Share tips thread
Discussion
CRB14 said:
Looks like the QPP directors have started a share buy-back today. That share has been one rollercoaster!
So it seems that the QPP directors have taken out a £1.8m loan to buy a small number of their own shares, but that loan is secured against a larger number of shares that they already own. So without spending or risking any cash, as per usual. It's a bit odd.trashbat said:
o it seems that the QPP directors have taken out a £1.8m loan to buy a small number of their own shares, but that loan is secured against a larger number of shares that they already own. So without spending or risking any cash, as per usual. It's a bit odd.
Much higher loan than that I think? They've secured a loan (total undisclosed I believe) against 52m shares for a term of 2 years. That doesn't scream risk free to me.
Edit; just to clarify I'm of the belief that this is an initial purchase. Total 15m shares traded today. Pretty huge volume for this share.
Edited by CRB14 on Wednesday 5th November 17:36
CRB14 said:
Much higher loan than that I think? They've secured a loan (total undisclosed I believe) against 52m shares for a term of 2 years.
That doesn't scream risk free to me.
Edit; just to clarify I'm of the belief that this is an initial purchase. Total 15m shares traded today. Pretty huge volume for this share.
It was used to buy 1,575,000 shares at ~123p each, so £1.94m.That doesn't scream risk free to me.
Edit; just to clarify I'm of the belief that this is an initial purchase. Total 15m shares traded today. Pretty huge volume for this share.
Edited by CRB14 on Wednesday 5th November 17:36
It's not risk free, in that if they somehow can't find the money at the end - which they're paid by the company anyway - they might lose all their shareholdings. But if the company goes bust, they don't owe a penny.
trashbat said:
t was used to buy 1,575,000 shares at ~123p each, so £1.94m.
It's not risk free, in that if they somehow can't find the money at the end - which they're paid by the company anyway - they might lose all their shareholdings. But if the company goes bust, they don't owe a penny.
That doesn't sound right to me. The loans are personal are they not? They will surely still have to find a way of paying that money back. The loans are only secured against their shareholding. The money will still be outstanding. I'd have thought it would be like any other type of personal loan available to people like you and I?It's not risk free, in that if they somehow can't find the money at the end - which they're paid by the company anyway - they might lose all their shareholdings. But if the company goes bust, they don't owe a penny.
CRB14 said:
That doesn't sound right to me. The loans are personal are they not? They will surely still have to find a way of paying that money back. The loans are only secured against their shareholding. The money will still be outstanding. I'd have thought it would be like any other type of personal loan available to people like you and I?
If I lend you £20, and secure it against your car, and then when the money is due you say you haven't got it, I take your car and that's that. No outstanding £20, no taking your house, settled.Normally loans are secured against something that you can reasonably expect to have tangible value at that point. In this case, it would seem that if the company goes bust, the loan security is worth £0 and they're welcome to it back, rather than having to pay any money.
It's more interesting if the shares end up being worth, say, half what they are today. They can cough up £2m cash or they can let 52m shares worth a theoretical £30m slip through their hands. However they're not worth £30m because they'd have to find a buyer, and they certainly can't offload them onto the open market without a huge discount, so it's not that simple.
Ir strikes me as a rather odd deal. Of course we only know the facts that the market has to be informed of. It wouldn't surprise me enormously if there's a way of gaming it. Certainly it shouldn't inspire confidence if no cash is at risk.
On my phone but anyone interested in qpp should check out Tom Winnifrith on Twitter this morning. May need an account to read his page though. He's made his position clear on Twitter though!
http://www.shareprophets.com/views/8793/bearcast-s...
http://www.shareprophets.com/views/8793/bearcast-s...
egomeister said:
CRB14 said:
AOK said:
I have (somewhat rarely!) taken a UK position. Bought a fairly small amount of QPP earlier today at 154p... here goes!
I'm fully prepared to lose it all, but also appreciate that just 3 months ago there was chat of it going north of 600p
Who knows
It has a long way to go but I feel sentiment is changing an we know that the shorts are now closing (or at least the largest short that was over 5% is closing). I'm fully prepared to lose it all, but also appreciate that just 3 months ago there was chat of it going north of 600p
Who knows
I had a massive wobble last week. Wednesday to be exact when I came very close to just selling and moving on in fear that it would be walked down to £1, I walked away from the computer tho and decided to see what happened on Thursday. I know the strategy for holding on hoping things get better is often ridiculed but it is starting to look like it could work out.
I'm firmly in the doubter camp on QPP. I can't get past the fact that the majority of its revenue is taken on an accrual basis (ie, not real yet), and its complicated structure of interrelated companies which have been mainly acquired rather than grown. The whole setup seems opaque
[dragonsdenmode]
and for that reason I'm out.
[/dragonsdenmode]
leemanning said:
Tom Winnifreth is dead against Quindell and has such a personal axe to grind. You have to almost disregard his statements as they are nowhere near being un-biased and of any value
The guy is constantly misrepresenting the true facts. He's a nobody. I wouldn't waste your life subscribing. Pretty much every 'shocked' he comes up with falls flat on its face. trashbat said:
f I lend you £20, and secure it against your car, and then when the money is due you say you haven't got it, I take your car and that's that. No outstanding £20, no taking your house, settled.
Normally loans are secured against something that you can reasonably expect to have tangible value at that point. In this case, it would seem that if the company goes bust, the loan security is worth £0 and they're welcome to it back, rather than having to pay any money.
It's more interesting if the shares end up being worth, say, half what they are today. They can cough up £2m cash or they can let 52m shares worth a theoretical £30m slip through their hands. However they're not worth £30m because they'd have to find a buyer, and they certainly can't offload them onto the open market without a huge discount, so it's not that simple.
Ir strikes me as a rather odd deal. Of course we only know the facts that the market has to be informed of. It wouldn't surprise me enormously if there's a way of gaming it. Certainly it shouldn't inspire confidence if no cash is at risk.
Sorry I don't agree. A house would be a better example. If you default on your mortgage and they reposess and can't get back what they loaned in the first place would the mortgage provider say "it's ok that your house isn't worth what we need...forget about the debt". These are personal loans. If they default I'm pretty certain they would still owe that amount in cash. Normally loans are secured against something that you can reasonably expect to have tangible value at that point. In this case, it would seem that if the company goes bust, the loan security is worth £0 and they're welcome to it back, rather than having to pay any money.
It's more interesting if the shares end up being worth, say, half what they are today. They can cough up £2m cash or they can let 52m shares worth a theoretical £30m slip through their hands. However they're not worth £30m because they'd have to find a buyer, and they certainly can't offload them onto the open market without a huge discount, so it's not that simple.
Ir strikes me as a rather odd deal. Of course we only know the facts that the market has to be informed of. It wouldn't surprise me enormously if there's a way of gaming it. Certainly it shouldn't inspire confidence if no cash is at risk.
Edit: if it were the case that the loans aren't repayed and the shares plummet to zero then the loan provider has got a crap business model.
Edited by CRB14 on Thursday 6th November 23:25
CRB14 said:
If it were the case that the loans aren't repayed and the shares plummet to zero then the loan provider has got a crap business model.
I suspect you know nothing about the business of lending if you think this is the case.Every single loan given in the history of time has a non-zero risk of default (i.e. not getting all your money back).
To cover that risk, lenders charge something called an interest rate.
You can have an absolutely fantastic business with plenty of people completely defaulting.
(Just ask Wonga.)
You are right about the mortgage though - at least in the UK.
In the US believe it or not some states are "non recourse" i.e. you can hand back the keys to your house and if the loan isn't settled when the bank sells the house they forgive the debt.
But guess what?? Interest rates are somewhat higher in those states!
walm said:
I suspect you know nothing about the business of lending if you think this is the case.
Every single loan given in the history of time has a non-zero risk of default (i.e. not getting all your money back).
To cover that risk, lenders charge something called an interest rate.
You can have an absolutely fantastic business with plenty of people completely defaulting.
(Just ask Wonga.)
You are right about the mortgage though - at least in the UK.
In the US believe it or not some states are "non recourse" i.e. you can hand back the keys to your house and if the loan isn't settled when the bank sells the house they forgive the debt.
But guess what?? Interest rates are somewhat higher in those states!
Irrespective, we don't know for certain that the debt would be cleared upon default by the transfer of the share. It is pure speculation. There was a point made above that this is limited risk to the Directors as if the loan defaults and they go under the debt would be cleared. We don't know the terms so we can't say that is the case - although im lead to believe the outstanding debt must still be paid. Every single loan given in the history of time has a non-zero risk of default (i.e. not getting all your money back).
To cover that risk, lenders charge something called an interest rate.
You can have an absolutely fantastic business with plenty of people completely defaulting.
(Just ask Wonga.)
You are right about the mortgage though - at least in the UK.
In the US believe it or not some states are "non recourse" i.e. you can hand back the keys to your house and if the loan isn't settled when the bank sells the house they forgive the debt.
But guess what?? Interest rates are somewhat higher in those states!
Yes, you're right about mortgages, in the UK anyway. The issue in general is one of negative equity and it's handled in a variety of ways, so we'd have to know the terms, which we don't.
Incidentally you are also correct that the loan isn't explicitly £2m; I misread the RNS and we don't know the total, although it's quite coy about saying as such.
I know it's Shareprophets, but not TW, and an interesting piece on the deal: http://www.shareprophets.com/views/8812/quindell-w...
TL;DR - it's a wheeze in which the shares are being sold, not held as collateral. It certainly makes more sense from a risk perspective. I don't know that the evidence stands up but there's nothing to the contrary either. Given that RT has previously tried to dispose of his holding, it doesn't have a nice smell to it.
Incidentally you are also correct that the loan isn't explicitly £2m; I misread the RNS and we don't know the total, although it's quite coy about saying as such.
I know it's Shareprophets, but not TW, and an interesting piece on the deal: http://www.shareprophets.com/views/8812/quindell-w...
TL;DR - it's a wheeze in which the shares are being sold, not held as collateral. It certainly makes more sense from a risk perspective. I don't know that the evidence stands up but there's nothing to the contrary either. Given that RT has previously tried to dispose of his holding, it doesn't have a nice smell to it.
The new Cenkos broker note (released this morning) confirms the loaned shares can not be sold and that the money is in fact being used to increase their holdings. Although people will most likely want to believe a random share tipster over a broker.
I agree though that once again, and it seems a common trend, the RNS comes up short with information. Whether that's deliberate or not i don't know. Simply though, no matter what they release the news seems to get picked apart and the rumour mill starts again.
On another note one of the major shorters further reduced their position earlier this week. Hasn't had the effect that people were expecting though so it's panic stations once again.
I agree though that once again, and it seems a common trend, the RNS comes up short with information. Whether that's deliberate or not i don't know. Simply though, no matter what they release the news seems to get picked apart and the rumour mill starts again.
On another note one of the major shorters further reduced their position earlier this week. Hasn't had the effect that people were expecting though so it's panic stations once again.
Hey guys
For my first post on Piston Heads I thought I'd go for this thread as shares are another hobby of mine.
From a TA point of view I'll be watching what Daimler shares do at around 64.50. We seem to have initiated a down trend since June and the retrace seems painful with lots of spiking down removing demand as we go.
What do you guys think?
For my first post on Piston Heads I thought I'd go for this thread as shares are another hobby of mine.
From a TA point of view I'll be watching what Daimler shares do at around 64.50. We seem to have initiated a down trend since June and the retrace seems painful with lots of spiking down removing demand as we go.
What do you guys think?
I don't know anything about TA, thus I'm inclined to dismiss it, so take my opinion with a pinch of salt. In seriousness, I think it has its place but is often overrated. You can draw a lovely chart to predict the temperature of your house, oblivious to the fact that it's currently on fire.
Why Daimler? What do you know about it? What's are the challenges facing the business, what's the strategy, how well do you think it's been received and how well do you think it'll pan out?
You're quite possibly already in a good position to understand their business and market, as long as you look at it objectively, so I say forget the charts and look under the covers at the detail. Read the investor information and watch how it develops over time. Read industry and market sentiment.
I do this with Fiat and feel much more comfortable with my investment, although in my case it's a quite different narrative of a potential turnaround rather than an existing success.
Why Daimler? What do you know about it? What's are the challenges facing the business, what's the strategy, how well do you think it's been received and how well do you think it'll pan out?
You're quite possibly already in a good position to understand their business and market, as long as you look at it objectively, so I say forget the charts and look under the covers at the detail. Read the investor information and watch how it develops over time. Read industry and market sentiment.
I do this with Fiat and feel much more comfortable with my investment, although in my case it's a quite different narrative of a potential turnaround rather than an existing success.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff