Member Info for WolfofWarks

'Boohoo is trying to survive by cost cutting. Cost cutting can only go so far. Cost cutting doesn't make for a growth business.

Boohoo is no longer the growth business it was in 2015 and never will be again. '

No Boohoo has invested money in automation in the UK and as you well know improved distribution and logistics in the USA. AS well as buying many brands dirt cheap to enhance it's offering. Most companies that purchase materials, labour etc, has had to cost costs. This issue isn't exclusive to BH which is what you are trying to portray.

'Market Capitalisation isn't below net assets of Boohoo. You must remember Boohoo have a £325m Revolving credit facility which they may well have ti use in full. No-one knows whether they will or not need all of this to survive. '

So what? Being under of over net asset value isn't relative because investors should be evaluating future free cash flow. Tech companies hardly have anything on their balance sheets so their market cap can we way over. Are you saying a company like Apple is a dodgy investment?

Having full access to a borrowing facility is a positive - especially when everyone was expecting a net debt position of £60m.

'No matter what anyone tries to prove on here, none of them know exactly what is happening in Boohoo.'

Well I listened to the analysts call last week and the management spent over an hour telling the markets exactly what is happening. This could also be said of any other public company.

'Beware. This share could go as low as 20p. Always think of the downside and don't just think of the money you might make.

More importantly, think of the money you might lose.'

Risk reward. I'm sure most investors are aware of it. Otherwise you might as well buy premium bonds or stick it savings.

Why would a tech platform purchase a cinema chain? Their separate aims are at complete odds! They don't have any synergies or even any complentary competancies.

'adly SCb still doesn't understand how the market has changed for Boohoo since March 2021. Too much competiton now for online fast fashion. There's loads and loads of them.'

Which is why BH have been picking up distressed brands on the cheap and turning them around. BH on 2015 is not the same business it is today. it's in a different more mature stage of it's lifecycle.

Which the potential expansion of the whole US market BH can enjoy strong growth again once it has proper distribution and logistics.

'There's too much competition out there now for online fashion companies. People prefer to get out and about to shop for clothes. '

PeePee - only problem with this is most of the shops are shut and those that remain either have poor stock or run a quasi online model anyway (Next being a case in point).

The trend is very much moving towards online.

'I was a very successful purchaser on a daily basis.The number one rule was to be hard but fair.To show respect.If you show respect ,you will receive respect back,together with the lowest possible prices.Respect and trust are paramount in business.Have BOO got respect?'

In all fairness you've got no way of knowing. What we do know is that BH have been working very closely with it's supply chain because that's where a lot of the slave stories arose and BH didn't have the governance at the time to control it.

If suppliers shoot prices up when the price of raw materials increases it stands to reason that prices come back down in line once those raw material costs come down.

It's quite simple economics. 30% sounds a lot but need to judges against the increase and decrease of the raw material price in that time frame.

'What are these useless, overpaid fools doing?

All IMHO DYOR

Happy'

The simple answer is to listen to the last analyst call after earnings and they are telling you exactly what they are doing. Then if you think it's credible take your bets.

These drops could be a buying or trading opportunity.

'Mr.kioto - I'm going by what happened in the General Motors case, I think Cineworld will have a similar outcome. As far as I know the UK arm of the company is operating under the UK's CVA rules, which provide protection for shareholders. If not then they will fall under CH11 rules, which will mean they are wiped completely out, or they will trade under a new name.'

GM holders were wiped out and there shares were eventually cancelled. GM was a very different case as well as it was a result of the fallout of the banking crisis in which the US government effectively had to bail it out and re-float the company.

'Emerald51 - Heres how I think it will go, the old shares will trade under a new name which will include all American, & Canadian shareholders, and the UK and maybe European shareholders will be able to transfer their old shares into the new company at a quota limit of 100:1. Which will mean that your current shares will be worth £450 in the new Cineworld. That's just my opinion but thats how I think it will go to satisfy the legal requirements in all countries.'

There are no separate holdings of US/Canadian shares. They are simple overseas holders of the UK shares.

Mr Kito - I've wished Patience all the best in this already. I haven't really got anything to offer than good wishes.

Plus I'm not anyone's cheer leader, just commenting on events as I see them.

Elvis - stop letting people live in your head. It's tedious in the extreme.

'This very same question is now being asked of the Debtors’ own valuation provided by the chummy house investment bank, TJP Parters LP, providing a ‘valuation’ full of large numbers of disclaimers. Hardly a fair, independent valuation, likely to be inaccurate and probably skewed in favour of the Debtors’ scheme. '

Waffen - you would have to prove the valuation isn't independent - have you got any evidence of this? There will always be disclaimers on a forecast unless you have a crystal ball. You can use pretty conventional basic valuation methods and arrive around the same figure. Myself and Hexam at the outset arrived at a valuation of around $2 - $4bn on a PE basis relatively easy. What becomes difficult is to reach a valuation above this on any rational basis.

Patience expert is excluding huge relevant costs such as rent to reach their EBITDA basis, and comparing back to 2017 and 2019 and what enterprise values other business's had isn't really relevant. Maybe for you because you like to look back and not forward when coming to your judgements.

Regarding the pandemic it's the sluggish and almost at times non existent recovery that has out CW in a deeper mess than it was already in, it's not solely responsible. Sadly its all come too late for holders who have to pay the price for the debt in order for the company to become viable. So while the judge may well be sympathetic to holders here he has to apply the rules, which state that all creditors are paid before shareholders - any value above the level of claims has to be realisable and the marketing process to sell the group unfortunately proves it isn't.

They haven't got any value to existing shareholders though and they didn't have any in either of the two examples you stated and didn't result in shareholders getting any cash which is what you were claiming at the time.

They are valuable to the new entity if it can utilise them.

Elvis - plus with the two examples you have listed GM - shareholders got nothing and Hertz due to fortuitous circumstances relating to the semi conductor shortage and second hand car market suddenly became mega valuable. The creditor got paid in full and SH came away with a slice of the company and some cash for their holding.

So they are two very polarised examples.

The problem you have Maid is there is no money to run away with and certainly no debt being paid down. Those nasty lenders who are stealing all the money put $1.9bn DIP financing to keep the company going otherwise it would have been in C7 back in September.

So this huge fraud of a biblical scale is just a figment of your imagination.

My question would be 'so was this party who carried out the alternative valuation an expert or not?'

Which gives rise to the importance as both myself and Hexam mentioned, the important of stating the qualifications and experience of an advocate whose work you are putting before a judge.

Cineworld Plc is just a consolidation of all the subsidiaries. Each subsidiary has its own balance sheet with its own tax losses on and my assumption is that the entire net assets of the subsidiaries will move over to the Newco structure.

You've got to remember that these creditors are owned everything CW has.

‘But if they detach the CINE shares from the new company, there are no tax losses to claim against as the new company no longer has legacy debts’

I’d assume the tax losses will move to the new entity as the individual subsidiaries will have their own losses. Assuming all the balance sheets move over. The new entity won’t have to pay tax for years.

Unsecured creditors will also be sorted although they will only have pennies in the pound.

Here leave him alone lads he's on the late shift.

He'll be on a break soon and he can check his bank app to see how his £600k is doing ....

Even with brand rental you have to justify the basis and the calculation so that it's commercially viable. Whenever I've worked with them they've always been underpinned by a valuation. Take your point though.

I can't see Ireland giving up its low tax status easily for the benefit most likely of the French & Germans.

Elvis - you always let folk live in your head. Put the keyboard down and stop poking the bear.

Friendly advice.

Made £600k on Boohoo but still needs to work nights.

What a legend.