Member Info for simon1367

It appears to be okay for investigative journalists to delve into questionable practices of other companies, but apparently it's out of order if they look into a company that people on here are invested in lol.

In my view, Boohoo is under deserved scrutiny. There are many aggrieved shareholders. This, like Asos (of which I'm a holder) was understandably sold at the IPO as a growth stock with big prospects. It's down 90% in 3 years. There have been many dubious decisions made over the last few years, and the activities of the executive during this precarious time has to be analysed as part of arriving at the overall picture.

I don't see much change in the situation until the K's are off the scene. But that's easier said than done when they are so entwined with some entities and own some of the property that the company rents. The story of the company witholding payments to a small amount of its suppliers, for quality reasons, may well be warranted. But it adds to the perception that they may be increasingly using this ploy due to their own cashflow issues. Add to that the possible sale of their flagship property and one starts to obviously suspect they are under added pressure from lenders. When will we see Allianz Trade cutting credit insurance I wonder?

I'm sure I will come under attack from the die hard supporters who live in hope of a quick reversal in fortunes. In my opinion, not all is lost, but it will be more pain along the way before a potential recovery plays out, as I have experienced with Asos, which is also still in a similar predicament.

Ex Div 22nd Aug. Anticipated payable 20th September. (Expect a bit of a drop in SP on Thursday as a result)

Attractive entry point, but don't get too excited; it's back to its SP in the spring after disapointing net interest margins and subdued conditions. The SP raced ahead too quickly imo, and this is more a correction off the back of a confirmed slowdown and increased competition in rates. The share is very sensitive to the slightest of change of prospects in its specialist area. Above average in volatility which is interesting to me, as I'm not necessarily in for the long term. I like that the CEO has been around a long time. He saw his salary drop 40% from £3.1million to £1.9 million last year, after its profits dropped by £200 million. That's how it should be, unlike certain people who get paid more for failure.

PP1...there are a selective amount of shares on AIM that are okay, but not regulated as well as senior exchanges. I recommend to most to generally avoid AIM. Look at the overall performance of AIM stock over the last five years to show that most investors have lost a lot of money. Stockopedia is not the be all and end all of investing.

Bfdinvestor: It is not that often that I agree with you, but you make some very valid comments most of which I concur with. Having said that I think Asos, on balance, have a greater chance of survival due to greater scope.

You may know that I have little regard for the management of Boohoo. Some at the top have made their fortunes (deservedly so at the outset ) and now appear to have lost their way/focus . In my opinion, they have cynically attempted to increase bonuses/incentives, with a view to squeezing as much out of the company while they can.

There is no love lost between MA and the K's. MA wants Debenhams in my opinion. He sees it as being stolen from him. He likes the influence and pressure he puts on vulnerable concerns. MA is in the ideal and exact place he wants to be without the need to takeover anything.

Frasers outfit is a class above Boohoo and Asos. The latter companies as independent entities are numbered in my view. Finally, as a general observation, I may be biased because my only losees have invariably come from that arena, but I think the AIM exchange has become an unmitigating disaster and, in future, will think twice before investing any of my hard earned income into it.

Could be worth a punt given the robust half year figures, but I'm still exercising caution. In my experience the market rarely lies. The sector is relatively subdued, and they expect underlying net loan book growth reducing from the expected 5% to a figure of 3%; still not bad given the economic environment, but it spooked the market possibly because it sees the sector contracting further or being hit due to this governments perceived anti-landlord stance. it's interesting because one rarely sees a situation where there is a high yield, but also a chance of decent capital growth in the relative short term (rising from £4 to £5 in a year is quite feasible, looking at how this share often reacts).

I have a rough entry point in mind, but as usual, if I go ahead, will only put in what I can afford to lose. My reservations are around the several recent director sales (investors were rightly suspicious at the time), what this government will unleash in October, tougher operating trends, and of course an expected correction in the markets overall. In my opinion, the SP has returned to a more realistic level and had risen too far in the last few months given the profit warning that happened in the spring which brought the share back down to what it is now. One way or another I think there is money to be made here, even if it is simply regular selling and buying. All things being equal, expect about a 7p - 8p drop after the ex-div date next week.

Demos: You are absolutely right in highlighting my glaring omission yesterday. I was so focused on smaller unincorporated landlords at the time that I forgot to mention limited companies who are covered by corporation tax rate of 25% (but even that liability has risen by 30%, up from 19%).

There are thousands of landlords who began their btl adventure over 20 years ago who never bothered to incorporate; those with one or two properties, as the differential between company and personal tax was less. However, if starting out now, the company route would appear the way forward, although you can bet your bottom dollar that this government will endeavour to align the tax rates even more. The OSB (many through chartered financial) still cater for a huge number of unincorporated landlords though. But yes, with new business, they see more volume profit in dealing with company property portfolois.

I agree with all LWHL says. When CGT is increased for private unincorporated LLs, there will be many who will think ''I'll be damned if I'm going to pay 40% CGT,'' and will simply hang on the property/s. And then there are the renting reforms that Mr Gove started to pass which the new government will press ahead with. Another big mistake in my view. Government interference in the markets usually ends in tears and often results in unforeseen consequences.

And so this is where my common sense thoughts come in re OSB. I think OSBs business could be subdued for a bit for the reasons stated before. And until we see what's in the October budget, uncertainty will prevail. However, I like the share on the fundamentals and the way it funds its business via its successful savings platform Kent Reliance. I am monitoring closely . Ex div appears to be 22nd August.

NickRubens: Yes, this is a tricky one to gauge, as on the face of it the shares have many attractions. However, because of it's niche area of specialist lending, with limited diversification, it seems to be susceptible to the slightest snippet of pessimistice news. My reasoning about the challenges ahead remains unaltered, because this government is essentially carrying on from where the last one left off; intent on coming down even more hard on second homeowners and landlords who understandably are exiting in volume. It looks fairly likely that CGT will be aligned to income tax rates, so most sellers will pay 40% rather than 24%. Who knows what will happen, but in the short term the SP could stagnate or go lower pending the outcome of the October budget. It's a gamble to go in now, but compensated by the Div. Personally, I'm wary of (largely)one trick ponies these days, so will wait a week to see if I've missed the boat this time or not. Looking at the graph for the last 5 years, it is steadily progressing but the dips in most years do give an opportunity to enter at a reasonable price. Final word of warning, there were quite a few director sales in May and June, which may have been an indicator of what was to come. However I've not researched these sales, so there may have been other legitimate reasons for them.

PP1..Unfortunately you're figures are not really making any sense. You are quoting the ''ttm (trailing twelve month)'' anticipated loss as presently £248million. And you're quoting the anticipated fy (fiscal year) end of 31st August 2024 as a loss of £140million. Do you see the problem with the figures? Presently, the TTM and the FY end are virtually for the same period bar for a couple of weeks! Something isn't correct PP1

Both Investors Chronicle and the Telegraph's Questor fairly recently gave positive recommendations about this share. That should have been a warning. Questor tips particularly can be the kiss of death. I took the decision earlier in the year to get out of the share at a modest profit. I took what I saw as a common sense decision. I saw landlords in my area either exiting the market or not taking on as many BTL properties. I thought, what with interest margins under pressure also, that there would be ramifications down the line.

This is not to say I won't invest again. This share is volatile. My entry point for another 'profit' scenario is somewhat lower than the present price. Fundamentally an attractive share with, ultimately, an upward trend and great Div.

PP1 : can you explain your previous note today about losses etc. First you say of Asos ''net loss fy 2024 expected to be £140m and for Fy 2025 net loss expected to be £24m.'' Then you say ''net loss at present for Asos is expected to have increased to £248m'' . Erm, I presume you do realise that Asos' fiscal year finishes at the end of August 2024. Explain the differential between -£140m and -£248m. On the face of it, it doesn't seem Stockopedia is helping you a great deal, but maybe you can clarify. I mean, it looks like Asos will have to do something phenomenal in the next 17 days lol.

Herekittykitty: Many thanks. Very interesting. Apologies, but I didn't explain myself properly. I agree the Asos shorts figure on the FCA list correlates. What I was referring to was the contradiction of the lists from ft.com and the fca. For example on the ft list we see BT at the top with 15.9% and Abrdn at 14.7% and St James at 8.1%. When we look at the fca list, their figures are about 2%, 5% and 1.39% respectively. Maybe I'm missing something obvious; usually the highest shorted company stands around 8%-9% such as Petrofac.

Despite going into the two sites, I still can't fathom out how to find the info. Presumably one can normally access the information.

Herekittykitty....Those 'short' positions quoted on vcompanies don't appear in any way to be correlate with the shortracker website which is normally more accurate. I know the FT article is a couple of months old, but I still can't fathom it out, unless the FT includes those shorts under 0.50%, but I didn't think those shorts were open to revealed.

As for a buy out by Frasers; wishful thinking I think. Thats not how MA operates.

Peoplepower1....your last post should be for the Boohoo board. When you place it there, be prepared for fireworks!

BlackFoxTrading.. I have been vocal in my criticism of Asos' leadership and their decision making for a long time. Similar to Boohoo, they became complacent and then made expensive mistakes. They are now in a similar precarious state. Those on the Asos thread will I'm sure be mildly amused by your comment that I'm 'optimistic' about the company.

Bfd.. I accept that I misread the short position last week. Rather than saying the two hedge funds had increased their positions by 2.50%, what I should have said was that they had increased their positions to a point where their total now stood at 2.50%. Apols for the error, but it doesn't alter the fact that their actions are an indicator as to how some in the market see the situation.

Regarding the leadership, you know I was merely referring to my last thread which encompassed far more than just the K's. What I've said previously about the company, the leadership, and the industry generally, has been totally relevant to those moments; for example, recent business press articles about the K's and their company, and a special news item on Shein highlighting their operations and increasing share of the market, which clearly affect the likes of Boohoo & Asos etc.

As for the possible sale of the London Office for around £60million, it is definitely, in my view, connected with ongoing debt restructuring plans/discussions, and the ability to pay down debt. If I read correctly, the company has a drawn down £325million borrowing which has to be repaid in two instalments over the next 18 months. A £75million part must be repaid next year after banks are reluctant to agree to an extension. Whilst I expect the lenders will ultimately be supportive in some sort of restructuring, they are clearly putting pressure on the company to come up with a coherent plan to reduce liabilities. After all, both lenders and company have brought in debt specialist advisors which to me normally implies there is some considerable concern. To sell and leaseback its prestigious London property (presumably reluctantly) for c£12million less than it cost three years before, clearly raises questions, and many would understandably, rightly or wrongly, interpret this as a distressed sale. One thing is for sure, given the borrowing negotiations going on, the idea of prospective sale ain't no coincidence!

On a positive note, I see Boohoo coming through this challenging time leaner and fitter, butstill vulnerable to a merger or takeover.

I didn't realise it was a prerequisite on here that one had to be invested, or inclined to invest to comment. And by my reasoning, I don't call less than 25% of the narrative being ''focused'' on MK's personal spend. All the points made are perfectly valid and gives a view, in my opinion, of the company's position and the people running it. Any sign of criticism from anyone on here and you, BFT, regularly become overly defensive to point of being rude. It is unnecessary. I have no agenda whatsoever, just an interest in retail markets (I am invested in Asos and M&S) and I will not be bullied into refraining to comment simply because you don't like some constructive criticism

Sorry but this won't add a positive spin either. In 2023 Shein was the 11th largest apparel retailer in the UK and globaldata indicates that it is on trajectory to be in sixth position by 2027. Obviously that isn't written in stone but the signs are ominous. Boohoo, Asos and others (without good leadership) could be left behind. Not a disaster yet and with the right people in charge, they could still be successful. However, there are too many players in the same market.

If I'm not mistaken, Boohoo's London Office was acquired for c£72million about 3 years ago. A poor decision given that they're now putting out feelers to sell for about £60million. Was always a Mr K vanity project i.m.o. Boohoo is in a precarious position. The market senses this is a distressed seller and so offers may well come in lower at a fsv basis. Sale and leaseback is generally not the greatest place to be either. Contrary to A's assessment, I don't believe that the interest rate demanded by lenders on any resultant RCF requirement will be that attractive. Higher than average risk = higher rate. Look at the poor deal Asos got when raising finance last year. To add to market woes, last week a couple of large hedge funds increased or opened short positions totalling nearly 2.5% of the company.

It also doesn't bode well when the press comes down hard on the leadership. Whether warranted or not, it perhaps isn't wise when a company is going through this precarious stage, that the Chairman spends a fortune taking 30 executives to a luxurious holiday in Turkey. And prior to that, in May, spent a purported £20million on his son's wedding in the south of France. Okay, it was his own personal money, and the K's have always been flashy, but it just ain't a good look.

I think there are many here looking for glimmers of hope, convinced the good years will return. Do I yet see this as an entry point (gamble) to invest a sum I can afford to lose? No, with key customer metrics trending in the wrong direction (the USA is key to success) and losses continuing, there are i.m.o too many challenges to be resolved. With so much uncertainty ahead, when it comes to the retail apparel sector, I'm more inclined to look at shares with some continued momentum.....Frasers and Next come to mind.

KBYK..1. As far as I know the usual settlement date would be T+1, so fairly immediate. However, in practice, even if MA were obliged to take up the physical shares, it doesn't necessarily always mean he ends up with an overall larger shareholding 2. It's complex, and there are all sorts of scenarios I'm not too familiar with, but in simple terms, 'put buyers' rarely hold the underlying physical shares. If need be, their broker 'borrows' them from market makers in order to force MA to buy them. They are gambling on the SP falling. They are taking a short position by selling shares at the (higher) strike price to MA, and then buying them back at a cheaper price to arrive at their net profit. I don't think you necessarily always get to see any physical share dealing going on on the stock exchange that day. (someone correct me if I'm being misleading in this respect)

The sale of put options generates income for MA and potentially gains exposure to shares that he'd like to own but (if he wins the bet) at a price below the current market price. However selling put options comes with higher risk because in a worst case scenario, you could potentially be obliged to buy a worthless share at the strike price!

Peoplepower1 One correction to be made in your summary. MA loses if the put buyer exercises the option. When the share price goes down below the 'strike price', MA is still officially obligated to pay that higher strike price. If he had not struck the option deal in the first place , he would now have been able to buy the stock at a current lower price! (The only exception to him not 'losing', is if he really wanted the physical shares anyway and was prepared to take the risk of having to pay a higher price to acquire them.