Member Info for gmed-2

Well, we should know soon enough whether the trade was a real buy or something else. If it was a buy, there should be a TR-1 coming along very soon.

Max, I doubt that it's any sort of a transfer or put-through, mainly because of the price, but also because I don't see the other side of the trade. No, it looks like an honest-to-goodness real buy. If that's true, the mm involved had better hope no great rns appears before he can buy back those shares, which he's now probably short. Haha, wouldn't want to take that risk myself, but then, that's how he earns a living. The question is then who did the buying and what is his aim? I certainly wouldn't rule out someone building a position prior to making a bid for the company. Even at a huge premium to the current market price, he'd still be getting the company cheaply.

It would have been amazing if the ruling had gone the other way, but it's still a relief to be sure that it didn't go that way. But what the ruling doesn't mention is royalties that would be owed us for any production that took place since the original deal was signed. I'll repeat the question I posed some months ago after an RNS stated that the company "thinks" something or other was happening at the mine: Doesn't the company KNOW what's going on there? After all, the company has, and always has had, title and may be owed royalties.

In any case, I eagerly await the next rns telling us how Dennis intends to go further, now the arbitration is complete.

Sorry Pheasantboy, but I'm afraid it's not a freebie at all. It's coming right out of your own pocket, because your AAL shares will be worth that much less on the date they're traded ex. You'll see it in the share price. But just like when a share goes ex-dividend, we hope that the share price will recover the distribution fairly quickly.

The actual dealing spread is about 1.45-1.50.

This one's a real mystery. It looks like a sell, but a huge sell that sends the price UP??? That's a new one. Regardless of who is doing the selling/buying, we should see a TR-1 very soon. If we don't, the only thing I can think of is that a market maker absorbed the 35mln without undue price movement in order to have inventory for an expected price move upwards in the near term. This is a pretty far-fetched theory and MMs normally don't work this way, so I really don't believe it myself.

It might have been Spreadex, but if it was, the above also holds for them. The other side of the trade is their client's spread bet, options or other derivative, so there's no market trade and the 35mln should have the same effect on the sp as it would from any other seller/buyer. But it didn't. So what's going on here? Answers on a postcard, please.

It's just like the Army - hurry up and wait. Oh well, we're used to it. At least the loss has been cut in half and some cash is flowing in

Steven,

Prices do normally reflect market supply and demand and this is usually pretty much true of kzg. But the point I was trying to make is that for the past few days the order flow in kzg has resulted in a downward price movement far greater than is normally the case with kzg.

Funky hinted at it this morning and, although I didn't want to say it in my previous message because it's pure speculation, it may very well be that the MMs did try to panic a few holders into selling in order to have something of a low-cost inventory before what could be a major wave of demand. Like Funky, I also have seen it before. This is not the way MMs normally operate, but thinly-traded shares like kzg sometimes need a somewhat different approach if the MMs want to stay profitable, I would imagine.

Suspiciously big price moves for the volumes traded these past couple of days. We all know that the MMs sometimes play games with prices to facilitate a large trade, so you have to wonder exactly what they're up to here. We should have the explanation within the next few days.

Hi 2MS

At least a part of it are the normal end of tax year portfolio adjustments - taking profits or losses to optimise tax

And BofA didn't know any of this in Dec last year when they raised their target orice to 115p?

Funky, how many more shares do you need to become majority shareholder?

For the record, I'm not a big fan of buybacks myself. In vod's case, I would much rather have seen them use the money to pay down debt.

I know I'm going to regret getting involved in this, but it won't be the first time I've done something stupid.

When I buy a share in a company, what I'm really buying is a piece of the future income stream of the comany, my piece being determined by what percentage of the total number of shares outstanding my share is. The price I pay for the share is determined by what the market is willing to pay for that piece of the income stream at that moment. If the total number of shares outstanding is reduced by a share buyback, my share of the income stream is increased. The share price is still determined by what the market is willing to pay for the now larger piece of income stream my one share entitles me to. This, of course, may be higher or lower than the market's idea of the value of the income stream on the day I bought the share. But one thing is certain: I now own a bigger piece of the company's future income stream, which I hope will result in a higher dividend. In theory, at least, all other things being equal (which they are NOT), this should result in a higher share price. But how the market values the increased income stream and any dividends, increased or not, is anyone's guess.

Mrs gmed has made it very clear that I'm fully loaded too

We all know that mms play games with prices at times. But most of the time I don't think they're being underhanded or crooked. They're just trying to fill a large price-limited order when the other side of the market is thin. That, after all, is how they earn their money. And don't forget that if they hold the price down to let insiders get in cheap, anyone else can take advantage of that low price to get in just as cheaply himself.

Haha, yes, end of the tax year was when I did all of mine

Since Mr C was asking specifically about "matching trades", I assumed he meant those back-to-back trades at a slightly different prices which are often wrongly interpreted as two buys (or two sells) on these boards. Of course, if it's a single trade, it can't be a put-through.

Most of the time they're what are called put-throughs. If you have two accounts with the same broker (a ISA and a regular account, or accounts for two kids, for example) and you want to sell shares in one account and buy the exact same number of the same shares in the other, you can ask the broker to get a quote on a put-through. He'll check with the MM and quote a small spread. Hey presto, instant risk-free profit for the MM, two commissions for the broker and a whopping great saving for you over buying and selling in the open market. Hargreaves has done a few for me.

I actually should have said "are almost certainly a put-through" since there is a very small chance that it really is two buys, which would be good news