Member Info for ecovest

m/cap of this is huge - does it have revenues and earnings per share to go with it?

Recommended on here: (basically argues that, like in the UK, Abenomics, even if unsuccessful, will drive up asset values like property, halping the NAV here) http://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/2014/10/22/funds-and-etfs/investment-trusts/investment-trusts-the-professional-picks-AhUC03BovlxULJeQGIuKeI/article.html

Any reason for this other than recent news of Japan depression? Seems rather oversold.

"the Company's financial performance has continued to be strong and October was a record month for sales and profit ... Based on the current order book, and subject to products being built and shipped in line with the current delivery schedule, the Board expects that the Company's results* for the year ending 31 December 2014 will be ahead of market expectations."

I know it says on their websites that they have 2000 websites, but can anyone point me to one so I can see how their link to gaming sites works? Thanks.

Proposals would not actually be implemented for at least 2 years. In any event the measure still needs approval by the House of Lords.

Marston's have relatively few tenanted pubs now (see my post below). Enterprise Inns and Punch taverns have the most and have seen the greater drop in s/p: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6d813892-6f4b-11e4-8d86-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3JVdqrk7H

Due to MPs vote on ending the beer tie. Marston's has, however, already taken anticipatory action to reduce the effect of this by selling off many of its wet pubs to New River Retail. See http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Company-City-News/Ralph-Findlay-Marston-s-sold-pubs-to-minimise-regulatory-risk

Oh and is it my imagination, or have many larger investors filled their boots?

Hmm, just the sort of thing shorters would post. This is nothing like Blinkx. No one has questioned Opay's business model. And Wolfhound, that's nonsense - what on earth do you mean, why would they? Read Phoenixchi post for some sense!

Looking in more detail at the QPP Director arrangements, they are different to the collateral loan here. As I said, the Opay Director here did exactly what the first RNS in April said. In contrast, the QPP arrangement was sale and repurchase (not a collateral loan) and required a further RNS from QPP because it was not a straightforward Director buy as some may have been led to believe (and of course markets love Director buys). Opay's April RNS was not billed as a buy in the first place. So a different arrangement with EFH and no potentially misleading initial RNS here. The only reason for today's RNS was because of doubt cast by QPP's involvement with EFH. But of course the market tends to miss the contextual detail! Mind you, I don't personally think that QPP's first RNS was that misleading either - unwise I'd say (because the sheer complexity - if anything, made worse by the second RNS - just added to the armoury of the conspiracy theorist smoke and mirrors brigade), but not misleading.

http://www.lse.co.uk/AllNews.asp?code=kxgb36yl&headline=Optimal_Payments_Confirms_Director_Share_Dealing_With_Equities_First All the companies listed have been badly hit.

That said, I think the RNS could have spelt out in more PI friendly terms that this is standard practice etc in the way I put below (or perhaps on its website if RNSs have to be so lacking in contextual explanation). The statement they put out is very factual but only reassuring if you know some context.

I suggest people read this - http://equitiesfirst.com/index.php/stock-loans It looks like a version of a posh pawnbroker - it has the advantage to the CEO here that he does not lose the value of the stock when (as he no doubt expects, as does EFH or they would not have accepted the loan!) it will go up over 3 years. Sure he could have sold the shares today to buy his yacht or whatever, but then he loses out on future gains. So it's damned sight better than a sell, but not as good as a buy. There's been no subterfuge here - the April 1 RNS says exactly how it is in today's RNS. The only reason for this dropping is the hysteria surrounding QPP - this arrangement with EFH seems like a perfectly standard thing, but shorters on QPP have placed question marks around every move it makes and this silliness and paranoia has clearly infected here too as a form of collateral damage (excuse the pun). But as I said before, this is not QPP and this form of collateral loan is not that unusual. I imagine EFG are themselves pretty p***ed off that QPP's woes (and now other companies they're associated with caught in the crossfire) look to threaten their whole business model.

Agree - PIs panicking or getting stopped out. Nice buy - good timing I suspect!

It's because people are panicking that a director may have done a QPP - i.e. effectively not really technically bought shares at all, in a complex loan agreement. IGAS shares also down in part because of this I believe. As I say, even if this did happen here, the fundamentals here are rather different to either of those companies. Opay is making real profits.

Who knows, but there's a big difference in the underlying fundamentals of the companies concerned as perceived by the market. I.e. this is no QPP. You only have to read the first two lines of the shareprophet post (reference to Aim as a cesspit and that he has no idea what Opay does as company) to realise that he can't be taken seriously. I think you do a disservice posting that sort of stuff.

Final of 2.8p, went ex divi yesterday. Overall dividend of 4p for the year, up slightly from last year, pretty much matching inflation. Would have been good to have a bit more of an increase but not too shabby.

Answered well here - I was more or less correct (and it's a generally pretty positive write up): http://www.fool.co.uk/investing/company-comment/2014/11/13/rexam-plc-dives-on-higher-costs/ Agree, good top up opportunity (but it's in my ISA so I can't!).

It says" In terms of the trading environment, we are planning for margins on certain sizes of US specialty cans to reduce next year and, additionally, for the trend towards global procurement contracts by our customers to continue. In light of these developments, we are reviewing our cost base further and will provide an update at the full year results in February." The margins bit I get. What's the issue with global procurement contracts? Surely that could work in favour of a global firm like Rexam? I'm sure I'm missing something there though.