Member Info for DC2007

Yes, I've looked and didn't find it reassuring. The exchange began less than two years ago. Liquidity and value are tiny compared to any established exchange; and on the list of traded instruments I found, only about two dozen were equities.

I can't see buyers and sellers being well matched, so that'll result in big spreads for small tranches and difficult trading.

Wasn't it meant to be possible to sell (tho not buy) with Tabys?

Thanks for the summary chique.

I know the dividend is a big attraction but I'm quite sceptical of firstly, what Poly will decide to pay vs previous times. And secondly, what percentage of any distribution is realisable for UK investors.

Yeah, the requirements to set up Tabys were a red flag to me as soon as I saw them too Stan. Makes me uncomfortable. Everything that could be needed for a little ID fraud; not forgetting groundwork laid for money going walkies too.

What if either of those happened? What rights would a UK RI have? And whatever they are, what realistic prospect of their being upheld?

Similar concerns I have with the other providers. They're hardly FCA backed, with a guarantee for your first £85k cash. I hope I'm way wrong for those who've took the plunge, but I gotta gut feeling about the situation overall and these providers.

Anyone got their account far enough along yet to be able to test actually buying something on AIX?

AIX is so new and has small volumes of trading of any instrument. Does it not concern anyone what the spreads & execution will be like & if the regulation will be any good?

I can see us going through the faff of setting up to deal on AIX and still ending up with a stranded asset that doesn't re-rate in anything like the way some expect.

The ii statement is good, clear info. It's a model for what all brokers should be managing for their retail clients.

Are the platforms allowing selling only then?

26th of what month h118?

It's not possible to infer the interest rate on the revolver from the charge in the cashflow statement at all because noone knows how much is drawn and when, and for how long. If they disclosed the particulars of the RCF, it would allow for better estimate of future cashflows, and thus equity value.

It's unorthodox that they haven't given even the most basic terms of substantial amount if debt that's used for, presumably, general day-to-day running of the business.

Nah, I don't short Terry (nothing against it though). Been trading the Boo volatility to make a few quid. I see Boo as sub-investment quality, but I do agree that being short in the 30s likely has limited upside. Can't see it getting much past £1 for a long time yet, if ever again.

'you should probably read back your own posts

You kind of sum up what you are decrying'

Funnily enough, you do this in spades tradeyboy.

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.

Not for me thanks. The blurb and details are all too convenient and pique my suspicion sharply.

When things sounds too good to be true, it's nearly always means they are.

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?

TSR over the past few years has been awful. Better off in cash now for a reliable 4 - 5% pa than putting capital in here.

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.