Member Info for Rhambo

Whenever the govt tries to calm the market with a statement on the company... the govt is worried about the company.

Catch. Not.

@mick-b - not quite accurate. Naked shorting is shorting a stock without actually borrowing it and is illegal in the EEA (including the UK). A borrowed short can be squeezed like any other short if there's a sudden increase in price (for example I remember that all the loaned stock for GKP was suddenly recalled, creating a mini squeeze). Funds take on different levels of risk and hedging their exposure. If a share is a slam dunk short then a fund is probably less likely to sink capital into a needless hedge. If it's wrong, it gets squeezed.

@FattyR considering Marshall Wallace was adding at 115p, I would suggest there's a long way to go before it would consider closing its short, 107p is not a big enough gain. It will definitely be looking at at least a 30% gain before it would be tempted, but perhaps lower. What I mean is - buys at this level are very unlikely to be short closures by the big shorting funds.

@bobslob I don't disagree with that either... that market is indeed billions overpriced.

@Trickymatters Are you sure it's not because it's (as I write) trading at 85x net operating cashflow (at that's before a reduction in alleged Apple orders)?

IQE can't translate revenue growth into cash growth. It's an obvious target for shorting, I don't know what you expect.

Pretty grim reading on CNBC https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/30/apple-shares-fall-again-on-another-report-of-fading-iphone-x-demand.html

This is responding to fundamentals in the copper price though

Speaking in general terms the 'High Street', if I were to crystal ball (and speaking in general terms), I imagine in the future will be convenience stores, gastronomic activity and a small indie presence (selling something particularly niche). I also expect the High Street to contain more housing (flats) and office space. The High Street isn't MTC's problem, it by and large left the High Street a decade ago. Its problem now is that it has monster out-of-town units which are effectively Amazon showrooms...It really needs to bin these. Perhaps a JV to create mini baby department stores with jojo maman bebe and mamas and papas would be interesting, particularly if they combined their online presence and pooled resources for efficient warehouse distribution. Bit of a pipe dream though.

I don't think 'No negative news' is accurate given the November statement.... the dividend is OK at 4% but if the retail pressures have continued over Christmas then it's future looks unsteady.

The share price has rallied to above the level of the previous trading update, which was poor (11% fall in profits). Given that retail in general is under the cosh at the moment, I don't fancy PETS' chances of having had a good Christmas and wouldn't be surprised to see another thumping tomorrow morning. A worthwhile short for me.

All these companies already have establish childcare ranges/product lines, and are matching or undercutting MTC's prices with the same goods. There is no real reason any of these would view MTC as a takeover target,the M&S and John Lewis suggestions particularly chuckled me, given their own problems they are hardly going to view buying another dinosaur as a good way out. That and the baggage of all the long leases on the stores you're taking on an organisation with spiralling debt and mid to long term cash hungry obligations. The only future I see for Mothercare is large scale store closures and a retreat to online (which they are light years behind in)., with a small in-store presence in other retailers..... or liquidation.

Because 5 funds stumping up 25-30m between is really difficult....

Up we go again..

I'm actually adding here. This is clearly going through 1800 next week (tomorrow?)... I think we could start talking about 2000 now.

Disagree - MKS could often bank on a bumper Christmas in food. There was no sign of that this year, which means all areas are looking weak. This is a case of watch out below IMO and sub-300 should be become the norm pretty sharpish.

June for 1800 is looking pessimistic...

I have to pick you up on the above GumT. If the retail client base is 70/30 long, then IG hedges the remaining short position itself where it needs to. The IG model is not based on customers losing money, because as I have just told you they hedge all their positions so it literally makes no difference whether their clients win or lose, but on the frequency of trades. They make their money on the increased spread or the transactional CFD fees (£10 in, £10 out) or share-dealing fees. If anything, IG want their clients to keep WINNING because it increases the frequency at which they make trades. Losing clients trade less over time,

excellent - good day on wall street today and Europe should take its lead tomorrow. I've bought here today at 38.5 ish, it does seem quite range bound and I'm hoping to cash at 42+ over the next two months.