The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
Is it possible that the ‘large seller’ has made a deal with one or more MMs, the deal being that the seller can shift his 30 or 40 million shares at a minimum price within a set length of time. The MM’s might receive a handsome consideration for doing this – and probably anything they can make on the shares they are able to shift, so instead of holding back the price the MMs are in fact shifting as many shares as they can without allowing the share price to drop below the agreed price, which could be 40p. When the deal is completed we may see a big balancing final trade with the seller.
I’m guessing that the seller would find it difficult to shift 40 million shares in a short time at anything like the current price, if he tries selling in dribs and drabs it would take him a long time to achieve his goal, with the help of the MMs he is able to maintain his hoped for average and achieve it quicker than doing it himself.
So, are the MM’s actually doing us a favour, maintaining a stable market and avoiding massive volatility?
From an economic point of view a battery charged up from the grid off-peak may make sense, but from an ecological point of view its nonsense, its actually consuming more electrical energy than it provides and so has a larger carbon footprint doesn't it???
Several folk on the II BB for FRR have received this email from the FCA after raising complaints:-
.
"Your correspondence concerning Frontera Resources Corporation has been forwarded to the Market Integrity Unit within the FCA’s Market Oversight Directorate (‘MO’) for review. MO is responsible for monitoring compliance with, amongst other things, the FCA’s Listing Rules, Prospectus Rules and Disclosure Guidance and Transparency Rules, as well as the market abuse regime.
In your email you have raised concerns regarding an email attributed to the FCA on Mr Winnifrith’s blog on www.*************.com and also raised a number of queries regarding our approach to handling complaints along with making a request for details of certain alleged specific complainants to the FCA.
We are reviewing the issues that you have brought to our attention with a view to determining whether it is appropriate for us to exercise any of our statutory powers. As part of such reviews we may use the information gathering powers available to us to seek further information from the subjects of the enquiry and reach out to other agencies as appropriate.
Once we have completed our review, we will then consider whether it is appropriate for the FCA to launch a formal investigation via its Enforcement Division, whether some other form of intervention is required or whether the case should be closed with no action. The FCA has recently published its Approach to Enforcement document which details the types considerations that we will go through in considering whether to launch an investigation. In particular, an important part of our consideration is the potential seriousness of the misconduct. You can access our Approach to Enforcement document here.
As noted on our website (link here), it is the FCA’s policy that we do not provide information to complainants about what action, if any, we propose to take. This is because there may be circumstances where we feel disclosure may impact our enquiries, or where the information is restricted from being shared under section 348 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Our policy is to say publicly whether we are investigating only in exceptional circumstances. These circumstances are detailed in our Enforcement Guide (specially within EG6), which you can access here. Similarly, it is inappropriate for us to give details of those that may or may not have contacted the FCA to complain about the conduct of companies or other market participants.
Further information on our approach to complaints can be found on our website.
Thank you for taking the time to raise this issue with us. The FCA takes all complaints seriously, and information received regarding possible breaches of our rules can make a valuable contribution to our work. If you have any further concerns to raise then please do so via this email address.
Yours sincerely
Market Integrity Unit
Primary Market Oversight / Enforcement and Market Oversight Division
There are digital subscriptions but I only subscribe to the physical paper version. I've not found any online forum to post comments in.
Generally I would highly recommend the magazine, most of it is created by cut n pasting or summarising from previously published articles, I wonder where they collected the info for this article.
In this weeks issue I was delighted to see a full page briefing entitled 'The search for a better battery', the article certainly highlights the problems with lithium-ion. In anticipation of some mention of Vanadium or even Hydrogen I eagerly read on.....there was a subsection 'How could batteries be improved?' here a few tweaks to lithium-ion are discussed and it finishes with this comment 'And then there are plans to replace lithium-ion technology altogether. Very disappointing.
Reading on it discusses alternatives and mentions sodium-ion and the dutch aqua-battery and use of supercapacitors, but absolutely nothing about VFRB or Hydrogen cells.
I will write to the editors.
Thanks for that Alfa, appreciate all the effort you put into your trading analysis bulletins.
I'm a comparative novice in understanding how these trading systems operate in practice, just trying to work out the basics of how the market works.
maybe its FRR who don't want to settle out of court?
well I cant see anything that looks inconsistent with the previous 2 hours of trades, did you mean compared to todays transactions or compared to normal activity on other days after 4pm?
Intrigued to know what you've spotted/suspect.
I dont think the MMs will be overly concerned, I think they'll short even more to keep their short position not too far from the current price, allowing the price to increase, and recoup their losses at the next significant retracement.
Does anyone know if MM's formally borrow shares or do they effectively just owe the market a number of shares, aka naked shorting I think.
thanks for that info, esp the IHT tip, I had heard that before - I dont understand the rationale for allowing that, but even more reason for me (in my dotage) to continue adding BMN. I guess it will apply for stocks held in ISA/SIPP as well.