Member Info for addicknt

Perhaps 1981 has a point!

which hasn't been much discussed is the departure of DC.
We now know definitively that he was sacked, but we have no idea why. He had initiated the merger and the SR, so what happened? I suppose if his unfair dismissal claim actually reaches the courts we may get a better understanding.
I know people will say this is all ancient history, but it seems to me it could have a real bearing on what's going on now.
Thoughts?

1981, I understand full-well what the meaning of catalyst is, particularly in a corporate sense, and the points mentioned, when seen in the context of what preceded them, are most definitely catalysts. I suspect part of the problem is that you haven't been a shareholder long enough to understand the complete picture.
And if you read my penultimate sentence you would have seen I do not anticipate an imminent transaction. Please don't put words in my mouth.

You say people don't understand the catalysts, I would argue they are plain to see.
1. The announcement of the SR last year.
2. The merger.
3. The statements of Bob Sangha.
4. The very clear statement from Caldwell at the PDAC conference.
5. Mather's comments to the DGR shareholders.
And whilst I agree an imminent transaction is unlikely, the fact is the catalysts are most certainly there. It's all a question of timing.

1981, no, I don't. I think much of what you describe is purely a case of ignorance and is rarely of malicious intent. I've seen very few examples of situations on here where a poster may have tried to distort things, and when they have they tend to get a good kicking.

This trade was an off-book transaction using the Echo venue and was a TNCP transaction, which is the description for a non-price forming trade. In other word, it was between two parties and had no impact on the market - it could simply have been the case of one shareholder shifting shares between two separate funds.
The Echo Venue is a system used by the LSE to provide transparency under the MiFID 11 regulations.

Rich, I agree. I remember when the market was liberalized in the '80s the old guard wanted to cling to as much opacity as possible. They hated any attempts to level the playing field between professional and private investors and the truth is they were successful. This attitude still pertains with the conivance of the authorities.

It seems reasonable to assume it was a sale, but we have no evidence to support the view it was BR. Mind you, I've regarded them as flakey holders for some time, so their disappearance would be no bad thing, although having been holders for such a long time it seems odd timing.

No.

I'm guessing quite a few people on here will benefit from the long overdue scrapping of the Lifetime Allowance, which was the most unfair tax in the whole system. At last, a Conservative government doing something conservative.

Ho, ho!

Good find.
'Community relations are as important as technical considerations'. Let's hope we haven't shut the bakery.

Q, I didn't get involved in your previous free speech debates and don't intend to now. But I'll make one point.
Laws exist to protect against much of what you describe. Anything which falls outside of that protection is completely legitimate. End of.

Yup. SVB, had the potential to be disastrous for the tech sector and thank god HSBC stepped in quickly (never thought I'd praise a bank)
My own view is that things are incredibly fragile at the moment and far too many macro issues are lurking in the background, thus making investing more difficult than I can ever recall. It would not take much to tip us over and western governments have very little capacity to cope with another emergency.

Examples, please.
Anyway, what I'm about to say is an argument against myself.
I first joined a financial bb (iii) in 1999 and have watched with interest how things have evolved. In all that time I've only come across two examples where someone has been persuasive enough to sway opinion.
The first was at QPP. There was a guy who quite clearly had an inside track and it was obvious people were being persuaded by him. Due to the fact I had some local knowledge I began to get suspicious and started questioning him. I was also able to establish who he was. To be frank, it stank. I sold up, incurring a 50k loss in the process, but at least I hung on to the bulk of my investment - unlike most. I then spent time on the bb explaining why I thought the whole thing was dodgy. I was a lone voice and was thoroughly reviled and attacked for my opinion. The poster continued with his stuff until the solids hit the fan and he was gone in a puff of smoke. It was gratifying that several of my most vocal critics subsequently apologised, many did not.
The other example was at SOU. There was a very persuasive and eloquent guy who had the ear of the CEO and posted the most ramptastic stuff. He was not doing it maliciously - he was duped along with many others - but people ended up hanging on his every word.
So yes, it is possible to sway opinion, but in my experience it's very rare indeed that someone gets away with it.

Who's been posting misinformation? I must have missed it. All I see on here is opinion and speculation, which in the absence of concrete information, is the only thing available to us.
And by the way, I'm not remotely upset.

'victim shaming'! How very modern!
And yes, they should be left to post whatever they want. I don't believe in shutting down debate about anything and absolutely loathe this contemporary disease of trying to prevent people expressing their opinion. If people don't like it, they should say so in a discussion, not demand that alternative opinions should be banished.
I think you may be in danger of taking this board a bit too seriously.

covgaz, there's a translation option on the top hand right of the page. There's also a number of other highly relevant and interesting articles accessible on the side-bar.

Indeed I do know the difference, but on this occasion people are basing their comments upon what the CEO and others have said publicly, so perhaps their enthusiasm is justified.
On the broader ramper and de-ramper issue, you know as well as I do that whatever is said on these boards is entirely irrelevant and will have absolutely no impact on the market. And if people are daft enough to base an investment decision on what someone says here, then quite clearly they shouldn't be investing.

1981, of course you're correct about the need to take a long term view when investing, but you're ignoring the fact many people on here have been invested for many years (I suspect you haven't) and are now looking forward to a return. Patience has been tested by a management who made multiple mistakes along the way, and we are now encouraged by the noises coming from our new management team. So what's wrong with hoping we may soon see some positive news?