Member Info for Hosai

Out of interest, what is the email ppl have tended to get through to Bob Holt with?

The board seems a bit more balanced though now Manc.

You have Matt M, Gallemore and MacDonald as the old timers. Also Koopman of Sofina since 2016.

But now as "outsiders" there is Lord Allen, Gillian Kent, Dean Moore and Sue Farr.

Damien Sanders is somewhere in-between having joined in Nov 2020.

It then bounced back following that rns and has recovered.

McCrum replied to me on a separate post about FT and Western Alliance bank with the sarky "We get away with it all the time mate", but then I think deleted his comment as it just says "1 reply" now but can't see it. It was a shame as I was going to reply with this RNS from WAL a few weeks back:

"The Financial Times’ report today that Western Alliance is considering a potential sale of all or part of its business is categorically false in all respects. There is not a single element of the article that is true. Western Alliance is not exploring a sale, nor has it hired an advisor to explore strategic options.

It is shameful and irresponsible that the Financial Times has allowed itself to be used as an instrument of short sellers and as a conduit for spreading false narratives about a financially sound and profitable bank.

We are considering all of our legal options in response to today’s article."

In a separate article - "Short sellers raked in $378.9m in paper profits on Thursday alone from betting against certain regional banks." (WAL stock was down around 60% following FT article).

Https://www.linkedin.com/posts/saraaziz_makeuprevolution-revolutionxfortnite-fortnite-activity-7065336185786650625-JROt?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

Neither this collection nor the "re-love" Walmart launch which Sara Staniford described as "a new relationship with Walmart" has been priced in yet - over 2,500 stores.

Andrew I agree it will be interesting to see Walmart outlook, in regards to the Fortnite products they went live on Rev B website yest but aren't in Walmart until the 27th hence not available to buy yet.

Sorry to keep going on about this but the FT leads up to my profile as an example by saying - "Their research suggests that by targeting recently created profiles with no avatar, narrow engagement and limited biographical information, fakes could be weeded out with a very high accuracy. It’s not a strategy LinkedIn currently applies, so prominence may be given to profiles such as the ones shown below:"

This isn't really true though, "prominence" is only given by the likes your post gets or how recent it was depending on the settings, isn't that a good thing, it seems democratic?

Also targeting profiles with no avatar and low engagement and low biographical info as they suggest wouldn't weed out fakes that well as the Grace chap had a avatar and fake bio info. It would just weed out people who don't use their account much thus far.

Shouldn't they have reached out to me before doing this? Maybe I should sue too?!

Perhaps my mostly blank profile looks a bit odd but I'd imagine prob about a third of linked in profile are blank with ppl just using it view others but aren't particularly using it for their own career as is the case with me, I'd have thought FT would be aware of that.

Don't really get why it matters, a lot of the internet is semi-anonymous. Normally it's best to just focus on the actual point/debate rather than who is saying it.

Wow I only just realized I'm in the actual article as one of the examples with my wirecard comment (alex P). I have no idea why they are questioning if I am real?

"To be clear, behind each of these profiles may be real people with sincerely held opinions."

This is crazy haha

https://www.ft.com/content/0f358d1d-0d43-4223-b1d3-825f0f50b381

LD I think he was slightly on a liking spree compared to normal, I too was a little chuffed he liked mine. I don't really see the harm though, doubt he particularly cared who each commentator was. I don't even have a proper filled in profile, think he just "liked" based on the comments. The imposter persons comment wasn't actually that bad tbf.

Perhaps FT believe only "important" people should be allowed to comment.

I don't really get it...what does the Grace Hunter thing have to do with Matt M, I don't think Matt M 'liked' his comment or engaged with him in any way. People thought it was interesting for about half an hour and he got a few likes before everyone realized.

Also as others have commented I had an FT journalist - bryce elder view my profile. They clearly were combing through all the comments for their next big "scoop" which was apparently todays article centered around this "Grace Hunter".

I'm glad they must have read my comment insulting their very poor article and pointing out that Western Alliance bank in the US were thinking of suing the FT.

Rev B seems particularly strong on Tik Tok.

If you look verses ELF on Insta

Rev B - 3.5m followers, ELF 6.3m followers

However on Tik Tok

Rev B - 659.4K Followers, 16.2M Likes

Elf Beauty - 876.1K Followers, 16.8M Likes

This isn't bad when you consider Rev B market cap is £59million and ELF market cap is $4.79 billion (£3.85 billion).

Warpaint is now at £209 million mc. Just to remind on the comparison:

Warpaint had sales of £64.1 million with EBITDA of £11.7 million.

Rev B currently valued at £59 million and for FY2023 revenue likely around £220 million (think the £9 million deduction was for FY2022) and EBITDA prob around £18 million.

If RevB had Warpaints price to sales would put us at 231p (obv don't think this is likely or fair but just saying).

If RevB had their price to EBITDA (assuming we managed £18m EBITDA - predicted £18-19 at last update) would put us at 103.5p.

Rev B do have £21 million net debt versus Warpaint £8.6 million net cash. So there is a £30 million swing to adjust for which should prob reduce our valuation by about 10p so would be 221p/93.5p respectively in terms of above calcs if adjusting for this.

Worth noting this does not account yet for the full year Walgreens sales in terms of looking ahead (only has 7 months or so in FY2023), nor for any of the new Walmart/Primark launch.

As a non-financial measure Rev B has 3.5 million instagram followers versus warpaints 139k

For Tik Tok Rev B has 659.4K Followers and 16.2M Likes. Warpaint has 4090 Followers and 41.5K Likes

Think I over-estimated slightly how much Boo/founders would have if acting in concert. Founders have 31.6% together, Boo have 26.48% so theoretically together would have 58.08%. Therefore would still be 16.92% away from 75%.

This would still be a fair amount of shares to buy against other buyers and no longer (imo) much incentive for there to be sellers at this lowly sp (still have to see accounts though obv). Boo had Jupiter offloading huge volumes which helped them pick up a lot previously but this will no longer be the case with Jupiter fully out.

I also question to what extent the founders would benefit from trying to buy the rest of the company versus letting their shares naturally re-rate, especially as they may have lost trust in the financial world which would be an issue if they try and get more actively involved again?

I was just wondering, if Boohoo indeed were trying to buy it out cheap after potentially getting to 75% in concert with founders (which obv may not be the case am just speculating) and then put a bid in, could Bob Holt reject the bid on the basis that it's undervaluing the 25%'s shares? I.e could he just reject on our behalf without putting it to a share holder vote?

Obv Boohoo/founders would then eventually vote him out from being CEO, but this would take time, by the time they ousted him the sp would have properly re-rated?

I'd be very annoyed too RedHammy, but ultimately investors would have to sell low for Boohoo to be able to buy more low. I don't really see the incentive to sell now. Previously Jupiter were a distressed seller, selling loads of different shares because they had to but they are fully out now.

Ultimately though, for Boo to buy more at 30p some big holder would have to be selling at 30p. Personally I don't see holders selling off the bat even at 50p, other than perhaps a few fearful PIs but that's not going to be enough volume.

Am a fan of Okehurst from the THG board, but he posted this on Boo, it does seem food for though, hopefully isn't this easy:

"BOO & Management owning 62% of Rev B lines then up to be in prime position to nick this one

13.1% and they have it, mop up the rest via scheme of arrangement and Rev B doesn’t come back to the market

- John is talking as if it’s deal done

It would be a steal and fills in the gaps on how they grow beauty which they infer to on the conf call

They pull this one off and it should go down well, feels a short squeeze is coming here"

Just needs to re-rate before Boohoo can get too much. People on Boo board are talking about buying it for 30p!

The FT really have fallen in standards but funny to see some of the shorts here a bit triggered by people criticizing them. Yes they've had some good scoops such as with wire-card but are now so desperate to re-create that they come up with something as pitiful as this normal disclosure in the report.

Even if you look at their twitter circles they come across as childish teenagers. Even the FT journalist has left a mock comment under MM's post, effectively doubling down on his rubbish article.

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:ugcPost:7064855582515564544?commentUrn=urn%3Ali%3Acomment%3A%28ugcPost%3A7064855582515564544%2C7064890814627241984%29