Dick Smith in store decline

Forums › Off topic › Dick Smith in store decline

1 | ... | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | ... | 94

18133 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1461499 5-Jan-2016 11:44

I am not sure if there is much there to interest a purchaser, they have some good locations. e.g Riccarton Mall, Queensgate but they are just leased locations. Their own brands are just white labels that could go anywhere. I feel it will be liquidated by the Receivers and closed.

Norton

Get easy to use, easy to install Norton antivirus protection against advanced online threats (affiliate link).

ajobbins

5050 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1461500 5-Jan-2016 11:45

ASX announcement of Voluntary Administration

Twitter: ajobbins

networkn

Networkn
30223 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1461502 5-Jan-2016 11:47

MikeB4: I am not sure if there is much there to interest a purchaser, they have some good locations. e.g Riccarton Mall, Queensgate but they are just leased locations. Their own brands are just white labels that could go anywhere. I feel it will be liquidated by the Receivers and closed.

I agree sadly. Though the DSE of today bears no resemblance of the company I hold fondest memories of visiting with my departed Grandfather who loved all things electronic and who instilled in me a similar love (My house looks like the electronics department of any large retailer!

It was in his memory I was prompted to complete this project recently.

http://bottlehead.com/product/crack-otl-headphone-amplifier-kit/

Oh and David Reid too.

Dratsab

3933 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1461503 5-Jan-2016 11:48

ajobbins: Fairfax papers in Oz saying Voluntary Administration not Receivership (there is a difference)

http://www.theage.com.au/business/retail/dick-smith-goes-into-voluntary-administration-20160104-glzbur.html

Reading the 3News site I again I see they've updated their previously brief write-up with something a bit more comprehensive and have now removed reference to NAB and HSBC calling in receivers. The page is still currently headed up "Dick Smith in receivership" though. I found these sentences in the article very interesting:

In a statement, the company says it explored "alternative funding", but the directors believed achieving that "would not have been sufficiently timely to support the short-term funding requirements to allow the company to order required inventory during the next four to six weeks".

The owners, however, were "confident" about the long-term viability of the company though weren't able to get enough financial support to make it that far.

It's a poorly worded article. Enough financial support to make it how far? Through the next 4-6 weeks or into the long term? If it's the former, could we be seeing a declaration of insolvency by mid-February at the latest?

Edit: fixed poorly worded thread post.

Further edit:
Should have read all the way to the end of the thread before posting.

ajobbins: ASX announcement of Voluntary Administration

More clarity here. NAB and HSBC are obviously not willing to expand the existing loans. The 3News article misquotes by saying "would not have been sufficiently timely to support the short-term funding requirements to allow the company to order required inventory during the next four to six weeks" whereas it should have said "would not have been sufficiently timely to support the short-term funding requirements and allow the company to order required inventory during the next four to six weeks."

I added the emphasis as it's an important word in the overall context.

ajobbins

5050 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1461519 5-Jan-2016 12:00

Dratsab: I found these sentences in the article very interesting:

In a statement, the company says it explored "alternative funding", but the directors believed achieving that "would not have been sufficiently timely to support the short-term funding requirements to allow the company to order required inventory during the next four to six weeks".

The owners, however, were "confident" about the long-term viability of the company though weren't able to get enough financial support to make it that far.

They pulled that quote from the ASX annoucement I referenced above.

Twitter: ajobbins

tripp

3798 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1461529 5-Jan-2016 12:08

This is the best thing I have found to explain it (a post on stuffs facebook account from Karl Leung)

Here's an analogy: Imagine a person bought a restaurant and only paid 1/10th of the price of it in cash. to make up the rest of the 9/10ths, they sold the lights, the chairs, downgraded the food and drinks, stripped the workers of hours and pay ad once the food sold out, no more was made. It was then sold to another owners quick smart who haven't seen the restaurant and think based on the accounts it is a highly profitable business. It gets sold and the new owners wonder why the no one goes into the restaurant anymore and why they are losing money like no tomorrow. That's what happened to DSE.

Dingbatt

6421 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1461538 5-Jan-2016 12:18

Most of the news articles say they don't know how the Australian announcement will affect the NZ operations. I can't see NZ operations continuing myself.
I hope Jaycar take over my local store so I don't have to drive across the city like I do at the moment. Thank goodness I got rid of the gift cards my family misguidedly gave me last year.

And I do feel sorry for the staff, having been through a company failure myself (as an employee), but I was in a store only 2 days ago where the 4 staff were standing behind the counter, more interested in their phones than in attending to customers. To me an obvious sign of the morale in the company.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

networkn

Networkn
30223 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1461540 5-Jan-2016 12:19

Surely the new owners would have financial recourse against the old owners for financial misrepresentation?

Dynamic

3580 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1461542 5-Jan-2016 12:21

networkn: Surely the new owners would have financial recourse against the old owners for financial misrepresentation?

We don't know if there was misrepresentation or whether the new owners simply failed in their due diligence. I've not seen/read anything suggesting any misrepresentation.

“Don't believe anything you read on the net. Except this. Well, including this, I suppose.” Douglas Adams

Referral links to services I use, really like, and may be rewarded if you sign up:
PocketSmith for budgeting and personal finance management. A great Kiwi company.

Kyanar

3877 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1461544 5-Jan-2016 12:22

Dingbatt: Most of the news articles say they don't know how the Australian announcement will affect the NZ operations. I can't see NZ operations continuing myself.
I hope Jaycar take over my local store so I don't have to drive across the city like I do at the moment. Thank goodness I got rid of the gift cards my family misguidedly gave me last year.

http://dicksmithholdings.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Press-Release-Ferrier-Hodgson-Dick-Smith-Holdings-January-2016.pdf

The receivers (yes, receivers were appointed by the banks after the board appointed voluntary administrators) believe that the NZ operations are profitable and should attract a buyer. They don't say anything positive about the Australian operations.

They also confirm that stores will no longer honour gift cards and vouchers, and that if you have paid a deposit that your money is now forfeited to the receivers. A statement that if you ask me should be illegal. Gentlemen, start your chargebacks.

tripp

3798 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1461563 5-Jan-2016 12:25

networkn: Surely the new owners would have financial recourse against the old owners for financial misrepresentation?

Well the real issues is the old owners paid very little to start with (like 10 mil) with the remaining after a set amount of time. They then sold / changed things around so the remaining of the money came for DSE business itself.

They then sold down the stock (without replacing it) cut costs and made it look very nice on paper, floated the company for over $500m AU then sold their stock.

So they made a lot of money for only an outlay of about 10mill or so.

Dynamic

3580 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1461568 5-Jan-2016 12:30

Kyanar: They also confirm that stores will no longer honour gift cards and vouchers, and that if you have paid a deposit that your money is now forfeited to the receivers. A statement that if you ask me should be illegal.

I agree. This is basically theft IMHO, as is the 'expiring' of a gift voucher (especially after only 12 months).

At least when Whitcoulls situation was looking dicey, the receivers made the choice to allow the use of a gift voucher as long as you spent the same amount in cash. (http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/redeem-vouchers-sooner-rather-later-cnz-nn-86463)

“Don't believe anything you read on the net. Except this. Well, including this, I suppose.” Douglas Adams

Referral links to services I use, really like, and may be rewarded if you sign up:
PocketSmith for budgeting and personal finance management. A great Kiwi company.

Dingbatt

6421 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1461575 5-Jan-2016 12:31

From what I understand the venture capital company carried out a share IPO and sold mainly to mum and dad investors that thought they were buying into the Dick Smith of old.

If the NZ operation is out of business as well, am I right in thinking that any warranty claims will be made to the distributor/manufacturer of the (faulty) goods? Doesn't help with DSE homebrand I know.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

Batman

Mad Scientist
29047 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1461580 5-Jan-2016 12:34

Dynamic:
Kyanar: They also confirm that stores will no longer honour gift cards and vouchers, and that if you have paid a deposit that your money is now forfeited to the receivers. A statement that if you ask me should be illegal.

I agree. This is basically theft IMHO, as is the 'expiring' of a gift voucher (especially after only 12 months).

At least when Whitcoulls situation was looking dicey, the receivers made the choice to allow the use of a gift voucher as long as you spent the same amount in cash. (http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/redeem-vouchers-sooner-rather-later-cnz-nn-86463)

If you think this is theft,
If you have 10,000 hrs of annual leave with dick Smith you now officially have zero.

Dratsab

3933 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1461584 5-Jan-2016 12:38

Kyanar:
Dingbatt: Most of the news articles say they don't know how the Australian announcement will affect the NZ operations. I can't see NZ operations continuing myself.
I hope Jaycar take over my local store so I don't have to drive across the city like I do at the moment. Thank goodness I got rid of the gift cards my family misguidedly gave me last year.

http://dicksmithholdings.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Press-Release-Ferrier-Hodgson-Dick-Smith-Holdings-January-2016.pdf

The receivers (yes, receivers were appointed by the banks after the board appointed voluntary administrators) believe that the NZ operations are profitable and should attract a buyer. They don't say anything positive about the Australian operations.

They also confirm that stores will no longer honour gift cards and vouchers, and that if you have paid a deposit that your money is now forfeited to the receivers. A statement that if you ask me should be illegal. Gentlemen, start your chargebacks.

And think carefully about buying anymore goods from them online.

1 | ... | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | ... | 94