@Battlecry, stretching credulity somewhat to answer but anyway...… If BMN was your first share purchase as you say and this is your approach, then the best advice you can get is STOP BUYING SHARES. You first need to be able to INDEPENDENTLY research you potential investments and only then once you can answer all the questions you might have for yourself, make a purchase.
...at a point last night this was the question with some of our furries turning up with their usual rubbish. Anyway there was a suggestion that churning only 0.2% of the company shares could still "reasonably" justify a (quoted) 7% loss. Well - I tested this hypothesis with data. Using FTSE 100 companies, I calculated which churned closest to 0.2 % yesterday and then looked at the daily changes for those. The average price movement turns out to be 1.36%. The largest fall with this level of churn was 2.7% QED.
There was also a lot of talk of "selling Pressure" which some of us were suggesting was skewed to promote the falls yesterday. 30K sells repeatedly landing on the Bid just at the point where that would be sufficient to move the Bid down (you need level 2 RSP data to be able to see it). Now I know it isn't an exact comparison, but as a thought "image" it does the job. Pressure in physics is defined as Force / Area. Think about a chess board balanced on a beer bottle. Now start putting pound coins onto each square, the pressure is the combined force of all those pound coins pressing down across the chess board. It doesn’t take a genius to see that if the pressure isn’t applied evenly, i.e. if all the coins are piled up in the same place on one square on the side, the board will tumble. Well this is what happens with all those 30K sells. All piled up in one place on one side. Now about those 30K sells. Again if we look at other shares, there is an even distribution of buy and sell sizes and the frequency with which they turn up across the day, a classic “bell curve” centred round the median buy / sell size. For BMN this is not the case, there is a huge blip at 30K showing a skewed distribution.
Someone is using 30K blocks to preferentially apply selling pressure on just the right square of the chessboard at just the right times to ensure it topples where they want. If they had 3 million to sell for arguments sake reasonably they might break that up into smaller blocks but 30K blocks – right on the NMS for the share a trade the MM has to take? I don’t think so think 30K is sized to allow the constant and unabating bash bash bash to continue. Everyone can make their own minds up of course. As Pdub would say…. Just my opinion.
The bit that additionally interests me in all this is that traditionally in the "lulls" in commodity pricing like we are seeing now for Vanadium post a big rise and fall. Having tried and failed to see additional volume come into a market to meet demand, there is usually then a period of consolidation that see's the minnows taken out for critical mass by the bigger fish. We may just be peeking at this with both RedT and IRON in their different ways. Don't forget the genius of Fortune and our Board. They bought Vametco at the absolute nadir in the cycle and now off the peak they are acquiring Vanchem. They got Brits for a song in the doldrums too. Our Board are ahead of the pack - that usually shows who is the healthiest...…..Further consolidations in the production space would not surprise me...….
There is a modicum of merit in your hypothesis @Qwertyqwer25 it is the turning an Oil tanker syndrome. When Vanadium prices were sky high, many small expensive projects will have looked viable and some will have achieved funding. It is just like shale oil wells in the US. When oil was sky high they looked profitable and many were sanctioned. As the price turns downwards they become uneconomic and eventually fall by the wayside. The Turning tanker bit, is that period between when they start up and when they die when they are struggling and failing. I suspect in both China and Russia uneconomic transient production has come into the market and will soon expire.
VV - differnet companies.
Accacia were one of the very original funding vehicles for BMN when Mr Borromeo was a majority holder. Their holding went down from 85 million to the current 70,598,644 when he rationalised all his holdings back in November- December last year.
makes a lot of sense to me @Alfa and membrane technology (in my view) will be the growth area for Flow battery improvements going forward. Are you aware of any research using super cooled liquids (i.e. glasses ?) as potential electrolytes?
jeez @Faramog you really are sore aren't you. You will notice, when I am addressing a point to a person I start it by addressing them as with this post. When I am posting to a general audience I omit the @nnnnnnn. I often do this to expand or bring clarity to previous one-sided or naïve posts which would have benefitted from a little balance or expansion.
Yes we probably are (on most things) on the same page but c'mon why pick ruck ?
You do know shorts don't just "close" right ? Millions sold on the way down bought on the way back up just a couple of pence below their relative sale price heading down make the money. Sadly there is plenty of opportunity for that well known rinse and repeat cycle. Sure eventually the balance is met and the shares borrowed are returned but this is not a binary thing in reality. It isn't "shorts closing" that we need, it is sustained buying pressure.
Now of course buying pressure is fuelled by confidence and confidence comes by not seeing constant sustained selling. I'm not trying to pour water on the first flickering sparks of life just trying to say that there will inevitably be reversals once the recovery is actually underway and weathering the storms of renewed negative sentiment will be easiest if we haven't inadvertently fed ammunition of unbridaled cheer to be attacked by those served by quenching that buying optimism.
Caution Bushwackers - that is all.