Member Info for Hexam

I imagine you're the only one who is.

And by the way my point is that I don't think BOO is a growth stock anymore full stop. Even if it grows again in the future that doesn't make it a "growth company" just a company that has grown in a particular year. I don't think it is capable anymore of sustained growth over a number of years well in excess of the market - which is what a growth company is. But I could be wrong of course.

That doesn't mean it's a bad investment though. 'All' they have to do is reverse the revenue decline and start showing decent and sustainable profitability and the sp will rise significantly. In my view they can do this but it is not a gimme.

"You know why hotel chocolate is being mentioned..."

I think because it was first raised on another thread as incredibly flimsy (and belated) justification as to why 100p by Christmas wasn't as silly a prediction as some (like me) were suggesting but then you developed this obsession with it and first brought it up on this thread which was all about Black Friday sales. Just one of your many tangents to try and wriggle out of a hole of your own making.

And please can you at least spell it correctly. You've had enough goes now.

Personally I don't care whether Hotel Chocolat is a growth company or not. I think a case can be made either way but this is a BOO board so who cares?

Was BOO a growth company 5, 10 or 15 years ago? Yes I'd say to all three.

Is it a growth company now? I'd argue it isn't anymore.

If it isn't does that make BOO a bad investment? No, of course not it just depends on whether it is undervalued or not. I think it is but could be wrong. I don't think it is ten-bagger though or even a 5-bagger. But again I could be wrong.

Those numbers do look good but what about the adjustments being excluded that continually drag the numbers down and turning adjusted profits into reported losses? Even if the numbers are anything like those predicted if adjustments are seen as the norm then the market won't be valuing the business on the adjusted numbers. Let's hope 2023 is the last year that they play such a major part...

"Thin [sic] whole thread started with happy saying that hotel chocolate [sic] fetched a 170% premium per share when the offer dropped...."

No it didn't. This thread was started by OSG about Black Friday Sales (hence the title) - you started referring to Hotel Chocolat and if you are referring to the 100p by Christmas threads they didn't start with HC either and began well before the offer dropped.

My goodness, you are all over the place. I'll leave you to your meanderings, angles, deflections and tangents as I'd rather not follow you down any more rabbit holes as I'm sure this is getting as boring and pointless for everybody else as it is for me.

I haven’t said anything about Hotel Chocolat being a growth company. I’m not sure I’ve even posted anything at all about Hotel Chocolat (maybe once?) as I’m not invested there and don’t care about it.

I do agree completely though with the statement that BOO can no longer be considered a growth company. It’s a mature company that may grow a bit or may not but that’s it.

As to BOO being 100p by Christmas this originally had nothing to do with any takeover possibility and was instead initially justified simply on performance/value and was spoken of as if it was going to happen not that it was just a possibility.

Like all Happy’s predictions they get watered down and/or pushed back as the deadline approaches and the hope evaporates.

I’m not the one who changes angle or narrative as my arguments or predictions unravel. I leave that to you rampers. Now you’re bringing Next into it?

I was talking about overall margin for that statement and I was talking post last results as the discussion was about November sales - 'crucifies' not 'crucified'. It's all very well banging on about gross margin but that includes less than half the cost base (and virtually all the revenue).

But you really are turning into T4G, challenging posts with any negative slant or asking silly questions from different angles to get people to 'justify' such posts when the rampers who come up with all sorts of nonsense get a free pass. 100p by Christmas it is then :-)

"Boohoo improved margin"

Not overall margin. But anyway that misses the point, again.

It's a simple fact that the more you have to produce for the same revenue the worse off you'll be - all else being equal of course. But think and believe whatever you like.

The point is that if revenues go up with inflation and costs go up with inflation then profits (or losses) also go up broadly with inflation.

If you have to sell more volume though to keep revenue in line with inflation that is worse as costs are likely to go up more than inflation as more is being produced etc.

In BOO's particular case it's much more complicated due to their own cost patterns but basically as you say they passed nearly all the recent drop in costs (shipping etc.) onto customers and yet revenues still fell so they didn't benefit from the savings in the bottom line (either from the cost savings or from increased revenue). Consequently they made an adjusted loss in H1 compared to a profit last year.

That's not the point - in fact it makes it even worse as it crucifies their margins.

"Good to remember though, that they have no idea what's really going on."

That's just the thing - none of us have.

If QBT's claims of 2.6x 'faster' are true and this can be translated into the real world on actual machines (*so that 13 BTC are mined where 5 are now) then the sp will be many multiples of today's price. My own, fairly crude but conservative I think, calculations suggest somewhere between £1 and £5 perhaps depending on how much it is taken up, charge/share QBT take, BTC price etc. etc. If there is no real truth or real world use then the share is worthless. It's clearly not definitely one or the other and no amount of shouting at each other and abuse changes that or will probably change anybody else's view so it seems just an excuse to have a fight on social media.

I admit I'm a non-believer (it just doesn't add up or smell right to me) but I might still invest on the chance I'm wrong as the potential rewards are so huge that it still might be a value bet despite, in my view, the long odds. Also it appears the sp rockets every time something is teased so there seems plenty of trading opportunities too.

In the meantime this board is very amusing to follow with all the emotion, hyperbole and emojis on show!

*note that the more machines that adopt it the less the 2.6x becomes in terms of BTC mined

So basically pretty flat after allowing for inflation?

It's what BOO delivers though that is key obviously and since their own forecast is for declining revenue for FY24 this could be a bonus. We've no idea though how BOO has done compared to the online market as a whole (although the article below lists some of the most popular products which does include jumpers). Maybe best to wait then until BOO gives us an update rather than draw too much from overall online numbers for a small time window?

Here's more detail nonetheless for those interested:

https://retailtimes.co.uk/uk-shoppers-spend-3-45-billion-online-over-cyber-weekend-adobe-reveals/

You totally missed the point of Wolf's post I'm afraid Jeremy and so are just backing up what he was suggesting.

Doug - I'm not a half-empty troll if you're including me in that. Just an investor who takes exception to anybody who tries to make out the glass is much fuller OR emptier than it really is or make outrageous or silly claims that have no basis in fact (like your infamous 'last chance to buy under £3' post).

So yes, I often put a dampener on 'positives' here as they are frequently just not true or are simply ridiculous. Also such posters are more likely to do damage to other posters wallets than any 'troll' is in my view. Hopefully though posters won't be influenced unduly by any other poster on here (including me) other than being prompted perhaps into doing their own research if there is a question mark over anything being said.

And if there is any genuine positive news I'm not shy in recognising it. There just hasn't been that much lately - hence the sp. I very much hope the next update changes that.

"I'll address you directly for the last time."

Another prediction that won't come true :-)

"“ easyJet does not currently expect its Q1 loss to improve year on year” so next rns will be a loss and the sp will go where?"

Probably nowhere much as they have put that expectation out today, so will be no surprise if/when it happens, and in doing so have probably put a drag on the sp from today's RNS which was otherwise good news. They were also within guidance which also helps explains the muted reaction.

Reinstating dividends is also good news but it is only 10% profit after tax when it was 50% pre-covid and those profits are now spread over nearly twice as many shares now.

So today's RNS was great but much in line with expectations and to really get back towards pre-covid highs (after allowing for impact of dilution) they need to grow profits further, past pre-covid levels, and increase the amount paid out to shareholders. They appear to be on the right track though based on these numbers, their outlook and their stated intentions on payouts. So overall very happy with today's RNS despite the market reaction - but just my view.

There is a difference between ebullience and ridiculous. You've been predicting 'ten-bagger in three years' for over a year so shouldn't your time horizon be two years now? Also the sp was over 50p back then so shouldn't your ten bagger be worth 500p now and not 300p? And I notice the 300p is now not just 3 years away but 3 to 5 years away.

Not only all that but you are also saying 100p potential by early new year (was Christmas and with much more confidence) having previously said (when the sp was about £1) it would be 400p by the end of 2022!!!

All you do is make sky high predictions that get smaller and smaller and further and further away. And you're accusing other people of being fake???

"Profit at lower end of management's guidance of £440-460m."

No, it is £455m so it is at the higher end.

£455m is the HEADLINE profit before tax (and the measure on which guidance was given)

£445m is the figure INCORRECTLY reported in the EZJ Share News

£432m is the REPORTED profit before tax so is also correct but NOT the measure on which guidance was given.

Hope this clears up any confusion.