Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Are others expecting a rapid retrace to match Friday/s unexplained rise?
So what is the current NAV???
I've looked through the accounts published on the website but can't see it specifically referenced. By my calculation it is somewhere in the region on 13p/share but it would be helpful if someone has the exact figure (please provide a link).
TIA
Posted by Lakshmi888
"Lol, you certainly got to hand the cheek of it certain pi who suddenly claim it (chart it suddenly hey?!) LOL...... Not a single post on there until now. Soooooo transparent. No doubt claim it as a ''Top whatever''...what a joke...!"
"The max downside has nearly been reached now, and whoever didnt bother to take profit from 48 or 46, should not bother to sell at 32 or 30.80p, the max bottom from todays technical view."
While I have a great deal of respect for TA, you seem to pluck figures out of the air Chartist2 - can you post a chart interpretation to support that view???
(have you ever, even once, actually posted a chart???)
Any rebound at this stage is most likely to be a bull-trap imho.
RichKen - it's all very well taking the moral high ground and claiming that you are benefiting people by trying to persuade them to go long here but more than one poster has claimed to be well over £million down from the peak which I was shouted down for identifying... if it's *facts* you are after then I velieve I have provided them - BMN is currently in a downtrend regardless of fundamentals. Sure there will be the odd spike on the way down, in the same way as there are always dips on the way up, but quoting from the 'sacred book of fundamentals' will not turn the tide. The scientific fact is that market forces (the natural ebb & flow of money) determine the SP for good and bad companies alike. Can you honestly tell me you have not seen 'duff' companies rise and 'great' companies fall?
No matter how obsessively Alfacomp might try to 'spin' the trading data in his favour any grounded, rational appraisal will clearly identify selling pressure resulting in a consequential decline in SP.
You seem to have identified Flybe as folly, but yet again you are failing to appreciate 'the other side' of the argument... from a bear's perspective that share is a virtual no brainer to short even at this stage with an almost guaranteed outcome.
Science is tosh to the fundamentalist when it is not supported by the beloved book. LTH's try to convince people that the fundementals 'prove' the SP can only go one way, but the facts say otherwise.
It is not negativity, it is reality.
For the reasons clearly outlined in a previous post I'm a bear clarkgriswold
Some people have got lucky here to date but trading/Investing is simply gambling - overall, statistically, the bears have better odds so it's an obvious no-brainer which side to take.
Pdub - as previously stated (& apparently ignored)...
"Refusing to accept an argument because it is not based on 'the fundamentals' is like a religious fanatic refusing to listen to something that is not backed by Bible quotes."
My argument is simply that the SP will wax & wane regardless of the fundamentals. Whether people choose to exploit this to their advantage is up to them.
Common Sense Chapter 1, Verses 16-23 !
As I've clearly stated here previously, people can research until they are blue in the face and it will not change the fact that a share price will rise and a share price will fall. The key is simply to identify the direction of the market and work with, not against, it.
Refusing to accept an argument because it is not based on 'the fundamentals' is like a religious fanatic refusing to listen to something that is not backed by Bible quotes.
It is **all** opinion on these boards and mine is as valid as any.
What research I have done leads me to believe that most AIM shares lose money over time, nicely summarised by The Financial Times...
"Over the past 20 years, investors would have lost money in 72 per cent of all the companies ever to have listed on AIM... in more than 30 per cent of cases, shareholders lost at least 95 per cent of their investment."
In the light of this it surely seems only logical to take the position of a 'bear' in the market and hence greatly increase the odds of overall success???
Having risen significantly, BMN is now in an established downtrend, hence my obvious interest. A position that will no doubt be unpopular with those holding a long position, but equally valid nevertheless.
"if the Scheme is not approved, the Flybe Directors intend to take steps to wind-up the Company and Shareholders are likely to receive no value for their shares"
Vote no and cut of your nose to spite your face???
The shareprice had dropped below 9p prior to the 'bidding war rampfest' that drove it above 20p and would have likely continued to decline. If it had dropped to say 0.5p prior to the 1p deal announcement the BOD would be seen as heroes for attaining a 100% premium.
Nothing said by the company suggested a bidding war or even the firm likelihood of a single offer of any value yet investors bid the SP up regardless. The only reason folk are crying 'foul play' imho is because the offer was so much lower than they paid, but has it not occurred to them that they *overpaid* by a very considerable margin? ...if taking on Flybe was a significant liability, as all the evidence suggests, then the company was effectively valueless and achieving any payment whatsoever could be considered a significant achievement.
Perhaps, just perhaps, neither Virgin or Stobart were prepared to take on the considerable risk and the board worked tirelessly to persuade them to work together in an effort to secure the company's future?
Truth is we don't know, but be honest - if you had not suffered a loss would you be slinging dirt?
Nobody told anybody to pay more than 1p a share.
Well OK, yes, the rampers who cried 'bidding war' probably did, but each individual chose whether or not to listen.
Under The Financial Services and Markets Act Section 397(1) and (2)
"It is unlikely that a company breaching the obligations described above is at risk of a successful action for breach of statutory duty by an investor who has suffered loss"
"The board of Flybe Group plc notes the recent media speculation and confirms that, on 1 February 2019, Flybe received a very preliminary, short and highly conditional outline contingency proposal from Mr Tinkler which envisages a capital injection and replacement of the funding provided by Connect Airways Ltd,"
"The board does not consider that the preliminary proposal offers the certainty required to secure the future of Flybe."
Feb 3 (Reuters)
That being the case, why did we acquire TRAC/Goldbloc stix40?