Member Info for WolfofWarks

I’m holding judgment until I see what the accounts day. Absolutely shambolic situation. The board must know something we don’t.

John - input costs have come down mate. So should prices. It’s being juiced up like some coronation street tittle tattle.

30% sounds steep but it all depends on how much they went up and how far they have come down.

Data we do not have.

PP1 - ragtrade said he would no longer deal with boohoo. In my book that makes him an ex supplier. It’s not rocket science.

I’m going to make you my little bit ch just for kicks. I’m going to follow you around and pick apart every one of your posts just because I can because you make it so easy.

You have no idea about company law or finance. Yet you spout dross daily.

You’re an imbecile who went long at the top and short at the bottom so it’s no wonder you are so resentful of us who are making money out of BooHoo.

Here is a link from your good friends at investopedia explaining to you just how wrong you are re distribution costs being part of cost of goods sold.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cogs.asp#:~:text=Cost%20of%20goods%20sold%20(COGS)%20refers%20to%20the%20direct%20costs,costs%20and%20sales%20force%20costs.

‘ Go and do some homework instead of spouting rubbish on here.’

Are you being deliberately ironic?

If you could come back to me also on the questions I have posed you in this thread it would be much appreciated.

Good job boohoo have been working on cost mitigation measures then and squeezing value of their supply chain.

You still haven’t come back to me on those Shein number PP1, if you could please oblige ….

If it was outside an isa and you had capital gains over the annual allowance you could claim the capital loss.

You would have had to close the position through and crystallise the loss.

I’m not too sure exactly how it works in practise but you can carry forward capital losses as well.

'The textile world has been alerted to the futility of dealing with BOO. This could seriously impact the company going forward.Suppliers are going to be ultra cautious going forward,they will add to any prices they present to the company.'

This is a test of influence and power and how dependent the small suppliers are on Boohoo's business, with it being one of the largest fashion brands in the UK. I'm sure ASOS and the other large players will be wanting to share in the cost reductions that the suppliers are now enjoying.

The slave problems were further down the supply chain - they were not actually BH employees. Although BH did have weak governance practices in not having control of it's supply chain and possibly allegedly turning a blind eye to maybe some of the more unsavoury practices.

Regarding PWC one could argue that they had a role in not spotting or calling to account some of these governance issues - given that they are supposed to be a best in class auditor. Looking at the detail they didn't actually resign. The audit committee put the audit out to tender and they chose not apply.

It could be argued that it was a face saving move on their part.

PKF is not some little back street auditor - it's one of the largest firms in the UK! Yes not one of the big four - however the big four are moving away from smaller audits in order to compete for the more lucrative FTSE 100 clients. There are also regulatory changes whereby they cannot provide advisory services to clients as well as carry out the audit. So the value of the smaller clients for the really large players is diminishing.

'as ppl points out boohoo does not come under the jurisdiction of the companies act 2006 while aim is not regulated as defined under mifid. '

It's been more than established in the last week or so that PP1 talks absolute nonsense and doesn't know his ars e from his elbow.

Whilst Ragtrade's anecdotal evidence is interesting he works for one ex supplier so it's hard to form a reasoned opinion on what he has said alone. Clearly commodity prices have gone through the roof and have come back down. So whilst the headline figure looks eye watering it needs to be gauged against whatever the decrease has been in the underlying cost. The dangers in the current market is those that shot costs up quickly keep them high even when conditions on the ground change which cements in inflation.

Don't get me wrong I'm sure Boohoo's procurement team are tough negotiations with plenty of options so they can pick and choose their battles. I've had some experiences of dealing with a Turkish factory and they were dodgy as hell and the government/regulatory system not much better.

I'm sure the bigger turn off for some of the smaller dodgier suppliers will be the ESG actions the company are taking.

Can you explain this to me in more detail.

Firstly what Uk laws a jersey company with an establishment in the UK has to comply with?

What is MIFID and does it apply to companies not in the European Union?

Are you telling me the AiM is a completely unregulated market? Seriously?

Maybe have a Google of a nomad and see what their role is and compare to what a company with a standard listing is required to have.

As ever I’m extremely interested in your responses, or lack of.

'WolfofWarks - Boohoo didn't even put these items into distribution costs. They put them into exceptional items.'

Yes because of the exceptional nature of them. By putting them there and offering up a full explanation so people who know what they are looking at can come to a reasonable conclusion and to ensure that stated distribution costs are not distorted when judging against the prior year comparative. It doesn't change the final profit figure before tax, which it what you were intimating, It just re-classfies the number listed to get there.

If anything it's even more transparent and informative for the user and it's also best practise to highlight such exceptional one off costs as being out of the norm.

Plus this is the bit I don't think you can fathom. It wasn't the build costs themselves but the costs associated with the disruption to the construction project.

You're stumbling round this thread with a certain Forrest Gump quality.

‘WolfofWarks - you don't know. Are you an online fashion company, no you're not. So what goes into cost of sales for online fashion companies is different.’

No it’s not, it follows the same accounting standards as all other companies that manufacture and distribute products.

Distribution is not a production cost. It’s as simple as that.

The sad thing is if you take another look into those accounts you claim to have had a deep dive into you will see the first four lines read:

Revenue

Cost of goods sold

DISTRIBUTION COSTS

Administration Expenses

‘WolfofWarks blustering again. You don't know what must be put into cost of sales.

Cost of sales must include anything to do with sales. Sheffield automation is to do with sales, start up costs for US Distribution is to do with sales, currency hedging for paying suppliers is to do with sales.’

PP1 - you are completely wrong. Cost of goods sales contains direct costs in relation to the cost of producing or purchasing product. Distribution is an indirect cost of sale. Therefore it sits outside of COGS. If Sheffield had a manufacturing section the costs in relation to it should go to COGS. However picking and packing are a distribution function and would not. Plus it’s the depreciation that goes into the profit and loss over the useful life of the asset.

So whether or not machinery depreciation should be included depends on the function of the machine. If it’s involved in the manufacture, say fabric handling machines or sewing machines, then yes. However if it’s a conveyor system down to a packaging area and then onto a packaging machine then no.

Currency hedging is a function of treasury not a cost of goods sold.

You can carry on PP1 but you are going to make yourself look more and more foolish. I’m qualified and experienced in this and you clearly are not.

If you could come to me on the questions I posed yesterday regarding Shein it would be much appreciated.

You can’t just like at price when dealing commodities.

Margin is key.

This is all about maximising margin relative to current market prices.

I'm sure supplier had no problem ramping up the prices in the face of higher inflation so it stands to reason that prices would come down quite drastically then those pressures reside.

Supplier partnerships are a two street a negotiation and a sharing of the both the upside and the downside.

There's more scrutiny of companies on AIM than the standard FTSE list. They have to appoint a NOMAD.

The UK distribution centre is a distribution cost, the key is in the title. Currency hedging isn't a direct cost of buying goods - it's in relation to cash and protecting yourself against big swings in exchange movements. Distribution is not a direct cost of producing goods.

You're out of your depth here PP1. I've been doing this for almost 25 years.

You keep telling us you have done a deep dive into Boohoos financial accounts and they dont look pretty.

Yet:

- you don't know the difference between gross and net sales

- you think revenue and sales are difference things

- you don't know the difference between gross and net profit

- you don't know how capital expenditure carries across into the income statement

- you don't know how exceptional costs work and why there are presented the way they are

- you don't dont what an RCF is and how they work

There's nothing wrong with any of that but don't preach to us on the financial position of Boohoo when you don't seem to display even a simple understanding of the basics.

If you could come back to me on the following so we can consider the points you have been continually making:

- What is Shein's annual revenue

- what is Shein's gross profit

- what is Shein's gross margin

- What is Shein's return rate

- What is Shein's EBITDA

- What is Shein's profit before tax

Glencore's a quality company.

I topped up at the end of last month on the current dip.

Seriously good investment for the medium to long term to capture the EV/renewables play.

That and Apple are my two longest holdings that I've never had any intention of selling.

Automation will have a much shorter life as the technology moves on. I work for a group on our 3rd iteration of our NDC in seven years and sticking another one on the M6 oop north in the pipeline.

I went to see all the 3D packing machines a couple of months ago and they were well impressive and only need one staff member to operate. They'll certainly be large efficiency savings to be made but the tech and ongoing maintenance cost gets more and more expensive if you want to keep up, which I think Boohoo obviously do.

Good use of capital spend though rather than buying London offices which for me is a vanity project to get all the Debenhams and other brands staff down there to but into the story.