-
12-10-2011, 08:55 PM
#501
Originally Posted by Balance
Bang on, W69.
Be very surprised if someone is not casting a close eye on this company.
Most probably their bankers.!!!!!!
Rod Duke who is a shareholder would have enough money in his Briscoes group to buy it,but whether he would want too remains to be seen.
I note a lot of rationalization going on in the rag trade in Aussie,I lot of people losing their shirts,with store closures and mergers,as stores fight for survival.
On going leases and staffing rights mean it is very difficult to reduce costs.Never heard of Westfield reducing a tennants rent.To remain in business you need to sell stock at a good margin.Unsold stock cloggs the system,adding to handling,storage,and other costs,and takes up room where new stock should be displayed.Paying too much for your stock reduces your margin and adds to your capital employed.Forever having sales undermines your premium brand.
Wish I could post a positive comment,but I can't.As you pointed out winner69,it was such an exciting vibrant company.All other retailers looked to them for ideas.
Last edited by percy; 12-10-2011 at 08:58 PM.
-
13-10-2011, 08:58 AM
#502
Originally Posted by percy
Most probably their bankers.!!!!!!
Rod Duke who is a shareholder would have enough money in his Briscoes group to buy it,but whether he would want too remains to be seen.
I note a lot of rationalization going on in the rag trade in Aussie,I lot of people losing their shirts,with store closures and mergers,as stores fight for survival.
Wish I could post a positive comment,but I can't.As you pointed out winner69,it was such an exciting vibrant company.All other retailers looked to them for ideas.
Music to the ears of private equity players.
Sadly for New Zealand, that's how they have been able to make mega dollars from New Zealand investors.
I look at Diligent and Feltex to name but two, and I think I know what's the big difference between them and most of NZ investors/shareholders.
-
13-10-2011, 10:38 AM
#503
Well insiders love these levels.
Maurice bought 250k at just over $1, new CEO bought some at $1.15 & last week some more at 79 cents. The FX losses are nothing new, were discussed in 2010 AR, and the levels they hedged at are market known, hence why we are under 80 cents, if the hedges were similar to WHS in mid 70's then the stock would be trading at $1.25.
In the end, they are at the premium end of the market, their clothes are higher quality, and they are still making cash, just on lower margins. When their margins were superior the stock was $5, good win buying at $5, and now its below $1 on lower margins, seems like good buying if you think Pumpkin Patch will exist in 5 years.
~ * ~ De Peones a Reinas ~ * ~
-
13-10-2011, 11:44 AM
#504
Originally Posted by Silverlight
.....and they are still making cash, just on lower margins.
Free cash flow been negative the last 2 years according to the accounts
-
13-10-2011, 01:24 PM
#505
Originally Posted by winner69
Free cash flow been negative the last 2 years according to the accounts
Agreed, cashflow has been grim and will dictate the share price more than profitability. I'd expect, subject to modest profitability and heavy stock reduction that cashflow would improve this year - maybe $20m+. 'Normal' markets tend to respond positively to sound cashflow so would expect PPL to respond appropriately but I wouldn't at all be surprised to see them go lower in between. This ranging bear market blows and at the moment so does PPL.
-
19-10-2011, 11:51 AM
#506
That calls for a compulsory gargle with Grandma's Lysol Belg..
-
25-10-2011, 02:58 PM
#507
That 68 at the mo must be an all time low ... even lower than the depths of despiar in the last GFC .... jeez what happens if there is another global crisis
Silverlight .... performance those insiders must be real proud off eh .... and loving it by buying more shares?
Never been cheaper .... and bugger bugger the NZD is going up again so the balance sheet not looking too good again
-
26-10-2011, 09:29 AM
#508
When things start looking bad - the colelctive sentiment of the market seems to be thinking this way - I always have a look at the good old Altman Z-score. been a trusty indicator in the past to assess the financial well being of a company - Feltex being a great example
From the last accounts PPL Altman Z-score comes in at 2.58 - according to Altman such a score means 'Good chances of the company going bankrupt within 2 years of operations from the date of financial figures given."
Only time will tell whether Mr Altmans little ratio is a good indicator
Last edited by winner69; 26-10-2011 at 09:31 AM.
-
26-10-2011, 02:23 PM
#509
Good one Belg ... HBY at least faced up to their problems and got their house in order - and you were clever enough to recognise that effort
Do you see PPL doing the same? Doesn't seem to be much sign of them doing so eh
Maybe Mr Altman needs to reword his outlook to 'Good chances of the company going bankrupt within 2 years unless they get their house in order "
I'd say Altman is right more than he is wrong .... 2.58 is bad but not always terminal .... if it was 1.8 it would be terminal
Hope you can make 150% out of PPL as well .... if they can get their house in order eh
-
19-11-2011, 11:29 PM
#510
Member
Still trending down
Attachment 3696
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks