Member Info for NorthernMuppet

Interesting that Frasers see one thing, and shorters holding more than 68 million shares see something else!

Who do you reckon will end up better off??

Here a link that isn't

https://archive.is/lAXXE

Https://archive.is/vdkpi

Worth a read, but just opinion really

I think Ragtrade's view on the current changes would be most welcome....

Calling Ragtrade!!

A couple of months ago, I received a letter about the small pension that I held with Aviva. It told me that they were going to move out of certain investments - fossil fuels, tobacco, armaments from memory. At this point, I transferred this pension across to my SIPP on the basis that Aviva were not doing what I EXPECTED them to do - i.e. get the very best return for my investment. If they want to signal their virtue, they're welcome to do so, but not with MY money.

I have also held for some time an investment in AVIVA in my SIPP. Upon reading of the views of AB, I have now sold this too. Again, if they want to signal their virtue etc etc.

I don't care a fig about colour, politics, gender etc etc - I simply expect the BEST person for the job. A meritocracy, if you like. I would suggest to AVIVA that they let the politicians do the politics, and you stick to making money!

It's still almost 70 million shares that have to be bought back.

On the face of it, Mike Ashley now owns >217 million of 'em and I don't expect he'd give them up without a big, fat profit.

They'll certainly not be getting any of the ones that I own!!!

You only need to look at the motorway service areas to see the power of brands in foodservice. It's not by chance that these have become almost exclusively branded operations now.

SSP have said for a while that they aim to become expert franchise operators, and were touting their expertise as such at a conference that I attended. Yes, the margins are lower, but the trust in the brands will compensate with higher revenues.

Results out tomorrow, and it'll be interesting to see if they're back above the £2.8bn they were approaching before the catastrophic lockdowns.

Hmmnn, maybe not - looks like mid January from past announcements.

Would we not be expecting a trading update from BOO over the next few days??

You do have to wonder whether MA is working in cahoots with the shorters, or perhaps just taking advantage of their operations.

It would be great to see them burned

"the Board believes that there will be no return to shareholders whether via a solvent sale of JF Renshaw or any procedure in an Administration"

Https://archive.ph/YQRhl

AFAIC, it's not the short selling itself that is the problem, it's the perceived manipulation that comes with it.

Exactly my thoughts, BFT!

Life's far batter without the nonsense of PP1 and his/her ilkl!!!

The filter is your friend!

Hmmmnnnn! Now I'm interested DestituteBroker - do you know of a good source of info to learn about this??

Could [any large buyer of shares] have any benefit in lending out their shares to a 'friendly' hedge fund, then buy them back, then lend them out again (ad infinitum, potentially). Would this keep the price low while they were doing this. In the end the short position would make people nervous, thus weakening the share price further. At the end of the process, as the seller and buyer would be the same person and disregard all the 'loans'. The [large buyer of shares] has then been able to buy up a large stake in a business at a cut-down price.

Or am I overethinking this??

WoW - I get that that is how it would normally work, but it seems to me that there's something else going on here. You'd only borrow them if you thought the price was going to go down, otherwise you're going to lose lots of money.

I just feel like there's something different going on here. Otherwise, it just doesn't seem to make sense!!

I've no intention of loaning my shares out, I use HL largely because I understand they don't do this.

Since 30-Aug, when there were 3.53% of shares shorted - and Frasers owned 10.4% of BOO - the level of shorts has increased by 3.6% and Frasers ownership has increased by 4.8% to the current 15.2%. This is an increase of 4.8%.

It's almost as if shorters have borrowed shares just to sell to Frasers.

Why would someone do that?? As I mention earlier - is there a big game being played here??

Can shorters loan out the shares that they have borrowed???

Could there be some enormous game being played here??

Is there something going on that no-one has thought of yet??

Surely the only people selling at these levels are the shorters selling their 'borrowed' shares.

I'm sure the shorters are very, very clever people, but when one man (or his business) are building up a stake like this, their chances of buying them back have got to be getting lower and lower and lower.

I'm long here in BOO and have no intention whatsoever of selling.

Ho Hum! They 'obviously' know what they're doing!!

DHL are generally very good at running facilities, though I don't think they have the infrastructure and assets to do the final mile (or perhaps 20 in the US). Their US business is focussed very much on international operations.

It looks to me like they are using the USPS for the deliveries over there - though their reputation leaves an awful lot to be desired!!!

I'd be very excitied that product is leaving the warehouse there and not having to be shipped across the Atlantic.