Member Info for _Mr_Big

Thanks.

Beebs seem to have been told to keep quiet on covid reporting. Not that I'm a big fan of them.

The clowns, indeed, seem to think that covid is not real. More customers for Synterferon I guess...

Where did you get those numbers from, if you don't mind me asking.

That's not what I expected when I followed the link...

WTF, they are delaying £14k buys now. Seriously?

One of the £400k (11:38) might have been a sell actually.

But looking good otherwise!

Bring on just another Manic Monday!

gg - I think in exceptional circumstances, when all MMs are net short, they might collude and try to crash the price rather than face the losses.

But generally, I don't think there is that much MM manipulation going on. Not every share, every day, as you'd think reading the LSE boards. They are not masterminding evil ways to steal the cash from PIs. They just buy and sell - that's all MMs do, just not always in the most ethical manner. And I get a vibe that their profit making is not limited to cashing in on the spread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZQWr7cF0eY&ab_channel=RnSTutorials

Dave - I used to hold KEFI and in their lingo, "Imminent" has stretched to over 9 months lol. I think we can let RM off with a week's delay.

So, to sum up - if you assume that MMs love volumes, any of MM activity that appears to keep volumes low raises my suspicion. I would expect dropping bid to be accompanied by a sell-of and the market being flooded by spare shares. I would then expect MMs to lower the Ask to encourage buying and drive the volumes up (because volumes=profits for them). I do, however, very often see SP (average between bid & ask) being driven down by the falling bid, yet not only is ask staying the same, but there is not much stock to buy without going into NT. This mainly applies to low-liquidity AIM penny stocks.
There might be a legitimate explanation for such movements, but I can't think of any.

Yep, straight from the horse's mouth.
Results are Imminent.

I am far from knowing "my stuff" lol. More of a conspiracy-theorist guess.

MMs make money from volumes. They facilitate people buying and selling and take a cut on every transaction. They really couldn't care less which way SP is going, as they will make as much money on SP tanking, as they will on SP rocketing. The more volume traded per day, the better.
Volume goes hand-in-hand with volatility. The more volatile the SP, the more trades would be expected. If SP is flatlining, it's not making any money for the MMs.

It is therefore reasonable to assume that MMs love volumes and should be doing everything they can to promote volume. E.g. Be very open to lowering the ask to encourage buying or increasing the bid to encourage selling.

Now, suppose the MMS are not as ethical as FCA thinks they are. SP is stagnant because shares are in sticky hands but there is no significant buying pressure to move SP up.
A big order comes in and they need to fill it. Instead of the natural reaction to raise bid and encourage selling to fill the buy order, they significantly lower the bid to try and collect some cheap shares, yet they keep the ask the same, because they know there is no buying pressure at this level. It looks like SP is tanking (more people want to sell, nobody wants to buy) when the reality is that very few want to sell, and there is a big buy on the order book.

Some bed-time reading:
https://www.fca.org.uk/markets/short-selling/exemptions-requirements

To elaborate on the MM Short, it is perfectly possible that they have just shorted 500k shares on 1st of September to sell them to our new yankee doodle (an MM that cannot fill an order is a rubbish MM!). They are now trying to control the price and close their short at the lowest cost possible, to maximise their profits.

I am not saying that's exactly what's happened here, but I am just stating the possibility of such a short taking place. Despite this being 5% of the company, MMs do not have to disclose their net position.

Eva - I do not believe MMs would accumulate anything in anticipation, because they do not anticipate. They just provide liquidity, often without any knowledge or care for the stock they are offering. They can, however short sell (literally, sell borrowed stock). The short selling regulations clearly state that not only are they allowed to do that, but they do not have to disclose a net short position if they happen to take one. While these rules are there to facilitate market liquidity, the assumption is that the kind-hearted MMs will never use such a loophole to make some dodgy cash.
It is textbook short selling. Just because they do it to provide liquidity (e.g. sell 500k shares to a yankee doodle, try to recover their position over the following few days), rather than as part of a proprietary market speculation (a trader shorting in anticipation of SP doing down), doesn't make it any less of a short sell.

That's PS , not SP.

SP eva, MMs can short sell whatever the feck they want and they don't have to disclose it.

Depends on how much they want to lose.

I don't see Ask moving down, so looks like textbook bid manipulation...
As long as there is no strong buying pressure at current levels, ready to blow the lid off, MMs can continue to play their tricks and prey on the impatient.

I squeezed in at 1.70ish - let's see her rise!