Member Info for Tobythedog

semaphorRed

We're going to have to agree to disagree here. Life is too short . Shame your mind is closed on this.

semaphobeRed

Trends don't last forever and there are turning points so, no it's not a problem; it gives me an edge. Surely you can see that it has been steadily falling for the last three + months. A simple analysis would tell you that it is likely to continue to do so. Of course the announcement of a contract signing or similar would blow that out the water but in the absence of that it's a pretty safe bet it will continue to fall. We are talking probabilities here, nothing is guaranteed .

semaphoreRed
Take a look at the daily chart. It's been steadily falling for over three months because of constant selling pressure. As for yesterday and today's price action don't forget that 4% down one day followed by 4% up the next does not balance out, but I expect you know this . A £10 share that drops by 50% one day, needs a 100% increase to get back to £10.

semaphoreRed

..... and your point is ?

semaphoreRed

Well I agree price movement really matters!. So the fact that the price moved down yesterday, suggests that 1M trade was indeed a sell. Since the price has been drifting down now for over three months this tells us that QFI market sentiment is poor and that there are no willing buyers at the previous higher prices.

semaphorRed

Agreed, but I think we can safely assume it was taken from the list of QFI Share Trades shown on this site. It is the first trade of the day, shows as a sell, but perhaps more importantly given the vagaries of the system, which have been discussed on here many times, it is in the lower part of the actual transactions that have taken place. So why do you think it is a buy?
I do understand you are keen to promote the concept that every trade is both a buy and a sell but who initiated the transaction? Was it the buyer or seller? In this case it looks to be the seller.

semaphorRed

Wonderfully dogmatic as usual but sadly it does look to be a sale. Any chance of an explanation why you think otherwise or should I just accept you are the fountain of all wisdom?

semaphorRed

You seem to be trashing the entire school of TA Analysis with these comments Is this really the case? Dozens of books have been written on the subject and there are countless successful professional traders who use it either in whole or to supplement their fundamental analysis.
Don't you use support and resistance, trends, turning points, gaps, candle formations etc to determine your entries and exits. I'd encourage you to open your open your mind I'm sure if you did you would improve your trading.

MBleu357
So what should I take from that reply - you don't understand and don't want to understand TA and have been disrespectful to both Noel and myself for no good reason. Speaks volumes!
AKHM
.... and it may never get there exactly. TA is not an exact science but he clearly got the sentiment and direction right. Time will tell just how close this gets to 1p. Of course I hope it doesn't as like all here I am well under water.

MBleu357
In all fairness Noel correctly predicted the fall based on his technical analysis. You may not believe in TA but many do and it works for them and clearly worked here. Please show the man some respect. For the record I've often seen chart patterns that I recognise with a high probability of a particular move but I don't keep a record that I could show, nor would I want to. None of us like the fact that QFI is going no-where but don't shoot the messenger especially when he gets it right.

ColinH100

I think your needle is stuck - again!

Elir 7

Much as I understand your frustrations about NDAs they are a fact of corporate life. Be careful what you wish for here. If you tie the hands of the BoD by banning them from entering into any then you would likely ensure the demise of company. The clients will simply not do business with a potential supplier who will not sign one.

Maggulus
If they extend Younes's warrants I for one would chase them to reinstate our warrents that expired in September.

Haggis
Haggis
The exception does not make the rule. It was you who said "as it's appeared outside of the 7am swamp of RNS's".
Oh and I can tell it has had no impact on the SP. Just look at the SP chart.
As for this morning's "Great news" - words fail me! You're clearly a very excitable man. Take a chill pill.

Haggis
Let's just come down from the clouds and recognise
A. It's not an RNS but a paid for reseach by Edison

It didn't come out at 7am because it is not an RNS! It is research by Edison that will likely have been paid for by QFI and says nothing new. It had/will have zero impact on the SP.

You lot ,and by that I mean the last five contributors, clearly have too much time on your hands arguing over something so trivial. You need to get out more!

dtwin26
Good note - thanks ..... but you say "Major f*ck up with the production of fuel for Morocco". I don't understand. Did I miss something here? Can someone enlighten please.

Thanks for the input guys. I now better understand, so can we say that £60M (losses) X 19% corporation tax means that there are £11.4M worth of accumulated tax losses and with a current market cap. of approx. £19M the net cost would be £7.6M? I realise of course that in practice an acquirer would have to pay well in excess of current market cap.

46G

Thanks, and how would these losses be treated if it was an oil major?

$60 Million!