The second half of September will have a lot of interesting Hindi movie releases at the same time.
The one I am most looking forward to is Nandita Das' Manto. Has Nawaz playing the title role. If you liked reading Manto's stories you can't miss it.
Then there's Vishal Bhardwaj's Pataakha. After a long time VB is again going back to adapting an old story. Charan Singh Pathik's 'Do Behne' this time.
Sharat Katariya's Sui Dhaaga looks interesting. His Dum Laga Ke Haisha was fantastic. Hoping for equally good music.
The Curious Case of PC Jewellers' Trade Receivables (Thread)
Disclosure - No position in PCJ stock or derivative.
PCJ announced its Q1 FY19 results last week. In its mgmt ppt, it also disclosed partial BS information. The info showed that PCJ had reduced its total outstanding debt by over 400 crs. However, what the company didn't disclose is far more interesting than what it did disclose.
The company didn't provide its Receivables number for the Q end. Not in the ppt neither in response to analyst queries in the results concall. However, since the company has provided partial BS info it is possible to estimate what might have happened to the receivables this Q.
We wrote about Manpasand in Dec 2016 and haven’t written another “Curious Case” piece since then. That’s not because there weren’t enough candidates but just that the way some big guys in the ecosystem responded, scared us a bit.
This is a thread about one such Big Guy.
We published the Manpasand note in the evening and thought maybe a 1000 people would read it (which had been the case for our earlier Kitex and JD note). However, for some reason the note went viral and our site crashed.
We got the site up and went to sleep as our job was done.
The next morning the stock opened 12% down. We were quite happy as we felt investors had taken note of our findings. But then the Big Guy hit us with a nasty rebuttal. Read the entire note below.
Once we have been charmed by the story and fallen in love with the storyteller, confirmation bias will kick in to ensure that no data or counterview can change our faith in the fantastic story.
One of the most common responses we get when we make a case that a company is a complete fraud is "But XYZ is an investor." The widely held view is that smart people or large institutions cannot be fooled.
The author just brushed aside a plethora of red flags (suspect quality of earnings, lying on the record, not disclosing material conflicts, bad corporate behavior, poor capital allocation, deteriorating profitability) as just "quirks" of an intelligent fanatic.
In the public domain, so many issues have been raised by a number of analysts without any real counter. At least that merited a tempering of the high praise that has been lavished if not a deeper analysis of the issues raised. Hopefully, this is just an error in judgement ...
and not reflective of the low bar we set to call someone an intelligent fanatic. As a member of the community and fan of @iancassel, this was quite disappointing to read.
The curious case here - Revenue growth that is only marginally above Total Area growth is mathematically impossible when SSG growth is so high. It would imply that the last 3-4 years store/area addition has a negligible contribution to the current top line.