Lawrence van Rijn – Law Lord to be

That is where we need to look, the small stuff. In the first there is the BBC, who gives us a story that seems nice in one setting, but in the other setting we need to ask ourselves serious questions. Now as a warning I need to give you a fair warning. I am a person of ‘decent’ taste. Yet in tis universe you have people that are ‘allowed’ to give fashion knowledge and I couldn’t be further away from that cluster anywhere else in this universe. So, when you seek fashion advice. I am not part of that cluster, so be aware. As I said the BBC has the first setting (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8zwdy98k8o) where we see ‘Claire’s falls into administration with 2,150 jobs at risk’ and the hidden gem is already there. You see when we see “Fashion accessories chain Claire’s has collapsed into administration in the UK and Ireland, putting 2,150 jobs at risk. The company has 278 shops in the UK and 28 in Ireland but has been struggling with falling sales and fierce competition.” Now consider a simple truth. 278 shops. Now it is seen as a little speciality, yet how many fashion accessory shops are there? Now consider that there was a setting that the quality of life would be dwindling down as it has been for around 20 years. So in what universe does it make sense to have a cluster of 278 shops? In a world where there are “Over 10,000 businesses in the broader Clothing Retailing sector. This includes everything from large chains to smaller boutiques and specialized stores.” So, this has been going on for the better part of a decade and Claire’s could have been dwindling down for half a decade, but they didn’t and now they collapsed into Administration and put 2150 jobs at risk. So, as we are now given “Caitlin, 21 (left) and Amy, 16 (right) from Oxfordshire were shopping at Claire’s in central London on Wednesday and said the news was “quite sad because people have been going there since they were little. It’s a part of my childhood personally, said Caitlin, said she used to go a lot when she was around 11 years old.”” So, how was that realistic? I get it, we all want our knick knacks and that cluster can be found on both side of the specter of genders, But as we see it this group largely caters to one gender. This is not an issue, but with the dwindling down of the quality of life you cannot hide behind “But it is only £5-£7” in an age where many people have to turn over every penny to make it through the month. Don’t think I am ‘heartless’ (I kinda am) and people should be able to afford that once a month, but that is a far stretch from ‘once a week’, as such the setting was already a decrease of 75%, as such steps had to be taken years ago, but the ego of the people behind Claire’s had to intervene years ago. So what gives people the idea to make a ‘terrible’ setting from this?

The (sort of) hilarious stage from “The move in the UK comes after it filed for bankruptcy in the US earlier this month, where the firm said it was suffering from people moving away from bricks-and-mortar shops. The firm has $690m (£508m) of debt.” What were these ego trippers hoping for Unicorns? The setting from a $690 million gives a straight setting to my point of view. So whilst it is nice to give two people a voice, the setting is that every woman from 15-21 should be handed £5 to spend at Claire’s and when you see that isn’t possible you can clearly see that the people behind Claire’s should have acted years ago and not hide behind the wish for unicorns. Not when you are a mere 2.78% of a group and you are $690 million in debt. Seems a little short sighted doesn’t it? So, when we get “Claire’s and Icing, and is owned by a group of firms, including investment giant Elliott Management.” We might consider the setting that investment giant Elliott Management had made a silly investment in an economic downturn of the people. Some win, some lose and they lost. It is as simple as that.

In that same setting the ending of the article is sort of hilarious when we consider ““A lot of that category is sourced from Asia, and any increase in import costs hits hard when your price points are low and margins are tight,” retail analyst Catherine Shuttleworth” It isn’t merely that, the setting is that there are less pennies for the cluster they were aiming for, for over a decade. I am willing to go one step further. This step could have been predicted since 2008. I am willing to lay a bet that people at Elliott Management would have ‘stated’ “This will turn around, the economy is expanding. Wait and you’ll see” That is my speculated view, and I am seemingly right, to wait until there was a debt of $690 million could be construed as evidence. 

So this is the first story, the second one is given to us by CBC. I have written about this side for over two weeks and here I have a few issues. The story reads correctly and I have no issues with the story itself, but it also hits on a few sides that has ‘shortfalls’ (as I personally see it). The story (at https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/las-vegas-tourism-canadian-slump-1.7607707) gives us ‘Las Vegas is hurting as tourism drops. Are Canadians behind the Sin City slump?’ There is a larger setting and we love to take credit at times as it is the right of Canadians. So when we see “Las Vegas is in the midst of a slump, with the number of tourists down sharply as Canadians in particular avoid Sin City amid bilateral bad blood over trade. The total number of visitors is off more than 11 per cent year-over-year, according to data from the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, one of the most dramatic declines in recent memory outside of the pandemic.” After which we are given the numbers of “Drop in Canadian air travelers to Las Vegas” and these numbers are swallowed whole. My issue is that there we see less than 100K visitors, that’s fair and it matter, but the other side of the equation is that we see a top of 11%, so at what point do we get to the point that these 11% are in no way to be seen as the ‘hardship’ given to us, unless the 11% is a lot bigger than anticipated I reckon that we might see an 11% loss as Canadians avoiding Las Vegas and they are merely a small group of a much larger issue. If we now see a $15,000 bond for tourists, which might give us that 80% of all foreign tourists are avoiding America. You see, 89% of tourist should support the larger setting of Las Vegas, unless someone was living under the assumption that Las Vegas could continue to support itself with 92% filled. Now we get the betting place long out on a mere 3% shortfall, not the best betting setting for ‘the’ house, is it?

So when we are given the stage by MGM Resorts president and CEO Bill Hornbuckle said the number of Canadian visitors started to fall earlier this year and they hold some of the city’s top properties, such as Aria, Bellagio and the Cosmopolitan and part of the NHL rink, T-Mobile Arena. A dire setting for a company relying on 92% filling and coming up short 3% of that number. I reckon that more than one person are on the betting stage of numbers and when you come up short over the whole range by 3%, you will toll the bells of panic. 

Yet then we get the ‘goods’. You see, the numbers do not add up. We are given “As the director of the university’s business and economic research centre, he crunched the numbers and found Canadians contributed $3.6 billion US to the local economy last year. Canadian spending supported some 43,000 jobs in the region, more than those employed in the manufacturing sector, Miller said. That $3.6-billion figure comes close to the economic output of the local Nellis Air Force base — and that’s saying something, given it’s one of the largest and most important military installations in the U.S., with some 15,000 personnel.” In the first setting, some might find the ‘observation’ of “he crunched the numbers and found Canadians contributed $3.6 billion US to the local economy last year” I reckon they had to have these numbers clearly ahead of schedule as it sets the advertisement budgets (nearly everywhere) and if the loss of these numbers are set to 11%, the news is much worse than we get and the setting of Las Vegas is likely more dire than we are meant to believe. It implies that Asian and European visitors are connected to this and the losses are worse than given at present. And my view is warranted by other views. A source gives us that “Passenger volume at Harry Reid International Airport also declined 6.3%, from 5 million to 4.7 million” that number implies that the numbers are down from one source by over 300K visitors. I reckon that the bulk of tourists would come by plane. Another source gives us “Visitors to Las Vegas mainly come from Mexico (989,000 arrivals), Canada (886,000 arrivals), the United Kingdom (482,000 arrivals), Australia (152,000 arrivals), and Germany (125,000 arrivals).” That sounds nice, but the (as the expression goes) whales from Asia is the larger setting and when they stay away Las Vegas hurts a lot more. These 12 people represents millions of dollars and a decadent lifestyle. When that falls away the pressure isn’t merely 11%, it is a lot larger. The setting is a lot larger as we don’t have anything passed November 2024 yet and that is the larger setting as we get the larger stage of Visitor volume and convention attendance. I reckon that in Q4 2025 we are likely to get to see the larger downturn and when we get to losses of whales the larger truth of what Las Vegas is losing in income. As I see it, there is a larger truth behind the second part of the headline ‘Are Canadians behind the Sin City slump?’ I think they are part of it, but there is a larger truth hidden, America (basically its president) gave us all a headache and the fact that there are larger settings in play make it clear to me that it isn’t just Canada, there are more settings in play for Las Vegas and the news is a lot worse than anyone is willing to admit. The simpler setting (a highly speculative stage) that the loss of 100 Asian Moby Dicks represent almost the entire 11% loss that Las Vegas sees as represented, so the losses are a lot worse than given at present. When you consider that the ‘panic’ we see is more represented by 22% loss, a stage no one in Las Vegas wants to admit to is driving people like Bill Hornbuckle to near desperation, especially as his bonus is likely linked to ‘continuance’ of revenue.

So my speculation might be wrong but it seems to make sense. But I need to emphasize that my view is speculative.

Have a great day and don’t put it all on number 10 (it is crowded by labor).