Listen to our latest Investing Matters Podcast episode 'Uncovering opportunities with investment trusts' with The AIC's Richard Stone 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.
with the market not individuals away from it . BlahBlah in various posts I have made clear my concerns about the bookbuild process. Seems that you cannot grasp the reality here , so I will have yet another attempt .
The term fraud was proposed by you not by me . Institutional parties agree OFF the market to a share price acceptable to them all .Even with the apparent complete lack of scrutiny and disclosure it is obvious that within the process there is no scope for criminal deception fraud . The bookbuild is announced after hours and the price agreed by this cosy arrangement is imposed ON the market the next day with immediate impact on all shareholders and possible financial loss for some . I believe that the market price should be set by trades ON the market and that price fix should take should take precedence. The con is the fact that regulators allow institutions to perform what is in effect an overnight mugging .Not rocket science ,a simple concept to grasp . It is called equity.
ATB
So you are now rescinding your idea that the sellers buy the shares back at a lower price under a different name, in collusion with the bookbuilders Tricky? It's now just a quaint perception of laxness in regulation, not a "con" at all, and your fraud insinuations never happened?
BlahBlah the fraud insinuation was yours . Perhaps you have not heard of the phrase " pros & cons ". Advantages & disadvantages . Well fraud here would be a very major disadvantage and it is not catered for in the word con. You do not comment on the main theme of my post that of equity , so presumably you consider it acceptable that individuals have pricing power over on the market trades .
Tricky, you haven't used the construction "pros & cons" though, you've specifically described a fraud, and you've repeatedly used "con" as a noun, i.e "it's a con". If you type "define con" into Google, you'll see the definition as "an instance of deceiving or tricking someone", with a synonym being "fraud". It's good that you have backed down from your earlier accusations, because there is nothing to support them, but pretending you were using the word "con" in a different sense is not being honest, is it, it's actually a bit of a ... con?
BlahBlah you concoct a fraud allegation then accuse me of dishonesty ! Squirm into a spasm over the many definitions of the word con . There is no ambiguity in "overnight mugging " but you cannot address that because it would cause you to answer the question posed in the title of the thread and the equity of the BB process. If you overcome your reluctance look at para 7 ( post 3rd June ) which states that the book builder is allowed to participate in the BB on their own account then ask yourself how investment bankers make such luxurious annual profits . Good luck to them. Just one of many possible chances for the privileged participants in the BB process to make a profit. You need to understand the difference between conjecture and accusation . Only the former is possible with the lack of disclosure in the BB process and no accusations of " fraud " have been made. I would hazard a guess though that if complete disclosure was made, the content would be within the rules but it would raise quite a few eyebrows.
Make you r mind up tricky, you are now using the word con for fraud again. Stick to one argument.
"institutions in the know get together and arbitrarily knock 10% off the market cap to suit their own devices ? Some posters here seem to think that the quaintly named "secondary share placing " is normal and acceptable I believe it is just a con ."
When you made that allegation, tricky, you appeared to be using the word "con" to describe price manipulation? Wouldn't you agree that there really are no "pros and cons" there? In fact, price manipulation is a type of fraud, wouldn't you say?
BlahBlah I note that you still have not commented on the possible connotations of para 7 and the fact that if the book builders can trade to their own account gives them no incentive to obtain a price close to the market price .
I also note that you do not comment on the question asked in the title of this thread I find that very illuminating .
For once and for all lets put to bed your obsession with the word con . I have previously stated that markets have to be seen to be free fair and transparent otherwise they simply cannot function . The con element here is the fact that shareholders ( the market ) have to meekly take a mugging via a process which is demonstrably not free and fair . A confidence trick that they can perpetrate with immunity .
ATB
" The con element here is the fact that shareholders ( the market ) have to meekly take a mugging via a process which is demonstrably not free and fair . A confidence trick that they can perpetrate with immunity "
Nice reimagining of what you actually said Tricky, but it's a con, isn't it?
BlahBlah care to comment on para 7 and the the question posed in the title of this thread ?
AAF done rather well since last Tues up over 10% for a ex div share , Pay date 22nd Jul , sold today , last tranche n kept profit in shares GLa
Tricky, you even restarted the thread with a new title in order to re-imagine your original accusations. Another con.
Meanwhile the SP is soaring to a new high. Maybe we should brace for the possibility of another secondary placing, or "con" as you misleadingly call them? Worth thinking about, since we haven't had one for a while.
Blahblah what is the point of your post ? We know that the sp normally makes a swift recovery from the instability and distortion referred to in the title of this thread which you refuse to acknowledge . How do you know that the sp could not be even higher but for the 10% overnight off the market mugging. ?
I have repeatedly asked you to comment on paragraph 7 of notes in the bookbuild RNS . You wont because that might require the use of terms such as " conflict of interest " or" lack of disclosure" and that would be too much of a challenge for you
ATB
The point(s) of my post, Tricky, were 1. to point out how you deliberately misrepresent what you said, to the point of changing a thread title when replying and 2. to give a heads up to anyone who wants to take advantage of your so-called "con" that it may be a good time to exploit it. hth
Very fair results surprised @ the drop
Blahblah If that is the best you can dream up to avoid actually answering my post , I am rather disappointed . What a con.