Sativa Wellness Group #SWEL, the UK-based CBD business give London South East an operational update Watch Now
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 and have access to Premium Chat. 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.
Don't even mention the dark web...a place I have yet to find btw.
"That's like suggesting that if people buy anything, from property (houses) to multi-million pound luxury yachts, outside the controls of a trusted and regulated agent, then there may be criminal activity to consider."
Personally when I buy a house or a yacht I like to use reputable people to conduct the transaction and in a regulated marketplace. One here's horror stories of people who buy their dream villa in Spain or Greece to find that the vendor had no right to sell the property or it was built illegally.
Given the news today about London being the money laundering capital of the world doesn't exactly surprise me....and the scams the big banks have been operating on their clients over decades. At least in a regulated market one has a chance of getting your money back.
That's like suggesting that if people buy anything, from property (houses) to multi-million pound luxury yachts, outside the controls of a trusted and regulated agent, then there may be criminal activity to consider.
I believe that there are money-laundering processes applicable to private business, just like those operating through a recognized agent. Deals should be declared and taxes paid where applicable.
If deals are not declared then you may well have a valid argument, but in this case they were declared.
I suspect that big deals are done privately (off-market) mainly to avoid agent's fees and that is fairly sensible.
The smaller players may be in no position to act outside the realm of agents, but we can't blame the bigger players, with private connections, from attempting to bypass the middlemen who take their cut for providing a service/taking a risk.
In the case of diamond buying, many smaller players (you and I) would seek a trusted and establishes company to buy from, only the bigger players would be in a position to have access to ways and means of dealing amongst themselves.
I've long ago come to the conclusion the AIM is a mess. Especially when trying to execute trades from the States.
Tricky, I'm not suggesting TRMR have been involved in wrong doing....but if 'hidden'places exist (secret exchanges) then there is the temptation for people who are less law abiding than you or I to do their business.
I'm sure such things don't happen and the markets are a level playing field for everyone....trying to keep a straight face here!!
Tricky, well spotted regarding the additional hidden information found by hovering over the 'i'. I didn't know the 'i' gave tailored information. Seems a little crazy though...why not have 'OD' for 'ordinary delayed' instead of just 'O'.
I did notice that the timestamps for the three transactions were a little odd at the time.
first transation 125,000 at 15:47:21
2nd transaction 125,000 at 15:47:31
3rd transaction 250,000 at 15:47:12
So the 3rd transaction happened before the other two but was reported afterwards. It may explain the 'delayed publication'. ALternatively it is just a coincidence and the 250,000 tranche started far earlier...may be days before.
Not sure about the two 125,000 lots being one buy and one sell....they both had the same trade price of 155p. I suppose the broker could have taken a smaller margin and the rounding error showed them both as 155p....e.g. sell at 154.8 and buy at 155.2. In which case it makes me wonder who the seller was....got a good deal!!
If you hover the mouse over the 'i' at the end of the list you will see 'delayed publication' indicated and an earlier time-stamp for the 250k 'buy' is shown near to the quantity transacted.
Thus the larger deal of 250k occurred first, often whether it is listed as a buy or a sell has to be inferred, especially for off-exchange trades.
We know all buys have to be matched with sells, the 250k and 125x2 deals were 'off-exchange' and this makes it more like guesswork to determine sells or buys.
Data suppliers have to infer a direction for themselves. In some cases, it may be inferred wrongly, and in others, it may not be possible to infer a direction at all.
In our case it looks more likely that the first (delayed 250k) was a sell and the 2x125 were buys.
We can never really know what was happening behind the scenes and what arrangement was made.
To speculate on any illegality would be a little presumptuous, perhaps.
"The recent 250k was a delayed publication and 'off-book' so it is difficult to determine exactly what happened."
Trixky, I'm not too sure how you know that the '250,000' transaction was delayed publication. Again you seem to have access to more information than me.
I have seen very large transations elsewhere that seemed to have been delayed, having a timestamp of many days prior. Also there are the transactions that are released after the market has closed (post 4:30pm). Neither is the case here.
PS I'm also not too sure whey you highlighted the '250K' transation in particular. There were in fact three trades...125K, 125K and 250K. A total of 500,000 shares. We can 'probably' say that one of those transactions was the 125,000 shares that TRMR bought back, the other 375,000 shares are unknown....but it seems a little odd that an other party by pure coincidence bought 375,000 shares at exactly the same time as TRMR.
So through blind guesswork alone it seems fairly obvious that TRMR bought 500,000 shares instead of the 125,000 shares they declared in the 'buy back' RNS. Where those other shares went and where the money came from is another question.
PPS I suppose the broker that is handling the buy back for TRMR could have bought 3 tranches of shares for entirely different customers (with one of them being TRMR)....but again that seems odd and the question of insider trading springs to mind. All seems very odd to me.
From the horse's mouth, quote from LSE
Ordinary means "Standard trade made through Market Makers and settled at normal settlement date"...
Tricky, we have put people on the moon but we cannot seemingly disseminate standard information about a share transaction. A buy may or may not be a buy, it could be a sell.....and of course transactions 'off book' are a whole kettle of stinky fish.
No wonder AIM is the wild west.....it's almost like like the sheriffs in charge like the veneer of 'ambiguity' to justify their presumably well paid jobs. No wonder Russians LOVE it here!!
For AIM (low liquidity) stocks you generally see 'O' trades and they are based as sell or buy depending on whether they are traded below or above the mid-price. They operate under the SEAQ system, with market makers using their 'spreads' to compensate for the risk involved in holding stock for any length of time.
This much is reasonably accurate.
The recent 250k was a delayed publication and 'off-book' so it is difficult to determine exactly what happened.
Plus (for stock with high liquidity) there is the SETS system (introduced in 1997) with its own set of criteria, matching sells with buys at the same price, in this case it is listed as an 'AT' automated trade and can be misleading to interpret.
The LSE combined reporting of the two (SETS and SEAQ) to further add confusion.
Tricky, you seem to be saying 'nobody knows'....especially for AIM stocks.
Because the London Exchange indicates thus-wise.
Most 'aim' companies experience OTC buying, off-exchange, via computer terminals and emails/phone calls.
In an 'over the counter 'market the dealers play the role of market makers, as they quote the price at which the securities and other financial instruments are bought and sold between the participants. Conversely, in case of an exchange, the trading exchange is the market maker, as the prices are determined by the demand and supply forces.
Bigger companies tend to use the exchange, whereas companies not listed on the main markets do not.
In general, those companies which do not fulfill the prerequisites of the relevant stock exchange for listing their stocks, trade them over the counter.
Tricky, but all the transactions are marked as 'O'....when I hover over the 'O' it pops up with 'ordinary'.
How do you know the trades at 15:47 were 'off book'? Do you have access to more detailed information?
'O' means 'off book'.
Both parties operating 'off book' may decide to make a trade report, bringing the transaction ‘on exchange’ and creating a public record of the transaction.
250k sounds to be 125k x 2 and is misleading and too co-incidental to be taken as a separate purchase as reported.
Tricky, so large 'off book' transactions reported (to us) at the same time might not be connected? Does the 'off book' mechanism report all transactions for the day at the same time.
We never know who is behind any transaction (off-book or not)....but seems more than a coincidence that TRMR reported a large 125,000 purchase and that seems to me to be one of three very large transactions at 15:47.
I wonder who made the other 2 transactions at 15:47 for a total of 375,000, if it wasn't TRMR.
Perhaps we will never know. We do 'sort of' know that one of the three 15:47 transactions was 'probably' TRMR. That in itself seems strange...Buy backs are usually staggered throughout the day for relatively small amounts, not one huge transaction of 125,000 shares (+£190,000).
There are two trading systems, off-book and order-book.
The large trades you highlighted were 'off-book'.
Therefore buys and sells can be difficult to determine.
This causes confusion.
It would seem that TRMR have declared in todays RNS that they purchased 125,000 shares through the BUY BACK scheme. Which seems odd in itself, because that's a lot of shares in one go....I thought the BUY BACK rules limited the amount that could be bought in one go to prevent SP manipulation.
So the second question is who bought the other two tranches of shares at almost exactly the same time (within 20 seconds), for 125,000 & 250,000 shares respectively. Is this normal practice?
3 huge transactions at 15:47...500,000 shares in total at 155p....indicated BUYS.
That is some pretty serious money. Wonder what is going on.