Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

Marks and Spencer Group PLC (MKS)

Share latest information on individual companies and hot news discussions. LSE Main Market companies only
Forum rules
No penny shares or promotional posts
Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4255
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 2628 times

Re: Marks & Spencer Group PLC (MKS) - Interim Results for Year Ending 31 Mar 2020

#263441

Postby Gengulphus » November 11th, 2019, 8:51 am

dealtn wrote:Yes, I get the Rights issue (and the maths but thank you). But why are they, and you adjusting 18.7p anyway is my question?

You asked how the adjustment to 17.75p is explained, not why they are doing the adjustment, and I'd already said why they (and I) do it in post #263267 above. So I answered the question you asked, and even if I had somehow discerned the question you intended, I wouldn't have repeated myself!

dealtn wrote:We are talking about 2019 when the dividends are (interim) 6.8p and (final) 7.1p giving a total of 13.9p, which you may or may not now want to adjust.

As I said in the same post above, rights-issue adjustments apply to all pre-rights-issue dividends. The dates that matter for that purpose are the ex-dividend date and the date that a shareholder who went through it in a capital-neutral way, i.e. neither adding nor removing capital overall. The interim of 6.8p went ex-dividend long before any part of the rights issue, so the rights issue adjustment definitely should be applied to it. The final of 7.1p is rather messy: that dividend went ex on May 30th, and the rights came into existence on May 29th. For most capital-neutral methods of getting through the rights issue, the dividend would have gone ex before the shareholder could acquire the extra shares, so that the dividend would effectively have been pre-rights-issue and required an adjustment. But it would have been just possible for a shareholder to sell their rights on May 29th and use the proceeds to buy the extra shares on the same day, in time for them to get the dividend on the extra shares. So for any shareholder who did that, the final dividend would have effectively been post-rights-issue and so would not have required an adjustment - but I would expect only a small minority of shareholders to have done that, so adjusting both dividends seems most appropriate to me for anyone providing dividend history data for shareholders in general. (As I also indicated in that post, exactly what adjustment is most appropriate depends on the shareholder. Must admit though that this is the first rights issue I remember encountering where a dividend went ex in the middle of the subscription period, so that an adjustment of 0% - i.e. no adjustment - would be appropriate for some capital-neutral shareholders and a normal rights-issue adjustment for others... To forestall a possible comment (from anyone reading, not just you) this is not a case of the company treating some shareholders differently from others - it's the shareholders themselves whose actions produce the difference, not the company.)

dealtn wrote:... we have had a Rights issue that has changed the number of shares, and a change in dividend policy that has reduced the pay out (per share), to take into account when looking at the affordability from cash flow of the dividend expense going forward. If you, or others, want to look at this kind of affordability by some kind of averaging of the last 5 years perhaps you can explain why 13.9p isn't the (adjusted) appropriate entry. ...

Since I don't do that and AFAIAA have never said either that I do it or that I want to do it, I'll leave it to those who do/have to answer it if they want. I will comment though that if I did, both unadjusted and adjusted DPS records are basically useful for a specific-shareholding perspective on what's happened to the dividends. Dividend affordability is however essentially a matter of how much net cash the company is generating in its bank accounts vs how much cash it is paying out from them as dividends and so requires a whole-company perspective. So for instance, the appropriate figures to use for dividend affordability from the quote "The directors have approved an interim dividend of 3.9p per share (last half year 6.5p per share (restated)) which, in line with the requirements of IAS 10 - Events after the Reporting Period, has not been recognised within these results. This interim dividend of £76.1m (last half year £110.4m) ..." in these latest interim results are not 3.9p down from 6.5p (a 40% drop), but £76.1m down from £110.4m (a 31% drop) - the difference between the two percentage drops being due to the fact that collectively, shareholders added about £600m to their investment in the company rather than acting in a capital-neutral way.

dealtn wrote:... For what its worth Stockopedia use 17.2 17.9 17.9 17.9 and 13.6 for the last 5 years.

That looks as though Stockopedia adjusted the interim but not the final - it matches the adjusted interim 6.53p and the unadjusted final 7.10p given by Dividenddata other than being rounded to one decimal place fewer. There is an argument for doing it that way, in that the final dividend went ex 1 day after the rights were split off from the shares and 8 days after the shares went ex-rights, but there is also the argument that the final dividend should be adjusted because it went ex before shareholders got much of a chance to deal with the rights issue in a capital-neutral way. As I said, rather messy... The saving grace is that whether one adjusts the final or not only makes a difference of 0.28p (6.82p adjusted vs 7.10p unadjusted), which produces a difference of a bit over 2% in the year's total - noticeable, but not major.

dealtn wrote:I acknowledge the future is unknown so might decide to use figures from the past to form an estimation of what "might" happen going forwards, but a simple average, even with figures I am happy with, is too simplistic to me. I might decide to weight them giving greater worth to more recent ones, for instance. It might hold for all companies, but for MKS in particular given the Rights Issue, and part purchase of the Ocado business, the company looks different to that of even a year ago, and certainly much different to 5 years ago.

A perfectly reasonable point of view about whether/how to use the figures, but I wasn't trying to argue either way about that - just to explain how they are produced and why it's done that way.

Gengulphus

PinkDalek
Lemon Half
Posts: 6139
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:12 pm
Has thanked: 1589 times
Been thanked: 1801 times

Re: Marks & Spencer Group PLC (MKS) - Interim Results for Year Ending 31 Mar 2020

#263465

Postby PinkDalek » November 11th, 2019, 11:22 am

Arborbridge wrote:Yes, for info: it was here, bottom of page under Dividends:

https://tools.morningstar.co.uk/uk/stoc ... encyId=BAS


Interesting in that when I get there I see (A), next to the 4 years shown, hoping that meant Adjusted. Whereas their definition of (A) is:

(A)=Actual or achieved result

Which for reasons now known is not the case.

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Marks & Spencer Group PLC (MKS) - Interim Results for Year Ending 31 Mar 2020

#263515

Postby dealtn » November 11th, 2019, 2:59 pm

Gengulphus wrote:
dealtn wrote:Yes, I get the Rights issue (and the maths but thank you). But why are they, and you adjusting 18.7p anyway is my question?

You asked how the adjustment to 17.75p is explained, not why they are doing the adjustment, and I'd already said why they (and I) do it in post #263267 above. So I answered the question you asked, and even if I had somehow discerned the question you intended, I wouldn't have repeated myself!

dealtn wrote:We are talking about 2019 when the dividends are (interim) 6.8p and (final) 7.1p giving a total of 13.9p, which you may or may not now want to adjust.

As I said in the same post above, rights-issue adjustments apply to all pre-rights-issue dividends. The dates that matter for that purpose are the ex-dividend date and the date that a shareholder who went through it in a capital-neutral way, i.e. neither adding nor removing capital overall. The interim of 6.8p went ex-dividend long before any part of the rights issue, so the rights issue adjustment definitely should be applied to it. The final of 7.1p is rather messy: that dividend went ex on May 30th, and the rights came into existence on May 29th. For most capital-neutral methods of getting through the rights issue, the dividend would have gone ex before the shareholder could acquire the extra shares, so that the dividend would effectively have been pre-rights-issue and required an adjustment. But it would have been just possible for a shareholder to sell their rights on May 29th and use the proceeds to buy the extra shares on the same day, in time for them to get the dividend on the extra shares. So for any shareholder who did that, the final dividend would have effectively been post-rights-issue and so would not have required an adjustment - but I would expect only a small minority of shareholders to have done that, so adjusting both dividends seems most appropriate to me for anyone providing dividend history data for shareholders in general. (As I also indicated in that post, exactly what adjustment is most appropriate depends on the shareholder. Must admit though that this is the first rights issue I remember encountering where a dividend went ex in the middle of the subscription period, so that an adjustment of 0% - i.e. no adjustment - would be appropriate for some capital-neutral shareholders and a normal rights-issue adjustment for others... To forestall a possible comment (from anyone reading, not just you) this is not a case of the company treating some shareholders differently from others - it's the shareholders themselves whose actions produce the difference, not the company.)



dealtn wrote:... For what its worth Stockopedia use 17.2 17.9 17.9 17.9 and 13.6 for the last 5 years.

That looks as though Stockopedia adjusted the interim but not the final - it matches the adjusted interim 6.53p and the unadjusted final 7.10p given by Dividenddata other than being rounded to one decimal place fewer. There is an argument for doing it that way, in that the final dividend went ex 1 day after the rights were split off from the shares and 8 days after the shares went ex-rights, but there is also the argument that the final dividend should be adjusted because it went ex before shareholders got much of a chance to deal with the rights issue in a capital-neutral way. As I said, rather messy... The saving grace is that whether one adjusts the final or not only makes a difference of 0.28p (6.82p adjusted vs 7.10p unadjusted), which produces a difference of a bit over 2% in the year's total - noticeable, but not major.



Gengulphus


Actually it's a much simpler reason, and comes down to definition of "2019". Morningstar, and presumably dividenddata (I haven't checked) define 2019 as the 12 months leading up to the company year end balance sheet date in 2019, which in MKS case is March 2019 and includes the interim of 6.8p and final of 11.9 getting 18.7p, which is then adjusted for the Rights issue to get to 17.75p. The most recent dividends paid and declared but not yet paid aren't included, but will count as 2020.

Stockopedia is using a more literal definition of 2019 (and presumably treating all companies equally regardless of when the actual final balance sheet date might be in any year), and using the 6.8p paid in Jan 2019 and the 7.1p paid in July 2019 to get the 13.9p, and minor adjustment to reach 13.6p

I would argue that were one using past data to extrapolate into the future I wouldn't want to be excluding data, and certainly not the most recent.

Arborbridge
The full Lemon
Posts: 10364
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
Has thanked: 3598 times
Been thanked: 5226 times

Re: Marks & Spencer Group PLC (MKS) - Interim Results for Year Ending 31 Mar 2020

#263638

Postby Arborbridge » November 12th, 2019, 8:17 am

PinkDalek wrote:
Arborbridge wrote:Yes, for info: it was here, bottom of page under Dividends:

https://tools.morningstar.co.uk/uk/stoc ... encyId=BAS


Interesting in that when I get there I see (A), next to the 4 years shown, hoping that meant Adjusted. Whereas their definition of (A) is:

(A)=Actual or achieved result

Which for reasons now known is not the case.


I didn't see that, but thanks for pointing it out - even though it deepens the mystery. Actually, I only see what you describe, by clicking on "more..." which I hadn't noticed either!

Arb.

Wondergirly
Posts: 45
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:01 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Marks & Spencer Group PLC (MKS) - Interim Results for Year Ending 31 Mar 2020

#263697

Postby Wondergirly » November 12th, 2019, 12:18 pm

Please move this to a more appropriate board if necessary, I'm afraid I don't spend much time here now, so I'm not completely au fait with what goes where.

This is about M&S though.

As a shareholder I am horrified at the way they are treating their core customers; women like me. They are allowing men to use what have always been previously considered women's fitting rooms, even the lingerie fitting rooms, and women are up in arms about it. Despite hundreds of us emailing and contacting them via other means, our concerns are being ignored. Then, to add insult to injury, I see that they are allowing reviews on their website on the quality and fit of knickers written by what are clearly men with a fetish.

Many women are boycotting the stores, and encouraging their friends to do the same. Now you may think this is a storm in a B cup, but I have serious concerns about the management who are allowing a tiny minority of men to ruin the shopping experience of women. We have single sex spaces for a reason; women need privacy, dignity, and safety away from men for a number of reasons. Who wants to discuss the peculiarities of their breasts following childbirth, or even mastectomy, with a bra fitter when there is a bloke in the next door cubicle?

Anyway, my question is, does anybody know of an active shareholder group that I can possibly mobilise to make our voices heard? Because M&S sure as hell aren't listening to their customers. Here are some threads on Mumsnet, over 2000 posts now and growing, which will give you some background, and there are other shareholders on there who have the same concerns as I do..

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rig ... allen?pg=1

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rig ... equel?pg=1

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rig ... -boat?pg=1

Bouleversee
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4652
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:01 pm
Has thanked: 1195 times
Been thanked: 902 times

Re: Marks & Spencer Group PLC (MKS) - Interim Results for Year Ending 31 Mar 2020

#263705

Postby Bouleversee » November 12th, 2019, 12:44 pm

You could try ShareSoc (info@sharesoc.org)

As a disappointed M&S investor myself, I should be happy to support your campaign. What has been management's response to complaints so far and who are you dealing with? Mods may think this OT but I can't help feeling this policy could make a big difference to sales. However, maybe there is a more suitable board.

Wondergirly
Posts: 45
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:01 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Marks & Spencer Group PLC (MKS) - Interim Results for Year Ending 31 Mar 2020

#263709

Postby Wondergirly » November 12th, 2019, 1:02 pm

This is the reply they are giving everyone. They are not responding to any concerns (spelling mistakes are theirs, not mine).

"Dear xxxxx

Thank you for contacitng Steve Rowe, as a member of the Executive team I have been asked to respond on his behalf.

As a business, we strive to be inclusive and therefore, we allow customers the choice of which fitting room they feel comfortable to use, in respect of how they identify themselves. This is an approach other retailers and leisure facilities have also adopted.

We understand your concerns and I want to make it clear that if any customer was to act inappropriately or cause intentional offence, the necessary action would be taken.

Thank you again for your email.

Kind regards

Alice Needham
Executive Team
Your M&S Customer Service"

Good thinking on ShareSoc, I'll see if they can help.

Bouleversee
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4652
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:01 pm
Has thanked: 1195 times
Been thanked: 902 times

Re: Marks & Spencer Group PLC (MKS) - Interim Results for Year Ending 31 Mar 2020

#263714

Postby Bouleversee » November 12th, 2019, 1:12 pm

I got the impression from Wondergirly's post that all changing rooms had been made Unisex but skimming through the huge no. of messages on Mumsnet, not a site I normally frequent, I see it is all about Trans people being allowed to use whichever changing room they like*, which is somewhat different. As things stood, how would one know if someone was trans or not? Or a man just dressed as and pretending to be a woman? A complicated issue which requires a bit of thought but not exactly HYP practical so perhaps it could be removed to another location. Perhaps the solution would be to have some men's, some women's and some unisex.

*I see this has been confirmed by W's response to my first.

Wondergirly
Posts: 45
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:01 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Marks & Spencer Group PLC (MKS) - Interim Results for Year Ending 31 Mar 2020

#263719

Postby Wondergirly » November 12th, 2019, 1:36 pm

It really isn't about trans people though. It is about men being allowed access to wherever they want to go. They do not need to present as 'trans', this is a red herring.

A lot of men have fetishes around women's clothing and underwear; check out the reviews of women's pants on the M&S website! Women do not want to be in a state of undress around men like this! Yes, there are cubicles, but no, they are not secure. I would not recommend you google subjects like 'cissification' 'changing room porn' etc, but there are numerous websites where people (lets be frank, men) share these images and films that are made in toilets and changing rooms of unsuspecting women, and images of themselves wearing women's underwear WHICH THEY THEN RETURN TO THE SHOP FLOOR! They often use cameras disguised as air fresheners and even screw heads. These are easy to plant if men are not confronted when they enter women's toilets and changing rooms, as they would have been in the past.

It's something I would really rather not know about; it can never be totally prevented, but not allowing ANY men access to spaces where women are in a state of undress is the best defence we have. I cannot believe M&S are unaware of this, they allow those reviews on their website. It is just a legal timebomb.

Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4255
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 2628 times

Re: Marks & Spencer Group PLC (MKS) - Interim Results for Year Ending 31 Mar 2020

#264093

Postby Gengulphus » November 14th, 2019, 1:52 am

dealtn wrote:
Gengulphus wrote:
dealtn wrote:... For what its worth Stockopedia use 17.2 17.9 17.9 17.9 and 13.6 for the last 5 years.

That looks as though Stockopedia adjusted the interim but not the final - it matches the adjusted interim 6.53p and the unadjusted final 7.10p given by Dividenddata other than being rounded to one decimal place fewer. There is an argument for doing it that way, in that the final dividend went ex 1 day after the rights were split off from the shares and 8 days after the shares went ex-rights, but there is also the argument that the final dividend should be adjusted because it went ex before shareholders got much of a chance to deal with the rights issue in a capital-neutral way. As I said, rather messy... The saving grace is that whether one adjusts the final or not only makes a difference of 0.28p (6.82p adjusted vs 7.10p unadjusted), which produces a difference of a bit over 2% in the year's total - noticeable, but not major.

Actually it's a much simpler reason, and comes down to definition of "2019". Morningstar, and presumably dividenddata (I haven't checked) define 2019 as the 12 months leading up to the company year end balance sheet date in 2019, which in MKS case is March 2019 and includes the interim of 6.8p and final of 11.9 getting 18.7p, which is then adjusted for the Rights issue to get to 17.75p. The most recent dividends paid and declared but not yet paid aren't included, but will count as 2020.

Stockopedia is using a more literal definition of 2019 (and presumably treating all companies equally regardless of when the actual final balance sheet date might be in any year), and using the 6.8p paid in Jan 2019 and the 7.1p paid in July 2019 to get the 13.9p, and minor adjustment to reach 13.6p

And that supposed explanation doesn't work, for two reasons. Firstly, MKS's dividends for its financial year that ended on 31 March 2019 were the interim paid in January 2019 and the final paid in July 2019, i.e. precisely the same dividends as those it paid in the calendar year 2019. So even if you're right about Stockopedia using dividends paid in a calendar year and Morningstar & dividenddata using dividends paid for a company financial year, it wouldn't make any difference in the case of MKS.

And secondly, your explanation leaves the "minor adjustment" from 13.9p to 13.6p unexplained. There was only one rights issue and Stockopedia's adjustment for it from 18.7p to 17.9p in previous years means that the adjustment factor they used for that rights issue lies between 17.85/18.7 = 0.9545... and 17.95/18.7 = 0.9598... No matter where the adjustment factor lies in that range, applying it to 6.8p+7.1p = 13.9p would produce a result that rounds to 13.3p, not 13.6p. But applying that factor to the 6.8p to adjust the interim, then adding the unadjusted final 7.1p produces a result that rounds to 13.6p, also no matter where the adjustment factor lies in that range. I.e. the adjustment was only about half of what would be expected if the entire 13.9p had been adjusted.

And just to be clear, I don't know that Stockopedia adjusted the interim and not the final - it's just the explanation of the size of the adjustment that looks most plausible to me. That's why I started my reply with "That looks as though Stockopedia adjusted the interim but not the final" and not "Actually, Stockopedia adjusted the interim but not the final".

Gengulphus

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Marks & Spencer Group PLC (MKS) - Interim Results for Year Ending 31 Mar 2020

#264239

Postby dealtn » November 14th, 2019, 1:18 pm

Gengulphus wrote:
And that supposed explanation doesn't work, for two reasons. Firstly, MKS's dividends for its financial year that ended on 31 March 2019 were the interim paid in January 2019 and the final paid in July 2019, i.e. precisely the same dividends as those it paid in the calendar year 2019. So even if you're right about Stockopedia using dividends paid in a calendar year and Morningstar & dividenddata using dividends paid for a company financial year, it wouldn't make any difference in the case of MKS.

And secondly, your explanation leaves the "minor adjustment" from 13.9p to 13.6p unexplained. There was only one rights issue and Stockopedia's adjustment for it from 18.7p to 17.9p in previous years means that the adjustment factor they used for that rights issue lies between 17.85/18.7 = 0.9545... and 17.95/18.7 = 0.9598... No matter where the adjustment factor lies in that range, applying it to 6.8p+7.1p = 13.9p would produce a result that rounds to 13.3p, not 13.6p. But applying that factor to the 6.8p to adjust the interim, then adding the unadjusted final 7.1p produces a result that rounds to 13.6p, also no matter where the adjustment factor lies in that range. I.e. the adjustment was only about half of what would be expected if the entire 13.9p had been adjusted.

And just to be clear, I don't know that Stockopedia adjusted the interim and not the final - it's just the explanation of the size of the adjustment that looks most plausible to me. That's why I started my reply with "That looks as though Stockopedia adjusted the interim but not the final" and not "Actually, Stockopedia adjusted the interim but not the final".

Gengulphus


I'm really not trying to pick a fight here. All I am querying is the numbers in a table provided by somebody else that in turn is provided by Morningstar.

In that table, under 2019 is 17.75, which is below 2019(A), and a subheading "fiscal year" 2019.

To me there are three explanations of what that might mean.

Firstly the dividends relating to the company year which ends, in this case March 2019. Those would be the interim paid part way through that period and the final relating to that period, but usually paid after the closing date. If this was the case I think the relevant dividends are the interim of 6.8p with a payment date of Jan 2019, followed by the final of 7.1p paid in July 2019. This gives a total of 13.9p. Whether, or not, there should be any small adjustment to either of these payments to reflect a necessary consistent approach with respect to the Rights issue, it is clear that this won't change to as much as 17.75p. I conclude this is not what is behind the 17.75p in the table.

Secondly the table might be referring to the payments received by shareholders in the immediate 12 months up to the balance sheet date, which for this company is March 2019, regardless of what accounting period these dividends relate to. If this was the interpretation the relevant dividends would be the Final of 11.9p (strictly speaking from the company's previous years end of 2018) paid in July 2018, and the interim of 6.8p paid in Jan 2019. These two dividends sum to 18.7p. This is much closer to the 17.75p in the table, with the difference possibly down to minor adjustments reflecting the Rights issue. I conclude this is a possible answer to the methodology behind the 17.75p in the table.

Thirdly the table might be saying the dividends received by shareholders in "Calendar" 2019. If this were the case it would once again be the 6.8p interim paid in Jan 2019, and the 7.1p final paid in July 2019. In which case we are looking at a total of 13.9p, and the same scenario of the first method whereby I can't see how any minor adjustment, applied to either, or both, could produce 17.75p which is what is populated in the table.

Different data providers may have different ways of presenting their data which would explain why under 2019 Stockopedia have a significantly different number to Morningstar (and possibly others). The only reason I was querying the numbers (as presented in the table published by another poster) was that the table gave the impression of a stable, held, dividend when in actual fact holders of the share had "suffered" an actual reduction in dividends that took place in 2019. Specifically the Final dividend for 2019 paid in July 2019 was 7.1p, down from the Final dividend for 2018 paid in July 2018 of 11.9p. Furthermore the next interim dividend to be paid in Jan 2020 (relating to the current year which has been declared and incidentally the shares go ex-div today) of 3.9p is a reduction from the interim 12 months previously of 6.8p.

The point I was trying to demonstrate was that anyone who was solely looking at the table (provided by another poster) as a means of assessing the pattern of the dividend, and maybe using that data to assess the path, and affordability of that dividend going forward, could have been misled since there is no obvious demonstration of the change in dividend policy that had already been effected.

Bouleversee
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4652
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:01 pm
Has thanked: 1195 times
Been thanked: 902 times

Re: Marks and Spencer Group PLC (MKS)

#264353

Postby Bouleversee » November 14th, 2019, 6:30 pm

Having just looked at M&S's website, I'm afraid I can't get too fussed about the nuances of the dividend calculation. I suggest you all do the same and consider whether this company has any future at all. I only looked at clothing admittedly, particularly women's sweaters, but it is mostly very unappealing, to put it politely. I still have some lovely things from M&S in my wardrobe which I have had for very many years and still look good albeit starting to show signs of wear but there was not a single item on their website today which I would consider buying. I really don't know what sort of people are designing them or what sort of people are buying them, if anyone is, but they must have poor taste and possibly not much money. I feel let down as a shareholder and let down as a customer. Who are they aiming at? Certainly not me which is a pity as I could do with some new sweaters, trousers and underwear and don't know where to go now but won't be trekking some distance to the nearest M&S, that's for sure. I think I must bite the bullet and sell my shares at a loss of over 50%. It is heartbreaking to see such deterioration in the quality of goods on offer but it has been getting worse for some time now and I have no confidence it will improve.

I 'phoned customer services with a query and was surprised to find myself talking to a woman in South Africa with a broad accent who was under the impression that M&S's HQ were in Cape Town. :lol:

Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4255
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 2628 times

Re: Marks & Spencer Group PLC (MKS) - Interim Results for Year Ending 31 Mar 2020

#265340

Postby Gengulphus » November 19th, 2019, 10:10 am

Arborbridge wrote:
PinkDalek wrote:
Arborbridge wrote:Yes, for info: it was here, bottom of page under Dividends:

https://tools.morningstar.co.uk/uk/stoc ... encyId=BAS

Interesting in that when I get there I see (A), next to the 4 years shown, hoping that meant Adjusted. Whereas their definition of (A) is:

(A)=Actual or achieved result

Which for reasons now known is not the case.

I didn't see that, but thanks for pointing it out - even though it deepens the mystery. Actually, I only see what you describe, by clicking on "more..." which I hadn't noticed either!

To hopefully make the mystery less deep again, note that the alternative to (A) is "(E)=Estimate". I.e. the bit of information they're trying to give with (A) and (E) is whether the figures are historical (fact) or forecast (opinion), not whether they are unadjusted or adjusted. An adjusted figure is essentially based on historical facts about what dividends the company has paid and what the split, consolidation, rights issue or other corporate action actually did, with the adjustment reflecting the fact that the corporate action meant that a post-action share is the equivalent of some number of pre-action shares that is not 1 (that number being the adjustment factor). In the case of a rights issue, what the adjustment factor should be is to a certain extent a matter of opinion, but the plausible range of values is generally pretty narrow. So the figures given when such adjustments are made are still very largely based on historical facts and only slightly on opinion, and therefore get labelled as (A).

Gengulphus

Arborbridge
The full Lemon
Posts: 10364
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
Has thanked: 3598 times
Been thanked: 5226 times

Re: Marks and Spencer Group PLC (MKS)

#265349

Postby Arborbridge » November 19th, 2019, 10:28 am

Bouleversee wrote:Having just looked at M&S's website, I'm afraid I can't get too fussed about the nuances of the dividend calculation. I suggest you all do the same and consider whether this company has any future at all. I only looked at clothing admittedly, particularly women's sweaters, but it is mostly very unappealing, to put it politely. I still have some lovely things from M&S in my wardrobe which I have had for very many years and still look good albeit starting to show signs of wear but there was not a single item on their website today which I would consider buying. I really don't know what sort of people are designing them or what sort of people are buying them, if anyone is, but they must have poor taste and possibly not much money. I feel let down as a shareholder and let down as a customer. Who are they aiming at? Certainly not me which is a pity as I could do with some new sweaters, trousers and underwear and don't know where to go now but won't be trekking some distance to the nearest M&S, that's for sure. I think I must bite the bullet and sell my shares at a loss of over 50%. It is heartbreaking to see such deterioration in the quality of goods on offer but it has been getting worse for some time now and I have no confidence it will improve.

I 'phoned customer services with a query and was surprised to find myself talking to a woman in South Africa with a broad accent who was under the impression that M&S's HQ were in Cape Town. :lol:


I some ways, I agree, but I don't blame MKS entirely. This society seems to want everything on the cheap, and this is the result. You and I might have been happy to pay a little more to get quality, but times have changed and MKS is caught exactly between people like us and the mass market. People, broadly speaking, prefer to have goods which do not last so long, but wish to change them more frequently. The only alternative is to go well up market and pay much more - but do we?

We all have a hand in this deterioration: those who shop at Amazon because it's a few pounds cheaper than a local shop; those who became rate tarts switching building societies; those who shop around endlessly for the cheapest garments; those who keep swapping banks, phones, energy suppliers; those who shop in Lidl to save a few quid then complain the high street is dying (though they hadn't been there for years). All that happens is that we get locked into a downward spiral where the UK becomes the cheapest and ugliest places to be. It's a disease which is undermining our civic pride our society.
End of rant mode.

Arb.

Dod101
The full Lemon
Posts: 16629
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 4343 times
Been thanked: 7534 times

Re: Marks and Spencer Group PLC (MKS)

#265366

Postby Dod101 » November 19th, 2019, 10:49 am

As Arb says we need to go really up market to get quality. I buy cashmere sweaters (not from M & S though; as my late wife used to say you could shoot peas through them) I buy Johnsons of Elgin, hugely expensive but they last a long while and are wonderfully good quality.

M & S's problem is that it is neither one thing nor the other. Primark is a great success story, owned by ABF, and as cheap as cheap goes. I assume the upmarket stores are doing OK but M & S is stuck in the middle in a time warp, with a culture that has not changed since the Second World War, and as Archie Norman is finding out, culture is very difficult to change.

I would sell the shares, although personally I have not held them for many years.

Dod

Bouleversee
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4652
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:01 pm
Has thanked: 1195 times
Been thanked: 902 times

Re: Marks and Spencer Group PLC (MKS)

#265397

Postby Bouleversee » November 19th, 2019, 11:42 am

And those who want cheap clothing go to Primark, not M&S. Why have they given up on the middle class market who are the ones with the money to spend? And what about the environment. We cannot go on making cheap, synthetic clothes which quickly go into landfill and shed fibres into the rivers and oceans. And who wants unisex changing rooms which is their latest wheeze apparently?

Dod, I've never heard of Johnson's of Elgin but will have a look at their website. However, not all the expensive ones are good. My daughter bought me what I thought was an expensive jumper from Pure and it pilled after 3 wearings, not having even been washed.

OLTB
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1343
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:55 am
Has thanked: 1339 times
Been thanked: 607 times

Re: Marks and Spencer Group PLC (MKS)

#265406

Postby OLTB » November 19th, 2019, 12:13 pm

Bouleversee wrote:
Dod, I've never heard of Johnson's of Elgin but will have a look at their website. However, not all the expensive ones are good. My daughter bought me what I thought was an expensive jumper from Pure and it pilled after 3 wearings, not having even been washed.


OT, but £115 for a hot water bottle :shock:

https://www.johnstonsofelgin.com/retail ... ttles.html

I hope it massages my feet as well as keeps them warm.

Cheers, OLTB.

Bouleversee
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4652
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:01 pm
Has thanked: 1195 times
Been thanked: 902 times

Re: Marks and Spencer Group PLC (MKS)

#265435

Postby Bouleversee » November 19th, 2019, 1:35 pm

Or £145 if you combine with bedsocks. Ye gods! I'm afraid I am not in your league, Dod. I get by without a cover by not having it too hot.

Dod101
The full Lemon
Posts: 16629
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 4343 times
Been thanked: 7534 times

Re: Marks and Spencer Group PLC (MKS)

#265441

Postby Dod101 » November 19th, 2019, 1:48 pm

I never said they were cheap! There is a lot of poor cashmere around, but Johston's cashmere is wonderful. A medium weight is about £150 or so and the really heavy sweaters can cost £300 or so. Don't know about ladies' ones though. They will last a very long time provided you protect them from moths.

Incidentally I seldom pay the full price because you can get them in sales if you keep an eye open. I am not expecting M & S to reach that quality but in general, from shirts to sweaters they are very poor quality these days.

Dod

Bouleversee
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4652
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:01 pm
Has thanked: 1195 times
Been thanked: 902 times

Re: Marks and Spencer Group PLC (MKS)

#265469

Postby Bouleversee » November 19th, 2019, 2:55 pm

£725 for a chunky rib Ottoman cashmere jumper with sleeves far too long to go anywhere near a washing up bowl. Even if I hadn't lost quite so much money since being introduced to HYP, I would find it hard to shell out such large sums. Too busy forking out far more for school fees.


Return to “Company Share news (LSE Main Market)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], MickR and 34 guests