Member Info for johnychainlocker

Qube upped again, they seem to be the most active and let's hope the most wrong!

"Some tetchy sages on here today, wonder why , shorters are always angry, just saying;-)"

I don't know who you are referring to as "tetchy sages" (I am just inferring from the time of your reply to thread) however I can assure you that I am certainly not shorting WG, and I don't believe for one minute that Icecool is either!

As for angry, are you another of the world's far too numerous 'snowflakes'? (just saying)

Of course IF you were referring to others then

In fact @ice, I would go further and point out that Wood Group were legally obliged to appoint a different firm to carry out external audit see link herein:

https://www.frc.org.uk/news-and-events/news/2013/06/frc-prohibits-the-use-of-internal-audit-staff-on-the-external-audit-team/#:~:text=FRC%20prohibits%20the%20use%20of%20internal%20audit%20staff%20on%20the%20external%20audit%20team

As far as I am aware @Icecool, I don't think I am wrong.

KPMG provide the regular accounting services and auditing for Wood Group (see page 167 of Annual Report and Financial Statements 2023), signed off by them.

I was certainly not intimating there is anything wrong with Deloitte being appointed for external audit, in fact the opposite - in fact, not only is it very much NOT recommended that an external audit be carried out by the same company who provides the regular accounting service but Wood Group did the RIGHT thing in inviting Deloitte to carry out an external audit, to their credit

Think you've picked a rather 'extreme' example there Stupmy. Far more specific issues with them , similar to PFC, another example you could have picked.

There hasn't been a contagion to a huge increase in shorts and other hedgies diving in, I feel it has been far more 'opportunistic' based on external auditors called in, something the company had to do as it's own auditors were not permitted to carry out external audit.

Agree with you though in that things are never a slam dunk, and shorts do 'generally' know what they are doing, but they also DO get it wrong on occasion. Very seldom they get 'burnt' though even though people love to think that. They have a way mostly of creeping out untouched

@1msn, When I look at the share trades, admittedly only on here, it's a sea of small bot red trades. They are working hard to control any price rise over 60p.

Still it's a very (very) rough stick to go on to make any sort of judgement. L2 would give better guide

2nd good laugh of the day, things brightening up all round - cheers guys/(gals, its, theys, thems)

Apologies James, reading back I can see you've already covered official announcement date for reshuffle

Course it all depends on how the prices for those companies close to bottom do today compared to Wood Group. I think reshuffle takes place at 'stumps' today, so fingers crossed.

I find it somewhat strange how price has picked up yesterday and today, almost as if some party/parties ensuring fall from ftse 250 grace doesn't happen, (notwithstanding JPM activity - which some people seem to understand , but I must admit the 'epiphany' moment has still bypassed me!)

Made me laugh - thanks Auson!

At 60p/share Mkt Cap is £420million

CBG CLOSE BROS GROUP PLC ORD 25P GBX 314.52 214.00 5.00 2.39%

CWR CERES POWER HOLDINGS PLC ORD 10P GBX 318.44 166.90 2.50 1.52%

PZC PZ CUSSONS PLC ORD 1P GBX 344.27 82.60 2.30 2.86%

WG. WOOD GROUP (JOHN) PLC ORD 4 2/7P GBX 392.27 59.20 2.50 4.41%

BBH BELLEVUE HEALTHCARE TRUST PLC RED ORD 1P GBX 397.28 141.20 1.00 0.71%

PRTC PURETECH HEALTH PLC ORD 1P GBX 400.79 167.20 -0.20 -0.12%

NESF NEXTENERGY SOLAR FUND LIMITED RED ORD NPV GBX 402.42 69.40 0.20 0.29%

Well, far as I can see it's very close. At current price market cap is higher than Bellevue and Puretech, and possibly even Nextenergy - so very possible if share price can maintain +58p

'Exactement' Stupmy, and I'm still no wiser!

Me too Stupmy - in this case which of the party's is holdimg the 'long' end of the stick and which one is the 'short' end?

i.e.in the example given by DTH is JPM Party A or Party B- and more simply is it positive for the share price or just a transfer of risk from one party to the other., and is JPM therefore confident in a share price increase or t'other way round?

Apologies but I don't find TR1's easy to understand, half the time it's even difficult to know if someone is buying shares or selling the bl.... y things!

Nice posts Poker, can't help but agree

Like you Stupmy, into profit and does feel nice!

Shal and Candlesticks - Just for your info. Pokerchips is a well respected poster especially during the PFC debacle, and just because he doesn't agree with you, or quite mildly (and rightly IMHO) questions your apparantly conflicting posts recently, it doesn't warrant attacking him.

Try to reign it in a bit and keep this board as polite as possible- best for all that way,eh?

Qube and Systemica increased their shorts yesterday, which won't have helped obviously

Sort of makes a mockery of what one understands about the workings of markets - more buys (esp. with that %) should translate into higher prices?

More demand - higher prices

Adds to the 'mystery', (as does the board's total silence)

Ignore- see it has already been chewed on. Very strange going's on though from Franklin.