Member Info for Hexam

Sure you did :-)

Oh SCB - resorting to outright lies just because you got caught out posting something you clearly didn’t understand what it related to.

I should really filter you but then I’d miss out on the (unintentional) comedy value that you provide.

Who's sulking? You have your view on the cause of the impairments and I've explained why I disagree but rather than have the usual back and forth that bores the board and gets absolutely nowhere I thought it best just to leave it at that.

More bizarrely, any idea why SCB has suddenly introduced US stats into the discussion?

It was also a pretty poor month for online too (but not quite so bad as the high street) and the Times article I think was referring to the high street hence my comment about recovering from the soggy April.

OK T4G you've made your case and I respectfully disagree.

"Im not sure anyone knows the figures from boohoo for march, april or may so your statement seems to be a lie."

I presume that is aimed at T4G as I agree we don't know if revenue has grown or not.

"Retail sales expanded at their quickest pace in a year and a half this month, signalling that consumers returned to the high street amid improving economic conditions and calmer weather. "

It also probably in part just reflects a recovery from a dismal April.

Just not sure how you can attribute reduced revenue primarily to a war as not sure how that significantly affects consumer demand for BOO's products? It certainly had an impact of costs but as we know BOO held prices. It also helped contribute to the general COL crisis but was not the only factor. Plus other companies have down well in the last year and sales across the board are up (total, online. sector).

As for the rest of your paragraph it contained the dubious phrase "Revenue growth underway". They've slowed the rate of revenue decline but I think it is too early to claim that they are now growing especially as they haven't committed to that in their outlook (though they have tentatively targeted GMV growth in the year).

"I never said one offs would fall by £100m."

Er...yes you did:

"Sam perhaps it's more reasonable to say how much will the loss automatically reduce next year when one offs fall by c100m"

I can pretty much guarantee that one-offs won't fall by £100m next year and to attribute this year's figure to the war in Ukraine is just disingenuous to say the least.

I was referring to the capex in the last year when talking about future white elephants as should have been obvious, not least from my comment afterwards acknowledging that capex will come such a lot if they do as they say.

"Now how much bigger would that loss have been without the cost saving program? £200 + mil??"

Yes, almost certainly.

Bon - I think you have that the wrong way round. Most of that £103m is impairments so it is the write-off of cash previously spent on things that have already turned out to be white elephants or at least not as well as they had hoped.

The money they are spending now on such things goes through as capex and time will tell if they are successful investments or just lead to more white elephants. They have said though that such heavy investment has now stopped so we should see a much lower capex figure in the next accounts.

He might came back though under a different name. After all, you did.

Perhaps he already is?

"Ld - they are not listed companies with proper audited figures.... Also they sell all kinds of rubbish."

On that criteria I think the only two companies are ASOS and BOO. And even they don't qualify as they both sell other stuff too :-)

(with apologies to CWWX)

I'm tired of your agenda Garwool. Filtered.

The only proof I need is that the volumes they have sold are lower than the sector as a whole - I don't need to need to find someone who has outperformed them - it's like me asking you to list all the companies that they have performed the same as or worse - not just one (ASOS).

Even if I did find one it wouldn't back up my point as BOO can still outperform the sector and be worse than somebody else - they just need to outperform the average not everybody.

Anyway, I've provided the numbers and the logic and whilst whatever evidence I provide won't convince you (or some others) I stand by what I've concluded until someone can show my numbers to be wrong or my logic to be faulty (not simply ask for spurious additional information). In other words people can make their own minds up and I'll rest my case before I really bore CWWX etc. but hopefully some have found the info relevant and interesting.

Sorry - obviously both the percentage and the amount of internet sales are both much higher than pre-pandemic but the amount has also nearly regained the figure at the height of the pandemic.

For anybody interested here are the numbers for average weekly sales for both total retail and internet only (and the % sales that were internet based). Clearly shows the growth of internet sales, especially during the pandemic, and although the percentage sold on the internet has not recovered to pre-pandemic levels the actual amount sold has (as it's a smaller percentage of a much larger number).

Apologies if formatting doesn't come out well.

Year Total Retail £m Internet Sales £m %

2017 7,018 1,146 16%

2018 7,298 1,312 18%

2019 7,546 1,447 19%

2020 7,588 2,143 28%

2021 8,079 2,487 31%

2022 8,435 2,245 27%

2023 8,863 2,362 27%

That's just internet sales as a percentage of total sales - it is not the total internet sales which are up 62% since just BEFORE the pandemic.

Where have you shown that customer numbers have fallen?

"has engaged with certain shareholders"

I wonder who? :-)