Member Info for CityPie

Polish surely you can just summarise it for us as Manc says? Its a little bit odd that you need people to email you.

You first came on to this board trying to find out what everyones position was in THG and now you want a more direct contact. I think it would be naive of people to do this regardless if its from an anonymous email address or not.

The fact you claim to have worked with Matt and John I am also incredibly dubious about.

I don't agree with Mouldings outbursts but I think on this occasion he's probably entitled to defend it and expose what's going on

The FT look like a bunch of idiots after reading this.... Its so true that not only the FT, but most journalists tell their trader pals the day before about what's going to print as well. They actually have the audacity to try and make THG look corrupt! Unbelievable....

“This is free money”, in the words of one Hedge Fund that worked alongside the Financial Times on the Wirecard scandal.

Nice business if you can get it! But the rest of us must work for a living……

Here’s an insight into the weekly “fun” in running THG. Yesterday, an FT reporter called THG to say he’s writing a damaging story, claiming THG’s auditors (EY) have made a startling statement in the small print of our accounts. Hidden in the Risk section of the audit report, EY say there is a potential “fraud risk” in terms of the possible recognition of revenues in THG’s Ingenuity division.

We were given 2 hours to respond before the FT would print.

Sounds sensational right? Straight after the call, THG’s share price starts to fall, losing 5% despite market share prices rising in general. It’s amazing the number of times a share price falls the day before a negative story is written….telepathy must be a key skill in Hedge Fund recruitment.

THG immediately tells the FT there is zero sensationalism in the statement, and that a similar statement is in every set of audited accounts in the UK - from Tesco, JD Sports, to even the local coffee shop. We also told the FT they have a similar “Fraud Risk” statement in their own audited accounts 😂 (see comments pic).

It’s an audit requirement to identify an area of a company’s revenues at the highest risk of possible misstatement. An area must be identified. The FT’s auditors see Fraud Risk in advertising revenues and Management overriding controls – chunky!

And so, yet again, after time and effort from the THG team, plus lawyers, we prove another story as fake. But that’s not the end of it. Too often a commitment has been made to run a negative story against THG, and so the angle has to change but a negative story comes anyway.

The FT have even previously knowingly printed completely false stories on THG, blaming “Editorial Errors” for still running it. Oh, OK! The story is then amended online, or deleted, but the damage is done. Maybe these are the weakness in controls at the FT their auditors are referring to....

Why would an Editor have pe-decided to run a negative story against a UK listed company, come what may? Some claim it’s “effective” journalism, others, including the FT's own friends, say it’s a sinister relationship with the “Financial Mob” (see video). The FT produced a Netflix documentary to try to explain their role with Hedge Funds in the Wirecard scandal (this vid is a 3 min summary).

The standout comment for me comes from Nick Gold, a good friend of the Head of Investigations at the FT. Nick says he bet “hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars” against the Wirecard share price purely because his friend said he was too busy on Wirecard to meet up for a drink. That was all it took to gamble all his investors’ money with no further diligence! This is such a wild statement, some could be forgiven

Makes you wonder why the FT have even written it

Thanks Algo

On FT this morning…

https://www.ft.com/content/b367f38d-5b02-4504-a119-857a8b830693

Polish, you sir are a wonky donkey

Hosai probably because they know they could buy stock cheaper whilst moulding is in charge

Haha quality

Icouldntcomment don’t be like that, his AI tool said so!

Wildtiger said earlier they’d paid 58 for stock this morning. Obviously it hadn’t traded there. They had the thread deleted funnily enough. Weapon

That would be nice Manc. IMO they’re not in talks with anyone else. This is a long term play. Apollo was the best chance of a takeover outside of an MBO. Again, happy to be wrong but I think Ste is right, they should be putting their money where their mouth is.

So

i’d rather be a ****** than a fcking parrot

Not sure if being up for 10 minutes counts

Pearls even though it was a downgrade from Canaccord their price target is 69p

A dead cat bounce is an investing term for the temporary rise in the price of a stock or other asset during a long period of decline. The morbid term comes from the idea that if it falls far enough, even a dead cat will bounce.

A dead cat bounce in investing is a "sucker's rally." It can entice investors to put money into a troubled company.

Technically speaking, a dead cat bounce can only be identified after it happens. The "bounce" is the short-term price increase that is preceded and followed by decline. The second decline brings the share price to new lows. Until the second decline occurs, there's no way to know whether a share price increase is a dead cat bounce or the beginning of an actual sustained recovery of the stock's value.

The goal of trying to identify a dead cat bounce is to determine whether a stock or other asset that gains value after a prolonged decline is going to keep increasing in price. If a trader has sold a particular stock short and views a price increase as a dead cat bounce, they may decide to maintain the short position. Conversely, if a trader views a price movement as a sustainable rally, then the trader should close the short position.

To be clear, a dead cat bounce is a term used in technical stock analysis, of which we're typically not fans. Understanding the fundamentals of a business, not reading stock charts, is generally a better way to produce market-beating returns over time.

But it's still important to know some of the key concepts technical analysts use. It can be helpful to consider whether a stock with a beaten-down price is rallying because the company's business is improving or if the stock is attracting attention simply because it appears cheap after a protracted decline.

Example of a dead cat bounce

Consider the stock of the major financial institution Wells Fargo (NYSE:WFC), which traded at about $53 per share at the start of 2020. When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, fears of loan defaults and plunging consumer interest rates caused the bank stock to lose significant value. By the beginning of April, the stock price had declined to about $26.

Within a few weeks of that low point, however, Wells Fargo's stock price had climbed to $33.91. But, by mid-May, it had fallen even further to about $22.50. The temporary price increase was probably triggered by the federal government's first economic stimulus. At the time, significant uncertainty remained regarding the future of the banking industry.

Investor confidence remained low, making the price rally nothing more than a dead cat bounce. It's worth noting that Wells Fargo stock eventually did recover but only months after that initial bounce.

Funny, Wells Fargo were not and did not go bust! Stick to not having a clue

No, it just means it’s a meaningless bounce. The company does not have to be bust

Old news libc upgrade

17-Apr-23 Liberum Capital Buy 55.00 220.00 Upgrade