Member Info for DC2007

SCB has got the past couple of years right.

They lived it up when the going got good and forgot prudence. Now it's really tough and they're outta ideas, outta cash, outta luck.

'Without shares they will have to use their own capital to make repayment'

How would that work and why? When, for example, Carillion was liquidated, the overall short interest was high.

If the hedge funds that had open short positions at that time used their own capital to buy the now worthless shares back, how would they make any money?

If the business went into admin/liquidation, the shares are then worth zero; they are 'bought' back by the shorter for zero, if winding-up formalities require it.

The selling price from when they opened the position is what the shorters end keeping (less usual transaction costs, including fees paid to the original owner of the shares from whom they were loaned).

I'm talking of short-selling of the underlying asset, not derivatives like options, swaps, CFDs, etc.

Which were you talking about T4G?

'Shorters tend to avoid companies that they think might not be going concerns. If they can't buy the shares back they are well and truly up the creek'

I don't think so. If the shares are no longer traded or the shorted entity ceases to exist, then there isn't anything to buy back. Hence the shorts don't have to; they keep whatever they made from when they initially sold; and there's no longer the fees to pay on the stock they were loaning.

Admin/liquidation ends the transaction for equity holders, irrespective whether they're long or short. Effectively, the music has stopped and one is stuck with whatever one has, be it beneficial or detrimental.

Another lame attempt at deflection & misdirection T4G: you've had no abuse from me and I'm not the one that's been caught out - that's you.

Pp1 you're catching nonsense from t4g: the SP closed down yesterday, not up. Basic fact.

That's a corker of a post even for you T4G. So complete with holes there's almost nowhere to begin!

A highlight though is 'above 30% per annum.' That single line reveals how comprehensively clueless you are.

A consistent 30% p.a. would make you the Messiah of the financial universe & is an 'expectation' beyond even the word fantasy!

All ready for the af-hoc claptrap next.

'No bungle from me DC'.

The SP was recently about 8 times higher than it is now — a bit less than the average you claim to have.

It was so obviously overpriced yet you didn't sell. Why not? Greed? Wishful thinking? Misjudgement? Only you might really know.

But the underlying residual regret is why you're here, posting baseless tripe in a futile attempt to redress such an obvious and total bungle.

As I've already said, I bought a small amount that I consider a trade way back when market sentiment was positive and proper profits were g-r-o-w-i-n-g. Even then I thought it well over-priced when it spiked to > 400p. But once that froth blew off and it dropped to about 270, I decided on a small trade.

Hardly fascinating and I can't see what else you could want to know. It's like you're trying to distract or deflect attention from your own bungle.

'Educated guesses DC, based on looking at observable data. Some of us are able to read graphs!

Do you have a better theory'

Educated by what?

It's not a theory unless it's testable and falsifiable. You've, at last, admitted this is no more than a guess. However there's loads of previous times where you've implied such speculation is fact.

Training your attention on the Boo graph some time ago would have been a more astute use of such an ability - could have saved a packet that way.

Keep up this comedy T4G and you'll soon impress Boris enough to get a place in his Cabinet. Even he'd get tips from you about denial and evasiveness.

Bless - you and your shorter conspiracy guesses!

Some retail and the rest of the market bounced a bit too; the US recouped some of the earlier losses.

How much of the revolver is already drawn down though?

That's a succinct and accurate analysis Kachra.

It's poor management, and maybe a hint of hubris, that has destroyed quite a bit of the value created earlier during far better performance, amplified rapidly by the pandemic. Now those have reversed, the underlying business is revealed to not look particularly special or outstanding at all.

'So I would assume they remain positive about the long term future'

Thought you dealt in facts only. When did you downgrade to assumptions?

Finally the Directors are acquiring at this level!

That's a slippery response from T4G!

Claiming to talk facts and aching to be credible doesn't match with refusing to give evidence for a simple claim. It's, frankly, childish. A disjunct that reminds me of 'I don't predict prices', then posting and posting because the market is pricing it wrong and should apparently value it higher.

Next, we'll hear that the evil funds must be shorting retail-park visitors too.

I've held the trade longer than months, but no it's not a large loss because I didn't buy a material amount.

Numerous times I've remarked that Boo is very tradable (due to it's sharp volatility). That's not the same as saying I've personally bought/sold - I wouldn't bother announcing that on a bulletin board because it should be of no interest to anyone.

There's been an obvious deterioration in the business due to a potent combination of Boo's own missteps and the external environment. Once these factors became apparent, it was obvious the SP would take a hammering and I began to think it might get as low as the 50s, although many here would haughtily dismiss that; and once around that level, it could be interesting as a trade again.

It's an explanation that makes better than zero sense and it's so far roughly worked out that way. And it's probably more effective than that welcoming refuge of the wishful thinker, averaging down. The assumption that share prices that go sink will eventually rise again is a real pernicious one that will often cost people.

Boo looks like it could be stuck in a range around this level for a good few years; the heady days of 400p are anomalous history which appears very unlikely to ever be repeated.

I have covered this before.

I'm down on a trade with Boo; and it's a trade to me, not an investment, due to the business quality.

I expect the SP will now erode to comfortably under 50; even sub 40s doesn't seem so unlikely anymore. The external situation is dire and has further deterioration to run. The effects of much higher interested rates, subdued earnings at even quality companies, and inflation/cost of living, are still developing and appear set to do so for many months yet.

I'm not aware of the contradictory posts to which you refer.

I too am a little curious about the St James Advisor's take on an investment in Boo. And the view that now in this bear market is a good time to buy sounds like talking their own book - commission only rolls in when clients buy or sell; doesn't matter if the client wins or loses a bundle in the process.