We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Mike, he could always use the "Maxwell method"...lol
I understand how asset stripping works apart from the pension bit... how would he legally ''remove £1bn'' from the pension fund?
hiya, and thx, yeah still holding, divi canx was painful i wont say otherwise, but i think as you, no way it should have been that low, problem is my whole portfolio took a beating, and i was already down on most.
Have about 10k in here still, and only have about 1500 spare right now, so to put that in here, with no divi, i'd need it back at those levels to consider it, for example 140 would give me a 20p drop in avg for the extra 1500 in, i've others i need to average down on first really, and some of those i could half my avg
Hello Crystal. It's been a while. Sometimes it just takes belief. I believed and with just cause. Problem was ***
RMG should never be down here who do I blame not ****
Anyway best of luck with your holding here Crystal send nice to hear from you.
JB. How often do we manage to buy or sell at the exact moment she changes course. But when we do and especially when the Troll experts tell the World your top up was a massive mistake. Still puts a smile on my face. Cue the green text lol.
those are some good top up or buy in points, i think i'm still carrying about a 245 avg, as i didn't have the funds (or balls) to throw more in after they killed the divi
Redceo I recall you saying you could have got a better price at the time but as you say they have worked out well for you. Feels like we are in yet another pivotal time for the business, never a dull period on here.
My typo lucky I checked or the trolls would be on my back :-))))
15/04/20 rmg bough 9999 @ 138.70
Hi JB. Thinking about it that was the top up that peed me off a little. I recall posting that I had jumped the gun @129. From memory I bought close to opening.
I have seen previously the 119 reference but never recall seeing that low. Two :-)) I got a few top ups in down there at the bottom, another for example that I predicted to buy 9999 a few days before I bought then posted live 9999 eas 129 and some fractions about the 30th April from memory. Happy days
Hi Redceo it did drop to 124.3 on close on Friday 3rd . The good news is it has steadily gone up since and your 2 buys were nicely timed.
Would not have thought it was down there on the 3rd. These were some of my top ups around that date.
30/03/20 rmg bought 8250 @ 124.857
03/04/20 rmg bought 15179 @ 129.76
Yeah 119p could have been an intraday low JB - 124p on 3rd April according to graph - recent enough to concentrate minds should it be breached
gl dyor etc
Carrington potentially a shrewd move and always sensible to protect yourself. Very difficult to predict what the next moves may be but your hedging strategy cleverly covers some possibilities. I am okay with my average at the moment and I would consider what to do next if he does start to sell some. Without checking was the low not around £1.19? Good luck whatever pans out.
Hi JB - re hedging - 2 quid leaves me a tidy profit on half my sum, enough to more or less cover a big drop, should it happen, on the remainder - I think he has deliberately not bought in at the bottom in order for the bottom to be established - he could sell some of his stock to see if the share comes back to the 124p low then go for a hostile takeover say at 3 quid - shareholder will then know the previous bottom and also be reminded of it again - 3 quid is a lot better than 124p and I am pretty sure that shareholders would agree
dyor etc
Carrington sounds like a sensible approach for you I am just not sure about the time frames you suggest. I am making assumptions here of course but if you think D.Kretinsky is in for a long game would you hedge if SP went to £2 on news say of a CWU agreement at the end of this week? As I say I think your approach is minimising risk and sensible just curious about your timing. I appreciate DK could sell out anytime as could Schroders or other large holders but I think he will be here either for a couple of months quick profit or as you suggest maybe a longer game.
Kretinsky playing the long game here - knows full well that there is value to be realised in GLS and the pension - the initial purchase at 85m is already making him a substantial profit and future purchases will I suspect make him more so a win win situation for him atm - he alone can put the share price back substantially be selling his whole stake - that puts him in a very powerful position - It will be interesting to see how this plays out - I would personally look to hedge the share and sell half my holding if this goes above 2 quid
dyor etc
@Oli or Michael Gove given his car crash interview this morning.
GZK, it's going to be an interesting year although it has to be noted that severe asset stripping is one of the arguments that the CWU used against privatisation.
The pension fund is one of the things that RM staff hold dear and any attempt to make a grab for it will almost certainly upset the CWU which Kretinsky will almost certainly be aware of.
GLS is not held in such high esteem even though it is the RM cash cow so it's possible that would be his end game.
Perhaps it's also Rico's end game which is why he left?
It's anybody's guess at the moment and all open to interpretation (interpretation...see Dominic Cummings..lol).
The thing that intrigues me most (sorry for the repeated use of the word -- but it is so damned apt!) about the Kretinsky buy-in, is his entry point and the way he has apparently positioned himself, to my way of thinking anyhow, right in the middle of the court.
Firstly...a few questions.
1. why buy-in, initially, when the price was in the mid 1.50's? Why not when it sank to 1.18?
2. Why buy-in when the short position was already relatively high...and increasing?
3. Why buy-in when there, yet once again, is a very high chance of an industrial dispute which may well lead to strike action?
4. Why buy-in when Royal Mail had suspended the dividend?
5. Why buy-in when Royal Mail has committed to spending hundreds of millions of pounds in an attempt to modernise?
6 Why buy-in when Royal Mail has warned it could make a lose in the next financial year?
When considering all of this you do have to have the question: what are his motives for buying-in at all? At this present moment in time least ways.
Bearing in mind that, personally, I have only a layman's rudimentary grasp of the ignoble art of "Shorting", could it be that, as the Shorts start to sell, thus driving down the price, Kretinsky intends to "mop-up" at the same rate?
This would decrease the amount of shares available to buy would it not? Therefore, eventually, driving the price back up?
In other words: Kretinsky acquires cheap shares at the Shorters expense...or perhaps I should say -- our expense! :)
Always keen to be corrected and learn. Please feel free to educate me. Any thoughts, as ever, most welcome.