Share tips thread

[afrochicken]

_Nathan_ said:

AstraZenaca rejects takeover bid but shareprice continues to rise ?

Expectation/hope of Pfizer making a higher offer.

[DSLiverpool]

Funny really as I cash in the top performers or ones that have made a bankable profit it occurs to me I am left with all my crap underperformers - may top up my 2014 / 2015 dogs

[twinturboz]

Nice action in Apple broke out above that $575 should make an attempt at $600.
With the recent market action, hoping it might act as a bit of a safe haven, so to speak, to park some cash in.

[ODRALLAG]

Perhaps we all need to sign this lol

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/62851

[limpsfield]

CRB14 said:

limpsfield said:

This is a very fair comment and has been a theme on this thread since the beginning. Not falling in love with your shares is good advice, they don't know you own them.

If you believe your losses are the result of somebody playing the market / illegal activity you are going to have an emotional attachment.

People are the same in business with money that isn't theirs. Sorry, I don't buy the whole emotional attachment b*****ks.

If you read this thread over the years, you see people becoming emotionally attached all over the shop. Same with bit coin.

I don't buy the illegal activity/playing the market fluff. The fall in these shares hasn't been a five minute wonder.

[limpsfield]

ODRALLAG said:

Perhaps we all need to sign this lol

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/62851

Short selling bans are the knee jerk reaction of the naive.

A quick google on the short selling ban on financials back in 2007 ish shows how ineffective they are. All part of the free market. No use being a baby about it.

[Nerd]

limpsfield said:

Short selling bans are the knee jerk reaction of the naive.

A quick google on the short selling ban on financials back in 2007 ish shows how ineffective they are. All part of the free market. No use being a baby about it.

With hedge funds "borrowing shares" how is this a free market ? Surely that means the share is being traded twice by the actual owner and the hedge fund creating a false market.

Genuine question...

[Cockey]

The hedge fund isn't buying the shares from the real owner, they're borrowing them for a fee. Bit like interest on loan. So it's not a trade. The stock lender will get their shares back once the hedge fund are done with them, but there will be no profit/loss associated with this transaction from the stock lender's perspective.

Edited by Cockey on Monday 28th April 18:39

[Nerd]

Cockey said:

The hedge fund isn't buying the shares from the real owner, they're borrowing them for a fee. Bit like interest on loan. So it's not a trade. The stock lender will get their shares back once the hedge fund are done with them, but there will be no profit/loss associated with this transaction from the stock lender's perspective.

Edited by Cockey on Monday 28th April 18:39

Thanks, my limited understanding is the hedge funds sell "borrowed" shares and hope to buy the shares back cheaper to make their profit and thus closing their short, then they return the "borrowed" shares to the stock lender ?

Surely this is creating a false market with "borrowed" shares and the actual owner could effectively be really trading them (I know the number of shares in issue are vast but you get my point) ?

So if this was banned surely the market would be a true free market ie PIs, IIs, hedge funds can only trade what they actually own ?

[Cockey]

Nerd said:

Cockey said:

The hedge fund isn't buying the shares from the real owner, they're borrowing them for a fee. Bit like interest on loan. So it's not a trade. The stock lender will get their shares back once the hedge fund are done with them, but there will be no profit/loss associated with this transaction from the stock lender's perspective.

Edited by Cockey on Monday 28th April 18:39

Thanks, my limited understanding is the hedge funds sell "borrowed" shares and hope to buy the shares back cheaper to make their profit and thus closing their short, then they return the "borrowed" shares to the stock lender ?

Surely this is creating a false market with "borrowed" shares and the actual owner could effectively be really trading them (I know the number of shares in issue are vast but you get my point) ?

So if this was banned surely the market would be a true free market ie PIs, IIs, hedge funds can only trade what they actually own ?

You're correct in how it works. However, the stock lender would only ever lend stock they have no intention of selling whilst it is out on loan.

Therefore, the short seller is selling shares which actually exist, rather than truly selling short where they'd have no stock to deliver to the market.

[Nerd]

Cockey said:

Nerd said:

Cockey said:

The hedge fund isn't buying the shares from the real owner, they're borrowing them for a fee. Bit like interest on loan. So it's not a trade. The stock lender will get their shares back once the hedge fund are done with them, but there will be no profit/loss associated with this transaction from the stock lender's perspective.

Edited by Cockey on Monday 28th April 18:39

Thanks, my limited understanding is the hedge funds sell "borrowed" shares and hope to buy the shares back cheaper to make their profit and thus closing their short, then they return the "borrowed" shares to the stock lender ?

Surely this is creating a false market with "borrowed" shares and the actual owner could effectively be really trading them (I know the number of shares in issue are vast but you get my point) ?

So if this was banned surely the market would be a true free market ie PIs, IIs, hedge funds can only trade what they actually own ?

You're correct in how it works. However, the stock lender would only ever lend stock they have no intention of selling whilst it is out on loan.

Therefore, the short seller is selling shares which actually exist, rather than truly selling short where they'd have no stock to deliver to the market.

Thanks Cockey !!

[Nerd]

Those invested in QPP might find this interesting.....

Sorry, can't post whole article as not registered. Can be found at complinet.com

Hedge fund CEO complains to FCA and SEC about Quindell likely insider trading

Apr 28 2014 Alex Davidson, Compliance Complete

"Hedge fund boss Davide Serra has complained to the Financial Conduct Authority and the Securities and Exchange Commission that there has been at best market manipulation and maybe insider dealing in AIM-listed outsourcer Quindell Portfolio. There is a 99 percent certainty that the regulators will investigate this incidence because of the issues around it and its front page prominence in the Financial Times, said Serra, CEO of Algebris Investments, who holds approximately a two percent stake in Quindell. "This is a matter for the FCA and the SEC to work on together, and I have filed a complaint to both, as indeed has Quindell," Serra told Compliance Complete. Serra, a regular speaker at the World Economic Forum in Davos, is a former top-rated bank analyst for Morgan Stanley."

Me back, I do believe Algebris has increased it's holding significantly so will profit if/when SP rises, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out....

[marky1]

Nerd said:

Those invested in QPP might find this interesting.....

Sorry, can't post whole article as not registered. Can be found at complinet.com

Hedge fund CEO complains to FCA and SEC about Quindell likely insider trading

Apr 28 2014 Alex Davidson, Compliance Complete

"Hedge fund boss Davide Serra has complained to the Financial Conduct Authority and the Securities and Exchange Commission that there has been at best market manipulation and maybe insider dealing in AIM-listed outsourcer Quindell Portfolio. There is a 99 percent certainty that the regulators will investigate this incidence because of the issues around it and its front page prominence in the Financial Times, said Serra, CEO of Algebris Investments, who holds approximately a two percent stake in Quindell. "This is a matter for the FCA and the SEC to work on together, and I have filed a complaint to both, as indeed has Quindell," Serra told Compliance Complete. Serra, a regular speaker at the World Economic Forum in Davos, is a former top-rated bank analyst for Morgan Stanley."

Me back, I do believe Algebris has increased it's holding significantly so will profit if/when SP rises, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out....

I think I read somewhere he owns 2% of the shares. I'd be complaining too if I was him but it doesn't mean he is correct. They have now hung around 20p long enough for anyone sensible to be worried about what has been reported and whether there is any truth to it. I would not touch it with someone else's barge pole, unless you want to stick some money in for a punt. For anyone seriously trading this with reasonable amounts of money you would be mad, it's really a punt - is the report right and they go to 0 - or is it wrong and they go to 40. Might as well save the headache and stick it all on red in the Casino. That's what this share is now, a casino trade.

[Cockey]

I might be wrong, but I don't think insider dealing applies here because they weren't privy to any insider information. It was all publicly available.

Could probably get done for market abuse for publishing misleading information, but again they referenced all their claims to online sources. No question what their intentions were though.

Can the individuals behind the report be tracked down?

[marky1]

DSLiverpool said:

I agree - sold all at 4711 will put it all in QPP and pray to my god.

Mental. Taking profit from a great long term trade and sticking it in a punt. Unless you don't care about the money because it's not enough to make a difference to you, in which case go for it.

[Nerd]

Cockey said:

I might be wrong, but I don't think insider dealing applies here because they weren't privy to any insider information. It was all publicly available.

Could probably get done for market abuse for publishing misleading information, but again they referenced all their claims to online sources. No question what their intentions were though.

Can the individuals behind the report be tracked down?

I agree re insider dealing, they might have a better case for market abuse.

I believe a name has been linked to the 'research company' from another incident.

This is also interesting.....

http://uk.advfn.com/newspaper/tom-winnifrith/25478...

"Evil Knievil, Lucian Miers, Matt Earl and myself will launch full frontal assaults with new material on Globo, Quindell, Gulf Keystone and Avanti and a couple of new targets…"

I'm sure I've read somewhere that one of the presenters (Evil) was instrumental in the bear raid last year on QPP.

You can also see the short positions on FCA website, the main shorter (above the declaration level) is Roble SL which has gradually increased it's % in the run up to the bear raid and it doesn't have any other short positions.

Seems to be a few coincidences, I guess trying to prove anything will be impossible.....

[Condi]

Nerd said:

Cockey said:

I might be wrong, but I don't think insider dealing applies here because they weren't privy to any insider information. It was all publicly available.

Could probably get done for market abuse for publishing misleading information, but again they referenced all their claims to online sources. No question what their intentions were though.

Can the individuals behind the report be tracked down?

I agree re insider dealing, they might have a better case for market abuse.

I believe a name has been linked to the 'research company' from another incident.

This is also interesting.....

http://uk.advfn.com/newspaper/tom-winnifrith/25478...

"Evil Knievil, Lucian Miers, Matt Earl and myself will launch full frontal assaults with new material on Globo, Quindell, Gulf Keystone and Avanti and a couple of new targets…"

I'm sure I've read somewhere that one of the presenters (Evil) was instrumental in the bear raid last year on QPP.

You can also see the short positions on FCA website, the main shorter (above the declaration level) is Roble SL which has gradually increased it's % in the run up to the bear raid and it doesn't have any other short positions.

Seems to be a few coincidences, I guess trying to prove anything will be impossible.....

The big point here is that all information in Gotham City's report was public. Had they had insider knowledge then they would be looking at a serious stretch inside. This is also where Qunitell's repsonce has been crap, because any trader or large investor knows what has happened is not illegal, and so suggesting they are going to court is a knee-jerk reaction which actually makes no sense to anyone.

And has anyone else noticed that Quntills detailed release poses more questions than answers? By being forced to explain their business dealings they are exposing themselves how complicated and difficult to follow their acquisitions have been. Its a good rule in business that if people are making things hard to follow, its because they dont want to be followed at all.

[AOK]

twinturboz said:

Nice action in Apple broke out above that $575 should make an attempt at $600.
With the recent market action, hoping it might act as a bit of a safe haven, so to speak, to park some cash in.

we got close mate

[Hungrymc]

Condi said:

The big point here is that all information in Gotham City's report was public. Had they had insider knowledge then they would be looking at a serious stretch inside. This is also where Qunitell's repsonce has been crap, because any trader or large investor knows what has happened is not illegal, and so suggesting they are going to court is a knee-jerk reaction which actually makes no sense to anyone.

And has anyone else noticed that Quntills detailed release poses more questions than answers? By being forced to explain their business dealings they are exposing themselves how complicated and difficult to follow their acquisitions have been. Its a good rule in business that if people are making things hard to follow, its because they dont want to be followed at all.

The way I read it, most of Gothams claims have either been proven as years out of date or just false. They are rumored to have a dubious track record of shorting and then publicize the 'evidence' supporting a down turn in value. But there are open questions with respect to QPP that are not answered yet. These AIM businesses are in a murky world and we the investors are very dependent upon the auditors (one of the response from QPP that I thought credible).... This certainly isn't over yet, could go either way and I've taken a punt.

[vescaegg]

Ignoring the 'stay away from AIM mining companies' and only investing in a company after doing research, but has anyone looked at SULA?

I have a very small holding. I admit now its more of a gamble than an investment but it has potential I hope for good things in the next 12 months.

http://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news...