SFH earns more than $800million in sales annually and makes no...

SFH earns more than $800million in sales annually and makes no net profit out of it.

This is a truly bizarre situation.

$800million is by any measure a significant sales base, generated across some 6 brands, most of which are targeting the 'bigger' and/or 'invisible' woman, a market the majority of fashion brands ignore:

Rivers
Crossroads
City Chic
Autograph
Millers
Katies

Size privides privileges of scale.

Scale, like Gekko said in Wallstreet about greed and capitalism, is 'good'.

Scale gives:

1. - volume buying factory price advantages
2. - marketing funding competitive advantages e.g. being able to afford celebrity brand ambassadors (probably only one, Falkiner for Autograph active wear, in the entire SFH stable of brands) when smaller competitors can't
3. - human resource funding advantages; exceptional and superior designers (designs that kill and are ahead of competition on an ongoing basis), the most talented buyers and strategists compared to the competition
4. - advertising funding advantages (ability to attack tv, radio,magazines, (search ranking) social media etc)
5. - supply chain unit cost competitive advantages (total fixed costs / higher volumes = lower unit cost)
6. - funding to secure sole/preferred distribution rights to other (unique) sub brands for the Australian market advantages
7. - technological and distribution advantages e.g. superior web and mobile offerings, including speed of product to customer and geographic coverage

Scratching my head as to whether the Board and CEO at SFH understands this?

What is the point of size if advantage is not taken of the competitive power it gives you?

How does the Board rate SFH in each of 1. to 7. above against its completion?

We are told that consumer sentiment is soft and that is the reason why financial results are poor.

Bull crap.