Member Info for MattTheBrave

Well a few things: Firstly, you say quote the post, so here's an excerpt for your post on 18 Dec: "...Anyway, you do whatever you believe. I am selling my shares this side of Christmas. The xmas rally may help prop them up a bit, before a further slamp in January or after the next update." - Perhaps you could point out where my interpretation is flawed? Secondly, I simply believe that the facts about how IG get there money is different from yours having operated in financial markets for 30 years. Ultimately, Spread and commissions are the vast majority of revenue, given that a large and diversified client base (which they have) will lead to large number of offsetting positions from 'B' clients (whilst they take Zero risk on A clients). This is exactly the reason why revenues are so stable and why, as you actually state, it is very unlikely for them to lose money. However, I'm not expecting to change your view, so probably best to leave it. Thirdly, the betting analogy is an interesting one. Actually, they do tend to hedge themselves when exposures get too high, but the reason why they are happy to take a lot of risk as principal is that the odds are (literally) stacked in their favour , acting effectively like a spread in a way, but too a much higher extent than spreadbetting firms like IG have to remunerate the much higher risk that they take. So, whilst a stock spreadbet has to use the market price as a barometer with a 50% chance that the stock will fall or rise, Firm like Ladbrokes are able to offer odds based on probabilities, and at an aggregate level, set these so as to make s decent return over the longer term. BTW, Ladbrokes might not have gone bust, but it's stock price is down 60% over a 20 year period which suggests it might not be the greatest business model in the world....! Needless to say, IG has done somewhat better!!

Nope, you're deliberately simplifying the issue. For IG' s 'A' clients (the majority) the revenues are just commissions and spread as the entirety of these are hedged. For smaller 'B' group clients, IG may choose not to hedge in the market as 9A they have to effectively pay someone else, and (b) many of the trades from different B clients will offset each other. Even here, they have risk limits, beyond which they'll hedge. Given offsetting trades, and risk limits, even with B clients, the spread still makes u[p the largest portion of revenue. 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!! BTW, love the fact you are now saying that �8 is a decent price, yet in December you posted that you were a seller at �6.65!! Slightly dents your credibility perhaps.....?

Sorry, but IGG do not necessarily make money when clients lose. IG acts as an intermediary offering instruments with a bid-offer spread which move as demand and supply fluctuate. It's the spread, plus any commissions charged which form the bulk of the revenues - volume growth is the key to revenue growth. If it was simply clients profits or losses which drove revenuers, they'd be far more volatile. more mis-information from the poster who (for whatever reason) has a pathological hatred of this stock (and has been consistently wrong BTW).

I assume this (perhaps illogically) is based on recent Trump initiative to place tariffs on selected Chinese exports, and whether this will lead to an all out trade war with China. I believe most stocks with Chinese connections have seen selling based on this. Definitely moving into strong buy territory here!

...up. Uncertainty now gone. Pause in growth in 2019, then to resume thereafter. Not desperately cheap any more, but at 13.5x earnings, not horribly expensive either.

They definitely didn't want him, but that was the price of the deal going through. I'm very glad to see the back of him, and this leaves the grown-ups in charge...! Not to say this isn't a huge challenge - it is, and has lot's of risk attached, but the reward if they only get it half right will be immense from here. If they get it properly right, then this could easily 4-5 bag over the next 4 years or so.

Looking at last years' figures, MCRO's legacy business generated a net profit of �300m. That means that the stock is now on 13x the legacy businesses earnings (not expensive) and you get HPE for free. This is clearly ridiculous - I believe this provides a genuine opportunity to get a quality stock on the cheap, with huge upside if this proven management (now fully in control of the acquisition) can work its magic. I continue to buy the stock below �10.

Sorry GS, I managed to completely miss the end Feb update - My bad! Thanks for your efforts.

...was a fop to get the deal done. No-one rated him, and I'm glad he's now gone, leaving the MCRO guys (ie Loosemore) fully in charge. Clearly this will take some time to a. recover sales, and b. recover the market's confidence but at �10, I suspect it's trading on a single digit PE, eleven after analysts' change their forecasts. We know from experience that profit warnings often come in 3s, but I get the feeling that Loosemore has decided to kitchen sink this now, what with full year forecasts of revenue down between 9% and 12%. What will be interesting is whether management start to buy shares themselves once the close period is over.

......on the comp? Not sure who put their hand up to do what etc?

WO - cut the ridiculous hyperbole, and answer this. You really thought that simply comparing the level of a share price in isolation was a good way of comparing value? Really??? Secondly you talk about contradictory posts, yet in two posts below you say that I bought at 9p and am in profit (correct), but that I also bought at the top (unsubstantiated and incorrect). Every time you post, you just end up looking a little bit sillier, don't you. My advice, stop posting, and save yourself the humiliation..... That said, these little chats we have do make me laugh, so perhaps you should continue...

I think 20x next years' earnings would be fair which equates to around �5.40. So, it's a bit cheap, but not hugely IMV. I'd be selling next time it gets anywhere to �6 I think David..

WO - It would appear that you are comparing the value/attractiveness of different companies by simply looking at their share prices, ignoring the fact that they will have different numbers of shares in issue, are different sizes of business, or are in different phases of their evolutionary cycle. Presumably then, HSBC (�7) is ten times more expensive than Lloyds (70p) is it? When it comes to investment, you are clearly an imbecile of the highest order - not news to me, but perhaps this will open others' eyes. Forget postage stamp - what you know about stocks and shares would fit on a pinhead!

Stock now on 12.5x this years' earnings - an absolute steal! Excellent entry point IMV. I'm still targeting �29 by year end.

Moving back towards the �20 level......

....slightly disappointing myself - EPS growth of only 5% not exactly earth shattering. I'll continue to hold here, and buy more below 60p.

Underlying growth of 12%, PE of 8x, Yield of 6%. Stock remains too cheap. Bar an overall market meltdown, I would expect the stock price to start with 3 by mid-summer.

....this is an easy one folks. Cracking figures followed by a ludicrous share price fall = very strong buy. On less than 13x next years' earnings now. This reminds me of the fall from �!2 to �8 (which is when I bought back in). Buy now while stocks last - I am!!

....but a lot of good news already in the price. Let's see where this goes now!

good post OPB - some helpful facts lest we forget.