We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
RNS is the Regulatory News Service - it exists for companies to publish information that they are required to make public to the whole market.
So yes, they do have to do that.
Market makers make money on volume. They don't care about the share price.
If you want to invoke a conspiracy theory, at least target the actors that are more likely to be playing games, namely the hedge funds.
Not really a fan of buying the dip...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0akBdQa55b4
@stevenmerrett
I agree, it's a long but potentially very profitable road.
What makes me laugh is every time the share price goes down, it's immediately blamed on the market makers.
The level of conspiracy theories on here would make David Icke blush.
Yes, there may be people playing silly beggars, but that will be hedge funds and the like as opposed to MM who just want volume.
It will only be in the six locations in the City where resi is permitted at the moment.
There won't be wholesale conversions of office blocks - sadly.
Extract from an article regarding MAC clauses and Covid - it would seem that the main argument is about the quantum of damages, with I guess Cineworld arguing that Cineplex suffered no loss as a result of Cineworld pulling out - the loss would have been the shareholders, but they weren't party to the agreement and so have no ability to launch an action. Still $2.8bn is a very big number, so I'll guess it will hang on the share price for a while. Personally I don't know why Cineworld didn't just mess up the application to the regulator, which was the only thing outstanding, and so get out of it in a more straightforward manner, but I guess some very fancy lawyers signed off on it!
"Cineplex Inc v. Cineworld Group plc et al. (Court File No. CV-20-00643387-00CL) involves a $2.8 billion transaction where Cineworld sought to terminate the transaction on June 12, 2020. In that case, final order approval had already been obtained from the court prior to the termination, and the parties were in the process of obtaining the regulatory approvals necessary to close, when the termination notice was sent by Cineworld Group.
Unlike Rifco, Cineplex did not seek an order for specific performance and to force Cineworld to close. Cineplex accepted what it said was a wrongful termination, and sued for damages. The question of how to get an order in a reasonable period of time within the timeframes contemplated by the parties for Closing, requiring the parties to close, was therefore not raised. Other very interesting questions were raised, however. Beyond the usual questions about the scope of the MAE clause (in that case, the parties specifically excluded pandemic-related events from the scope of the MAE), the Cineplex case raises very interesting questions about the quantum of damages.
As we mentioned at the outset of this article, an Arrangement Agreement is typically between the purchaser and the target company. Shareholders are not usually parties to such agreements, and they are rarely parties in public company transactions. In its Statement of Claim, Cineplex seeks full recovery of the total amount of the purchase price of the transaction — $2.18 billion, with other relief pleaded in addition or in the alternative. Even suing for the premium of the transaction that shareholders would have enjoyed raises questions: are those really the company’s damages at all? And even if the company could make such a claim for shareholders, the shareholders still have the control premium, and in theory could sell it again. Are there issues of double recovery in such a case? There are interesting questions to be resolved, in addition to all of the other questions that a MAE case would normally raise, of the kinds described earlier.
Even though Cineplex has not sought specific performance, it is proceeding at a relatively rapid pace, with a trial expected this fall."
I wouldn't trust those designations, since for every buyer, there is a seller.
(Ceteris paribus)
So Cine and the other recovery plays are being shorted heavily again. At the start of the pandemic, that looked like a sensible trade, but now? The fundamentals will prevail and the shorts will get burnt. I guess these must be part of a lrger transaction and act as a hedge against a load of longs which are even more sensitive (i.e. profitable) in the event of a full recovery.
https://www.investmentweek.co.uk/news/4029977/cineworld-leads-list-most-shorted-uk-stocks
"Good news is bad news"
The low unemployment rate and green shoots of a recovery mean that tighter monetary policy is nearer than expected and given this is a market fuelled by debt and QE, that is negative for share prices as the cost of funds is likely to invrease sooner than expected.
Medium term I would say that it is good for Cine as we'll get back to fundamentals at some point instead of this gamed market.
Mrstu82
1) The City Code, which is administered by the Takeover Panel, requires any party who controls more than 30% of the voting rights to launch a formal cash offer for all the other shares.
2) BoA is a Prime Broker and is probably holding the shares as a hedge against derivative contracts it has written, such as CFDs.
For every buyer there is a seller.
Prime Brokers acquiring stock is not necessarily a good sign - it could be that they sold CFDs to someone else and needed to cover their position.
If you recall the Archegos debacle, Archegos bet huge (on margin) with Prime Brokers on some frothy shares and when the market moved against them and there was a margin call, several PBs liquidated their positions causing a run on the market.
RNS's on holdings from Morgan Stanley, BoA or even Jangho are not good (or bad) signs in themselves, it's just normal market behaviour.
Proper long term holders or providers of funds or ETFs on the other hand are the things to look out for.
An RNS with Blackrock or Vanguard on the other end of the trade would be seriously good news.
No.
https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/CINE/results-of-general-meeting/14934002
That was close!
Ah, thanks ;-)
Gusto1 - was that directed at me?
It's an equity swap contract, not a purchase of shares.
Bank of America are a Prime Broker, so this is them creating derivatives for a counterparty.
You can achieve the same result with CFDs or SB, if that's what you mean?
OllietheOstrich - you are right. A conspiracy amongst market makers is much more plausible.
Of course, passing the motion could be negative for the share price as it signals further dilution later on as the debt is converted. That might perversely explain today's drop.