Member Info for DC2007

Hi Pearls,

I'd not read the City/AM article until now. What do I think of it? Not much. I'm not a lawyer and that expertise would be needed to evaluate the merits of the argument. That aside, it makes no mention of Debenhams whatsoever; City/AM are hardly heavyweights in the financial press; Supreme Courts take ages to do anything and can reject the whole thing.

Basically, I'd infer nothing from that article to suggest there will be any change with Debs. Debs -- for former equity holders -- is settled and done. Best wear the loss and learn from the experience.

Atb

People here said so. Now it's nearer 10p, they're talking of 20p soon, and now an even better opportunity to pick up 1000% return longer-term.

Scary comments about apparent appeal because the possible 1000% return is 10x larger than the maximum loss of 100%; then someone who thinks at 10p it's a better investment than at 20p, because it 'can't fall as far'.

Anyone itching to get in, please think long and hard over two things: first, this is no longer an investment, it's a gamble with very unclear odds; and second, you should assume you'll lose the lot and can be okay with it.

Atb

In emergency medicine, there's a saying, 'beware the silent chest'. In equity investment, a close parallel has got to be 'beware the silent BoD'. The collapse of Debenhams was accompanied by remarkably similar reticence.

Atb

Hi Pearls

I wrote off my investment here late last year when the market started pricing it for admin. Psychologically, that helped in moving on when the end came. I'd been mitigating against the worst case scenario (hoping of course to never deploy my plan) from Q12018 which lessened the loss.

The BoD's statements became increasingly cagey and opaque - notice they talked of net debt, not overall debt, which could have flattered the £286m figure. They made noises suggesting a recovery was possible, without ever explicitly stating so. It annoys me they refrained from qualitative endorsement of how bad it was; quantitatively though, there was plenty of red flags. Deliberate deception or denial - we'll never know.

If there was going to be proceedings in any court, documents would have been published by now; and also the proper financial press would have picked up on it. Bottom line is talk of legal stuff will never get past talk - it's anger and part of people adjusting to their respective losses.

Atb

Atb

Almost certain no court case will ever happen...might as well forget about ever getting anything back Pearls. There are a couple of points I'd like the directors to explain:

-- The Christmas trading update (published 10 Jan 2019) stated net debt of £286m; and,
-- The Presentation from 25 October 2018 (p. 21) showed 'increasing headroom' of the debt profile through peak.

Both of the above considered, can it be established when the directors knew this was likely to be materially different? And, if this was visible in January/February, why did they not update the market as they would be obliged to do?

I doubt this will ever be answered. As daniel.f points out, the statements they make will be thoroughly scrutinised by lawyers before release to ensure nothing litigious.

I have no short position in TCG jedgambit. Only pointing out possible outcomes (with reasoning) that you're blind to; I can't work out if it's wilfully or not.

If you're long, you'll lose the lot with your power for delusional thinking. Concerning is that others may be drawn in by the groundless nonsense which you portray as fact or self evident truth.

Much of this reminds me of Deb. The creditors are firmly in control and wipeout for equity holders is on the table now. Longs really gotta think hard now about cutting losses while they still can.

Atb

But jedgambit, you were saying this would be 40p or even 80p in no time! People could have been influenced by that. Now comes the ad-hoc 'reasoning'.

What is brilliant about Petra? Curious to know your reasons.

Atb

I'll be mildly interested to hear the findings of the Supreme Court. Even if they repeal some of the current legislation and replace it with terms that are more protective of shareholders, it's not going obtain anything for shareholders of the old company. Providing Debenhams/the creditors operated within the law as it was at the time, there'll be no retrospective redress.

Atb

Dislking what's happened or feeling shafted by it is not the same as it being legally wrong. Everything that happened will have been scrutinised by people with expertise. They will have sought to make sure it was above board and gave no potential for redress.

If you have no formal training or qualification in company law, it is near impossible for the layperson to properly understand it legally. Until someone with expertise states the contrary, there is no reasonable ground to do anything but trust that due process was followed. The emotional response is understandable; but long-term, probably better to give it up and move on, rather than waste even more energy on such a soured situation.

Atb

Equity holders could easily end up fried here. And yes, it might go bust. You have no idea that the banks are 'happy'; whether more funding will be advanced; and, the conditions/covenants that may be attached. The way this has unravelled over the past twelve months has similarities to Debenhams.

Beware forecasts of +80p -- it's reckless pie in the sky. No calculations, no reasoning, more to ignore from jedgambit.

The posters below are implying that all the market is rigged and that prices are not freely made. I don't think that's true. The narrative this angle provides is simply a way for speculators to explain away the inexplicable.

Prices fluctuate and the 'pattern' is as good as random most of the time. Investors who believe otherwise are entering dangerous territory.

Atb

Thanks for the link. Those latest results make dire reading. Even so, they still congratulate Sergio for his work! I still don't see them ever turning this around. Too many things going against them. Probably will end up as dead as BHS eventually.

The Supreme Court can rule whatever but former holders of equity will never see a penny as a result. It's clutching at straws -- if there was substance in this, it would be in the proper press, not just a money website.

Have a look on Vodafone's investor relations website. It'll tell you there what is available for retail investors. Probably, you'll be able to dial in to listen to the conference call, or view it on webcast.

Atb

What EPS are people expecting for the next reporting period?

The assertion that it won't go bust is no more verifiable than the assertion it will. Jedgambit once again conflating wishes and sentiment with apparent reading of the future.

Retail holders would be among the last to know if it was about to end up in admin. At least review the objective facts (lack of profit over many years; huge competition from online; sunken bond prices) before taking risk. Such a review could not avoid concluding that this company is in distress.

Atb

Debt is higher than revenue meaning it is very risky. The recent rise I think is down to sentiment on the rearranged covenants. The fundamental story has yet to demonstrate improvement.

You can look at the covenants differently: they would only request an extension because they were at risk of breaching them. So that means trading must be quite poor. Great that the lenders have (again) been pliable and because risk of the business going under is reduced. But with no major updates due until July, I think the rise is mainly stoked by PIs getting a little carried away.

Oh jedgambit does make me laugh. Talks 'business model' but doesn't even know what it is. Says they only had 3 months of bad trading, when they haven't reported annual profit since 2012. Then magical future growth of no specified amount is going to emerge; and finally they'll be bought by Enron for £5 a share.

Seriously, if your principal is well down here, think about protecting it before it might be too late.

Atb

"I guess Celine UK Newco LTD just doesn't have the same ring to it."

Yep Meta, no ring to it at all. And it unfailingly makes Celine Dion pop into my head.

Atb