WHS - Warehouse Group

[Rawz]

Briscoes were the first to repay the subsidy by memory. Master stroke by Duke, big calls came for WHS to follow suit which they did. But Briscoes won the the day of public opinion.

[Beagle]

I couldn't in all good conscience own Briscoes shares because their business model is mostly built around deception. Sales every week, sometimes more than once a week deceiving customers they are getting a genuine sale price. It doesn't feel morally right because in my opinion it isn't.

Companies that are repetitively disingenuous with their marketing are egregiously breeching a social and moral code of fair play in my opinion and this marks them out as one of the worst ESG offenders on the NZX, right up there with sin stocks like SKC as far as I am concerned.

[LoungeLizzard]

not sure exactly what your beef with WHS is, but everything is relative and I doubt you would find many that would disagree with the statement that WHS is more ethical than many other large retailers in NZ. Yes a large amount of their stock is made in Asia, but that is no different to any other major houseware/clothing/electronics retailer. On the other measures (treatment of its staff, charitable initiatives, local environmental impact) it appears to be doing well, and the fact a large chunk of its profits generated end up going to the tindall foundation is something that other large retailers probably don’t have (does rod duke have a large charity effort?)

I don't have a "beef" with WHS as you put it - more that people are deluding themselves, maybe others, in engaging ethical whataboutery. Can anyone seriously argue that the WHS model of cheapness over quality is good for the environment? And charity giving isn't the point - see my comment on Mcdonalds (another big charity giver). It is revealing that most of the material that people post on here supporting WHS as an "ethical" company comes from WHS itself. That is because the WHS doesn't like to co-operate with independent studies - another giveaway. Given the huge range of it's products from China, I have serious doubts whether WHS knows what conditions those products are made in. Sorry to bug you about ethics - I'll stop now. Ethical investing doesn't seem to be a big issue on this site.

[Beagle]

Your argument is appears to be predicated on the assumption that if you pay twice as much for a similar product on so called sale at Briscoes it will last twice as long. I think your argument is fundamentally flawed and without any basis in fact or study.

Calling a company unethical for selling basic needs items to people are fair prices, (without disingenuous sales and marketing tactics) is in my opinion the wrong adjective. You could call them environmentally insensitive but then I would draw your attention to your assumption that because something is cheaper its inferior and has a vastly shorter lifespan.

I just noticed this morning that the electric jug I inherited from my share of My Mum's chattels is a Living and co house brand Warehouse jug. She had it for many many years before I got it to replace the Briscoes jug that burned out recently

[LoungeLizzard]

Your argument is appears to be predicated on the assumption that if you pay twice as much for a similar product on so called sale at Briscoes it will last twice as long. I think your argument is fundamentally flawed and without any basis in fact or study.

In general products that cost more last longer and work better. But if you buy into the cheap is best/high volume metrics then WHS wins out. Not good for the planet, but that doesn't seem to be one of your metrics. Fair enough, each to his own.

[bull....]

I couldn't in all good conscience own Briscoes shares because their business model is mostly built around deception. Sales every week, sometimes more than once a week deceiving customers they are getting a genuine sale price. It doesn't feel morally right because in my opinion it isn't.

Companies that are repetitively disingenuous with their marketing are egregiously breeching a social and moral code of fair play in my opinion and this marks them out as one of the worst ESG offenders on the NZX, right up there with sin stocks like SKC as far as I am concerned.

ethical investing depends on the person , what is ethical to you may not be ethical to someone else. hence i would argue whats ethical or not really depends on the marketing as such

[Beagle]

In general products that cost more last longer and work better. But if you buy into the cheap is best/high volume metrics then WHS wins out. Not good for the planet, but that doesn't seem to be one of your metrics. Fair enough, each to his own.

That's where we fundamentally disagree. For example, ask almost anyone with a high end European car whether its more reliable than a Toyota Corolla that costs just a fraction of the price. I'm going to leave it at that with you as I think you are basing your viewpoint on a fundamentally flawed assumption.

[LoungeLizzard]

That's where we fundamentally disagree. For example, ask almost anyone with a high end European car whether its more reliable than a Toyota Corolla that costs just a fraction of the price. I'm going to leave it at that with you as I think you are basing your viewpoint on a fundamentally flawed assumption.

Not a fair comparison as Toyota Corolla's don't end up in landfills after a few months. And they're not made in China. I look at ethics in investing far more than most, but that doesn't mean my assumptions are flawed. As I said, each to their own.

[Dlownz]

I'm still in the opinion of a range 3.70-3.90 till the result. Then let's see where it goes

[alokdhir]

I'm still in the opinion of a range 3.70-3.90 till the result. Then let's see where it goes

Historic results are coming out great ...almost all know but market seems more worried about future prospects . Delta seems tough nut to crack even for our lockdown Queen . Even after 5 weeks of level 4 ...its not slowing down .....Now retail maybe little different both in store and online .