We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Have Boo previously confirmed it's this Thursday?
I expect it'll continue the recent poor form and not be a good look for the market. Stellar performance from the likes of Next doesn't help either; there's just no excuse now, nowhere left to hide.
It's precarious to base an investment strategy on what MA is doing. Last investment I held where he accumulated a major interest (Debenhams) and descended into chaos as it circled admin. Inferring his intent, plan or expected return all based on public RNSs is a fools' errand & clutching at straws.
His growing involvement gives perhaps only one message to small PIs -- beware!
Yep, they don't have much moat as far as I can see. Although that in general applies to the cheaper end of the apparel market and perhaps even more to fast fashion. The operators in this sector have no unique products and little brand value to draw premia from sales. They compete on price. It's a race to the bottom, trimming already razor-thin margins. Comparable the supermarket sector these ways.
Today was a new step-change in the SP. I now see it settling in the mid-20s. That should be about as low as it'll go.
Upwards movement impossible whilst revenues are evaporating as quick as customers.
The market has zero belief in the proposition. Turning that around will need a few outsized wins to convince. Realistic earliest time that could now be is Summer 24. But only if they stop the rot on the financials.
Under 30p a lot more likely than over 40p when results land next week; the market cuts them no slack.
Scope for ready excuses is much reduced, so It's the most crucial update in a couple of years. We'll find out if this business is viable long term or not.
I doubt equity investments in another listed company would be defined as an unencumbered asset -- the way a freehold building might be classified -- either. Any accountants / someone qualified in IFRS able to tidy this up?
Thanks for your reply Reardon. I'm aware both have made comments about a change in their financial priorities.
Question is, when did they first mention it? Only after revenues began to decrease, and not before. This makes it more of an ad-hoc explanation ‐ perhaps an excuse - than the planned effect, caused by enacting some new plan.
In other words, without employing imagination and some wishful thinking, their stories are just not credible. That looks the view of the market too.
For contrariness to really rebut the market view, you'd need to have thought hard, asked very searching questions, and then found solid answers for why the market is wrong. But there's no evidence here of anyone having done that.
Surprised that the ASOS update hasn't caused more of a drop there and here. Perhaps that will come this afternoon. It's a lame update and indicates the online model for this sector of consumer is no longer a viable business proposition. That has to apply to Boo too.
These companies are no longer investable, but they'll throw up many trading opportunities as the slow-mo train wreck continues. One or the other ends up bust within a few years. Maybe one will get cannibalised to keep the other going that bit longer.
Revenue decline of that amount vs inflation is an absolute canary in the coal mine. There are no excuses - other retailers are still prospering; keeping steady or growing revenues; and not blaming the weather!
Which fails first? Place your bets.
Market sentiment for Boo remains predominantly fragile. It puts them an unenviable position for results next week in that they have to be good everywhere just to stay here. A sniff of weakness, like continued revenue decline, won't be tolerated and a visit to the 20s the likely result.
"Can any (sensible) poster explain to me why Boohoo was nearly 4% down while the rest of retail was slightly flat or a tad negative"...
Yep. Sampling error (sample too small) & misguided assumption that every data point has to be signal rather than noise.
In other words, SP movements over short intervals won't necessarily be rational or explicable. Attempting to do so is mistaken and akin to asking why a cast die landed on x.
Reasoning from such premises is implicitly faulty; it's akin to insisting there's faces in the clouds.
There's posters here who commit this fallacy again and again, piling error atop error, without any awareness of the flawed logic. It's a real bad basis for making money decisions.
If he does want the lot though, he'll not care less about LTH who are in the red. His usual MO is to takeover stuff when it's cheap or distressed. He'll sweat out the LTHs until they cave to a low-ball offer. And PIs don't get much say in this sort of thing; it's the IIs who'll be steering how things go whilst we get dragged along with the tide. It's what usually happens.
I seen that Gaz – typical of world police!
Turned Pinocchio shortly after by fabricating something they claimed I'd said. Had no evidence when asked, but refused to backtrack and instead went on the attack by answering a reasonable question with aggressive questions. Full of the usual straw men and embellishments.
It's the way they are, just like they won't be able to resist replying to this message.
Wasn't there RNS that implied suspension would be delayed because the meeting to vote on it got pushed back?
According to a poster here, Poly could still be traded on XO on Friday. Significance of that is XO's emai to me in June said Thursday 6th July would be the last day for trading on their platform, because of the impending suspension.