We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
And the prettified positive cashflow figure. As you said, it can't be repeated because it wasn't derived from revenues. Take that away and the superficially okayish results are far less flattering. And how did they clear £100m inventory without some correspondent increase in revenues or profits? Maybe by selling it off cheap at below cost.
Still, the believers won't let little inconvenient facts like that get in the way of their Boo-faith.
The Boo board on it's way to becoming the world's most pompous, sanctimonious, righteous echo chamber! An alternate reality where if what a word means doesn't suit, the definition can just be changed on a whim.
This gonna get funny once the love-in ends between plod and their new bros.
Here's the incitement T4G:
'Done and if everyone just clicks REPORT Jongle'.
There's other examples from the same thread I could have picked, but in this one the attempt at bullying is blatant.
Yep, that's my view too Simon.
If it forced a bidding war to begin, that could change things materially because stubbornness and ego of potential buyers usually results in vast overpaying for assets. But there are too many stacked assumptions there to be a basis for decision making for rational PIs.
Takeover rumours have gained a bit of credibility in developments over the past 24hrs. But Ashley tends to buy when things are distressed and at a discount; he doesn't usually offer premiums.
I wonder if a takeover offer might be nearer to the current SP or less? Only a couple of days ago, the rumour mill was suggesting imminent cash call and dilution for existing holders. The 'premium' offered by a potential suitor could conceivably consist of ensuring this deleterious path is avoided. Talk of £1.5 to 2bn sounds too good to be true for a company laden with debt and reporting losses.
If they [HL or whichever is one's broker] don't deal on AIX though, then you wouldn't be able to do anything with them (sell, receive dividends, vote, etc) indefinitely. Are HL saying that they'll leave them on your account in that state of stasis even once the LSX equity is delisted and cancelled? In that case, it might take up a line on the account statement, but I don't see how it can be connected to any real asset.
And if Current Poly splits into Poly K and Poly R after listing on AIX and then moves the Poly K listing back to London, how could you then be credited with whatever that's worth, since it would involve a transaction that involved AIX, which HL don't deal in?
Nope, that's wrong: the FT write up was not positive about Boo or the prospects of the fast fashion sector overall. They implied the underlying structure had been revealed to be weak and unprofitable, and that these companies are basically uninvestible.
FT has two short articles that sum up Boo's underwhelming results today. A bid would pep up the SP but there's nothing credible in the quality press to say one is imminent; I think that might be unfounded rumour only. Once the dust settles, this will drift down like did today and visit the 30s again.
Potential owner-earnings over the next few years look non-existent. Therefore the equity can't be worth much more than whatever's left of the assets if the debt were to be repaid.
Yep, it's a bit iffy Daytrade. Along with misspelling 'calendar' and 'statement' in the slides. There's a spellchecker with almost all software nowadays; there's no excuse for basic blunders - it's sloppy and unprofessional.
What isn't mentioned is why revenues are down ~20% in real terms, because that's what's caused the profit to dry up.
Boo seem to be trying to portray this in results and publications as somehow being expected, even planned and a necessary pain to endure on the pathway to growth and expansion (or, more accurately, back to the growth and expansion of a few years back).
I don't remember them saying a few years ago 'we'll now embrace a period of operating losses and falling revenue for a couple of years, to enable greater success to be had several years from now'. It seems that they only begun to reason this way once the slump in performance was well under way.
Comparing your 'annual results' with those of three years ago too is a bit of naughty chicanery...allows bigger percentage numbers to be front and centre on the slides.
'just objective analysis as normal from me' From the expert that yesterday was depreciating freehold land and buildings over three years!
There are some real shoddy spelling mistakes in the presentation; it's as if you could've been helping them with it. Day isn't over yet and I'm 50/50 on it sinking back in to the 30s.
Presume the MM's are manipulating the price, volume and so on today as always. Perhaps they're in a good mood or decided they were sick of you moaning and wanted to cheer you up for a day.
It's a frothy response from the SP. It looks like a relief rally that there's still been no mention of a cash call or capital restructure. I expect the air will come out of the SP again once the excitement dies down.
I've seen no convincing explanation yet about why steeply declining revenues are not a concern, or why the cash balance is represented almost in full by the debt of the fully drawn revolver. Why keep that in the business if they're not having to rely on it extensively? if that's taken away, the business is barely capable of sustaining itself. Similar is the cashflow: take out the reduced inventory position, and barely any cash is being generated from sales.
Revenue forecast down another 5% next year, US sales (and presumably reputation with it) drying up in a region that's absorbed loads of CAPEX makes it look like a costly misstep. Realistically, little chance of operating profits until FY25 at the earliest.
'There will be a whole load of angry shouting on here for the first couple of hours and some of the worst of human nature will be on display.'
At last, some self-awareness about your own behaviour. Well done tradey, have a lollipop.
You'll never get through the whole morning without posting.