Member Info for Metamorphosis84

Why do so many people want to participate in a system that they think is either fraudulent or rigged?

"Wrong, isn't it?"

Yes.

I said at the time 7th June 18

"Lots of shareholders let down badly. Meanwhile directors collect 125% bonuses and share options for targets not yet met.
Will be interesting at the AGM when the remuneration vote comes about."

Amazingly the bonuses got voted through, and I got shouted down for suggesting that the Directors were having a laugh.

But there you go.

Eh?

Wouldn't it be a wonderful world, where the odds were stacked in favour of shareholders over bondholders and lendors? A utopia where share prices go up forever and PI's make lots of money.

The only snag:

Bondholders and lenders would have no incentive to lend, so companies would have no money to grow.

Buying a share gives you voting rights, it does not give you 'ownership'. And neither does your money get injected into the business, how could it?

Sorry, but you need the bondholders and lenders to make this capitalist free market work, much more than they need you.

I see your point, but the logical conclusion to the system you propose, ie. Investors making sound decisions based on sensible judgement and weighing up the risks, would mean more regulation, pre qualification to invest and less opportunity for Man on the Street to participate.

Which judging from some of the misunderstanding that I have seen here recently, probably wouldn't be a bad thing.

"Our markets are notfor investing they are for trading ."

Agree thoroughly, especially PI's. Those who go long usually have one motivation- to sell at a profit. They have no interest in the strength of the company they don't participate in votes.
Therefore:
"If shares had one direction the market would make next to nothing on buy and sells as we would hold long term"

If all shares only went in one direction despite the poor health and a performance of a company, the only thing that would be created is bubbles. Like bitcoin.

My2penneth, how likely do you think a divi suspension is, given it is declared and due next week.
I take your point and I certainly see no buy case, but that sort of action would be madness.

I recommend the movie 'The Big Short'. Not just because its a terrific movie, but because it explains how shorting works. I won't spoil it, but in this instance a hedge fund predicted the sub prime mortgage crisis a decade ago, and shorted against.

Note, they didn't cause the subprime mortgage crisis, it would have happened any way.

It would be a strange system whereby the market has been de-regulated so that Man On the Street is allowed to take part, but everyone (including hedge funds) is only allowed to go long on shares, even if they are in decline. Our pensions would be in a complete mess for starters.

Or, please provide the line/s in the 425 page Takeover Code, which I am sure you have studied in detail, that supports your assertion.

The High Court have ruled it legal, SPD have accepted it as being legal, why can't you?

And yes, you do realise that a bid was not forthcoming, not on 29th March, not on the 1st April, 9th April or the 22nd April.

They couldn't well have let this go on to an EGM where MA would have ousted them, could they?

"Required lender consent. Wasn't granted. Shareholders must've known that this new money required lender consent right? Surely shareholders read the public debt documentation before investing?"

They must do Daniel. Otherwise they wouldn't make statements like "we know the risks", would they?

Poker quite right its a gamble, put in very succinct words by Applegarth on Friday;

".if you can't take the strain of trying to match contrarian investors, you shouldn't invest. I have a few multibaggers a year and a few more losers but the winners far outweigh the losses. I love the challenge of knowing this will multibag or crash. We understand the risks. Bombed out stocks at super-low prices is a risky business and not for widders and awfuls...we understand and take no advice from any source."

Don't come complaining when it all goes wrong.

Oh, and foresight is a marvellous thing as well.

"
These actions together indicate to me that he was going to bid. Certainly I and many other investors believed him, and also we believed that we would have protections as imposed under the Takeover Code. Otherwise, why would any of us have continued holding the stock?"

Well this is what it comes down to. You believed a bid was inbound and held or kept buying. The likes of Daniel and I didn't. And when we told you last week ehy we didn't think.it was likely we were shouted down.
Don't blame the system for your broken belief system.

"He was clearly serious about making an offer, I cannot see how that can be reasonably disputed."
Here is how that is disputed.
The offer had a pre condition that MA would be made CEO. The BOD made it very clear that this would not happen. He ignored this, ergo, offer was not serious.

Thanks for the repost. Again.

Bona Fide
adjective
1.
genuine; real.
"she was a bona fide expert"
synonyms: authentic, genuine, real, true, actual, sterling, sound, legal, legitimate, lawful, valid, unadulterated, unalloyed, proper, straight, fair and square; More
adverbLAW
1.
without intention to deceive.
"the court will assume that they have acted bona fide"

I must say I don't like this. The opoid scandal looks as though it is going to explode, already seen hints with Sackler
I would be surprised if RB didn't end up implicated. I will stick it out to ex divi, but very uneasy, will tighten up my stop order on this.

The article shared suggests that the provisions relate to a separate possible write off, that is to say and split fine would be in addition.
Its concerning, but to put in to perspective this is still at a level higher than February, or last Autumn.
Ex divi soon, lets see if this holds up then.
Definitely one to keep a close eye on.

"There was a time to fill in and send off to DEB that template MA created.... I wonder how many PI's actually did"

Probably more than voted in the last AGM.

So are SPD taking legal action? Or are they 'considering' taking legal action?