Member Info for LetsTry

AndItsGone...
You were respectful in that regard, and I am grateful. But you were also utterly disrespectful in others by making the unfounded statements you did.

But to your most recent contribution.......

I most certainly wasn’t mocking and it wasn't my intention to claim that those who bought in at these prices have mental health issues. If you don’t mind me saying, I think that’s a rather weak reading of my post. But if anyone did interpret it that way I do of course apologise. but my challenge to all, that doing so in the hope of making money through the RI is irrational, stands.

I can see why some people find some of my comments uncomfortable if they are sitting on actual or fear potential losses. Or if the scales are falling from their eyes and they are beginning to realise that shares they bought recently at 420 or more (the number I used in my post) in the hope of making money from the RI may very well leave them disappointed and out of pocket.

But that doesn’t invalidate what I have to say. If you have a logical or evidenced counter argument then please share it. We all lean from discussion. We learn nothing from wild and unsubstantiated claims and assertions, inaccurate quoting and deliberate misrepresentation of the position of others.

Which leads me to your point “….repeatedly posting on boards….” (made again below). I repeat, I posted here early this month and did so again yesterday. We clearly have different definitions of repeatedly. Yours is perhaps based on Haley’s comet which visits the Earth once every 76 years. Or perhaps we can post more frequently than that if we share to your views?

Regarding your comment about interest – You are quite right, I have little interest in investing at the current price. I have made my reasons very clear. But I have also said that this is one to watch, and it should not therefore surprise you that I’m here.

You and others may not like what I'm saying. But that doesn't make it nonsense. Argue the facts and persuade me I'm wrong. Don't continue to make unfounded claims.

apologies :

Correcting a typo in my last post. specifically the first bullet point was not completed and I intended it to read :

- What are you claiming I am agreeing with? Certainly not a valuation of 97p. I have been very clear that I think it is
overpriced now and should it drop to 350p I will become interested.

a reiteration of the point I made here at 10:09 this morning.

AndItsGone – calm down.

Respectfully :

- What are you claiming I am agreeing with? Certainly not a valuation of 97p. I have been very clear that I think it is
overpriced now should it drop to 350p.

- If there are any other parts of my post that happen to agree with comments for any other poster it certainly does not mean that I support and agree with anything and everything else they might have said.

- I have not claimed it is a dead cert to go down.

- Vaccines are, I suggest, now significantly priced in and this explains why some travel and hospitality shares have done so well recently. If I’m right you have already seen much of the benefit of that already.

- Good luck to anyone who has made money day trading. I have made my comments under the “RE:Cheap Shares!!!” thread and it is in that context they need to be read – i.e, in relation to the RI and not day trading.

- The fact is that because the RI has not yet taken place and you cannot say who has won and who has lost and therefore your claim that people are getting it more right than me is simply wrong. We do not yet know who has got it right.

- Regarding your comment “…..Rather than registering your surprise day after day why it's going up…..”, would you care please to tell me those dates when I have done that? Should anyone care to check they will see that I have not posted on this board since early December, and then the number of posts on TUI is somewhat small. I would point out for the benefit of others that you also responded to me rather negatively then too.

- Aspers might very well have similar comments to make in relation to the final part of your post.

The bottom line, my friend, is that you are talking utter nonsense. If you are reduced to this, deliberately misrepresenting the facts and going for the man rather than the ball, then you must surely be in a sorry position. I hope it improves for you.

robertgleed - just out of curiosity, if you expected it to be 375 why are you buying at 418?

Hi aspers - yep, it defeats me. This is a watch and wait share. If it drops below 350 pre-RI I'll start to look more carefully, but I've certainly no interest in buying in at anything like these prices. IMO that would be crazy.

Forgive me - I'm not sure I entirely understand your argument.

If your interest is making money then all that matters is what you can buy them for and what you think you can sell them for.

To enter now will cost you in excess of 420p a share, the RI allocation is approximately 1:1 and the price approx 100p. The only unknown is the post-RI price. No doubt there will be a variety of opinions on that, and how long it will take to get there. But I agree that at current SP this is a long term investment if you are confident it will make the long term. This is not financing for expansion or anything quite so positive - it's part of a rescue package to keep its head above water. It may very well do that, and come out the other side but I'm not going there for a 10% return.

No doubt people will be queuing up to shoot me down, but I agree with those urging caution.

A VERY rough back of the envelope calculation : if you buy in now at around 425p, take up your full RI entitlement at 100p, and offload the lot at a post-RI price of 300p you’ll make around 10% (ball park figure only to make a point – do your own sums).

For that you have your capital tied up for some months to come while the RI process runs its course and you will be carrying a not insignificant risk. It doesn’t need to be much below 300 post-RI and you’ll be netting a loss.

Anyone thinking of grabbing some “cheap shares!!!” to make a quick buck needs to ask themselves if cheap shares are necessarily good value for money shares?

I repeat, do your own calculation, and do it properly. not as roughly as I've done. I'll continue to watch, but at the moment think I'll hang back. The number's aren't stacking up for me just yet.

Thank you Hosai at al - comparing a cinema experience to streaming is like comparing eating out at a restaurant with dining on a microwavable curry.....i.e, they are not comparable!

Apology not necessary, but thank you.

I'm pleased you are making money on your previous investments. I know the comments re. RR you referring to.

This could yield some in a similar way. I'm just going to sit on the sideline for a while to get a better sense of where this might be going, but it is certainly worth keeping an eye on.

R0ckland - very simplistically, if a company wants to raise money one possibility is a Rights Issue (RI).

It creates new shares and sells them. Existing shareholders are typically offered a number of the newly created shares based on their existing holding on a particular date. (in the case of IAG shareholders were offered 2 for every three they held, and in the case of RR they were offered 10 for every three).

Expect such shares to be offered offered at a lower price than the prevailing pre-RI price because, all other things being equal, the value of the company is now divided up between more shares so each has necessarily to be worth less.

If the company can put the money raised to good effect the value of the company and therefore all shares in circulation will rise. All being well the rise in share price creates a gain on the new shares you bought large enough to offset any paper loss you made on the original shares. Profit/loss all rests on :

- how much you paid for your initial holding ;
- how many new shares will be released ;
- how much you will need to pay to buy them ;
- what will they move to thereafter, and
- how long will any move back to net profit take.

Apologies for the over simplification....... but you get the idea

AndItsGone - you didn't, and I don't think I accused you of that. I was urging caution in the face of statements such as "...Making heaps on RR and IAG post RI....." and "....This actually takes less courage than those two....".

AndItsGone - perhaps, but remember that the IAG RI was on a 3 for 2 allocation and RR 10 for 3; both of which represented a serious dilution.

Sure, the price prices of both have risen. But whether people made money on the back of the RI depends, to state the obvious, what they bought in at. I suspect many of the long term holders will have bought in at a level where they will not see a profit for some time, if ever.

There is no easy or risk free money to be made here. I'm watching and have yet to decide whether or not to take a punt. I confess, describing the arrangements as a "rescue package" doesn't encourage optimism, although I do see the counter arguments.

Cteal - I don't think it is quite as stark or as simple as choosing between your Case 1 or Case 2.

There are various factors that dictate the speed of development of a vaccine.

Some viruses are just harder than others. Fact. If I can use the word without causing any offence, we seem to be more fortunate with Covid insofar as at least one solution to the purely technical challenge now appears to exist.

However, progress is also determined by government support, investment in and coordination between research groups. Was there ever such a spectacular global effort to focus what is surely unprecedented funding on a vaccine against a single target, where the rewards and incentives for success were quite so huge? I suggest not.

And do also keep in mind that this is the first in a pipeline of candidates. One or more of those yet to report might be even better.

I agree that the question of safety will be critical, but at the moment there are more grounds for optimism than pessimism.

cteal - And what reason to you have to believe it is "contaminated"?

There is not yet any suggestion of side effects. On the contrary. The currently available evidence points to their absence.

Thank you. You make my point more rigorously than I did . I agree that vaccination works differently to other procedures, I was addressing the suggestion that 90% is "pants" in the simplest and most direct way possible.

TalkingSense -

"The Pfeizer vaccine is not the answer ...only 90% effectiveness and a number of questions around it's long term effectiveness (not to mention the other issues)"

- According to the US CDC ".... flu vaccination reduces the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60% among the overall population during seasons when most circulating flu viruses are well-matched to the flu vaccine". I think 90% looks pretty good.
- is is entirely normal for some vaccines to require topping up.
- despite the scale of the trials, no significant side effects have been detected. What are the other issues that concern you so?

To your question " Would you go in to elective surgery if there was a 1 in 10 chance that there might still be issues?...pretty pants odds!"

- sadly many medical and surgical procedures that are performed routinely offer poorer odds than 90% success and can lead to serious side effects.

Let me ask you a different question. Would you drive 10 minutes to your local petrol station if they said that they will fill for free the tanks of 90% of their customers, and the remaining 10% would have to pay no more than normal?

Really? I think you may be crediting yourself with more influence than you have.

It isn't whether the business is relevant (which all agree upon), but perceptions of risk and profitability which is where I think opinions diverge.

Well done and thank you - some unsentimental analysis and reasoned argument. A fine counter to the utter nonsense churned out by some others.