Member Info for simon1367

Firstly, I don't think anyone mentioned on here that the $35 credit facility was terminated by bankers following the last disastrous update. Clearly they weren't going to throw good money after bad. That leaves them with existing cash which they've been burning through like nobodys business, plus an extra $10m placing which, no doubt, will have to be taken up by the CEO who has underwritten it. All in all, I see existing shareholders being further screwed with a dilution. I've lost faith in this. Why should I pay £0.05p a share (on a one for six holding) when I can buy it cheaper on the market for £0.04p ? The only answer to my own question is that if I pay the £0.05p price, it will prop up the company for another six months, whereupon it will either go under or be bought out or taken privavte for peanuts.

I've received a 'corporate action' notice from Interactive Investor concerning my TBLD holding.

To all intents this seems to be virtually the same as a rights issue, but without even the benefit of being able to sell on the nil paid rights, which, given the value of the shares, would be basically worthless anyway. One simply either 'defaults' by ignoring the offer or buys the extra shares.

I have to let I.I . know by the 12th January if I want to pay £0.05p per share (one share for every six held), when the mid-price on the market is £0.04p. Why on earth would I buy these shares above market price when, once the offer is finished, the price is likely to drop further due to the dilution? Are we being taken for mugs yet again? Perhaps someone could explain in simple terms why I should be stupid enough to take up this offer.

Unless you have entire faith in this cowboy of a CEO who, whilst he knows his way around a games program, appears to have zero business acumen, I suggest shareholders give this a wide berth. I mean, £2.50 to £0.04p in a couple of years is some achievement.

All this corporate action for a mere $10 million. The CEO is underwriting this issue. I suspect he will end up acquiring a lot of the untaken offer. I also suspect that $10 million will not be nearly enough to save this company given the cash burn. The whole thing would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.

The market has been harsh on this share. There's little wrong with the last update, but the analysts get nervous at anything but fantastic results these days. Okay, the debt pile is high due to the USA t/o but, long term, it will pay off. I think this deserves a better rating. The drop was overdone, and the directors recent buys is a fair indication of where they think things are going.

The lesson I've learned from this (and after subsequently assessing other AIM shares) is to never invest in an IPO within the first three years of flotation, then review the share. There's a 1000-1 chance you will miss out on a huge rise, but there's infinitely more chance of you losing a significant chunk of your original investment. A valuation of £534m to a figure of £6m in two years beggars belief. Obviously the CEO and other founder have lost a fortune, but the CEO clearly still has more than sufficient funds to totally underwrite the proposed $10m raise. The financial mismanagement is staggering; almost criminal. For those looking for a gamble and an entry point, I suppose this may be it. You might get a quick 25-50% return if it bounces a bit or t/o bid emerges. Good luck with that. I'm done with this company.

TheMoneyShark: You questioned my comments last week about this company running out of cash. You said ''Why is the cash evidently going to run out given that this business has been ran debt free and in cash for at least the last 6 years?'' and that it has a big credit facility.

Well, now you have the answer. Am I surprised at the news today? No I'm not, because I saw this coming. The people running this company may know their way around a computer game, but they seem to have virtually zero business acumen. The 'Escalante' legal case adds insult to injury with millions having to be paid out. And the 'revolving credit facility' no longer exists because I'm sure the bank terminated it because of either broken covenants or they anticipated it was going to be difficult to recover any funds drawn down. And quite frankly, how long is an extra $10m fund raise going to last at this rate of cash burn?

My investment isn't worth selling. Being down 97% it's virtually worthless.

At the present rate, my view is that this company is going bust by this time next year.

I've bought and sold for a small profit in recent months. I sense another opportunity to do the same again. My main concern is of course the gradual drifting down of the sp following t/o speculation reducing. And the debt needs reducing. A big 'however' is that several diectors bought in November at over £9. That in itself is interesting and could bode well for a bit further down the line. And of course there's always the chance of another approach. At half it's 12 month high., I'm monitoring carefully

It would be fair to say that I regret ever reading Questor in the Telegraph recommending this at around £2.30. It would be fair to say that I'm sick as a pig with the way things have gone. The lesson to learn here is not to invest on newspaper recommendations but to do one's own research. In recent times the lack of transparency has been far too evident. Cash is eventually going to run out and there is only a 50/50 chance (i.m.o) of this share existing a year or two down the line. The CEO clearly lacks business acumen and we are no where clearer as to whether the former founder member has sold out of the company. In my view it's a complete mess but there's no point selling now. My shares a re virtually worthless and down over 90%. It would be fair to say that I'm a little peeved to say the least.

Just revisiting this share since I bought for 13.50 and sold for 14.00 within a few weeks, eight months ago. Lokks like I had a lucky escape. Price now looks tempting but I am wary about the £585 HMRC provision. What a ridiculously high figure for a bribery scandal on a firm they once owned. I suppose the fact it is now out in the open and will probably be paid over four years, helps ease the pain. Given the recent American purchase, I am monitoring this very carefully. I think the downside must be limited given this development.

Knowbodyouknow: HOTC is a purveyor of fine chocolate, in a niche market. Mars decided to take it out with an unusual 160% knockout blow, knowing it had established itself as a viable, ethical and sustainable business with an almost unique quality . Yes HOTC has been struggling recently (USA challenging) but the short term losses are manageable and the balance sheet remains healthy. While the business model and management is good, it recognised it was going to be an upward and long struggle to expand further and add value for shareholders without the global power of someone like Mars.

Asos: It's in a vastly overcrowded and competitive area. It's future is precarious because of this competition and the bad management. I bought in when I thought the growth was going to continue very quickly for at least a few years.. I didn't research enough. Unlike HOTC, Asos has a huge amount more to do to turn itself around. There are now survival issues although I am confident it will continue in some form as part of a similar larger corporate. I simply can't see Asos being taken over for more than the average premium, which is usually about 30 - 40%, because it hasn't got that exceptional space in the market.

All the while the shorts are so very high, I sense the shares will drift downwards. I could be tempted to then average down yet a final time, but as you know, that is a dangerous game.

Following those gloomy retail figures, the shorts once again see a quick buck to be had. At a whopping 7.61% that we know of, there is, in my view, only one direction this share is going this year. One caveat: that there isn't an official t/o approach.

I pray for that t/o because without it happening the shares are going no-where for a long time. Even the possible sale of topshop could be construed as a negative. TS, with its prorportionately higher growth and margins, are holding up the average margins achieved overall. Sell TS and one reduces debt for a while and avoids another capital raise for maybe a year. But that is selling the family silver. Eventually you end up with nothing. So much for a growth stock.

Meanwhile we have MA who is onto a win/win situation; hedging his bets through complex derivatives, and just waiting to pounce or withdraw at the right time. In the end, I think a t/o or some sort of buyout will occur. Do not expect a high premium though. This is not a HOTC situation.

Shorts are now a whopping 7.61%. That to me signifies

I can't see this business progressing to the next level with the present ownership. The high growth years are over in my opinion. It will be swallowed up by someone. The Kamani playboys have already made their fortunes and are more interested in their next Lamborghini purchase or high profile event. Meanwhile their extended family allegedly continue with the exploitation of workers. I await the next expose or lawsuit. Whoops I spoke too soon!

The 'impressive' dividend record is somewhat of an illusion in terms of overall performance. After all, if one had bought £10,000 of the shares at a price of £4 five years ago (which really was the SP then), and then re-invested all the dividends since then until now, you would have an investment in these shares worth only £9600. Diabolical when you look at it like that.

Okay, the results are not brilliant, but in this economic environment, neither are they a disaster. I am disappointed by the 7% drop in SP this morning. Is this a bit of an over reaction or warranted? I must admit my patience is wearing thin about a turnaround in fortunes. Even my reinvested divs are not keeping up with the SP drops. The same old dilemma as to when one decides to call it a day, or to persevere.

SCB: A reasonable point about those online companies who have seen huge growth in revenue over that time, although I find your explanation somewhat of an over simplification. To me, both Asos and Boohoo showed signs of overtrading, but that aside, they did grow exponentially fast, but were slow to change systems, models, processes, and didn’t alter their strategies, thinking it was all going to be plain sailing with everyone's forecast of the demise of the high street. The fact remains that the leadership have hugely let down the shareholders and, setting aside some of the alleged questionable occurrences and decisions seen over the last few years, both companies have been complacent at best. They've been complicit in seeing the SPs dive by approximately 90% in three years. That's some considerable adjustment as you call it. Compare that to Next, who indeed have had challenges in their time, where we see their SP has moved roughly between about £40 and £73 over a significant period, due to quality management. There will always be excuses, but in my opinion, Asos with their bad management have only themselves to blame. I mean from over £65 to a figure of £4 is inexcusable. I fail to see how anyone can defend it.

What continues to irritate me (when comparing Asos, Boohoo etc) is the performance of other fashion companies who clearly know what they're doing. ABF today presented a very impressive set of results, largely based on the performance of their star subsidiary Primark. If Primark, operating on the expensive high street, can bring in figures like this, why can't some of the numpties operating online also produce reasonable figures? Answer: Online retailers are often one trick ponies with outdated models and questionable management. On top of this, I now see Frasers have today announced an £80m buy back of their own shares, prior to the announcement of their interim results on the 8th December. They made £634m profit before tax in April. They have also been investing in various distressed companies in the meantime. They seem to be so flush with cash that they are now adding extra value for their shareholders too. What's the betting that Frasers' interim results in December will be good? Meanwhile we will soon hear if an offer will be made for TS. My gut feeling is that an offer will be made but that it will be below expectations resulting in the offer being declined. Yes, this is certainly a possible long term recovery play, although I would prefer Asos to be carved up or wholly taken over now, rather than experiencing another couple of years of pain and the usual excuses followed by a 50/50 chance of surviving as an independent. No, I want my money back soon. It's not good enough that the SP has fallen from £53 when I bought a couple of years back, to £4 now. Actually, it's an utter disgrace.

Knowbodyyouknow: I wish lol. That's about 60p short of my break even point!

If trade has continued along the lines of the last quarter to the year end 31 August, which Asos have basically suggested, given the sales declines, then they either have to sell TS or, in due course, raise more capital. Topshop is one of the areas where growth and profitability lies. Where does that leave Asos afterwards? Lower growth and thinner overall margins. It would only be a temporary fix to reduce debt, which in my opinion would subsequently start to rise again. Competitors see what a predicament Asos are in and the offers for TS will not be overly generous. I would prefer Asos to hold on to TS and for someone to come in and shake this company up either independently or by merging it into their own operations. If someone doesn't come in with such a proposition, I can see further struggles ahead. If I can see that, then the shorters certainly can. What upside in the SP on the sale of TS?....a temporary nice rise, but not substantial in my view. I don't think the shorts are going away any time soon; only perhaps a very slow and gradual exit. I hope I'm wrong but I'm long past trusting this executive to do much for the interests of the ordinary shareholder.

Netzeroready: hardly old news; it only arrived in the newsagents on Thursday. IC's assessment is of concern. Whether you like it or not the figures they cite are factual. For example: The new debt facility is at an extremely high rate (in my view down to the CEO's stupidity). Borrowing surged - debt more than doubled year on year. There are already signs of spiralling finance costs, doubling to £46m. IC says that this sets off 'serious alarm bells' as evidenced by last years net cash outflow of £213m. In conclusion they say it looks bad but could get worse. Hardly inspiring is it? One can criticise IC all you like but one cannot dispute the figures. It is worrying. And the market last week agreed. £6 by Xmas? I wish.

Knowbodyyouknow: You may have misread the selling puts explanation. The 'buyer' of the puts is indeed the one who is hoping that the share price falls below the strike price written into the contract by Frasers, the writer. Up until the expiry date of the contract, they would effectively have the right to get Frasers to buy the physical shares above the market price. The value of the put they've bought increases, and so they've won the bet by exercising their right. However, if the SP increases, the buyer of the puts will let the option lapse at expiry, as they obviously wouldn't want to exercise their right to sell their physical shares to Frasers at a discount. On a SP rise, Frasers has won the bet, as they've already received a premium for selling the put at the outset, and know that the put buyer isn't going exercise their right to force Frasers to buy the physical shares.

Yes I know, my explanation is probably as clear as mud!