Member Info for GumT

Before I tell you anything further, you have to prove that you can read and also (very important), that you can understand. So far, you have failed miserably !

You sue them. I'm not their shareholder. You are. Any attempt to do a deeper research than simply relying on what a business wants you to know? Hint: check their constitutional documents and those relating to IPOs and share placements. If you bothered to read my posts( not that you should, but since you've decided to but in, you'd better do so before replying), I made it clear that even if they were 100% hedged, this doesn't negate the business model as one established to profit from clients' losses.

Your interpretation is flawed in the words that you try to put in my mouth. I sold when I said I'd sell and that was a good price for me bearing in mind risk / reward and especiasly the hefty profit I had accumulated already. I also stated that I wasn't after tops or bottoms. SP can move a bit either direction, no one can call it a top or a bottom and neither did I claim that. Your unhealthy interest in my trading, profits , etc is somewhat weird, to say the least. You have still failed to acknowledge the irrefutable fact that IG isn't a broker or intermediary as you incorrectly stated ,but a mere bookmaker. Spreads, commissions, funding, dividends deductions....are all tricks to increase profits and stack the odds against the clients. High leverage is the primary cause for clients' losses in conjunction with market volatility and this is what prompted FCA to constrain these businesses in how much they are allowed to take advantage of their clients. The odds are stack against the clients just as much , if not more, than in Ladbrokes. In your words, the latter SP has gone down, while spreadbetting businesses flourish. There is no risk for IG them to lose profit precisely because their clients are the ones to lose money.

Quote 'Do you really think that being a passive taker of positions (ie simply accepting the opposite of what your clients chose) is a sustainable business model??!! No, of course it isn't yet IG been around since the mid 1970s!! ' Presumably you'll tell me how Ladbrokes hedge their clients' bets. The company has been around since 1886....

It may be better if you were to quote the post that you refer to from December, instead of yet again posting your misinformed perverse interpretation. Same goes for the 'decent' price, if you even begin to understand what you are talking about. Likewise, you are wrong about A-Z clients. The fundamental model of all spreadbetting business is one and only - client loss is the business' profit. There may be exceptions, but I admit, I'm not aware of such. The hedging is there to ensure that shareholders aren't spooked by the potential losses in the event clients were to get it right and IG ends up in the red. Just as some hedge funds have found themselves going bust. Practically, since 1970s no spreadbetting business have been in danger of making a significant loss. If you knew anything how they do their trading, you would know that it is only in theory possible, but practically virtually impossible for IG to lose money overall. IG hedges a tiny proportion of their transactions, but even if that were to be 100% the model is still the same - more losses for customers are desirable because this is how the business makes its money. This is the findamental point. Of course, you don't want to know that. Carry on living in your wish belief.

Matt, no need to be sorry. The business model of IGG and others is one where the company profits from clients' losses. Is is a well known fact and it is described in IG's official documents. That is, if you bothered to do some research instead of believing what the business wants you to believe. Conversely, when clients make money, IG pays out of their pot. To limit potential loss for the business, IGG may hedge their exposure. In practice, it is extreamely rare for these businesses to lose money, so hedging is of little use. IG is intermediary you say? Laughable! Where did you get this from? They never claimed that they are intermediary. They clearly state that they act as principals. Check the facts before you accuse someone of misinformation. Especially ehen the misinformed is you.

Hepran and Spary1, have you read my post? If so, do you have any grasp on how one should understand written text? From your replies, it seems you have missed the point in its entirety. The Point I made is 100% factually correct and no one can possibly challenge it. Try to challenge the fact that the Sun rises from east. Same here.

..for WRN shareholders whichever way you look at it. All we receved for our shares in WRN was 5p per share. That was the opening price of Whet on Britdaq and anyone could have bought in at that sp. Whether you bought your WRn shares for 50p or for over �2 some 3.5 years ago, you could have been spared all this nonsense and losses if you hadn't bought any of WRN and simply dished out some 5p for Whet if you believed any of their promisses. The only way our investment in WRN won't be a loss would be if WRN came back as a multibagger. I doubt it very much and until this happens, thanks for the Whet freebies, but this doesn't compensate for our losses in WRN. Whet has a life on its own. I deem my investment in WRN a total loss, while my current imposed investment in Whet a wait and see game.

It's amazing how people send important documents containing private data by email. You should never do it. If Britdaq accepts snail mail, then post it secure mail. By email - no chance.

The regulation is clesr but its impact on the business is far from clear. This will become clearer in the following month to a year.10% cut is what IGG hoping for. The new rules will protect clients, thus limiting clients' losses, hence lower profit for IG who make money when customers' lose money. IGG attempts to reassure investors. IG is also very clear that they don't like the new rules . It is likely that they will push retail clients to become elective professionals. ESMA may have to look into the matter again at some point. 800p is a very good price for this business. I wouldn't buy it now if I was merely hoping that sp will increase but if you are in for the dividend and untill this is dented, your holding is good. Give it a year and we'll see how the regulations will have affected the business and sp.

There is no way to know that Boom time is just around the corner or that there will be any boom at all. You can't possibly know. Investing in any company is fraught with risks. In particular, a new company like Whet may skyrocket or may go bust in no time. WRN and Whet are interlinked in more than one aspect. However unique the gifting of shares may be, just as unique was the 3 + years suspension with silly Q&A , all leading to liquidation. I'm only here because of the way WRN turned out. Otherwise, I'd never consider paying even 1p for a share in a company when all we have is promises and affiliation with a failed company. If you want my shares, you can have them. No need for Britdaq. Prepare �50k plus 3 years interest and off you go to the promised bright future.

Knigelk and Predators, you complete misunderstood my post. Read it again. Noone is bragging how much money they have made, this is what I say - no one has made money, because it is not likely that they bought at 5p at a sufficient large stake in order to turn into a "killing" , the phrase that someone used. And I gave you an example of say �50k turned into �250k. I'm sitting on heavy losses with this WRN nonsense. All I have is the hope that Whet will go high enough to get my money back. What are you on about, was it not clear?

Knigell, you are right. It's not likely that any small shareholder has made a "killing" by buying Whet at 5p and up now 500%. To make any decent profit one has had to buy min �10k which, with all the suspicion that rightly arose after the WRN fiasco over 3 years isn't likely that many have done. Perhaps one or two, but highly unlikely hundreds of investors. Still, I wouldnt call it a killing , unless I invested �50k ( which I did with WRN) and then cashed �250k. (Let's hope so with Whet).

FeverClacker, the shares are in my account. Previous Corporate Action notice stated that Halifax will transfer them free of charge to another broker, if I request. I'll keep them with Halifax for the time being. Hopefully, Whet will list on another exchange in the near future where Halifax can deal .

Received with thanks! Halifax was the last broker to act it seems , but nevermind. If I was to sell now , I'd make a loss, even though the money will be a good sum. I'll just risk it and wait for hopefully a break even, which may be a long way away, but as long as we get there, it would be great. GL every one!

As expected.

I gotcha ya, f15. You meant HL , I misread thst HL had for IG PE of 42. I've seen companies with PE of 82. As I said, PE isn't conclusive. Other factors are in play. Plus500 looks impervious to any threads. Obviously they rely on strong earnings. It was in 2015 when they suffered a serious blow when Cable Car warned of regulators' intervention and ban on leverage and business That profits from customers' losses. Plus500 tanked then bu has been flying since. Well done to those who bought in then. There are some reports that all those CFD business benefit because the regulators are slow to act and may not do much damage the the profits despite all the talk of customers' protection etc.

Btw, thank you for the link, Porridge, but it relates to scam binary options . IG also run such options as many others but I believe that Plus500 have long stopped offering them.

It's Good to hear from someone who has experience of both. I have none. I look at the companies from a purely investment point. You say that IG will benefit from the new tighter regulations. IG claims the same while at the same time they oppose vigorously these regulations. I think it's pretty telling why. The nature of all those cfd business is ultimately very much the same. They mske most of their profits from customers' losses. The slight differences are how exactly they run the business, how bold or how clandestine they are in ripping customers off. How far off their quoted prices are in relation to the underlying market, how much of targetting stops etc, delayes in execution, supposed errors that always always result in customer losses in the hope thst tose would go unnoticed, how they assess appropriateness of their products to new customers. IG didn't have any such assessment untill recently. Anyone and their dog could open an account and lose a fortune all in 5minutes. Thus a clear breach of FCA regulations... onOne can easily see why IG is so concerned about their profits...

I do not know where this 42 PE comes from. LSE displayes it as 17. Generally , PE above 14 is considered expensive, although PE by itself isn't conclusive. There are many other factros in play. In any event, what is expensive for one may be cheap as chips for another. Share investing is a gamble at the end of the day. IMV, IGG is expensive and as I said, I expect it will suffer medium term from the new regulations. Have you seen their site with fake responses to ESMA? LOL, it is so transparent that the feedback is fake.