i also read in the news that the deal was structured with a local entity, ie now an empty box, which would seem like the smart thing to do from a risk point of view
Ofc this is just what was posted in a paper so no idea how factual this is.
but if they were that smart, that would mean the exposure is 0 as the empty box cannot pay anything
@ Mount
I agree and it is defo worth a shot. And eventhou rationaly i may not agree with settling, one could argue its not always the rational of fair thing that gets through. But i would recommend them settling for max 100mil
Which imo is still very generous and is still significant for PLEX since theyre but a fraction of CW
Ah thanks for clarifying! will check it out
Was in @ 0,34 pre AUG 17. I figured since i believe in the company, i might aswell seize the opportunity to average down.
@JPPJ What?
Although i wish nothing but positivity to everyone, i would like to point out to be carefull with enthousiasm as nothing factual has changed.
Im having a hard time mainting myself but i force myself to keep my head cool and will only celebrate once our 2 obstacles are handled ie Liquidity without deluting/loss of value and PLEX sorted.
just as much as it wasnt over 1 week ago, we are still in that same situation, dont let the chart fool you
although i am risk averted i wonder 2 things
1. How much influence do we really have
2. Do we really want to settle for an amount that PLEX will accept. IMO this whole case is a joke and IMO plex would not even deserve 100mil.
But if it clears the path for a safe recovery i would not mind taking it under consideration
@CWWX
Consider this: What would you hate more:
a) losing your 4p per share or
b) cutting your losses and seeing it recover.
peace*
speculation on the shareprice, without any news is pointless imo.
I'ld rather get solid news and piece of mind :) dont care where the price goes as long as the business goes north !
in total they went from 13,8% to 3,5% (or least that was the position as per 25 aug). Meaning that in those couple days they sold 10,3% or roughly 141 million shares
As of now i think its fairly likely that theyll prolly sell it all (assumption on my part)
@ Zero
This is a reporting on the position (number of shares) held by important (= significant) holdings.
In this case Jhango (which had already lowered) reported as per 25 aug, they still held 3,48%
Down from 11ish %
irc they already lowered their position 2% a couple days before the 25th
expectations, as noted in the financial statements of 2021 were 85-90% attedance overall
you cannot expect 1 blockbuster gathering all those.
Surely it has helped but looking at the others - i wouldnt be surprised in cineworld has similar attendance (for the reporting period being 2022H1) of 65-70%
i didnt wanna be rude with my previous comment but there is just no way amount sold can be different from bought.
Unless you are speaking of outstanding orders that dont meet eachother in terms of price
i really fail to grasp how people would think sold does not equal bought
Everyone that has sold 1 share ALWAYS has a counterparty that BUYs that share so the only relevant indicator is volume traded since every share that is traded has been sold by the original owner to the new owner, who from his perspective has bought
the only thing i could "come up with" as to why buys are inequal to sells is the data on the current trade book
ie share price is 2 pound
The number of sells logged above 2 are X
The number of buys logger bewlo 2 are Y
everything where buy and sell are at a equal price transform into a trade (Since agreement has been found)
havent found much other than that they were also involved in the liquidity raised in 2020
probably someone who was betting on # volume of shorts to cover and forcing them to buy at 15 due to lack of other offers
@Wolf, what does that mean? Thay those you listed are not required to report their position?
Yeah @AJ
@AJ en AWW : Ok, What are the scenarios then? Would they buy shares if the plan was to be diluted? Thoughts?
CWW Thank you for the valuable info
am i reading that correct that by swapping to preferred (nonvoting) shares, Goldman is now no longer a conflict of intrest to intervene in business for cineworld - say for example structure deals etc ?
why would they opt for preferred shares? Those are the ones WITHOUT voting rights right?