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.
Excuse my saying but Hargreaves have direct share ISAs and also deal in over 3000 mutual funds but do not run any themselves
The ISAs are not held by Hargreaves although dealing is done by them. The stocks are held in their nominee accounts administered by trustees
"they are not held as a broker which is illegal but as a principal in this case in mutual funds"
They are held by Hargreaves Lansdowne Nominees Ltd, not in mutual funds
Jobbers more or less have to make a price to buy in but very occasionally there are literally no shares to be had and they are not forced to make a deal but of course they may short a dangerous situation if no shares available!!!!!
100% Brand, there are a few here that would surprise you too.
I am relatively new to this market, but certainly not new to message boards and the internet.
LSE is the very first result when you Google the SNG stock price.
After gamestop in the US, the idea that major players wouldn't be using 'influencers' to temper message boards is laughable. They would be stupid not to.
I've spent a good amount of time on this board, having invested earlier this year. There are plenty of accounts who are clearly here to sew doubt, temper expectations and generally use simple psychology to motivate the SP.
Many spend most of their time being helpful, knowledgeable etc, so when sp movement needs to be countered, they are considered a 'credible' poster or LTH.
My expectation is that some of the accounts with an exceptionally high number of posts that seem to be on here 24 hours a day are manned by multiple staff. It's a minuscule expense relative to the gains to be made for the big boys.
Remember what you tell your kids. Don't believe what you read on the internet...
hanoi they are not held as a broker which is illegal but as a principal in this case in mutual funds
Thanks also Hank. I guess that gives us a lot of clout, let's hope we use it wisely!
Oh, I had no idea! Thanks Mat.
Kiwi - the HG holding is for all their private clients. You and me and everyone else on here who has them as a broker.
Kiwi, HL is all PI holdings.
I know many on here have a low opinion of Simply Wall Street but, according to them, Polygon are only the second largest shareholder. Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management Ltd is at the top, with 18.37%. Is this 18.37% spread around amongst their many funds?
They are still saying £814 is the fair price per share by the way :)
Hello - unquestionably so..
MassiveRay - "the mm's have the upper hand"
Do they?
They have to buy and sell shares even when nobody else is and when they don't know if the price is on its way up or down. They have different advantages from investors, but different disadvantages too.
Free, when there's vasts amounts of money involved and the mm's have the upper hand, what do you think?
FreeTheCaterham. Surely you have answered your own question on the Hzm board.
Regards
"The idea that MMS conspire to manipulate the price is nonsense.
=====
Of course they do."
What makes you say that?
Johncott - Hopefully SNG will never see your bottom draw unless your draw is in the office of a major Pharma!
John
It might be a long time until Active 3 is completed, several months.
Our own P3 is expected to be completed next month and data readout early 2022.
Hopefully, EUA quickly after.
Nor do I claim to.
I question these quality contributions you claim to make however - 10-15 posts a day, everyday.
The idea that MMS conspire to manipulate the price is nonsense.
=====
Of course they do.
I bought at 175 love the banter, keeps me going 70 next year , I’m waiting for the data from the US trial . Which hopefully will give mankind a decent antiviral. Bought at 175 watched it fall to 85 another bottom drawer I thought ,,leave it in the WILL and here we are good results next fence to jump , happy days
The idea that MMS conspire to manipulate the price is nonsense.
Oakleaf72 - "NDn is working this board like many others are, trying to sow doubt and mis-lead genuine investors so that they will give up their shares."
Over £3m worth ofSNG shares are traded every day. Do you really think the comments on this board affect even 1% of that? Judging by the votes that comment got a lot of people do, which is worrying really.
I've read that analysts check boards like this as part of their due diligence before their employers invest, and (I think) I've seen evidence that PR firms monitor them. But nobody's basing their trading decisions on some poster's opinion or their unverified 'facts'. The conspiracy theories on here don't really stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.
I'm sad to see that this thread has lost it's way a bit. Some interesting things were said last night but it seems to have descended into a load of name calling this morning. The definition of a 'troll' can be quite subjective obviously but I think that some posters on here obviously are. However, maybe consider the response to said trolls is needlessly antagonistic and therefore by definition is also 'trolling'. That seems to be the MO of both sides of the name calling.
The best way to deal with this is to use the filter option. I'm going to review mine now.
I have filtered the imbecile, he thinks this board is stupid and can't see through his good cop bad cop games.. more fool him.