Share tips thread
Discussion
trashbat said:
g4ry13 said:
Have you seen that guy @Brokermandaniel on twitter? Seems to be posting some inside info stuff. Not sure how reliable it is, but he put about 20 million barrels of oil at Horse Hill on Thursday afternoon and then the RNS came out with it today.
I hold Solo, it's been a little disappointing with the find at Horse Hill but it has the Tanzania stuff going on and it's gone up a lot lately so can't complain too much.
Re: BMN, not entirely: http://www.shareprophets.advfn.com/views/8563/hors...I hold Solo, it's been a little disappointing with the find at Horse Hill but it has the Tanzania stuff going on and it's gone up a lot lately so can't complain too much.
I wouldn't trust him at all, he has a stake in it. Trade the hype. I already did one run from 1.0ish to 1.75, missed this last one and reasonably expect another. Just make sure you get out with a more conservative gain than the majority, because everyone in it is there for the short term.
I've been in Solo for quite some time and i'm just going to sit on them. Yes, they had a bad day today and a good day the day before. But they went from about 0.20p to 0.80p over the last few months so I can't complain too much. I'll see where they are as the drilling in Tanzania progresses, should know in the next month or so as it's a 60 day drill. There's some people in it for the long haul, but it certainly does get tedious reading people talking about tree shakes whenever the price falls and how it's a great buying opportunity and they've bought another £20k holding. Or the old calling out next price targets which are ridiculously far away.
I did it with a limit sell whilst on holiday.
I'm not convinced that HH is a good risk/reward balance without trading. It's got inherently low chances of success and the gains will be sapped by the short term folk at every turn. That, rather than fundamentals, is why you see a massive hit after every significant RNS. And it's AIM so long termers will be f
ked by placements and fundraising without gaining anything for the time served.
If you got in super early then the pressure is off, but that's how I'd play it after watching a lot of these affairs. Going long haul on a developing story like this is usually a recipe for disappointment at the very least.
I'm not convinced that HH is a good risk/reward balance without trading. It's got inherently low chances of success and the gains will be sapped by the short term folk at every turn. That, rather than fundamentals, is why you see a massive hit after every significant RNS. And it's AIM so long termers will be f
ked by placements and fundraising without gaining anything for the time served.If you got in super early then the pressure is off, but that's how I'd play it after watching a lot of these affairs. Going long haul on a developing story like this is usually a recipe for disappointment at the very least.
https://www.google.com/finance?q=BIT%3AFCA
In your face, AIM!
Seems Ferrari is getting an IPO.
In your face, AIM!
Seems Ferrari is getting an IPO.
Edited by trashbat on Wednesday 29th October 13:41
photosnob said:
So competitive they failed to do their job.
Did they? My understanding is that PwC raised the issue with the Board who said it was fine. Auditors place a lot of reliance on information provided to them by Management. The CEO will have signed a Letter of Representation setting out his responsibilities. With the best will in the world, if management are intent on lying or obfuscating, it would be difficult for ANY audit firm to pick up on this 100% of the time. photosnob said:
How is is that you have more trainees than qualified staff in most auditing offices? Clearly the partners are making lots of money, under the scam of auditing. It's a scandal.
They don't (at least not in the offices I've worked in)photosnob said:
Okay - I've decided to add a bit to this. I understand how auditing works for the big4. Most people who qualify go and do in house auditing in companies when they qualify,
No they don't. Nowhere near in fact. Some move to internal audit but it's relatively few.photosnob said:
I understand that many of them don't make the grade, and that there are costs in both paying them and training them, so they need to earn a fee to justify this. However I do have a problem with someone who was a trainee being given positions of responsibility at a prestigious accountancy firm for a client, I know first hand that before she was even qualified she was a "team leader" and much of the time there was not even a manager on site for the smaller jobs.
It is perfectly possible for a Non-qualified to be a team leader. In fact it's normal career progression. Somebody who is in their final yyear of studying, or a passed finalist can quite easily lead audit team. There will be at least two reviews of their work for QA purposes and the final report will be the responsibility of, and signed by, a Statutory Auditor who, as well as being qualified, will also hold an Audit Practising Certificate.photosnob said:
If you wish to justify that as it being economical then it's fine. However I don't think it's moral that a "manager" signs off on accounts, when trainees have done all the work. What's more - I think that if you are going to have auditing then it should be done properly, rather than being a box ticking exercise.
I dont think you know who does what in an audit. Its normal / routine for a trainee to do some or most of the work and its normal for a manager to review it, a Senior manager to also review it, before the Senior signs it off.Edited by photosnob on Friday 24th October 13:41
Countdown said:
I dont think you know who does what in an audit. Its normal / routine for a trainee to do some or most of the work and its normal for a manager to review it, a Senior manager to also review it, before the Senior signs it off.
Okay...Just answer me one thing. What the hell is the point of an audit? Especially when you are going to use the cop out that they told us lies!!!
photosnob said:
Especially when you are going to use the cop out that they told us lies!!!
I have done a fair bit of so called "forensic" accounting.My very simple rule of thumb is to compare cashflow with earnings.
If the delta in operating free cash with net income cannot be explained by working capital changes or the depreciation vs. capex then something needs explaining.
And frankly I take a damn close look at those WC changes too.
Outside of China, you can usually rely on the cash in the bank to be cash in the bank. Just work backwards from there.
Tesco's "earnings quality" (i.e. the above analysis) has always been very poor - particularly vs. MRW and SBRY.
In particular they squeezed supplier terms ruthlessly.
Now you can say extend payment terms for a while but eventually you have to pay and at that point the doors can fall off because extending terms is really just another way to force a discount from your suppliers.
If you think you can extend again but hit a brick wall then it may be the case that you over-stated profit historically because assumptions you made about your margin (for example, what you may eventually pay for something) turned out to be wrong.
TL;DR accounting is an art not a science and cash rarely lies.
photosnob said:
Okay...
Just answer me one thing. What the hell is the point of an audit? Especially when you are going to use the cop out that they told us lies!!!
You're missing the point. An audit is part of the checks and balances of the system, not a perfect safeguard. Noone claims it to be. It protects against misrepresentation through mistake, misunderstanding, incompetence or simple deception, but will never protect against deliberate and complex intent. The criminal justice system plays a role in that.Just answer me one thing. What the hell is the point of an audit? Especially when you are going to use the cop out that they told us lies!!!
trashbat said:
photosnob said:
Okay...
Just answer me one thing. What the hell is the point of an audit? Especially when you are going to use the cop out that they told us lies!!!
You're missing the point. An audit is part of the checks and balances of the system, not a perfect safeguard. Noone claims it to be. It protects against misrepresentation through mistake, misunderstanding, incompetence or simple deception, but will never protect against deliberate and complex intent. The criminal justice system plays a role in that.Just answer me one thing. What the hell is the point of an audit? Especially when you are going to use the cop out that they told us lies!!!
Audits provide a degree of assurance, they do not provide total assurance that there have been no frauds, errors, etc.
Deliberate intent is even harder for external auditors to identify and falls within the realm of Internal Audit. And even with the best internal auditors it only takes 2 or 3 people to make a fraud undetectable, if they are in certain specific jobs.
walm said:
Collar.
Yeah would have been the safer option, but went in 3k shares long, had a fair bit of profit to cushion the fall if it had tanked from trading TWTR and FB after earnings this week. Waiting for the conference call the guidance should be up hopefully that gives it another leg up. 35% short should see this start to squeeze $85 tomorrow and then full on squeeze to $100 by christmas.
Edited by twinturboz on Thursday 30th October 20:34
Anybody else holding Standard Chartered? Not looking good - http://www.hl.co.uk/news/articles/standard-charter...
Do I cut my losses or hold on?
Do I cut my losses or hold on?
bad company said:
Anybody else holding Standard Chartered? Not looking good - http://www.hl.co.uk/news/articles/standard-charter...
Do I cut my losses or hold on?
It had a bad write-up in the Telegraph a couple of days ago. Down 44% in 18 months IIRC. I wouldn't buy more but I would hold - surely the yield must be quite good?Do I cut my losses or hold on?
Countdown said:
bad company said:
Anybody else holding Standard Chartered? Not looking good - http://www.hl.co.uk/news/articles/standard-charter...
Do I cut my losses or hold on?
It had a bad write-up in the Telegraph a couple of days ago. Down 44% in 18 months IIRC. I wouldn't buy more but I would hold - surely the yield must be quite good?Do I cut my losses or hold on?
The problem I have at the minute is I am sat on cash having had a wobble when the markets tumbled and nothing is attracting me to buy back in. Every review I undertake leads me to conclude I don't see good value in the price at the minute. I don't think I will get rich on the interest paid on my share account..
twinturboz said:
walm said:
Collar.
Yeah would have been the safer option, but went in 3k shares long, had a fair bit of profit to cushion the fall if it had tanked from trading TWTR and FB after earnings this week. Waiting for the conference call the guidance should be up hopefully that gives it another leg up. 35% short should see this start to squeeze $85 tomorrow and then full on squeeze to $100 by christmas.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff