Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Shoe Zone LSE:SHOE London Ordinary Share GB00BLTVCF91 ORD 1P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  -2.50p -1.52% 162.50p 160.00p 165.00p 165.00p 162.50p 165.00p 10,928 11:18:08
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
General Retailers 159.8 10.3 16.9 9.6 81.25

Shoe Zone Share Discussion Threads

Showing 401 to 424 of 425 messages
Chat Pages: 17  16  15  14  13  12  11  10  9  8  7  6  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
12/6/2017
19:16
Edmundshaw you really can't get cheaper than shoe zone! Having said that there is no consolation holding the "best loser" if the whole retail sector is going to be squeezed by consumer loss of confidence, weaker pound, and oversupply.
boonkoh
09/6/2017
20:01
fenners I think if the pound weakens further prices will have to rise a bit. For everyone. It's hardly as if competitors are in a better position. So I think the forex issue is a one-off, and hedging will dampen that as a problem. More salient IMO is whether a tighter consumer will stop buying so much stuff from the company or will actually move to it as a lower price alternative.
edmundshaw
09/6/2017
14:02
I have bought some Ramsdens. I like it on fundamentals and it should provide a 5% yield.
meijiman
09/6/2017
13:41
No response to my query as yet to the company - you form your own judgement if that's good corporate governance or not I have
joe say
09/6/2017
12:42
Got to say I'm disappointed. I was trawling around for hi-yield stocks and whilst this may still be one these comments look to be all about buying time and I guess hoping that margins are repaired in the meantime. If they are not then I think the dividend will be cut.
fenners66
09/6/2017
12:38
The other one off on store exit costs is rubbish as well. Typical. Last year it was a massive credit so we will ignore it. Now it's a debit and the numbers get adjusted. It's also not a one-off as they are continually tweaking their portfolio.
topvest
09/6/2017
11:28
Today's fall in the £/$ does not help allbeit they may now say it's hedged - for now - but hedges run out and if £/$ is going to continue in this trend then all the hedge will do is postpone the impact.
fenners66
08/6/2017
08:57
I was looking here for yield and the dividend has been increased which is good , but I don't like the FX effect - I don't like the way its been explained and since the sales are price sensitive I wonder at their ability to pass on the cost to the consumer. Perhaps "Big Box" is designed to target a more affluent consumer so they can put up prices - for now I'll just continue to keep an eye on them.
fenners66
08/6/2017
08:52
I just re-read the interim results and have got the technical point they have chosen to make:- "made certain adjustments to the reported profit before tax for the interim reporting statement. These adjustments are made in accordance with the Groups accounting policies and are one off in nature or are considered to be materially distortive of the true underlying trading performance of the business for this reporting period." "Impact of Foreign Exchange: Following the Brexit decision last June the Group had an unhedged committed stock order programme which has resulted in significant currency losses in the period compared with the prior period. The Group has increased its hedge coverage against forecast purchases of stock and so this is considered to be a one off event." My take on this is- We already ordered the stock from China ; as usual. It takes weeks to manufacture and arrive and we did not hedge the US $ vs the order. By the time we got it the FX rate moved against us and the stock would cost more. If we took that hit through cost of sales gross margin would fall. By adopting a new accounting policy we can say that the stock cost us the original order amount and the FX movement is a "financing cost" which we take to admin costs and the gross margin actually improves. Now they have adopted hedging vs the order so the stock will be more expensive per say and the hit drops to the gross margin. If they build this into the second half they are hoping that the prices negotiated via more direct from manufacturer sourcing will offset some of the effect of that hit on the gross margin to leave the trend not dropping off a cliff - its more of a technical accounting trick. Therefore there should not be a financing loss shown in admin costs - BUT the REAL effect of the FX loss is still going to be in the numbers - its going to be where it belongs in the gross margin! If the effect of the leg down last year was un hedged the horse has bolted - you cannot now start buying US$ at $1.50/£ hedged or not - so the gross margin effect is is not a one off event. Furthermore these are half year results and the CEO refers to "each the annualised rebasing of the exchange rate we anticipate that the ongoing impact will be much lower." is what I referred to above - the technicality of showing the loss in the admin line needs to be properly challenged - 1, second half reporting to come so still is a year on year comparison to make - the only sort of relevance to the statement is "comparison" 2, The FX effect is there and until rate goes back up its effect is now buried deep in results It sounds to me like a rushed deflecting comment and he hopes everyone will buy it without questioning him too hard about it. As I said yesterday why have the underlying Admin costs shot up? £933k There is serious cash burn down £10.4m since year end and £3.5m year on year Stock up £1.8m year over year which is 7 % they say delayed sales - but what about the underlying higher purchase cost? The FX move probably accounts for the jump and that will show through as lower margin to come.
fenners66
08/6/2017
07:51
Have emailed them for a response - doesn't make sense to me - can anyone advise if I'm misinterpreting the data please?
joe say
08/6/2017
07:47
Yes - but read the narrative - one off in nature viz; 1. Impact of Foreign Exchange: Following the Brexit decision last June the Group had an unhedged committed stock order programme which has resulted in significant currency losses in the period compared with the prior period. The Group has increased its hedge coverage against forecast purchases of stock and so this is considered to be a one off event. That said the table underneath this narrative suggests much the opposite - £130k hedged at the balance sheet date v £672k the previous year ????
joe say
07/6/2017
20:00
Yes, well spotted. Paul Scott has missed this in his write-up. Results have gone from £1.9m to £0.3m at the PBT level which is awful. Glad I sold out. Nice little business but too many headwinds.
topvest
07/6/2017
08:31
I was waiting to see the impact on results from FX before deciding whether to get in or not. Purchases must essentially be made in US $ so the fall in sterling I expected to impact. I see they have split out the loss on FX and Lease exit costs and suggest that these are exceptionals which will not be repeated. Whilst this might be the case for the leases I cant see just how they can say its a one off for FX. I can see the explanation that one period is impacted but the other wasn't however the £/$ FX rate is still broadly the same today as in the period covered by the interim results - so its impact remains. The is the new norm. Whilst they may have now hedged vs a further fall it does not alter the fact that margin is where its at. So I feel the underlying position is not properly represented - thoughts anyone? Add to that the decline in sales and large increase in Admin expenses (real underlying) and these results look challenging.
fenners66
07/6/2017
08:22
The critical financial factors are in the interim statement. This remains a firm hold for me for the high yielding dividend which continues to be supported by their net cash position and minimal pension deficit. Financial Summary:In the six months to 1 April 2017, the Company generated revenues of £72.9m (2016 H1: £74.6m) and underlying profit before tax of £1.3m (2016 H1: £1.7m). This performance reflects continued management of the retail estate whilst driving profitable sales. During the first six months the company continued to manage the impact of the devaluation of sterling and the impact of this is shown as an adjustment between underlying and statutory profit. As we reach the annualised rebasing of the exchange rate we anticipate that the ongoing impact will be much lower. Product gross margin performance remains strong at 62.8% (2016 H1: 61.1%) and cash generation continues to be a focus. As at 1 April 2017, Shoe Zone had net cash of £4.6m (2016 H1: GBP8.1m) with no bank debt. This lower cash balance is partly explained by the higher dividend paid in the period and the slightly delayed timing of the roll out of the new Big Box concept; as stock has already been purchased and we anticipate this to be utilised as new Big Box stores are opened. The reported deficit in the pension fund has also fallen from £13.1m at 1 October 2016 to £7.9m at 1 April 2017. This is compared to a deficit of £6.3m at 2 April 2016.
masurenguy
07/6/2017
08:03
Results not amazing but will probably hold on to them. Dividend. Not much free float. No debt.
mister md
28/5/2017
10:27
The Shoe Zone here in Torquay is always busy but it is so scruffy. Cheap and scruffy suits most of the people that live here in Torquay.
chickenrun1
27/5/2017
12:03
Does anybody know how the Brantano story is playing out? the most recent i could find is this link from 6th April saying that closing down sales had started. hxxpp://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/brantano-launches-closing-down-sale-after-company-enters-administration/story-30253303-detail/story.html
qvg
07/4/2017
17:04
British Bulls.com have issue a short position on Shoe Zone & the shorts on this have grown Friday , expect downward trend for most of next week
hotaimstocks
23/3/2017
17:20
I hate the charges involved making that much profit from creditor's misery. However they then use this as a reason why a "cheaper alternative" is good - the prepack sale of a business on the day it goes into administration. They truly stink - most especially when sold to the same directors who likely as not were preaching to suppliers just days before that business was fine!
fenners66
23/3/2017
13:18
Sometimes, you will see liquidators appointed by shareholders to businesses on so-called fixed fees that have very few creditors, which are negligible compared to the assets of the business, including quite large sums of cash that exceed their agreed liquidation charges and that also meet all creditors claims,on the expectations of getting a substantial fair distribution, only to find the liquidators see an opportunity take the lot for themselves by creating issues that enable them to start charging excess fees at outrageous rates as you say fenners66. Worse still, is that the Courts let them get away with these tactics when shareholders try to hold them to account, that leave the shareholders paying them even greater fees and costs as Courts rule against stakeholders on the basis that they are professional people.
clocktower
23/3/2017
11:48
I have seen administrators/liquidators reports of 6 - monthly progress, where the only progress was that they had spent a load of hours (at up to £600/hr charge rates) on writing a 6 Monthly Progress report! Talk about bleeding creditors dry.
fenners66
23/3/2017
11:33
That sums it up nicely BrianGeeee, In many cases it is about the "Administrators" getting as large a chunk of the funds they can lay their hands upon, ignoring what is best for the employees,landlords,creditors etc. I have seen Administrators and Liquidators bleed companies/businesses going to extreme lengths to prevent just and equitable division of assets just to fill their own pockets regardless of the suffering and damage done to those they like to try to pretend they represent. Without detailed information it cannot even be suggested that PwC are or would act in this way in this case in question.
clocktower
23/3/2017
11:17
I suppose that's normally the way with these. There's a period of cooperative DD, with the potential acquirer showing an appropriate amount of interest. The Administrator says "the deal needs to be done in x days, or we'll need to put it into administration", so various excuses are made, and the process gets dragged-out. Attractive bits are then bought out of the fire-sale. Probably more fees for the Administrator, cheaper prices and less risk for the buyer, and all agreements open for re-negotiation. It's always the creditors of the bust business (and their insurers) that suffer.
briangeeee
23/3/2017
10:36
Report from thebusinessdesk.com regarding Brantano Administration:- "Administrators at PwC said a sale of the company was explored with Shoe Zone rumoured to be in the running. However a deal could not be completed and the historic shoe retailer was placed into administration for the second time this year"
mortimer7
Chat Pages: 17  16  15  14  13  12  11  10  9  8  7  6  Older
Your Recent History
LSE
GKP
Gulf Keyst..
LSE
QPP
Quindell
FTSE
UKX
FTSE 100
LSE
IOF
Iofina
FX
GBPUSD
UK Sterlin..
Stocks you've viewed will appear in this box, letting you easily return to quotes you've seen previously.

Register now to create your own custom streaming stock watchlist.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P:31 V: D:20170726 04:46:22