Member Info for greylib

I've only ever filtered one member. "Valuetrading", a long time ago on this board. He was, let's say, a little overenthusiastic about SML. So much so that he had a list of about a dozen plus-points for the share which he reposted one at a time every 2-3 minutes. If I read a post that I liked by somebody else, by the time my reply appeared the original post was it was two or three pages down, making the whole board unusable.

On the other hand, on the late unlamented Cloudtag board (I didn't invest, but the discussion was entertainingly crazy) there was one guy who had a single reply to anyone who suggested that CTAG was going to go down, or even that it wasn't going to make everyone rich: "FILTERED!". He boasted that he'd filtered over 150 people - I guess he only wanted to hear good news. Bad mistake!

A lot of shareholders seem to be working to targets. "I'll sell when it gets to 1p" kept the price hovering around there for a week. Now we're into "I'll sell when it gets to 1.5p". I expect we'll get the same thing when the price reaches 2p.

I remember Twis. I was new to stocks&shares at the time, but I could still recognise a fervent ramper when I saw one. The price never did reach his promised 15p, but I recognised that other posters had done some serious research, so put quite a lot in. Then the price went down. I held on, and the price looked as if it was going up, so I bought more. The price went down again.

I've bought at 3.2p (aaargh!), 2.1p, 0.85p, all the way down to 0.09p. EVERY TIME the price fell further. Even 0.09p - two days later it was 0.06p. I've never sold any of the shares, because I haven't needed to. And you never quite forget your first, do you?

Right now, I hold 8m shares at just over breakeven. If we reach Twis's 15p, I'll be a millionaire. If not, it's still a comfortable holding. And I promise you all that I won't be buying any more right now!

When I first read that Provident were in trouble, I cheered. For decades, my siblings and I had seen PFG as a predator, squeezing cash from unfortunate innocents like my mother.

Back in the 1960s/1970s, she was caught in the Provident Cheque trap. Get a £20 "cheque", pay it back at £1 a week for 21 weeks. The APR was large, but we couldn't talk Mum out of it. She normally had several on the go at once - every few weeks when one was paid off, she'd take out another. Then went on a buying spree to get things for her grandchildren. She could only buy a limited range of things, because a lot of shops didn't accept them. And sale discounts never applied, so the £20 didn't go as far as £20 cash would have done.

A couple of times we had to bail her out, as her income wouldn't cover the repayments. On one occasion we cornered the collector, found out her total debt and paid the lot, asking him not to call at the house again. A few weeks later, of course, she'd taken out another cheque. And then another. Her excuse was that the collector was such a lovely man, so polite and helpful. And he needed the business to support his home and family. We pointed out that he dressed very well ("has to look smart for his job"), drove a very nice car ("needs it for his work"), and lived in a large house in a good part of the town ("hasn't he done well! I said he was a good man.")

So we decided on Plan B. Mum was very naive about money, and it was very easy to slip a pound or two into her purse, or a few coins into the tea-tin on the kitchen shelf. She was very pleased with how she was managing her money, and was able to buy treats for the grandlings without taking out so many cheques. Problem mostly solved, for us.

Of course, the top brass didn't see any of this. As far as they could see, doorstep collection was expensive. They could collect by computer and threatening letter just as well - maybe better - as computers aren't influenced by "sob stories". They didn't see that many of the doorstep collectors were in fact very good salesmen. And so the business hit the buffers.

If what they said is provably untrue, then they won't get away with it. However, any fines or damages they'll pay will probably be less than they've made on the deal.

I doubt there'll be any comeback, though. MW are experts in spinning the facts to cause doubt. It isn't illegal, any more than it's illegal to spin facts the other way to make a share look better than it is.

I'm still not sure. If Burford intend to go ahead with listing in the US "by the end of Q1 2020", they need to do more than they've done so far.

On Aug 15th, they said they were looking for more independent directors. Four months on, still nothing.

Most stock exchange rules insist on transparency regarding executive pay - I suggested some time back that this was why they'd chosen to list on AIM. No mention of this at all - so which US market are they planning to list on?

"....this churn will take a while...I'm long term so no drama"

So why the drama? Why the insults? If you aren't bothered by short-term bounces up and down, why keep posting about them?

Valhalla
As always, the confident expectation that you're 100% right. Even if your analysis of what's happening is completely at variance with your analysis of a few hours or days before. Most of us can recognise bluster when we see it.

You ALWAYS predict that the price will rise. The reasons change, but the prediction remains the same. So around 50% of the time you're right. Is that "useful"? I wouldn't find it so.

Before trading started today (price £8.20ish), you were saying things like:
> I would say they reduced yesterday too judging by the days trading.....so I expect further covering in short order (excuse the pun) once word gets out I can see quite a few folk jumping in and a panic to close

Later on, when the price had dropped sharply and then recovered (but not to yesterday's close), you were saying
> Here we go, Folks!

as the price carried on falling. Then suddenly the narrative changed to "the shorters are selling shares to bring the price down so that they can buy more cheaply..."

Bruce asked for the logic behind this, as you'd managed to do a 180-degree turn over the course of the day's trading. As expected, he was dogpiled by the usual suspects. Isn't it possible to have a reasoned debate without the sneering?

Probably not - only a couple of weeks ago I was curtly told that I should leave analysis of Burford to the experts like yourselves - "experts" who had put a "strong buy" label against their posts at £8.50, only to see it drop to below £7 :)

When the share was trading at these levels a few weeks ago, I couldn't do anything about it. By the time I had enough cash to buy another slug, the price had gone up to over 1p. It stayed there, then started sliding back.

For the last couple of weeks, I've been putting in a limit order every morning: buy 500,000 @ 0.96. Finally today it triggered, and I got 'em for 0.95. Given my track record, it probably means that the price is going further down. Keeping the faith, though :)

I used to be with Halifax and Coventry - now with Halifax and FirstDirect. I keep a reasonable balance and stay away from overdrafts. No charges, and every month I get a few pence in interest.

dodgepot:
"The FM is in place to manage the fund not operate a “sideline” with the customer’s monies...as this activity cannot be performed without the customers investment, then it has to form part of the funds profits.
Maybe then and only then would the vast majority of Investors find shorting less abhorrent."

I see it as the equivalent of banks saying "put your money in an account with us - we'll look after it and keep it safe." And then lending it out at interest. They've been doing it for centuries, and it gives us free banking. There's a problem for the account holders if the money doesn't get repaid to the bank, but there are safeguards in place. Are there any safeguards regarding share lending?

I'm told that if you object to your shares being lent in this way, you can put in a very high sell limit (e.g. "sell when the share reaches £50") - if the shares aren't returned, the FM would have to reimburse you at the limit price. Can any of the experts here let me know if this is right?

Winnifrith uses the same technique as a lot of horse-racing tipsters - trumpets loudly about the ones he gets right, ignoring the ones he gets wrong.

I used to read his articles purely as entertainment. I say "used to" because I can't get to the "3 free articles a month" - it's been stuck on "0 articles remaining" for most of the last six months.

I tried signing up - again, not for share advice but for the laughs. The site leads me through the payment pages, comes up with "thank you for subscribing"... and nothing. No charge on my account, but no membership either. I've reported the fault several times, but no reply.

Not a good look for someone who rants about company inefficiency!

Will could try taking them to court, I suppose - but I'm thinking that their lawyers are likely to be a LOT better than his :)

Slightly over the top... but I spent some time in the Civil Service about fifty years ago. I was surprised one day to get a phonecall from the Pay Office, saying "you have four days uncertified sick leave to take by the end of the month." So it's nothing new.

Something wrong with LSE, I'd say. Google Finance is still reporting new trades.

Wow! Checking through my chat history - I'm famous! ;)

It's worse than that - I've bought SML at over 2p! BUT I've also bought it at 0.09p, 0.12p... at the moment I'm sitting on 6 million shares, and even at their current price I'm 100% up :)

And I'm not analysing Burford - I'll leave that to you all-knowing experts.

Of course I'm interested. It's a good story, and I want to know what happens next.

When I see a sudden share price drop, I take a look at the underlying reasons for it. Often the drop has been overdone, and the price bounces back - if I get in fast, I can make some easy money.

I looked at Burford and the story seemed to be what most people on here see - a large, successful company unfairly targeted by shorters. Second thoughts, though, kept me out of it. A small company can be brought down by lies and propaganda; a large one can't. There had to be some truth in the allegations somewhere. I could have got in at £4, doubling my money very quickly, but I hesitated.

Why is a very large company, sitting on a large cash pile and paying dividends, quite happy to stay on AIM? Is it just because the lighter regulations and lack of red tape means that the company is able to make its own decisions quickly, and hence make more money for shareholders?

Or is it so they can get away with stuff? They've already agreed that they shouldn't have had a husband-and-wife team at the top of the company, and that they should have replaced their independent directors more frequently. They disclose salaries for non-executive directors, but not for executive directors. Clearly the market thinks Burford has more questions to answer, otherwise the price would have recovered to be much closer to pre-MW levels.

DISCLAIMER: I have never owned shares in Burford. I have no plans to buy any, so I'm not trying to talk the price down. I'm not out to make any money here - I simply feel that the relentless optimism on this board needs a counterbalance.

Aggressive? You decide:

How is IT still going jeeze >>> not quite understood. What is IT?

and to compare this to ctag? >>> comparing message boards, not companies.

Lol >>> Did you laugh out loud? Or were you lying?

Burford is a profit making business that pays a dividend. >>> Right. Everybody knows this, so you aren't actually saying anything new.

The rubbish being spouted now is farcical. >>> Right again! ;)