We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
SW/ "Why did SVB have to sell at a loss" Its simple, they needed the money. Its the same as if you were running a fund and your investors wanted to make withdrawals, you would have to sell businesses at a loss. It happened to Neil Woodford a few years ago, I remember him saying that it" broke his heart" selling AstraZeneca at £42. So i bought a bundle
Regulators Response "The collapse came after SVB said it was trying to raise $2;25bn to plug a loss caused by the sale of assets, mainly US Government Bonds ,which had been affected by higher INTEREST RATES"
You cannot compare SVB with the rest of the banks ,basically it was set up to supply loans to SME tech firms in the valley. You now have a liquidity risk where their assets dont cover the loans. That is why the SPs of these tech companies have been crashing. With rising rates you will see many of them go belly up in the next few months
When the Fed raise rates, liquidity leaves the markets(especially tech) that is the problem there is no liquidity in the market. All the money is going into Bonds
After what happened in 2008 to the stable banks when the governments( especially in the US and UK) convinced them to bail out the ones in trouble ,i cant see that happening again, once bitten, twice shy. The next few weeks will be interesting ,thats why Buffett always hold 30% cash in Berkshire ,so he can take advantage of a crash
In a roundabout way the SVB collapse might work in DT and the tech sectors favour, because it might make the FED think twice about raising rates. The FED caused the collapse of SVB by over tightening. The FED never get it right, they go from one extreme to another.
Win/i think your trying to wind me up!! I am not surprised, we were rubbish against the Welsh. They put the drinks up in my local on match days because they employ security guards on the door.
Mr Long/ i have no interest in "taking the moral high ground" or impressing you or anyone else. I am only interested in making money. You have your strategy ,i have mine. If you and SW want to buy and sell ,thats fine by me,i am holding LSEG the more pi trade the richer i get
Over the years ive known many investors/speculators who are a lot smarter then you 2, who are now skint. Bogle was not talking about a few trades more like a few years before their money runs out. Anyway its your money, its your strategy. Be Lucky
SW/you dont get it
Mr Long/you obviously have not been in this game very long. I have worked in the City for 43 years. Probably best if you google him, hes a legend
" I dont know anybody who as been successful in timing the market. I dont know anybody who knows anybody who as been successful at timing the market" Jack Bogle
Its nice to see a City institution like the Royal Mint back a UK company, listed on the LSE
Why the rise? for me ,its simple. The market likes the results.
BTW everytime i buy one of these after a few months,i always think, why did i get involved with that. But in the end it turns out ok
Lending/i agree, its not a stock you would associate with Buffett. I would have thought that they would have lost money. I think they bought in twice, at the IPO and at 550p. I am still a believer, with these growth stocks its flying on a wing and a prayer . As del boy would say "He who dares wins"
Lending/bad news regarding Buffettology although i was surprised they bought it in the first place. We all make mistakes lets hope its one of theirs
AI/who is the "certain member of the executive team"?
AI/ who is the "certain board member" involved in a certain law suit?
Mr Long/i have no target figure. I never sell out of anything i like(although i wasnt happy with the last update)i top slice and add ,. Obviously with DT ive been adding. I did top slice DT at 750p so i have taken some profit. I will probably start to top slice around 650p (my average is 450p). Hopefully i will end up being" free and clear" with 50K shares