accruals accounting, which has been in use in the US for decades and in the UK was introduced into government in FY 2001/2002.( I know 'cos I was running a significant GOV agency then).

The big change is that receipts are booked WHEN THEY ARE PAID. That may seem obvious, but before that, organisations could book future revenues WHEN THEY WERE CONTRACTED.

It looks like in the case of SMWH some revenues were booked on the contract NOT on receipt of the cash.

Those revenues relate to payments contracted to be paid depending on the volume of sales of specific goods.

In the retail world, large shop chains can charge supplier of their goods a fee for putting their goods on the shelves and more depending on the volume of sales.

So let's say SMWH agreed with company X, that company X would pay them £100k to stock their goods and that if they sold 1 million units or more of company X's product, that fee would rise to £500k (numbers are for example only), if they sold 2 million fee rises further and so on. Let's say the item costs SMWH £1 and they sell for £1.50, ie before expenses 50p per item.

accrulas demand that the 50p profit per item be booked to accounts regulary , daily weekly,monthl or whatever

Accruals demand that the books reflect

I have been watching here since the chaos of last week's announcement and have bought a few today. haven't got time at the moment to set out fully my reasoning, but will do so tomorrow or fairly soon. In essence, I believe that, as is often the case, the market's initial reaction to bad news is both excessive and based on imperfect data, in this case, a failure to understand what last week's RNS actually means.

While SMWH's recent performance reflects significant management failure, I don't think it is as financially significant as it is indicative of incompetence. There is a sound business here worth quite a lot more than the present MC, as time will, I think, tell.

More info to follow.

Https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/BNZL/half-year-report/17198687

On my first reading, OK, but an unspectacular set of results; nevertheless, the market seems positive today, on the basis that things are no worse and may be getting a little better. I hold, having bought a few months ago in the expectation that BNZL figures will improve, their boring business is a well-established essential function in today's world, and their acquisitive nature means growth is highly probable. I said in April that I expected a 20% recovery from the lows, which still looks likelyand following today's sharp rise, the share is halfway there. As ever, there will be bumps along the road, and some of today's sharp rise might well be given back in the coming days. BUT I remain confident that one of the most boring stocks in the market will return steady profits for the company and investors. I continue to hold.

Correction, to my post below, BOTH parties are threatening damages.

Https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/economics/article/anglo-american-seeks-damages-after-peabody-energy-withdraws-bid-3zcbfsj00

For those without access, the article suggests that Peabody will seek compensation from AAL after withdrawing their offer, due to the fire which occurred in April and estimates that production will not recommence until next spring.

At best, it will involve AAL in litigation, and has clearly dented the price they are seeking ($3.8bill) for the asset apart from the obvious hit to revenues.

I am aware that BHP are still interested in a potential T/O, but that may now be deferred. I suspect that, absent any significant positive news, the SP here will drift. I currently hold BHP and Glen in the mining sector, comfortably in profit on BHP , just breaking even on Glen.

I keep an eye on events here and will re-enter at prices below 2000.

GLA

Hi Boyo, though it's hard to prove because nobody with a delivery service wants to admit it, it is highly likely that ALL grocery delivery services are running at a loss. The situation may be different for meal delivery, but even there, there is the belief that the players are trying hard to stay afloat until the market becomes less crowded and prices can be raised, and of course, there is the suggestion that many of the deliverers are working illegally.

In groceries, the latest figures suggest that about 13% is now home delivery, though estimates suggest that it needs to reach 20% to be profitable. Part of the reason for that is that most stores operate delivery by picking orders off the shelves(which they just stacked!)and hence double-handling every item.

For OCDO , the last half year shows that logistics is EBITDA profitable(I know!), It's still the Interest and Depreciation which render it not yet profitable, I believe that will be a diminishing factor in the relatively near future, though the cost of money shows little sign of falling!

OK, I promise, my last attempt to demonstrate the REALITY of short trading. I'll repeat the substance of my post on the 14th by pointing you to an RNS issued by Lingotto, which you may remember are the guys who are one of the largest HOLDERS of OCDO stock, with control(though NOT all Ownership)of 14.25% of OCDO stock.

Here it is.

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/OCDO/holding-s-in-company/17151322

For those who just cannot understand, it confirms that Lingotto, either by owning shares or having Call options (ie the right to buy shares at an agreed price) controls 14.25% of OCDO, clear enough?

BUT the same RNS shows that LIngotto have also agreed a PUT option, Ie their willingness to SELL 13.5 million shares(1.25%of OCDO) to a third party at an agreed(though unknown to us ) price. That is effectively a SHORT position.

I repeat it is untrue that shorters stand to lose everything, if only because they are less stupid than some who post here.

Https://www.marketingweek.com/lidl-ocado-fastest-growing-grocers/

Qantas, WADR No shorters will EVER risk unlimited losses as I have sought to explain in several posts. You continue to mislead, and it serves no useful purpose.

HI sharma , "shorts" as has been mentioned below by Boyo , and discussed at length by me, it's not that simple. As I'm sure you understand, the assumption behind a short is generally believed to be that the Shorter is expecting a share price fall and at the simplest level the shorters pay a sum, which is probabaly no more than a few per cent of the SP at the time to "borrow" shares, then sell them in the market and, when the stock falls, buy the same number of shares back, return them to the lender and keep the difference

A simple example in numerical terms, if a share trades at 100p, they borrow some for one month for 5p per share, and sell them into the market. Two weeks later, the share price has fallen to 90p, they buy them back in the market, return them to the owners and pocket 5p per share.(trading costs ignored).

Now we all know that life is not that simple, and the trade I've described above NEVER happens, because the SP can rise by any amount, 10%. 100%, 1000% and losses would be enormous.

So most shorters operate much more complex and almost risk-free strategies, as I have tried to explain on many occasions, with little success.

Northumberland council to take action to deter dogging at hotspot.

Concerns about people engaging in group sex acts in broad daylight on Arcot Lane, Cramlington, came to light after plans to build a new crematorium nearby were approved. The latest measures come after housing developer Persimmon Homes, which owns the adjacent land along with Bellway Homes, confirmed they would be installing warning sites at the hotspot.

Expect to see SP softening on Monday... though Persimmon have proposed a redesign to enlarge the windows on new build properties...

Hi Oracle , I don't know any more than the next guy , but I've said for some considerable time that it's technology solutions which IMV is the jewel in the crown, and I can see within a relatively few years that generating £ 1 billion + in revenues and, as it will eventually be sufficiently well-developed to allow maybe 50% of that drop thought to the bottom line, ie £500 mill pa at a relatively undemanding PE of maybe 15 that makes it alone worth £7.5 bill or more than double today's SP.

I have always assumed that the Marks JV will either be taken into the MKS empire , with a royalty payment arrangement, or floated off into a stand-alone, thus leaving OCDO as a pure play robotics tech company. If it were to be treated in the same way as some of its US brethren, who knows what the value might be......

I'm an investor here with a long history, and like all currently invested, happy to see the recent sharp rise in SP (which leaves me currently 60% up). I have frequently pointed out that the volatility in OCDO's SP is, in large measure, caused by a very significant portion of the stock tightly held by a small number of players.

Anyone with the patience to go through the RNS's will see that, as well as holding shares, most of these key players also deal in options, so they are covered if the SP falls sharply. Indeed, volatility is not a bug; it's a feature of their strategy. So while the major players not only deal with volatility, they actually ENCOURAGE it, which is why OCDO SP moves very sharply in response to news, either positive or negative. Holders here need to be aware that they are buying a share which is being played for this purpose.

The regular grumbles about shorter are, as I have said, repeatedly a complete misunderstanding of what's going on and NO, the shorter are NOT losing money , they are massaging the sp to make it.

As a very simple example, see the latest RNS from Lingotto and think about what this means:

Option

17/04/2026

On expiry

Physical 13,563,880 1.620000%

For those who don't get it , it means Lingotto have sold a call option for 13 million shares or 1.62% of the company(at an unknown price)and earned revenue in the meantime, while gaining any profit from a SP rise, BUT , crucially, having an agreed buyer at an agreed price, should the SP fall.

Eminently sensible and data-driven as ever, Crossley. I, too, hold here and VTY as part of the recovery component of my folio. Seems like the recovery in housebuilding is still some way off despite " promises" from this government. Nonetheless, I cannot see any future scenario which does not include a return of housing volumes and hence housebuilders ' profits. I still think it's "when" rather than "whether" and I intend to back that view with further purchases at what, I think, is a bargain price. I also think that here and in several other cases, the market's initial reaction proves to be wrong and is corrected in the medium term, too many "bots", too little analysis these days, I must be getting old!!!

Https://www.theverge.com/robot/719880/ocado-online-grocery-automation-krogers-luton-ogrp-robot-grid

Maybe the current SP surge is over, maybe the SP will fall further back, BUT, eventually, this is how all goods for delivery will be "handled".

HI Lending, fair questions, to which this is my reply.

1 The yield figures used by the media are based on the current SP and current Divi.

2 I have operated an investment portfolio for myself, la señora Casa, for over 30 years, and now advise(informally) several family and friends, who between them hold significant assets ( all ISa'd )

3 For many years, I have aimed to achieve a modest annual folio growth of inflation +10% and have achieved that for all but 3/4 of the previous decades

4 A significant portion (varying slightly in response the the holder's personal risk tolerance and age) is held in medium/high dividend paying stocks, preference shares and company and government bonds.

5. It is therefore a fundamental part of my approach to monitor and manage the yield being achieved by these investments, not only to hit targets but also as part of the review/adjust process.

6 A significant part of those assets is now in stocks, prefs, bonds, which were purchased several or, indeed, a significant number of years ago.

7 Many of those long distant purchases were bought at prices which, I am happy to report, are often far below current prices, so the divi as regularly expressed in the media is very often much lower than the actual dividend expressed as a percentage of the purchase price, and hence the return on investement which the holder is getting.

8 That fact is a VERY SIGNIFICANT influence on the decisions made to hold or sell the particular investment, and informs my decisions to sell, or more often to hold.

( A simple example is to balance the investment already held by referring to its actual dividend as related to purchase price compared to the divi available from a new investment.)

Sorry for the long-winded response, but I, perhaps mistakenly, believe my long experience as an investor, and I am happy to report, long-term success by pursuing methodical, cautious strategies can help others, along the same path.

Stands back, awaits a barrage of disagreement/abuse...which, if time permits, I will respond to.