Trading the stockmarket (NO Referrals)
- Thread starter mcast123
- Start date
You could have bought any share on that date and be up now, most by a lot more than AA and i don't see any reason, just a market bounce. Same with AAZ, all miners etc are up 6-8% today.
nothing interesting going on, so I'm not sure why 'fair play' was used like it was some oracle insight? Sorry for the tone but we don't really need every movement commented on if there's nothing behind it really.
nothing interesting going on, so I'm not sure why 'fair play' was used like it was some oracle insight? Sorry for the tone but we don't really need every movement commented on if there's nothing behind it really.
Actually, not going to rise to the bait.
Good luck on your investing journey.
And to add to this: I've never suggested being an oracle, nor any privileged insight, but this is a thread about 'trading' the stock market. Price movements are a legitimate contribution, so I will not stop doing it. You know what to do if you don't like it.
Good luck on your investing journey.
And to add to this: I've never suggested being an oracle, nor any privileged insight, but this is a thread about 'trading' the stock market. Price movements are a legitimate contribution, so I will not stop doing it. You know what to do if you don't like it.
Its not bait, you keep talking about AA. People aren't driving so cancelling anything they don't need, cutting all costs. Its no surprise AA dropped which was called out pages ago. They are up today but still down loads! Hardly a great share to shill on here.
How many have you got?
How many have you got?
A shill?!
I posted appropriate DD a few pages back "(Easily serviceable debt (plus good terms just been extended); trading update said no material impact of CV; cars still out and breaking down (fewer, but the aa are also working with the NHS now); I don't know anybody who has stopped their breakdown insurance because of CV (it's a contract really, so just rolls on); shorts are reducing and big institutions are increasing their stake...)."
I then posted: "Took a couple of £k profits on AA. Plenty more upside I expect, but if you check #aa on twitter you will see a lot of pumping now. People selling into the rise. I like the co’, but think there will be another buying opportunity over the next period of time. Still, 50% in a couple of days is not to be sniffed at, even if it goes up more! Profits is profits. Now, the sensible play is to spend it on something valuable, but on the other hand..."
So, I own 0 presently - as indicated - but made approx 2.5k profit over the short (5 day ish?) hold. I put my money where my mouth is, so not sure what the problem is here.
I posted appropriate DD a few pages back "(Easily serviceable debt (plus good terms just been extended); trading update said no material impact of CV; cars still out and breaking down (fewer, but the aa are also working with the NHS now); I don't know anybody who has stopped their breakdown insurance because of CV (it's a contract really, so just rolls on); shorts are reducing and big institutions are increasing their stake...)."
I then posted: "Took a couple of £k profits on AA. Plenty more upside I expect, but if you check #aa on twitter you will see a lot of pumping now. People selling into the rise. I like the co’, but think there will be another buying opportunity over the next period of time. Still, 50% in a couple of days is not to be sniffed at, even if it goes up more! Profits is profits. Now, the sensible play is to spend it on something valuable, but on the other hand..."
So, I own 0 presently - as indicated - but made approx 2.5k profit over the short (5 day ish?) hold. I put my money where my mouth is, so not sure what the problem is here.
There are so many opportunities gone and more coming. Just where is next?. I'm waiting for the oil resurgence to continue. Contracts end tomorrow and no signs of negative prices this time... yet!
Brent up 6% today, closing in on $35
Brent up 6% today, closing in on $35
Sorry meant to reply to this before, maybe some lag with the prices you were comparing to perhaps? It’s unlikely they’d be screwing you on real share transactions (I dunno, if they have an angle there to make money to fund the commission free service then maybe, there have been allegations like that I guess) they are regulated and and are supposed to adher to best execution rules, AFAIK they don’t execute themselves but just pass the orders straight through to interactive brokers. Re Tesla I guess maybe they can screw you on FX rates for foreign shares, IB wouldn’t but perhaps they could.
You could do worse than the AA. Their results were very good - and this was for the period up to the end of Jan so pre-Covid. Profit doubled, motor insurance unit growing, cash in hand £200m, debt and pension defect reduced by £300m, free cash flow up 700%, shorts down from about 10% last year to 5% current.
Now we have an insurance arm that isn't paying out (consumer and business). People are unlikely to cancel car insurance as 1.) They still need the car, moreso given that they want to stay away from public transport. 2.) May lose NCB.
The negative is their pile of debt which has to be restructured in 2022. They've recently dropped because one of their main holders has started to unload some shares likely for the same reason we all do - to free up cash for other opportunities.
Soldato
Yeah Oil has done quite well recently, I picked up some XLE leaps a while ago which are doing quite well (25C) .. I don't touch the oil futures directly though.
Curious what kind of time involvement you're putting into this, watching charts all day or managed to automate? What time frame(s) are you working with?
I've been playing with backtesting a lot of technical indicators, and my current conclusion is that technical analysis is pretty much a joke and that applying it to Forex where price data is close to, or is a random-walk makes it hard to get any better than 50% guessingI'm sure there's clever ways to tune indicators such that they are effective for a short while though. It's a fun game
When I started I was obsessed with it, literally spending any spare time I had doing chart markups and staring at the candlesticks. Now I am much more relaxed where by I spend maybe 30 mins on a Sunday marking up charts on the 4Hr timeframe; then as the London market opens on Monday morning I watch how price moves and then select my "top 10 charts" that I beleive will be good trades. I then use an app called Call Levels which notifies you when price hits a certain area. Once I get the notification I simply load up Tradingview on my phone and take a look
I don't use indicators much, it's all about price action
Should have bought back in when I had the chance. Another good start to the day for them.
Soldato
I remember one of Robbie Burns rules for trading shares in trouble was the debt to equity ratio, I got the book somewhere but its packed up. Was it something like 5:1 and not to bother with companies that have far more enterprise value in the debt rather then the equity which gets thrown about like a rag doll because it doesnt matter. Same thing could apply to a lot of things and I dont know the bond prices, like Premier oil has bonds that were tipped a while back. I doubt they look good but they'll pay out
I look at AA chart and its disappointing in this current context considering risk to reward unless people arguing its not risky like that. I know someone who used to work for them, the good company they were got bought out on leverage and with this consumer brand expansion idea.
I dont think I like its base case as equity does best when all the debt is justified by exponential growth, someone will win on it but it'll be the debt traders I guess.
I look at AA chart and its disappointing in this current context considering risk to reward unless people arguing its not risky like that. I know someone who used to work for them, the good company they were got bought out on leverage and with this consumer brand expansion idea.
I dont think I like its base case as equity does best when all the debt is justified by exponential growth, someone will win on it but it'll be the debt traders I guess.
Associate
https://www.hl.co.uk/news/2020/5/19...om_Opt in_19.05.20&theSource=EONRM&Override=1
Can someone please explain what this means? '2bn equity raise'. How do they do that? They just issue more shares?! Surly you cant just pump out more shares as this would devalue the current holders of shares? In effect they are splitting their shares into smaller chunks?
Can someone please explain what this means? '2bn equity raise'. How do they do that? They just issue more shares?! Surly you cant just pump out more shares as this would devalue the current holders of shares? In effect they are splitting their shares into smaller chunks?
Soldato
No its perfectly valid, think of an equation and how you move one number from left to right and its still the same equation so long as you balance it correctly. Its possible for a stock to be purely cash only, a fund can start out that way and be listed as a stock. Seen that done with insurance where they buy a book of customers and process it for a profit in some way, say 1 company now has a conflict of interest or a regulatory requirement to release parts of its business.
So every time a company pays a dividend, its losing cash off the balance sheet that previously reflected in the stock value very likely though stock prices can do anything in theory and be inaccurate. Its a bit like that but in reverse, very common I think on smaller amounts not 2bn. They could raise the cash by borrowing cash from a bank or issuing a bond, no more shares but it has to be reflected in the price. If they just borrow 2bn or issue shares for 2bn, keep it on the balance sheet then in 2 years buy back 2bn of shares then if the stock price was equal the sum total was nothing happened I think is correct.
Aim companies raise money by stock issuance all the time which can turn them into miniscule prices as they gained no value by their actions only costs.
Lloyds, MSFT and quite a few other companies were buying back their shares. Justifiable as they pay a dividend and so it reduces that cost for them, if their cost of capital is lower elsewhere then its profitable to do so. MSFT issued debt for 5 years at 1% I think it was yet their yield is far more, out lawing share buy backs is nonsense politics like banning shorting etc.
So every time a company pays a dividend, its losing cash off the balance sheet that previously reflected in the stock value very likely though stock prices can do anything in theory and be inaccurate. Its a bit like that but in reverse, very common I think on smaller amounts not 2bn. They could raise the cash by borrowing cash from a bank or issuing a bond, no more shares but it has to be reflected in the price. If they just borrow 2bn or issue shares for 2bn, keep it on the balance sheet then in 2 years buy back 2bn of shares then if the stock price was equal the sum total was nothing happened I think is correct.
Aim companies raise money by stock issuance all the time which can turn them into miniscule prices as they gained no value by their actions only costs.
Lloyds, MSFT and quite a few other companies were buying back their shares. Justifiable as they pay a dividend and so it reduces that cost for them, if their cost of capital is lower elsewhere then its profitable to do so. MSFT issued debt for 5 years at 1% I think it was yet their yield is far more, out lawing share buy backs is nonsense politics like banning shorting etc.
Last edited:
Associate
Thanks for the explanation but I have no idea what you said lol.
If there were currently 1,000 shares available in Compass, at £1bn each, company would be worth 1,000 bn and anyone can buy a share for 1bn. The 1000 shares available may represent 50% of the company. The other 50% is still owed by the founder.
Now they want to raise 2bn. So they just offer another 2 shares for sale at 1bn each? Do these new shares come out of the 50% that the founder owns? So now there are 1,002 shares in circulation plus the founder owns 48% of the company?
(Obvioulsly im using big numbers here in my example).
So why would them raising 2bn equity today send their share price down 10%? Where are they 'raising' this extra from? The company is selling off more of its own ownership to the public?
Soldato
Yeah, the shares are diluted.
The founder would still own 50% and the other half becomes less valuable per-share because there's more of them. The new shares are just created, nobody has less quantity of shares afterwards, they're just worth less. That's it, basically.
PS. It's easier to use small numbers in examples
.
The founder would still own 50% and the other half becomes less valuable per-share because there's more of them. The new shares are just created, nobody has less quantity of shares afterwards, they're just worth less. That's it, basically.
PS. It's easier to use small numbers in examples
.
Soldato
The company overall is worth more then the second prior, it has 2bn cash now that it did not have before. Who doesnt want a share of 2bn, if we could consider the cash shell scenario as a stock it'd be more simple but this is a moving target. The shares are diluted in their ownership but its of a 'larger' company or the company +2bn
I dont know if theres rules which require rights to be issued to current holders, usually thats what is done. Compass obviously has problems in this environment but that is seperate to what do new shares do
I dont know if theres rules which require rights to be issued to current holders, usually thats what is done. Compass obviously has problems in this environment but that is seperate to what do new shares do
Soldato
Shares get diluted. This is why you need to be in control (and be wary of investors and funding rounds) otherwise in theory your holdings could be diluted out of existence. In reality it's a little different as there are various measures and systems that companies need to go through.
Didn't this happen to the Facebook guy? The one who eventually won a court case, then renounced his US citizenship and moved to singapore?