Member Info for lordloadsoflolly

No, just gambly! The 131,965 buy at 4.04pm was mine by the way. Managed to get in at 6.055p which seemed decent at the time. But I'm the first to admit it's a total bet. Will either be one of my best or worst trades - nothing in between.

nolupus - That may be, But any fund manager/institution can still buy IMM shares if they really want to. My point is that - on today's showing at least - none of them want to.

Sadly an increase of 2% - lasting approximately one millisecond - on a small portion of Tek's total portfolio really doesn't amount to a whole row of beans. Particularly when Lucy has the dubious honour of halving its share price in just 15 days since floating. Still, at least they raised the required dosh to fund expansion. Let's just hope $$$$$ signs before their eyes don't cloud their vision.

Interestingly, I've just analysed all today's IMM trades via hTTps://www.londonstockexchange.com/stock/IMM/immupharma-plc/trade-recap- . And there's NOT ONE of any significant value. The lowest was for 19p (go figure!) and the highest £8354. Which suggests it's purely PIs placing what amount to just tiny bets in the scheme of things.

maidit308 - Let's face it, ANYONE buying in before the FDA's decision is pure gambling. It may seem the odds are heavily stacked in their favour, but it's a gamble nonetheless. So in my opinion, even if they were interested, any big pharma outfit is more likely to wait until the outcome is known. Sure they might end up paying more if the FDA's decision is positive. But these sort of companies have deep pockets anyhow. And they may well regard paying extra more appealing than explaining to shareholders why they took a pure gamble on IMM pre-FDA decision, only to find it possibly didn't pay off.

dallo - quite . Despite IMM's RNSs to the contrary, it now seems when they said 29 August, they meant AROUND 29 August. And rather than the FDA's decision being binary, it'll simply be reviewed internally with a view to finalising the next steps. Whilst I could be reading too much into it, I find that last phrase particularly disconcerting. What next steps would need finalising if the FDA was giving a straight yes or no? Surely they've had AMPLE time to rehearse their next move either way. Which implies to me, the FDA's decision might end up being less straightforward than everyone had assumed. Talk about giving investors the run around! No wonder the spread has widened & the bid price dropped again.

I don't think they'd be able to act on an RNS much before Joe Public TBH. My hunch is that - given the delay - any RNS on the FDA outcome will now be issued outside today's UK trading hours.

Given the price is fixed, why would you exercise options before the FDA outcome was known? Only reasons I can think is a) they're very confident of approval & b) they want to sell out very soon after approval, as they're not at all confident of a positive long term revised P3 outcome.

What you mean is you hope & firmly believe the decision will go your way. That, my friend, is very different from it being nailed on.

Well I'm afraid that makes you an idiot

I'm not saying they won't get approval. But NOTHING. repeat NOTHING is ever nailed on until it's officially announced.

In YOUR opinion maybe. But not the market's. If it was nailed on, the share price wouldn't be trending lower this morning, now would it?

Nobody knows either way, but nothing is EVER nailed on.

Not this Monday - it's a bank holiday. Hooray!

fela96 - sorry to disappoint, but it's already given me an edge. I recouped the outlay on my original two buy trades, selling both times at a 10%+ premium. Because I sold fewer shares than I bought, whilst still recouping my full outlay, I've accumulated extra shares in SMT for free. Who cares about any manager's thesis? Markets are often imperfect and if investors spot a way to expoit that, why on earth wouldn't they? Also, timescales are dependent on an individual investor's age & needs. You might well be willing to hold something longer in your 20s than your 70s for example. I fully agree SMT should be viewed as a long term investment (5 years+). I certainly see it that way myself with my core holding. But when markets are swinging around wildly, it often pays to be nimble - if only to average down. Rather than just screening everything out because it happens to go against some text book or fund manager's mission statement. Anyhow, I've made my point ad nauseam. And you yours. So I suggest we both move on now. To this effect, I won't be responding further on this topic. But I wish you every success with your investment strategy, as we're ultimately both trying to achieve a similar outcome.

belgrano - agreed. Whilst SOH & his Directors couldn't have foreseen the pandemic, it can't all be blamed on this alone. All other retailers have endured the same headwinds, yet their sales aren't down by anything like Opti's. Over the years, SOH was always keen to conduct interviews pre-results, tantalising investors with the prospect of huge sales increases and encouraging them to add/jump on board. To at least stabilise the current miserable share price, he urgently needs to explain what's gone wrong & what he's doing to address this with timescales. In the meantime, no-one in their right minds would add, however low the price sinks.

One last point, I never suggested trading SMT for decades. Just currently, whilst markets look volatile. I judge they'll remain that way for a while, given the unpredictable war in Ukraine, China's increasingly hostile stance towards Taiwan, raging global inflation & daily price fluctuations in natural gas futures regularly exceeding 10%. You may see it otherwise which is fine - and will obviously prove correct at some stage. All I can say is that to date, I've called it right. Have fun holding SMT shares forever if that's your bag. But maybe take a little bit off the table at some point to enjoy yourself!

fela96 - let's just agree to disagree shall we? By your logic (buy & hold), no-one would ever sell any shares. Trading is really much like any other sharedealing decision, except the gaps between buying & selling are shorter. Of course no-one ever knows what the future holds, so ultimately everything is guesswork. Let's just say I've made some lucky guesses with SMT then shall we. Jeez.

fela96 - Little point trusting in ANYTHING at the moment with markets remaining so volatile. So why be coherent with your strategy when markets clearly aren't moving coherently? Oh and it's not hubris by the way as I'm fully aware the trades could backfire. Maybe it's pure luck, maybe an element of skill too. Either way, it's worked for me. But I'm not encouraging anyone else to try it. That's entirely down to them.

Ramsdens' financials look nothing like as sound as HAT's to me. Their respective market caps are irrelevant IMHO. What matters is scale in this business. And here, RFXR very much plays second fiddle to HAT, with around a third its turnover (hence the market cap difference). That's not to say you won't make money investing in RFXR. Pawnbroking's certainly a good sector to be in right now. And - if anything - of the two companies, Ramsdens has delivered greater returns in recent years. But to me, HAT looks a much more stable business which has grown well thanks to good management & smart acquisitions. Plus its yield is currently much higher.