Member Info for WolfofWarks

I haven't really had a scenario. Is all I've really done is explained what is happening and likely to happen which coincidentally has happened.

So I can't claim to be any kind of Nostradamus as I've simply followed this along based on a) what the company told you was going to happen and b) what the legal process in a bankruptcy tells you will happen.

It really is that simple. It's everyone else who has come up with the magical nonsensical scenarios.

You can see clearly in the accounts that the shares are being purchased out in the open market.

No dilution.

I had a look at Paypal recently. It must be getting decimated by Apple Pay though.

Broke - the US consumer looks very strong at the minute. I think the US market is taking a bit of a breathe now and looking for a bit of direction. I’d be surprised if the rally in the tech stocks continues like it had done so far.

Corporate finance is not fixed on the base rate. UK debt more often than not is based on Sonia rates.

‘ The Financial Times is a useful read for macro economics.’

Thanks for imparting this nuggets of wisdom on us PeePee.

I’m glad you’re reading about it at last though.

Poor - this administration is effectively winding down a shel company. Plus most of the assets are not held in the uk. The company has hundreds of subsidiaries registered all over the world.

It’s the kind of rubbish Ian comes up with.

I haven't got a clue if that's true or not. I do know the value of data in social media advertising though.

I also know how expensive a team of BI engineers and data specialists required to collect and mine the data are.

'Oke - that's what it's about. Finding a strategy which works best for you. Some you'll win, some you'll lose. So it's worth looking at the ones you lose because you can learn more from them and tweak your strategy to see if it works any better.

As the saying goes, we learn from our mistakes and we all make mistakes.'

PeePee - Can you tell us some of the investments you have had success with given you don't appear to be invested in anything, despite excreting your infinite wisdom over us on a daily basis.

Is that not obvious though? You can't have you cake and eat it. I've got four or five regular payers to add stability to my portfolio.

You do realise CW have been represented by the best corporate lawyers in the land.

These are global operators.

‘WolfofWarks - Stockopedia is to help many investors make decisions. It's not algorithmic junk. You may disagree with how Stockopedia calculate net debt. That's your choice.

You've never used Stockopedia, so I take what you say about it with a large pinch of salt.’

That’s because you are a dunce.

Accounting standards decide on the pro forma format of a set of a statutory accounts. Stockopedia will be uploading the accounts and their algos will be doing the rest in the background. Hence why they get such varied and often incorrect results.

You can easily work out the net debt yourself using a calculator and it is clear as day it is wrong.

You choice to ignore this because as we have now established many times on this board in the last few weeks that you haven’t got the slightest clue on how to read a set of accounts.

There is nothing wrong with this other than the fact you choose to pepper this board with your Ill informed nonsense.

Oke - you have to be careful using EBITDA where there are heavy lease commitments (think Next or anyone with a large property estate) as the lease payments are not included due to them being treated as capitalised assets. Quite often these companies will use EBITDAl instead.

‘WolfofWarks - it hasn't got the net debt wrong. Stockopedia include the lease liabilities of £138.6m minus the net cash of £5.6m which makes net debt of £133m. You may not agree with it. However, Stockopedia haven't got it wrong.

Their way of calculating net debt is different to yours.’

PeePee - lease obligations are not debt. The only reason they are now included on the balance sheet is because of a change in the accounting presentation.

Before they would be off balance sheet.

I repeat again stockopedia is wrong.

Net debt is net debt. Not net debt plus whatever else peepee thinks should be in their because his stockopedia algorithm tells him so.

PeePee - the simple matter is that Stockopedia’s algorithm has got the net debt figure wrong.

To get such a key figure incorrect renders the platform useless and I can’t believe professional investors who have access to Bloomberg terminals and such like would be using it in their decision making.

Wasn’t it on the verge of collapse?

It’s hardly a decent comparison.

That’s the problem with sites like stockopedia, simply wall street, etc. They are algorithmic junk.

Use quality sources and the actual accounts to form your opinion.

Haha I've heard it all now. PeePee have a clue will you.

The year end accounts which show Boohoo have no net debt have been audited.

You couldn't make this s hit up.

PeePee - you are measuring the future success of Boohoo from a starting point where it has had 18 months of prevailing headwinds, at its lowest point with the maximum pressure on margins. During this time it has hunkered down, invested wisely and remarkably managed to not go into debt. Compared to our peers we are in a very strong position balance sheet wise.

Stockopedia has no better idea of future revenues than any of us unless they have a magic crystal ball that predict the macro economic environment for the next 2 years.

I've had a top up today. You are never going to time it perfectly but I'm hoping we might have a bottom now.

You need to go for a walk or something Poor.

You're becoming increasingly obnoxious.

Not a good look.