15225 replies to this topic

[Polly]

Hi Polly, I was going to respect your prior post where you said no more Steinhoff discussion.  But then, you had to go and post this, so all gloves off again.

 

So let’s see what we have here.  Let us use the evidence to weigh up the issue.  I have taken only past few days posts to paint this picture.  Imagine what could be dug up if I were to go back further.

1. We have a person who insists that a financial education and the financial methods taught and employed across the world, by revered organisations like the Harvard, Yale, Cambridge, Oxford etc, The World Bank, The IMF, every single commercial Bank in the world, every single fund, the world’s most successful companies, and most successful investors; that ALL of these people are incorrect.

Rather, the suggestion is that the companies to be invested in should be assessed on a gut-feel,

Incredibly it took you only "5 minutes" to reach your conclusion that Steinhoff was a huge risk (source: post 5 Feb 12h31).

 

You see once again like DAD you read what you want to read or completely misunderstand  and try to mislead what i wrote.. Have i invested in Steinhoff? I told you No...Why would i then have to go and do a financial model, check afs , check lockup agreemet etc etc if im not interested in investing here. Does this mean i dont do this when im investing in another share that i am comfortable with?? Of cos yes thats why i have a long term portfolio.  Now where did i say all these people are incorrect? I said i came this conclusion being a s/w investor and they came to same conclusion by dumping the share..their modess, spreadsheeets etc etc with detailed investigations came to same result as i got in 5 min...Doesnt mean im brilliant at investing , means ive been there with experience and done that.

1. You freely confess that you have not reviewed any of the financial data, or read the AFS, or the LUA or the CVA.  (source: post 5 Feb 12h29).

Instead, you have relied on what another member [Tom - who himself got the facts wrongs] posted.  You claim that his  argument “reinforces what ive [sic] been thinking”. (source: post 5 Feb 12h29).

 

So you have no evidence, and are basing your conclusion on hearsay (incorrect hearsay as it turns out).

R

Exactly what i posted...Why do i need to look at all that info when my gut feel tells me this is a goner???Wasnt my gut feel correct when the price fell from R80 to R20 to R5 to R1.60?????????????????

 

What evidence you talking about?  My opinion of big fat zero was done way before lock up agreement even decided on by steinhoff..The fact that there is the agreement and with TOM posting that info reinforces my view that this company is doomed..SIMPLE....UNDERSTOOD NOW

1. You claim that you cannot understand why people make use of the historic “q i and q2 financials.” (source: post 5 Feb 12h23).

 

          This is an incredible statement coming from someone apparently who has a financial and economics qualification.  If the historical reporting is not required, why is this mandatory for all companies.  It is the Law across the world, it is the basis for all investment decisons.  Yet you cannot see why this is necessary?

 

 

What has my financial qualification got to do with this statement? and where did i say historical reporting is not required???  If you misunderstood what i was geting at here let me explain it again to a 10 year old. 

 

STEINHOFF should be valued in what happened in prior years, ( the fraud , the corruption, the write downs , the unknown claims etc etc Q1 and Q2 reporting, how good they may look, should not have an effect on the share price going foward .And this has precisely happened...

1. You freely admit that you have no formal plans for retirement “ no pension fund, no ras and no medical aid...” (source: post 5 Feb 13h03).   A real solid citizen, financially response.  Would you describe yourself as the kind of person who should be providing financial advise?

With all dues respect , this has buggar all to do with you  if i have any of those or not? I do not invest in those products because or personal/ etchical/ religious religions.. And if i dont invest in those , im not a real solid citizen?? If only you knew.....less said the better..

 

Hello...am i providing financial advise? Am i registered? am i charging? 

 

 

You have incorrectly claimed that an organisation is bankrupt and insolvent when there is no evidence of either.  Instead, you are going on a gut feel.  You totally refute the physical academic and empirical evidence that is offered.  Not for you – in fact you have not even read this evidence, yet you holds onto your uninformed opinion.

 

Nothing incorrect about that ..Its just an opinion...Your view/opinion is thats its an uninformed opinion....and will only be ur view..Others beg to differ

1. You freely admits to not being invested in Steinhoff, and having no interest, yet you continuously posts negative comments, bashing all others who hold a different view.  Only you know why you choose to act in this manner.

Totally totally incorrect....For every pump there will be a dump. Dont jump into the negative comment bandwagon with DAD...cos you jus tbecomming  another pumper.Everybody here is entitled to a view but when okes get personal and name call then you know what their motives are here. 

 

Question:  If the shoe was on the other foot, and all the above was used to describe someone who was offering you critically important advice.  Is the guy whose opinion you want to value? 

 

Opinion will be an opinion, take it or dump it.

 

Look at the evidence above honestly.  Imagine this was presented in a Court of Law…what do you thing the Court would decide regarding the credibility of his evidence?

 

Bull### of a question if you ask me. Try something else.

 

If you are going to retort or respond to this post, please do so using facts, evidence and internationally accepted good governance principle.  I would then like the opportunity of a rebuttal.

 

Why would i need facts blah blah blah...You still dont understand my method of valuing this company. Sorry man..Like Dad you will never ever get it...Couldnt have made it simpler and said it a thousand times..

 

 

Best Regards

Captainfrom82

 

 

Heres what u wanted huh..

[Bubble]

To Bubble, i think i owe u an apology there......i retract that statement.....i feel if CW is buying it should not be ignored.....thanks for the effort and sharing that info with us.

 

i think u replied with a whole lot of swear words and u then deleted it haha

Tx, but not to worry mate, did not take anything personal. I read everything posted here, and value all input. 

 

Polly, trying to warn against the risk we all taking.

Dad/Captain, applying detailed analysis.

Dad, being a long(long term) and short(trader). Not a bad strategy if you know your story.

 

I am in deep water, and cannot throw stones. My view, this is 50/50, as long as the unknown continues. No AFS, and no direction on company structure from Exco.

 

My deleted post were gossip and conspiracy theories via the Stellenbosch vine that I do not know if this it the best place to post. Here goes;

 

- CW might not have know about MJ, but his son did. CW is keeping him out the public eye, and maybe the share buying and dropping the case is the best way of doing that. Beside, his bread is buttered on all sides. Upington is the legal entity suing for R59bil, and Titan taking a chance on share recovery like all the rest of us, with a chance or knowing that Upington might drop the case. Win-Win.

- Du Preez is part of the clan, he was the personal lawyer for CW and MJ(or so I have heard). Been placed there to clean the blood from the walls and keep everyone happy in Val-de-Vie, and out of Pollsmoor.

 

Would be interesting to check/see if GT Ferreira is buying more shares. (another clan member suing himself, that might know stuff and do the same as CW)

 

Crazy stuff hey IN, like you said many moons ago. I do not know how I keep my sanity with all of this.

Edited by Bubble, 06 February 2019 - 03:26 PM.

[Polly]

Hi Polly, I was going to respect your prior post where you said no more Steinhoff discussion.  But then, you had to go and post this, so all gloves off again.

 

So let’s see what we have here.  Let us use the evidence to weigh up the issue.  I have taken only past few days posts to paint this picture.  Imagine what could be dug up if I were to go back further.

1. We have a person who insists that a financial education and the financial methods taught and employed across the world, by revered organisations like the Harvard, Yale, Cambridge, Oxford etc, The World Bank, The IMF, every single commercial Bank in the world, every single fund, the world’s most successful companies, and most successful investors; that ALL of these people are incorrect.

Rather, the suggestion is that the companies to be invested in should be assessed on a gut-feel,

Incredibly it took you only "5 minutes" to reach your conclusion that Steinhoff was a huge risk (source: post 5 Feb 12h31).

1. You freely confess that you have not reviewed any of the financial data, or read the AFS, or the LUA or the CVA.  (source: post 5 Feb 12h29).

Instead, you have relied on what another member [Tom - who himself got the facts wrongs] posted.  You claim that his  argument “reinforces what ive [sic] been thinking”. (source: post 5 Feb 12h29).

 

So you have no evidence, and are basing your conclusion on hearsay (incorrect hearsay as it turns out).

1. You claim that you cannot understand why people make use of the historic “q i and q2 financials.” (source: post 5 Feb 12h23).

          This is an incredible statement coming from someone apparently who has a financial and economics qualification.  If the historical reporting is not required, why is this mandatory for all companies.  It is the Law across the world, it is the basis for all investment decisons.  Yet you cannot see why this is necessary?

1. You freely admit that you have no formal plans for retirement “ no pension fund, no ras and no medical aid...” (source: post 5 Feb 13h03).   A real solid citizen, financially response.  Would you describe yourself as the kind of person who should be providing financial advise?

1. You have incorrectly claimed that an organisation is bankrupt and insolvent when there is no evidence of either.  Instead, you are going on a gut feel.  You totally refute the physical academic and empirical evidence that is offered.  Not for you – in fact you have not even read this evidence, yet you holds onto your uninformed opinion.

1. You freely admits to not being invested in Steinhoff, and having no interest, yet you continuously posts negative comments, bashing all others who hold a different view.  Only you know why you choose to act in this manner.

 

Question:  If the shoe was on the other foot, and all the above was used to describe someone who was offering you critically important advice.  Is the guy whose opinion you want to value? 

 

Look at the evidence above honestly.  Imagine this was presented in a Court of Law…what do you thing the Court would decide regarding the credibility of his evidence?

 

If you are going to retort or respond to this post, please do so using facts, evidence and internationally accepted good governance principle.  I would then like the opportunity of a rebuttal.

 

Best Regards

Captainfrom82

Hi C...

 

took day off from trading and now see this huge mouthfull here..

 

should i reply  or leave the misleads to continue misleading with there bullocks posts either via misunderstanding what i posted or continue to defend themselves by intentionally misleading????  seems latter the game plan to me...

 

If its your aim to run me down , i wont shoot from the hip , name call etc etc....

 

 

 

mmmm

Edited by Polly, 06 February 2019 - 03:10 PM.

[DayTraderDad]

Interesting very low volumes in JSE only 493,417 shares traded up to now!!!

[Captainfrom82]

Hi Cappy, i would like to ask you a question. I had feedback from my accountant before i put money into this share.

1 - quartely updates are important and cannot be ignored

2- AFS gives you the financial status of that company.

His opinion on previous quartely updates from snh was good, the historic AFS he did not give his opinion as he rightly pointed out that the information could not be relied on, as is correctly pointed out on steindhoffs website.

He also stated that given the state of affairs with steinhoff, one has to question the credibilty/accuracy of their Quartely updates. His advice was to wait until they do publish AFS, he would look into it and give feedback

He also advised that i do not invest in here but i thought screw him as i am taking the gamble.

Kindly respond should you feel the need to.

 

Hi Lionelza1,

 

Following on from my previous two posts; and your statement number 2:

 

=========snip=============

>>>2- AFS gives you the financial status of that company.

His opinion on previous quartely updates from snh was good, the historic AFS he did not give his opinion as he rightly pointed out that the information could not be relied on, as is correctly pointed out on steindhoffs website.

He also stated that given the state of affairs with steinhoff, one has to question the credibilty/accuracy of their Quartely updates. His advice was to wait until they do publish AFS, he would look into it and give feedback

He also advised that i do not invest in here but i thought screw him as i am taking the gamble

=========snip=============

 

CF82: I concur regarding the quarterly updates – they were mostly good.

 

Generally speaking, Steinhoff's overall operational business is pretty solid (despite what you may have read posted here).  They have experienced problems operationally at Mattress Firm (US) and Poundland (UK).  As has been posted by others, these problems have been attended to and the businesses are already turning a nice profit (the case at Poundland); or are expected to turn a profit in the near future (+$200m by FY20E for Mattress Firm).  The really nice part is the unleveraged free cash flow of +$127m by FY20E.  Note that due to change in equity holding to only 50.1% would accrue to Steinhoff (and possibly even less than this as I expect Steinhoff to drop their holding to below the current 50.1% when the Management Incentive Plan kicks in).

 

 Some of the other businesses have been negatively impacted by the Steinhoff events of the past year.  Greenlit (formerly the SEAG) for example, has turned a loss which is largely attributable to the higher funding costs and the restructuring costs (they would have turned a profit otherwise).

 

Regarding the historic AFS, your accountant is correct that these cannot be relied on.  The assets and income were materially overstated, and the liabilities under reported.  There were many related party transactions, and blatant fraud.

 

However, the last set of Financial Statements (unaudited I concede) released on 29 June 2018 corrected the previous issues, and heavily impaired the assets, accounted for the corrective transactions of a Capital nature.  This is what led to the loss reported for 1H and will again reflect in the AFS17 and AFS18 statements to be released (hopefully – I know you feel differently) on 18 April 2019.

 

I am unsure why your accountant feels that the current quarterly updates may lack credibility or accuracy.  My own thoughts is that given the events of the past year, and the spotlight being on Steinhoff, that they would take extra care before reporting any numbers.  There is an enormous case to be made for the corrupt people to be pursued by the law.  I just cannot see Steinhoff willingly and intentionally committing any more irregularities for the quarterly trading updates.  They would simply be too terrified of the consequences.   However, you and your accountant may hold different views.

 

I look forward to your sharing your accountant's feedback once he has reviewed the official audited AFS.  The problem of course is that there is a fair chance that the share price may appreciate very quickly.  You would get far less bang for your buck  -  but then since your buck would be spent after assessing the audited AFS, you should have a lower risk and far more certainty. 

 

It is your choice whether you feel that the risk/reward permutation is compelling enough to buy now, or if you prefer more certainty and less risk.

 

Best Regards

Captainfrom82

[DayTraderDad]

Good article: 

https://www.4investo...stock&ID=130633

[DayTraderDad]

Hi Lionelza1,

Following the previous post which stated my overall investment philosophy, this is a post directly related to Steinhoff and the questions/comments that you have made.

 

>>>1 - quartely updates are important and cannot be ignored

CF82: In South Africa, Quarterly updates are neither mandatory (from a JSE listing requirement) nor regulatory (as in the various Statutory Law).  In the US however, listed companies file a quarterly document with the SEC which contains fantastic information.  Many Trencor investors (listed on the JSE) keep an eye on Textainers quarterly updates since Trencor’s biggest holding is Textainer.

 

 Historically in SA there were some companies who voluntarily compiled quarterly financials (and paid out distributions on this quarterly financials basis).  However, this was by choice (IIRC one such company was African Bank).  Providing a quarterly financial update (not to be confused with a quarterly sales or trading update) is a costly matter, and therefore most companies do not do this.

 

Quarterly updates are important as it is simply too long to wait for bi-annual updates on a company's trading position.  Even the Cellphone companies provide quarterly updates on subscriber numbers which tells us a lot about the direction the company is going in. 

 

It is important that the quarterly number are no actual Financial Statements, rather they are trading updates.  But for investors it is a goldmine.  By building on the quarterly trading updates, this  allows us to come up with a ballpark 1H and full FY estimates.  It informs us and guides our expectations of what we could expect.  The hope of course that by having some insight into these numbers we can predict to some extent the market reaction when the 1H and FYE numbers are officially released.

 

The other added value is to look at the real term impact of like for like sales, and to also try and see what the impact is for constant currency (if the business operates internationally).  It is very possible to make loss, yet realise a profit in the comprehensive income.

 

I need to now correct an incorrect posting previously made by Polly.  I have previously chosen to ignore it, but I believe it is a useful example  to quote:

 

In Polly’s post of 1 Feb 2019 09h09, he makes the following claim”

 

================snip===============

“Lets say  you own 20 stores making R 20m turnover and R5m heps

 You then but another 10 stores for  R10m by issuing shares

 Will your turnover increase? Of cos yes right. Will that say you doing very well / solid in today's economic climate? how can you make that decision on  a 3 month trading update without bottom line figures. This im talking abiout very solid trading update...What a joke to read " solid results"

================snip===============

 

Generally speaking and ignoring for a moment the error of R5m "heps" (I think he meant headline earnings), the question to be asked is how many shares were issued in his example.  You cannot form your opinion without knowing the numbers.  This is such an open ended question or statement.  It is like asking “how long is a piece of string?”

 

Regarding the actual statement by Pepkor, Polly has chosen to completely ignore the fact the by comparing 1Q18 vs 1Q19, that there was no share dilution in this period.  All the acquisitions had been concluded prior to these periods.  The growth came from pure organic growth.

 

So his conclusion that the results were poor is actually desperately incorrect.  The 6% growth in the current challenged trading environment in South Africa was actually very good.

 

I wonder how many people reacted to this misinformation!!!

 

Best Regards

Captainfrom82

Well done Captain well described. I think you taught all the readers off this chatroom in the few post more than Polly's vague comments this time!!!.

There is one important topic that is not much discussed and its the business model and the product/service being sold to which market and what is the growth prospects.

For me the potential I see in Steinhoff is the market they serve which is the "affordable shopping" namely:

1 - PEPKOR well positioned with winner trademarks but growth will be less than PEPCO Europe

2 - PEPCO business model operating in a market with 500 mil people at present only scratching the surface but expanding a a good rate last three months over 20%.

3 - MATTRESS FIRM with all the shops they have imagine if the PEPCO story of shop in a shop is developed because the USA middle class are not full of cash so affordable shopping would be a winner.

The Conforamas and Greenlit Brands will do fine but I do not see huge growth because of excessive competition.

 

Maybe you could comment!!!

[DayTraderDad]

To Bubble, i think i owe u an apology there......i retract that statement.....i feel if CW is buying it should not be ignored.....thanks for the effort and sharing that info with us.

 

i think u replied with a whole lot of swear words and u then deleted it haha

 

There you go!! You do have a heart after all!!! Haha

[Captainfrom82]

Hi Cappy, i would like to ask you a question. I had feedback from my accountant before i put money into this share.

1 - quartely updates are important and cannot be ignored

2- AFS gives you the financial status of that company.

His opinion on previous quartely updates from snh was good, the historic AFS he did not give his opinion as he rightly pointed out that the information could not be relied on, as is correctly pointed out on steindhoffs website.

He also stated that given the state of affairs with steinhoff, one has to question the credibilty/accuracy of their Quartely updates. His advice was to wait until they do publish AFS, he would look into it and give feedback

He also advised that i do not invest in here but i thought screw him as i am taking the gamble.

Kindly respond should you feel the need to.

 

Hi Lionelza1,

Following the previous post which stated my overall investment philosophy, this is a post directly related to Steinhoff and the questions/comments that you have made.

 

>>>1 - quartely updates are important and cannot be ignored

CF82: In South Africa, Quarterly updates are neither mandatory (from a JSE listing requirement) nor regulatory (as in the various Statutory Law).  In the US however, listed companies file a quarterly document with the SEC which contains fantastic information.  Many Trencor investors (listed on the JSE) keep an eye on Textainers quarterly updates since Trencor’s biggest holding is Textainer.

 

 Historically in SA there were some companies who voluntarily compiled quarterly financials (and paid out distributions on this quarterly financials basis).  However, this was by choice (IIRC one such company was African Bank).  Providing a quarterly financial update (not to be confused with a quarterly sales or trading update) is a costly matter, and therefore most companies do not do this.

 

Quarterly updates are important as it is simply too long to wait for bi-annual updates on a company's trading position.  Even the Cellphone companies provide quarterly updates on subscriber numbers which tells us a lot about the direction the company is going in. 

 

It is important that the quarterly number are no actual Financial Statements, rather they are trading updates.  But for investors it is a goldmine.  By building on the quarterly trading updates, this  allows us to come up with a ballpark 1H and full FY estimates.  It informs us and guides our expectations of what we could expect.  The hope of course that by having some insight into these numbers we can predict to some extent the market reaction when the 1H and FYE numbers are officially released.

 

The other added value is to look at the real term impact of like for like sales, and to also try and see what the impact is for constant currency (if the business operates internationally).  It is very possible to make loss, yet realise a profit in the comprehensive income.

 

I need to now correct an incorrect posting previously made by Polly.  I have previously chosen to ignore it, but I believe it is a useful example  to quote:

 

In Polly’s post of 1 Feb 2019 09h09, he makes the following claim”

 

================snip===============

“Lets say  you own 20 stores making R 20m turnover and R5m heps

 You then but another 10 stores for  R10m by issuing shares

 Will your turnover increase? Of cos yes right. Will that say you doing very well / solid in today's economic climate? how can you make that decision on  a 3 month trading update without bottom line figures. This im talking abiout very solid trading update...What a joke to read " solid results"

================snip===============

 

Generally speaking and ignoring for a moment the error of R5m "heps" (I think he meant headline earnings), the question to be asked is how many shares were issued in his example.  You cannot form your opinion without knowing the numbers.  This is such an open ended question or statement.  It is like asking “how long is a piece of string?”

 

Regarding the actual statement by Pepkor, Polly has chosen to completely ignore the fact the by comparing 1Q18 vs 1Q19, that there was no share dilution in this period.  All the acquisitions had been concluded prior to these periods.  The growth came from pure organic growth.

 

So his conclusion that the results were poor is actually desperately incorrect.  The 6% growth in the current challenged trading environment in South Africa was actually very good.

 

I wonder how many people reacted to this misinformation!!!

 

Best Regards

Captainfrom82

[Lionelza1]

some of you guys are already celebrating at the finish line but the race hasnt even started!....good for you

 

and who cares what CW is doing with buying/not buying......i hear where its going but we do not know the reasoning so it matters not

 

im hoping not to see any further delays this mnth issued by management....coz if we do, put on your seltbealts for that long drop botha

To Bubble, i think i owe u an apology there......i retract that statement.....i feel if CW is buying it should not be ignored.....thanks for the effort and sharing that info with us.

 

i think u replied with a whole lot of swear words and u then deleted it haha

[Captainfrom82]

Hi Cappy, i would like to ask you a question. I had feedback from my accountant before i put money into this share.

1 - quartely updates are important and cannot be ignored

2- AFS gives you the financial status of that company.

His opinion on previous quartely updates from snh was good, the historic AFS he did not give his opinion as he rightly pointed out that the information could not be relied on, as is correctly pointed out on steindhoffs website.

He also stated that given the state of affairs with steinhoff, one has to question the credibilty/accuracy of their Quartely updates. His advice was to wait until they do publish AFS, he would look into it and give feedback

He also advised that i do not invest in here but i thought screw him as i am taking the gamble.

Kindly respond should you feel the need to.

 

 

Hi Lionelza1,

 

I am happy to share my thoughts although I need to first of all articulate my general investment thoughts, which informs my strategy. 

 

Please understand though that these are my own thoughts based on all the “evidence” that we have before us.  It is important to also understand that due to the forward-looking nature of investing, that there can be no assurances provided.  Also, importantly, many people do not seem to completely understand that the company does not control the share price (although they may influence the price if they engage in a buy-back). 

 

There is another JSE listed company called York Timbers where the executives are forever complaining that the market does not price the share correct.  That may be the case – maybe the market is placing an unfair concern; or alternatively sometimes the markets go the other direction.  Think Aspen who was trading over R400 a share, or Ascendis at over R20.  Sometimes the markets over-value the future earnings or believe that they will materialise when in fact there is some doubt.

 

The takeaway from the above, is that companies cannot and do not control share prices.  The best they can do is run a tight ship, have genuine quality in earnings, and have a sustainable business.  The market would eventually recognise the value when the EPS is consistent and predictable.  The biggest factor IMHO is the Return on Assets which must consistently be higher than 17% for me.  The higher the better.  If the company retains these earnings and compounds the capital growth, you are in for a real winner. 

 

With all of that in mind, the recommendation is manage your downside risk by diversifying (and keeping your interest in a single investment to possibly less than 10%).  From time to time, I am happy to exceed (to around 15%)  this guideline if the investment case is compelling.

 

To save this post becoming overly long and laborious, I will answer your questions in a separate post.

 

Best Regards

Captainfrom82

[Lionelza1]

Hi Cappy, i would like to ask you a question. I had feedback from my accountant before i put money into this share.

1 - quartely updates are important and cannot be ignored

2- AFS gives you the financial status of that company.

His opinion on previous quartely updates from snh was good, the historic AFS he did not give his opinion as he rightly pointed out that the information could not be relied on, as is correctly pointed out on steindhoffs website.

He also stated that given the state of affairs with steinhoff, one has to question the credibilty/accuracy of their Quartely updates. His advice was to wait until they do publish AFS, he would look into it and give feedback

He also advised that i do not invest in here but i thought screw him as i am taking the gamble.

Kindly respond should you feel the need to.

Edited by Lionelza1, 06 February 2019 - 10:56 AM.

[Captainfrom82]

One day yes one day ill post something here from the archives  of this forum where i made someone exactly like this eat his words and the proof is here in this forum...

its a nice story to learn from but dont feel like it to post now as alsi line in sand now and im trading it, but once posted someone will look silly again....

 

Hi Polly, I was going to respect your prior post where you said no more Steinhoff discussion.  But then, you had to go and post this, so all gloves off again.

 

So let’s see what we have here.  Let us use the evidence to weigh up the issue.  I have taken only past few days posts to paint this picture.  Imagine what could be dug up if I were to go back further.

1. We have a person who insists that a financial education and the financial methods taught and employed across the world, by revered organisations like the Harvard, Yale, Cambridge, Oxford etc, The World Bank, The IMF, every single commercial Bank in the world, every single fund, the world’s most successful companies, and most successful investors; that ALL of these people are incorrect.

Rather, the suggestion is that the companies to be invested in should be assessed on a gut-feel,

Incredibly it took you only "5 minutes" to reach your conclusion that Steinhoff was a huge risk (source: post 5 Feb 12h31).

1. You freely confess that you have not reviewed any of the financial data, or read the AFS, or the LUA or the CVA.  (source: post 5 Feb 12h29).

Instead, you have relied on what another member [Tom - who himself got the facts wrongs] posted.  You claim that his  argument “reinforces what ive [sic] been thinking”. (source: post 5 Feb 12h29).

 

So you have no evidence, and are basing your conclusion on hearsay (incorrect hearsay as it turns out).

1. You claim that you cannot understand why people make use of the historic “q i and q2 financials.” (source: post 5 Feb 12h23).

          This is an incredible statement coming from someone apparently who has a financial and economics qualification.  If the historical reporting is not required, why is this mandatory for all companies.  It is the Law across the world, it is the basis for all investment decisons.  Yet you cannot see why this is necessary?

1. You freely admit that you have no formal plans for retirement “ no pension fund, no ras and no medical aid...” (source: post 5 Feb 13h03).   A real solid citizen, financially response.  Would you describe yourself as the kind of person who should be providing financial advise?

1. You have incorrectly claimed that an organisation is bankrupt and insolvent when there is no evidence of either.  Instead, you are going on a gut feel.  You totally refute the physical academic and empirical evidence that is offered.  Not for you – in fact you have not even read this evidence, yet you holds onto your uninformed opinion.

1. You freely admits to not being invested in Steinhoff, and having no interest, yet you continuously posts negative comments, bashing all others who hold a different view.  Only you know why you choose to act in this manner.

 

Question:  If the shoe was on the other foot, and all the above was used to describe someone who was offering you critically important advice.  Is the guy whose opinion you want to value? 

 

Look at the evidence above honestly.  Imagine this was presented in a Court of Law…what do you thing the Court would decide regarding the credibility of his evidence?

 

If you are going to retort or respond to this post, please do so using facts, evidence and internationally accepted good governance principle.  I would then like the opportunity of a rebuttal.

 

Best Regards

Captainfrom82

[DayTraderDad]

 

Interesting trade in Tradegate:

 

DATE TIME VOLUME PRICE

05/02/2019 18:55:11.992 951 372 0.1152

 

 

Share trade 951 372  at 0.1152 Euro

[DayTraderDad]

 

Interesting article: https://www.finanztr...ieder-staerker/

 

The downward journey has not happened in the past months (!). The value holds almost continuously above 10 cents and was able to confirm this starting position on Tuesday. Thus, the results in recent weeks are proof that the market has not written off the company.

 

Interesting trade in Tradegate:

 

DATE TIME VOLUME PRICE

05/02/2019 18:55:11.992 951 372 0.1152

 

[DayTraderDad]

Interesting article: https://www.finanztr...ieder-staerker/

 

The downward journey has not happened in the past months (!). The value holds almost continuously above 10 cents and was able to confirm this starting position on Tuesday. Thus, the results in recent weeks are proof that the market has not written off the company.

 

[DayTraderDad]

Milo looks good for a R1.80 close!!

Ho dear ho dear did not like the USA open!!

[Tom]

https://www.moneyweb...-biggest-loser/

https://www.moneyweb...-call-on-bonds/

 

Would you have exposure to Group Five, Pick and Pay, or Murray & Roberts, and why?

[DayTraderDad]

 

Yes shops like Ackerman’s are affordable and the quality is also good.

 

Milo looks good for a R1.80 close!!

[DayTraderDad]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edcon

"

Following the private equity takeover, Edcon had a succession of CEOs, lost significant market share, and struggled with an oversupply of leased floorspace. This was partly due to an increase in cheaper imported clothing and the increasing move to online shopping by customers.^[12]

In 2016 the company recorded a net debt of R24.7 billion and was temporarily taken over by debtors to avoid financial collapse.^[13] This resulted in the closure of 253 stores by 2018 as part of a recovery plan^[14] and by 2017 the company had reduced its level of net debt to R4.2 billion. In July 2018 Edcon announced that it was closing its Boardmans homeware and La Senza stores.^[13]

In December 2018 it was reported in the Sunday Times^[16] that Edcon and its subsidiaries were on the brink of financial collapse and was seeking a deal with mall owners to reduce rental payments.^[17] Edcon disputed the reports but did state that it was working towards a eliminating company debt and a deal to prevent the closure of its stores.

"

 

However now they are closing big shops in important malls, I guess they might try to reopen in these malls in smaller shops (if they can).

It sounds to me that they have done similar mistakes to what Steinhoff did.

For me the biggest mistake and very foolish decision was Mattress Firm but now that they turned it around and if they could implement a PEPCO shop in shop might turn out to be a very good thing or even put one of the furniture brands in the MF shops will be much more successful then just selling beds. EDCON was already in trouble many years ago then got taken over by BAIN (think this is the name)