ccplz

Another gem by giofranchi

What's wrong with having subsidiaries

ASNA equity is a 0. Why? Top-line is deteriorating due to full penetration of portfolio of tired brands, combined Nov / Dec comps declined 4.4% (however they had to increase promotions to drive comps) with pre-Christmas comps (i.e. first three weeks of Dec) down 10-17% Profitability is now concentrated in one brand (maurices, ~62% of profitability) which has reached penetration and as the brand moves online, will face significant competition from ecommerce players Justice, historically the Company’s second PNL generator, has collapsed under increased competition and a turnaround is unlikely given pricing pressure and erosion of store-base competitive advantage All of ASNA’s other brands are fully penetrated and contribute limited profitability Significant actual and implied leverage creates a very levered entity that drives significant decremental margins on small downward changes in sales (and vice-versa) Company put on significant leverage for its last acquisition and currently sits on $2B leverage on $580M of EBITDA (i.e. 3x+) which is a lot for a brick-and-mortar retailer, most of the public comps don’t even have debt (with far better top-line trends) In addition, ASNA has 4 concepts across 750+ stores which creates structural issues in world increasingly shifting to e-commerce Assumed lease payments of this $750M capitalized at 10x imply leverage of 5.5x+ This is an overleveraged retailer with tired brands in structural decline that could be facing negative cash flow in 2-3 years - just screams structural short. Regarding the leverage, 1.5 billion is not due until 2022. That is a ways off before they even have to really worry about the balloon payment. They are currently working in revamping the company and cutting the expenses. The entire retail sector is in the toilet and driving down sales as companies struggling to survive are cutting prices to get people in the store. Those that can weather the storm will pick up a lot of new business as the weaker ones go out of business. The term loan has been prepaid in that another payment is not due until May 2018 (I believe). This gives them time to implement "Change for Growth". They have quite a few levers that can be pulled to stay afloat until better times come. Despite what others would have people think, the entire country is not going to shift to only ecommerce. Am I saying it's a buy right now? No, for one the price is higher then I want to pay relative to valuation. They have some goodwill write offs coming up. can also think of a couple other things that need to be done. Hopefully on the earnings release a better picture will be painted on their position for the rest of the year. I think it's very premature to call the equity a 0 at this point in time. Ok. What levers? The equity is a 0.

ASNA equity is a 0. Why? Top-line is deteriorating due to full penetration of portfolio of tired brands, combined Nov / Dec comps declined 4.4% (however they had to increase promotions to drive comps) with pre-Christmas comps (i.e. first three weeks of Dec) down 10-17% Profitability is now concentrated in one brand (maurices, ~62% of profitability) which has reached penetration and as the brand moves online, will face significant competition from ecommerce players Justice, historically the Company’s second PNL generator, has collapsed under increased competition and a turnaround is unlikely given pricing pressure and erosion of store-base competitive advantage All of ASNA’s other brands are fully penetrated and contribute limited profitability Significant actual and implied leverage creates a very levered entity that drives significant decremental margins on small downward changes in sales (and vice-versa) Company put on significant leverage for its last acquisition and currently sits on $2B leverage on $580M of EBITDA (i.e. 3x+) which is a lot for a brick-and-mortar retailer, most of the public comps don’t even have debt (with far better top-line trends) In addition, ASNA has 4 concepts across 750+ stores which creates structural issues in world increasingly shifting to e-commerce Assumed lease payments of this $750M capitalized at 10x imply leverage of 5.5x+ This is an overleveraged retailer with tired brands in structural decline that could be facing negative cash flow in 2-3 years - just screams structural short.

ASNA equity is a 0.

Troll thread. Unbelievable.

Why are you commenting on a thread on U.S. politics if you didn't want to talk about U.S. politics?

A very real possibility.

Why does it matter what people think? There's morality and there's the law and then there's public opinion. Public opinion changes with the wind - there's even a quote from Buffett about this somewhere, something about weighing machine vs. voting machine? That poll was done 5 days ago, and I'm pretty sure if someone did a poll now after the protests and the reports about decent people being kept from their homes, separated from their families etc, the results would be drastically different. Another problem is that people place too much emphasis on feelings rather than facts. The reality is that 1) terrorists pose very little real threat to the U.S. Significantly more people are killed by the measles, car accidents, domestic abuse etc every year than terrorist attacks. 2) this ban does nothing to reduce that threat, and may very well increase anger towards the U.S. from the communities that are impacted 3) the ban doesn't even include Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan (this point has been made many times so I will not repeat it again) But hey, it makes people feel better. Great. At the same time, it is hurting a lot of decent people. And there are very material, though hidden, costs to the American economy and it has done some very real damage to the moral fabric of society that people like you do not seem to notice or care. On point 1: All it takes is one real incident and your stats are F'd. I wouldn't be content to just ignore these issues. I think most will agree. On point 2: If it is so easy to stir up terrorism then that is just indication that it is a real problem. On point 3: The list was chosen based on a list Obama had put together to keep the politics a little bit more manageable. Obviously didn't work. Rb, Right, I can see how you would get that. I am not an american hence my angle. Folks, the left is full of violent, self-righteous individuals so for my own safety this will be my last post to the thread. Take care. Keep talking. 1. Yeah, maybe a lot of people will agree. It doesn't mean they are right in feeling that way though. 'Those who practice speaking in a way to catch the favor of vulgar herd also turn out in general to be incontinent in their lives and fond of pleasure. And this surely is to be expected; for if, in providing pleasure for others, they disregard what is honorable, they would be slow to place that which is upright and sound above the gratification of their own pleasures and luxurious tastes, and slow to pursue the temperate course instead of the agreeable.' 2. The real problem is that people are angry at the U.S. for the wanton destruction they've caused around the world since the early 2000s, and I'm not sure how this ban helps with that.

Why does it matter what people think? There's morality and there's the law and then there's public opinion. Public opinion changes with the wind - there's even a quote from Buffett about this somewhere, something about weighing machine vs. voting machine? That poll was done 5 days ago, and I'm pretty sure if someone did a poll now after the protests and the reports about decent people being kept from their homes, separated from their families etc, the results would be drastically different. Another problem is that people place too much emphasis on feelings rather than facts. The reality is that 1) terrorists pose very little real threat to the U.S. Significantly more people are killed by the measles, car accidents, domestic abuse etc every year than terrorist attacks. 2) this ban does nothing to reduce that threat, and may very well increase anger towards the U.S. from the communities that are impacted 3) the ban doesn't even include Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan (this point has been made many times so I will not repeat it again) But hey, it makes people feel better. Great. At the same time, it is hurting a lot of decent people. And there are very material, though hidden, costs to the American economy (Apple was co-founded by the son of a Syrian immigrant) and it has done some very real damage to the moral fabric of society that people like you do not seem to notice or care.

Okay, I suppose that you can argue that statistics about homicides by guns are completely irrelevant to a discussion about homicides by guns. It's not the way I would approach the discussion if I wanted to prove my point, but you and I think differently. Since you prefer the murder rate, USA has about 5 murders for every 2 that Canada has. Therefore, I'll assume that you'll concede the point that gun-control makes sense if you actually care about keeping people alive. (Some fun trivia: on February 2nd, we'll hit the 30th anniversary of the last time a cop was killed by a gun in Vancouver. Also--since we care about all cop murders, not just gun ones--the last time a cop was killed in Vancouver.) I see. As long as you exclude every place that you don't like, and restrict the area of comparison to a tiny geographical area comprised of less than 0.5% of the country's population, then gun ownership doesn't matter at all. Are you listening to yourself? Next time you analyse a business, I suggest you exclude all the money the company spends on salaries--it'll make it look really profitable! So what you're saying is that the US is inherently more violent, and so therefore it's great to ensure all these inherently violent people have guns? Hmm. It kind of amuses me that Trump's been implying that the immigrants are the criminals, but from what you say, it would probably be better diluting the inherent American aggressiveness by increasing the number of peaceful immigrants. :) With respect to the UK, let's look at the situation. (I know you tend to throw out statements out without bothering with facts or evidence, but it's helpful to me when the conversation is actually grounded in reality.) http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/24/article-2313942-1974D490000005DC-694_634x522.jpg So, this chart isn't adjusted by population size. Thus, all else being equal, you'd expect every line in this chart to trend up as the population increases. Yet what do we see since the 1997 gun ban? Homicides down. Violent crimes went way up, and then down. Net of everything, violent crimes are up about 10-15% despite the population growth since 1997. So this doesn't support your argument either. At best, we have lower homicides and roughly equivalent violent crimes. That said, I'm starting to understand why you throw out these statements without any supporting evidence. You know, I understand that with you, when there's a conflict between your ideology and facts, ideology always wins. But you'd save everyone some time and be more persuasive if next time, you'd just say, "I think freedom to bear arms is more important than reducing the number of men, woman, and children who die from guns." (Seriously. I can respect that position over these half-hearted attempts to pretend that gun control wouldn't work. I think, for instance, that privacy should trump spying on Americans in an attempt to root out terrorists, even if allowing Americans privacy would result in more Americans being killed by terrorists. That's basically a completely parallel argument to the one you should be making on gun control.) That's a valid point. It certainly wouldn't be easy getting to reasonable gun control, and may not be worth the effort. This is a lot of mingled garbage. Let's isolate Chicago. Where the majority of gun related violence occurs with non-registered guns. Lets look at NY; doh, same thing. California, doh, same thing. Funny, all are huge liberal hubs as well. Why don't we break down Texas by county/region/(dare I say it, Republican vs Democrat territory) as well. Oh, you get the same thing. Heck even compare gun violence within NY to upstate vs NYC. But I suppose if we look at it from this angle we're being racist or whatever... What are you implying? Gun violence tends to occur more often in cities. Maybe, just maybe, that's why people in cities tend to support gun control. Cities also tend to lean more liberal than rural areas. Are you like a dumbass?

Ok, this sounds really some strategic thinking then. I can understand. With respect to history, I submit that Reagan, Gorbachev and the Collapse of the Soviet Union all had to do with lots of luck and the timing of inner workings of social systems, arguably more than the actions of the US and that of Reagan's famous line and all these are some debate for another day perhaps. As to the hope of making fall of the system in China, depending on one's viewpoint, is obviously very debatable. I'd argue for caution. Of course we should make China play fair & nice in trade and other aspects in world affairs. Yet the pragmatic social-system that is currently working for the Chinese, one can call it "communist regime" or whatever, is there for some real world reasons, just as direct "western democracy" couldn't have worked well for many places, take Singapore for example at initial stages. The Soviet Union even had enough faith to try it and we all know what happened. Now if the US and world powers somehow pressure the Chinese system to collapse in similar way or even change dramatically or too fast, God forbid, I can see millions upon millions of poor people suffer or even die, imagine blood, hunger, lawless prosecutions, civil wars, atrocities..., is it really going to be good and for who? Gradual change is the theme for human evolution and progress, and thru science and technology, we can reasonably hope to well accommodate all the needs of all and growing number of humans on earth. Then why all the needless suffering? I do suspect THE hidden and true WMD throughout human history is: ideologies. Who cares? America First, remember? Fuck all the other guys.

This kind of interesting but also completely wrong in its conclusions and analysis.

What's the difference between a lie and an alternative fact?

You completely missed the guy's point.