Member Info for FED1

Has ISS released its recommendation yet on Kamani’s re-election?

I agree with Bfd to large extent. The book value for a retailer is largely meaningless. The assets are not down at market value.

This isn’t a bank or reinsurer where the balance sheet contains liquid assets which are mark-to-market.

The impairments just show a history of poor capital allocation that they are written down more quickly than accounting policy on depreciating assets.

Percy,

Where did you get the info that HY results are 25 Sept?

Given recent history, I doubt this is the case. Although I feel Dan needs to come back and engage properly with sell side with a detailed presentation if he wants broker ratings upgrades.

Sorry to see you go Kach. You’ve been a good poster.

The irony of our ESG director not seeking annual re-election.

If she can’t even adhere to the minimum standards of a company listed on the main board.

They should act like a company with a main board listing if they want broad institutional shareholder base, not a low quality AIM company.

“For all stakeholders”. Yeah right.

If this was a main board listing, the. All directors should seek re-election under UK Corporate Governance Code.

AIM directors are not required to but it is expected that they should adhere to principles of Code.

Another disgraceful erosion of shareholder engagement. Cane too embarrassed to meet shareholders. She rather go to corporate events with Snoop Dog on the shareholder dime.

It use to be the case that directors get elected on three year terms. However I thought this was now phased out. It’s been a while since I did institutional voting.

I assume Boohoo now has similar policy. Only key directors are up for election every year.

Has Cane been up for election every year previously?

* are not standing

The fact that the others are standing could be a blessing. Based on ISs own guidelines on Board Composition, the only logical conclusion is that it recommends that investors vote against Kamani.

Let’s hope ISS can calculate percentages this year.

ISS Board Composition (page 35)

At least half the Board shall be non executive directors deemed to independent excluding the Chair.

https://www.issgovernance.com/file/policy/active/emea/UK-and-Ireland-Voting-Guidelines.pdf

I do think that selling (a stake?) in PLT to get back to net cash and closing Burnley to rightsize business is a credible plan to put this on sustainable footing.

I just frustrated that it was not delivered in annual results. The analyst presentation was woeful and Dan, on his first outing, has not put forward the level of detail we were all expecting in terms of the future roadmap.

It may seem unfair to some on here that I voted against Dan's re-appointement. However, I do not understand why he has not engaged shareholders during past six months? Once the AGM is over, is he (and IR) going to hunker down again and ignore shareholders. Will the Interims be delivered late? Will FY26 be delivered late. Will the presentations contain bullet point platitudes? I think so.

*issue shares

Another frustrating day for shareholders.

I have voted against the re-election of all Board members, the remuneration report, and to give them the right to buy shares without pre-emptive rights.

They didnt deliver credible plan to release value for shareholders. Dan's performance was disappointing in earnings call. PLT disposal sounds promising but I feel this should have been delivered.

Maybe Umar is going to lead a private equity buyout with Boo as minority partner and save the poor folk of Burnley!

Three cheers for Umar!

My intuition tells me that the PLT buyer wont take on Burnley and its staff. I wish they would, but probably wont. 1200 is a lot of people and it will be raised in No. 10. The constituency MP is a suspended Labour MP (WhatsApp scandal with inappropriate language).

I think the cash costs of shutting down Burnley are primarily redundancy (lets say £2,000 -£4000 per person which is £2.4m-£4.8m). This would be covered by an eventual disposal of DC. Then there is the non-cash item of writing down the investment which means another reported loss in FY26.

The annualised savings from this though would be significant. However, it probably reflects the capacity that was needed for PLT so there is no operating leverage (i.e., it is just removing DC capacity to reflect the low revenues after getting rid of PLT).

Maybe the BoD are waiting post AGM to announce deal?

If it is sold at a substantial loss, then it would give Frasers more ammunition to attack Kamani and Debs.

Oke,

In order to simplify the sum-of-the parts, you could probably assume PLT is worth net debt (assuming Boo hasnt already drawn down the full RCF for inventory). Then you just have to value Debs, KM and Boo.

I sometimes think revenue multiples (not GMV) can provide a quicky valuation.

Alas the share price and the sell-side seems to agree with your prognosis Hexam.