Four south Essex stores at risk as River Island bosses announced restructuring
The fashion retailer has unveiled a radical restructuring plan in a bid to reverse recent heavy losses due to a slump in trading.
Bosses blamed the closures on the 'migration of shoppers from the high street to online' and higher costs to run stores.
The family-owned retailer confirmed it is proposing to close 33 of its 230 stores by January next year as a result.
Read more
Nine stores at risk of closure across south Essex as Poundland sold for £1
Closing date revealed for Basildon town centre Hobbycraft store
Poundland customers react to 'ironic' £1 sale as stores face closure
A further 71 stores are also at risk, depending on talks with landlords in order to secure improved rental deals.
There are four River Island stores in south Essex, with two in Basildon, one at Lakeside Shopping Centre and one in Southend.
The list of stores set to close next year is yet to be announced.
The retailer, which employs around 5,500 people, was founded in 1948 under the Lewis and Chelsea Girl brand before being renamed in the 1980s.
It has reportedly hired advisers from PwC in order to oversee the restructuring process.
The proposals are set to go to a vote by the firm's creditors – companies or individuals owed money by the retailer – in August.
The deal will result in fresh funding being invested in the business to help fuel its turnaround.
'We regret any job losses as a result of store closures, and we will try to keep these to a minimum.'
The retailer is among high street fashion chains to have been impacted by weaker consumer spending and competition from cheaper online rivals, such as Shein.
River Island fell to a £33.2 million loss in 2023 after sales slid by 19%, according to its most recent set of accounts.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘No sign' Trump tariffs on Scotch whisky will increase, says Ian Murray
The Scottish Secretary of State has said 'there is no sign at the moment' tariffs imposed on Scotch whisky will increase to 25% as he expressed his 'disappointment' in the current US deal arrangement for the sector. Ian Murray also told BBC Radio Scotland's Sunday Show that Donald Trump's admiration of Scotland should be 'exploited' for the sake of the 'national interest'. The US President has so far agreed a 10% tariffs on UK exports and 15% on EU ones. Across the Scotch whisky sector, there are concerns that this deal - which is believed to be costing the industry £4m a week - will lead to significant harm for businesses. READ MORE: Scotch whisky hopes rise after Trump pledges to talk tariffs Trump talks of 'great love' for Scotland during visit 'Scotland must switch whisky exports from America to Canada' The Secretary of State is currently leading a UK Government delegation to Germany this week to 'increase economic ties' with the EU. Mr Murray said it was important to point out that trade deals with the likes of EU and India, the largest growing economy in the world, will provide a 'great opportunity' for Scotch whisky. Yet, earlier on the programme, Scotland's public finance minister Ivan McKee warned that 25% tariffs could be imposed next year as a deal previously reached with America on temporary duty reliefs could be lifted. Between October 2019 and March 2021, the tariff imposed as a result of the Boeing dispute resulted in £600 million in lost Scotch whisky exports. A deal was eventually reached in 2021 to take the 25% tariff off the industry. However, Mr McKee said: 'That was done on a temporary basis and that runs out next year so it's really important that it is taken out of the picture permanently because when that was in place, that was a significant hamper to Scotch whisky exports. 'As the UK Government concludes the deal with the US Government, we would expect it to be 10% tariffs on whisky which is clearly something we wish wasn't there.' Mr McKee said he would hope this was not re-imposed but added: 'There's nothing but unpredictability when it comes to Donald Trump and tariffs so who knows what's happening.' However, Mr Murray insisted it is unlikely this would happen. Asked how likely it would be for 25% tariffs to be re-imposed on Scotch whisky, Mr Murray said: 'There is no sign of that at the moment.' He added: 'It's 10% tariffs on Scottish whisky. Yes, we would rather that was as close to zero as possible but ten percent is as low as anybody else in the world right now." Mr Murray said the Prime Minister Keir Starmer has been able to 'reset international relationships' to do a deal with the US on tariffs. He said: 'Many, including the First Minister, wanted us to walk away from the US president but it was really important in the national interest and in the Scottish national interest for us to have that relationship to do that deal. '10% is the lowest tariff in the world. We did the first trade deal it saved the steel industry, the car industry. 'Yes, 10% tariffs on Scotch whisky is disappointing and we will continue to champion the cause for the really unique position of whisky. "We don't want it to be subject to historic trade wars as it has been in the past. It is a really thriving industry.' Speaking about the US president's visit to Scotland, Mr Murray said it was a 'great privilege' to when he landed in the country last week. He said he was in 'no doubt' of Mr Trump's 'great love of Scotland', adding: 'That is something we should exploit in the national interest.' During his visit to Scotland, President Trump promised to 'take a look' at tariffs on Scotch whisky during his meeting with Starmer as he said he wanted Scotland "to thrive". Since then, however, no changes have been made to the current arrangement. Speaking on the radio today, the Secretary of State also said Mr Trump suggested he should join him at the press conference beside Air Force One when he arrived in the country, however, the Secretary of State declined. Mr Murray said: 'He did tap me on the shoulder and said, 'let's go and do this press conference together' which I declined…because it's not for me to do so. 'I don't think it was for me to speak to the American press pack who is travelling on Air Force One with the President of the United States.'
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Professor Coin: What Gives Bitcoin Its Value?
Professor Andrew Urquhart is Professor of Finance and Financial Technology and Head of the Department of Finance at Birmingham Business School (BBS). This is the eighth installment of the Professor Coin column, in which I bring important insights from published academic literature on cryptocurrencies to the Decrypt readership. In this article, I discuss what gives Bitcoin value. In just over a decade, Bitcoin has gone from a niche innovation in cryptography to a globally traded asset with a market capitalization in the hundreds of billions. Yet despite its prominence, a persistent question remains: what gives Bitcoin its value? Bitcoin doesn't generate cash flow like a company, isn't backed by physical reserves like gold, and has no central authority guaranteeing its worth. So why are people willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars for a digital token? Recent academic research points to several factors. Scarcity and Monetary Policy The first pillar of Bitcoin's value is its programmed scarcity. Bitcoin has a fixed supply: only 21 million coins will ever be created. This limit is enforced by the network's consensus rules and is viewed by supporters as a bulwark against inflation. Academic studies have likened Bitcoin to gold because of this scarcity. Pagnotta and Buraschi (2018) model Bitcoin as a decentralized network whose value stems from user adoption and security, both of which are underpinned by the incentives embedded in its monetary policy. In their equilibrium framework, scarcity plays a key role in sustaining long-term value. Why is Bitcoin's supply limit set to 21 million? Scarcity makes Bitcoin attractive as a hedge against inflation, particularly in a world of expanding money supply. A number of economists have investigated whether Bitcoin's scarcity can explain its valuation with Kruger, Meyer, and Withagen (2022) showing the widely discussed stock-to-flow model fits historical data reasonably well, reaffirming the importance of scarcity as one component of Bitcoin's perceived value. Network Effects and Utility Scarcity is not sufficient without demand—and Bitcoin's demand comes from its use as a peer-to-peer digital asset and from the belief that others will accept it in the future. This is where network effects come into play. According to Cong, Li, and Wang (2021) Bitcoin's value grows with its user base. Their tokenomics model shows that the more people adopt and trust Bitcoin, the more valuable the network becomes. This dynamic helps explain why Bitcoin has survived multiple boom-and-bust cycles. Furthermore, Bolt and van Oordt (2016) argue that the value of a virtual currency arises if users expect it to retain value and be accepted in transactions. Their model formalizes how expectations of acceptance can stabilize a volatile asset like Bitcoin. Cost of Production and Network Security Bitcoin is also underpinned by a real-world cost: mining. To secure the network and process transactions, Bitcoin relies on a system called proof-of-work, where miners compete to solve cryptographic puzzles using electricity and hardware. This energy-intensive process is not without controversy, but researchers such as Hayes (2015) have shown that the cost of production provides a fundamental floor for Bitcoin's price. He finds that Bitcoin rarely trades below the marginal cost of mining, reinforcing the idea that energy and security provision matter for valuation. Moreover, the work of Pagnotta and Buraschi (2018) supports this by showing that mining incentives and the strength of the network's security are central to Bitcoin's equilibrium value, not just supply and demand in the traditional sense. Speculation, Sentiment, and Attention In practice, however, Bitcoin's price also reflects investor sentiment and speculation. A surge in media coverage or social media buzz can trigger price rallies or sharp selloffs. Studies by Urquhart (2018) and Shen et al (2019) demonstrate that Bitcoin prices are strongly correlated with online search trends and that trading volume in turn, drives investor attention. Similarly, Liu and Tsyvinski (2021) show that cryptocurrency returns are significantly predicted by investor attention proxies. Unlike traditional assets, Bitcoin lacks ties to macroeconomic fundamentals, so sentiment and belief play an outsized role. Macroeconomic Role and Portfolio Demand Bitcoin's value is also shaped by its role in the broader financial system. In a low-interest-rate environment and amid concerns about fiat currency debasement, investors have turned to Bitcoin as a non-sovereign store of value. This is demonstrated by early work by Baur et al (2018) who show that investors are holding Bitcoin for long periods, but is supported by followup work by Jahanshahloo et al (2025). Recent research has reassessed Bitcoin's role in portfolios, particularly in times of market stress. Corbet, Larkin, and Lucey (2020) find that Bitcoin behaves more like a speculative asset than a traditional safe haven, but it can act as a weak diversifier under certain market conditions. In a similar vein, Ji, Bouri, Lau, and Roubaud (2021) use time-varying spillover models and show that Bitcoin's hedging properties fluctuate significantly, with greater hedging effectiveness during tranquil periods rather than during crises. Professor Coin: Can Bitcoin Replace Gold? Conclusion: Value from Code, Community, and Belief Bitcoin's value emerges from a blend of engineering and economics: scarcity enforced by code, utility derived from decentralized consensus, and demand shaped by sentiment, costs, and macro conditions. It behaves like a commodity, a tech stock, and a speculative token—often all at once. That complexity is what makes Bitcoin both so fascinating and so difficult to value with traditional models. In the end, Bitcoin's worth is anchored not in what it does today, but in what its users believe it can become tomorrow. And as long as that belief persists—backed by utility, adoption, and incentives—the value may persist too. References Baur, D. G., Hong, K-H., Lee, A. D. (2018). Bitcoin: Medium of exchange or speculative assets? Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 54, 177-189. Bolt, W., & van Oordt, M. R. C. (2016). On the Value of Virtual Currencies. Journal of Financial Stability, 17, 81–91. Cong, L. W., Li, Y., & Wang, N. (2021). Tokenomics: Dynamic Adoption and Valuation. Review of Financial Studies, 34(3), 1105–1155. Corbet, S., Larkin, C., & Lucey, B. (2020). The contagion effects of the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from gold and cryptocurrencies. Finance Research Letters, 35, 101554. Hayes, A. (2015). A Cost of Production Model for Bitcoin. Telematics and Informatics, 34(7), 1308–1321. Jahanshahloo, H., Irresbeger, F., Urquhart, A. (2025). Bitcoin under the microscope. British Accounting Review, forthcoming. Ji, Q., Bouri, E., Lau, C. K. M., & Roubaud, D. (2021). Dynamic connectedness and integration in cryptocurrency markets. International Review of Financial Analysis, 74, 101670. Kruger, P., Meyer, C., & Withagen, P. (2022). Is Bitcoin's Stock-to-Flow Model Valid? Finance Research Letters, 48, 102956 Liu, Y., & Tsyvinski, A. (2018). Risks and Returns of Cryptocurrency. NBER Working Paper No. 24877. Pagnotta, E., & Buraschi, A. (2018). An Equilibrium Valuation of Bitcoin and Decentralized Network Assets. Review of Financial Studies, 31(9), 3498–3531. Shen, D., Urquhart, A., Wang, P. (2019). Does twitter predict Bitcoin? Economics Letters, 174, 118-122. Urquhart, A. (2018). What Causes the Attention of Bitcoin? Economics Letters, 166, 40-44. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Iceland under pressure as supermarket price war intensifies
Rapid growth at Iceland has ground to a halt as the frozen food chain comes under mounting pressure in the face of an intensifying supermarket price war. The retailer has told bondholders that underlying profits rose just 0.6pc to £317.6m in the year to the end of March, compared to a 24pc jump the prior year. Revenues were largely flat at £4.2bn over the year, although its 2024 financial year – when sales jumped 6.6pc – was boosted by an additional trading week. Stripping these figures out, sales were up 3pc this year on prior year. The slowdown is understood to have come as Iceland pushes to keep prices lower as supermarkets battle to attract and retain shoppers. Earlier this year, Asda kicked off a price war in an attempt to stem years of declines. Its new chairman, Allan Leighton, has vowed to use a 'war chest' to fund price cuts, improve availability of products and refresh tired stores. The company said this would mean profits would take a 'material hit'. Tesco responded by saying its profits would fall as much as 14pc this year with plans to invest £400m in price cuts. To avoid losing shoppers to rivals, Iceland has been stepping up its programme of multibuy promotions, where customers can buy bundles of products for less than if they bought them separately. This meant that while the number of items it sold last year increased by 5.3pc, it did not see an rise in the value of its sales. Credit rating agency, Fitch, said shoppers continued to turn to Iceland for value 'despite heightened competition'. Its market share has remained flat at between 2.3pc and 2.4pc over the past five years. Fitch added: 'We expect Iceland's product offering to remain competitive for UK food consumers with weaker spending power.' However, the credit ratings agency raised concerns over Iceland's profitability, suggesting the supermarket chain would have to invest in price cuts this year at a time when it is battling higher costs. It said the supermarket, which employs more than 30,000 people, would face 'momentary profit pressure', publishing forecasts suggesting underlying profits could dip this year. Fitch said: 'The company, along with other UK-based retailers, will be hit by the rise in National Insurance and minimum living wage contributions from [this year], which we estimate will result in an additional cost of £50m.' Iceland chairman, Richard Walker, said earlier this year the National Insurance raid had 'added greatly to the cost of business', ranking the Labour government a 'six out of 10' for its performance in office. It followed earlier efforts to downplay the hit. Last year, after Rachel Reeves's Budget, Mr Walker said companies should stop 'wallowing' and 'complaining' about the tax raid. Mr Walker, who had been a donor to the Tory party before switching allegiance to Labour, said last December: 'The Government isn't going to change its mind. It was a tough Budget, but we adapt.' The expected profit crunch comes after Iceland's chief executive, Tarsem Dhaliwal, in April said the company was bracing for surging food costs. Speaking to industry publication. The Grocer, Mr Dhaliwal said his biggest concern was rising prices being imposed by its suppliers. He said: 'The reality is that we have to be conscious of the fact our suppliers are going to pass the costs onto us, literally straight away. We can't absorb all that, I don't think any retailer can, so there's going to be food inflation.' At the time, Mr Dhaliwal said that Iceland would be battling to 'remain competitive', adding: 'Consumers might end up with less items in their basket, still spending £10 but on less items.' Already, food inflation is running at around 4pc, according to figures from the British Retail Consortium, with increases in the price of staples such as meat and tea fuelling the higher level. Iceland declined to comment. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
