If you would like to ask our webinar guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund a question please submit them here.
I very much doubt Shetty was involved in the Muddy Waters report - some of which followed the same conclusions that Jefferies had reached previously when they gave it a ‘sell’ rating (but still with a 1,900p target price, I believe). But I wouldn’t count out him taking advantage of the drop if he believes that the business is sound. Obviously there is plenty of risk though until the findings of the independent review are made public.
That’s exactly what I was referring to - if Shetty really does want to buy out the two Emirati holders I’m sure he will want to do so as cheaply as possible, and the fact that they’re leveraged and have already effectively been margin called and had to sell shares, doesn’t exactly put them in the best position! Although I think they’re restricted on just how many they can sell due to lock-in agreements on part of their holdings?
If Shetty was also effectively shorting it by using algos to churn it lower, then of course those wouldn’t show up on the FCA disclosures as he’d still be net long overall. Only a theory of course, but makes sense to me he may want the share price down here!
New to this share and only bought in today at 705p after doing a bit of digging around. What are the chances that this drop relates to the two Middle Eastern major shareholders having leveraged positions (which they already had to sell some shares to cover) and someone taking advantage of that to really put the pressure on them, and having the chance to pick up shares cheaper in the process (Shetty if the reports are true about him wanting to buy them out)? The lower it goes, the more pressure is exerted on the two Emirati holders!
Trades are actually not marked as either buys or sells on the proper trade feed from the stockmarket - it is third party website software which denotes them as such and does so purely based upon the spread. I take very little notice of the buy vs sell numbers as they are pretty meaningless anyway - it is the share price levels at which volume takes place which is far more important and dictates direction. For example, you could have loads of sellers at say 17p, but if no one is willing to sell lower than that, then it won't go down further - same with buyers and rises often stall when you reach a level where new buyers dry up above that price.
Good news that the tests can be run on equipment many labs will already have, so no need for them to buy new machines, as per the Jan 31 RNS: ‘The test has been designed to run on multiple molecular testing platforms, including Primerdesign's own genesig® q16 and q32 instrument, and therefore can be used in large and small laboratories as well as remotely where necessary.‘
Maybe they're all jealous of what HUR has - there's more oil in your average Halfords than what they have over there... :)
Level 2 doesn't show buys and sells as such, it simply shows the size and price of the trade - they will most likely all have been. worked trades anyway due to their size as compared with NMS. I wouldn't get too hung up on what they are anyway as late reported trades rarely give any indication of future direction anyway. On the L2 systems that I've used in the past, during trading hours the colour coding is simply there to denote whether a trade is at a higher, lower or same price as the previous one on the ticker tape/feed. Just making the point that it is virtually impossible to tell what they are when they show up after hours.
No way of knowing for sure if they are buys or sells unless they are your trade!
Maybe HUR have refused to pay for some positive PR or an interview...
I found it really interesting the way that the article took into account the amounts of debt that the other producers mentioned had taken on in order to get them to the levels of production that they currently have...
That is pretty much sums up my own view of the situation as well and was why I bought some yesterday when it dropped back - although I'm looking for a bounce back after what I see as being an overdone drop, rather than it being a longterm position for me at this stage. There was certainly nothing in the update which concerned me majorly - although would still be good to have confirmation of the exact origin of the water, and the fact that it is indeed perched, as the data suggests that it is.
Definitely agree with you there about day trading, especially as often see gap ups or down, and personally prefer to hold my trades for a few weeks on cos like this - mainly use them as a leveraged play on commodity prices (same with one or two oil cos as well that always seem to be highly geared to the commodity price movements). VED used to be fantastic - even more so due to the chairman holding so many of the shares, and the low free float tended to exaggerate the swings up and down even more. Xstrata was another favourite of mine years back.
Its probably one of the best shares out there for trading in my opinion (VED and RRS used to be favourites of mine as well) and that adds to the volatility and exaggerates the swings - I've been trading it since 2009, but also see it as a good long term investment now that the business has been restructured/streamlined, compared to a few years back.
Quite possibly there were existing shorts open and then they hit it hard when copper started to slide and the markets dropped on Corona fears, to try and get it as low as possible to close all off their short positions prior to the production update tomorrow. It had already started dropping disproportionately prior to the copper dump anyway. I missed the bottom but was happy buying in the low 450s, although would have got cheaper had I waited an extra day.
Those figures are taken directly from the interims that the company published on September 20 (as is the fact that it has negative net current liabilities) - so if you're saying they are incorrect, then you're implying that the company has falsified its accounts...
H1 2019 rev was only £5.5 million, and as at the end of June it had over £10 million in trade payables as a current liability. Technically it is insolvent...