Member Info for Velo

Odd close tonight. All my usual/regular stuff is showing 109 close, yet the final arbitrator of disputes - the London Stock Exchange itself, is showing a close of 112.5 ! (Both Yahoo & Google also going with a 112.5 close).

Only seen 112.5 in three other places - most other sites going for a 109 close.

So makes it a bit messy for March.
Bare in mind the first day of March open & closed circa 116/118

- So whichever close you take tonight, it is still a little outside my original thoughts of a barely changed close by the month end, compared to it's open. But tonight's close is worse than the 'low confidence' forecast by the seasonality computer algos.

Whatever, all in line with the unimpressive, quiet spring to summer months that the seasonality algos were/are displaying, albeit with low confidence
- until the July/August period that is, where the next high-confidence months by them kicks off with some decent gains in that period.

But March as an open/close month was lack lustre, despite the intra-month highs leading us on a merry dance of greater expectations.

There's also a cynical 90 day rule that is said to be the mantra of all the spread betting companies that runs:

On average 90% of all punters blow up their account losing 90% of their money within 90 days, so attractive offers are set as inducements lest they lose their money to a competitor because 90% of then are going to lose it all anyway.

Hi Twirl,

Many thanks for an illuminating post on spreadbetting.

I didn't want to comment on the original spreadbetting post as I'd posted enough as was
So your take on it is much appreciated. To save space I'll copy/paste a line from you and change the ending for my case:

You said:
"Made and lost a great deal but came out ahead."

I'm saying I:
- Made and lost a great deal but came out neutral/intact.

And from the research I've read, I consider my end result a success because I didn't blow up my account.

- So in my book, your record of achievement comes under star performer!

Way to go Twirl! :)

I shut down entirely by Oct 2019 after almost 2 years day trading/swing trading, as decided time away from spread bettting would be most beneficial in my case.
It was quite 'sweaty' getting back to neutral base, so the moment I achieved that, I quit whilst I was 'ahead" :)

Enjoyed reading your post; informative :)

Will still use them in the future but tentatively (IG/ Spreadex), as how else will one short a stock when circumstances warrant it? :)
.

Bear in mind offmessage, that was a nice bullish candlestick pattern close tonight. A bullish spinning top with added weight because it's formed at the bottom of a down trend. A damn good omen going into Monday. And SLP does have form on chomping through bearish indicators and brearish shorter term trends too. I still have 2 differing shorter term time frames of bearish trend lines that perhaps are sympathetic to your view of maybe revisiting to your 109.

But to date SLP actively goes out of it's way to destroy good quality bearish indicators and trends. And opens the door wide to bullish indicators. You can't negotiate with SLP's SP when it wants to return to the Bullish path :)

So I'm siding with the candlesticks this weekend despite my personal view they are only 80/20% effective and you never know when the 20% failure rate will be the case at any given point.

" @velo - yes I am long"
------------------

Ah, I see. So that negates my question I had for you. It was to do with the predominant trend of SLP.
If interested -

From what I've read in the financial media (books rather than the media) over the many years about amateur retail investors (I detest that derisory term, why not call us PI's?) the same mantra is reported over and over - that the vast majority of amateur retail investors (that's us :) lose money investing in the stockmarket - or maybe they meant those who attempt to trade rather than invest?

And it's usually given as the penchant the amateur retail investor has for going peversely long in a down trending stock!

I've witnessed this myself on some forums of the Big FTSE dullard stocks. The belief that a new low is an obvious bargain point, totally ignoring that the long term trend is bearish and had been for a lengthy period and has shown no signs of changing for the better in the longer term.

I was hoping you hadn't invested and had a dour opinion of the final outcome of this pullback because then I was going to ask you what your opinion was of: What is the predominant trend in SLP?

As you are long SLP you already know. (So IMO - therefore it's a tough job to lose money over the longer term by going long in a multi year, bullish uptrending stock of many a year, as long as one 'sits on one's hands'.

In other words, this pullback in a long term uptrending stock, ultimately, just has to be the zigging and zagging along the path of a generally uptrending stock.

I was hoping you were newish to SLP so I could test in live research, whether the constant refrain in the financial press has any legs, in that the majority of amateur investor/traders lose money on the stockmarket, rather than increase their wealth. Because the answer is simple. Never go short in an long term uptrending stock, just as investors should never go long in a long term bearish down trending stock. I thought your post was possibly indicating someone holding a view that SLP was now about to turn seriously longer term bearish, that's all.

Offmessage - Do you already have a position in SLP, or are you investigating it as a result of noticing this pullback?

Morninng/afternoon Stoodio :)

Yes, Rhodium is a but iffy at the moment. But not speculating on reasons for SLP's pullback. They occur on a regular basis. They just have to be dealt with in a consistent manner.

(I should erase that last line of mine in a post below, that references: Unless there was a world war - and replace that jocularity with something along the lines
Of: Unless one day we all wake up to a company profit warning).

Think that may have been my last ever 'blind' computer limit buy-order yesterday, as it was placed under different circumstances and that trade was far from my preferred strategy-only action which dictates I only buy in a downtrend/pullback AFTER that pullback terminates and recrosses back to the upside - and yes that could easily result in paying higher than I achieved yesterday.

I'm inching ever forward to eliminating personal decision making and ever closer to mechanical strategy decisions, there would still be errors but that entails a disciplined rapid correction and acceptance that we don't have total control of the market, just actions based on probabilities; hence expect errors to occur and then deal with them promptly.

Oops!

"Long term and all other trendline combinations south of medium.interim trends
= are oak-like solid bullish. This is a buying opportunity."
---------------------

Typo! Should have said 'north 'as in:

Long term and all other trendline combinations NORTH of medium. interim trends
= are oak-like solid bullish. This is a buying opportunity.

----------------

(Only Ultra-Short and Short-Term trends are bearish currently.)

Stoodio, I'd like to make something clear (IMO) about my concerns over mean reversion surrounding the 200 day average.

I've done posts in the past highlighting the touchpoints of the SP dropping to break or kiss the 200 day average (it is an uncommon occurance, but at least once a year on this 5/6 year belter of an uptrend)
- ALL were buying opportunities, and all soared straight back up as is the wont of a longer term strong bullish stock.

Should the SP do that this year I would expect a bonfire night rocket-like reaction in the SP being repelled by the 200 - as a scaldsed cat reaction would be too weak a description.

On average, I don't usually know or speculate for the "reason" on such pullbacks (all pullbacks not just major ones)

- I just follow them - just so long as one vital and extremely important fact is nailed, riveted and cemented in place
- and that is - the predominant Long Term Trend for the stock MUST be bullish.

- No if's, no but's, no it's 50/50.

To survive a fullscale assault on a stock's 200 day average after flying so high, the SP must be in a long term bullish trend beforehand - and that is the case here, so every pullback is ALWAYS a buying opportunity, unless there is evidence that countermands the long term bull trend, like a world war or somesuch.

" If it drops again tomorrow it'll really start to go into silly territory. "
-------------------

At the moment (intraday) it's situated perfectly in a buying opportunity zone. If the SP does travel further south, you have to allow for an overshoot that ties up with nothing obvious; but if the selling is stronger than anyone realises then sub 100 becomes a concern, after just below mid 90's, there are a myriad of previous highs of old textbook resistances if one casts an eye to left of the price action.

However, that would then concentrate focus on the 200 day trendline currently residing in the 70's.

See how it closes. So far, IMO, it's perfectly placed where it is, to give up the ghost on this pullback.

Evening Stoodio,

Points of note:

* For the first time since July 2020 (SP retracement to the 37p area and before that in the March crash) the relative strength has descended south of the halfway strength mark, as it's never fallen out of general bullishness until Tuesday, and now inhabits the bearish zone of relative strength.

* Someone below posted earlier, of a significant trend line as perhaps the catalyst for the SP to maybe expire in this pullback. The SP is at that point currently (113/112) the 50ma. Will the SP respect that point or not?

*You were not alone, when you posted of feeling that something had changed. Normally I don't bother mentioning overboughts and the SP breaking through my personal ma trend supports as SLP has hitherto chomped on them for breakfast and continued bullishly.

Not this time!

This descent has behaved perfectly as if it were any other "normal" stock after exiting overbought as someone noted correctly (was it Bangrak?) March the 8/9th as when that exit commenced.

Could it be that something different you noticed is:
- as the SP rises closer and closer in maturing towards fair value (a long way off; but that's us - maybe the market will tell us differently in due course) that it will abide to the more common reactions to indicators et al?

Also, let's not forget my long standing concern of some sort of resolution to solving the disparity in the SP divergence from the internationally dominant 200 day moving average trend line - which no stock abuses for ever as it's a mathematical impossibility. That's currently lying in the low 70's.

The SP doesn't have to visit it (the usual resolvement) it can go limp and lacklustre and just lie flat, rangebound for an extended time letting the 200 catch up.

And the 200 has been accelerating somewhat since last summer so it does have its Mississippi bloodhounds out tracking down the SP through the Everglades. Mean reversion implies there will be a reckoning and unless the metal-men enthusiasts tell me there's been a catastrophe in the industry, it would only mean another bonanza topping-up period, like last beginning of July'20 did in the 37's.

* My main take-action strategy trend lines have been breached - negatively. That can mean only one thing.
However, maybe that significant support emanating from that 50 trend line will prevail and my 'take action' trendline will be a short-lived affair?

Couple of other things but you get the drift - bearishness is on the loose, hence my recent topping-up's.

Long term and all other trendline combinations south of medium.interim trends
= are oak-like solid bullish. This is a buying opportunity.

( When the day comes that the long term trends turn bearish, then it wouldn't be; it would be the infamous catch a falling knife no-no time).

" But I also have a sense that you haven't allowed for the hefty influx of cash that the "by-products" (iridium and ruthenium) are now bringing in to SLP. "
---------------------

No I don't indulge in that kind of prognostication on the grounds it may be probable but until the results of that assertion are in, anything unforseen could happen to dilute your forecassts - that and the fact that I'm not a metals man. I leave that stuff to others.

Just need to see some documented interim financial results to back up the jam tomorrow forecasts, that's all. Because we're all just some random poster on the internet, and thus all is opinion only - unill the results prove otherwise :)
As in: 'show me the money' :)

Hope you enjoyed the gentle: "jam tomorrow/bottom's spanked/pretenders to the throne, leg-pulling in my post :)
.

" I do prefer a company with a higher operating margin (an enviable 55% for SLP) "
------------------

Yes - AND SLP's is so delicious - it's much more+++ than DOUBLE what THS's is! (Based on latest H1 accounts from SLP but are similar to the prior year anyway)
- however to be fair, THS has yet to complete their H1 results and I do expect to see an improvement)

Historically, SLP's operating margins have spanked THS's bottom :)
But the observations are on the future, not the past.

And while we're examining profitability, on current facts - not the future jam tomorrow forecasts - SLP have always, incluiding currently, been superior to THS, when refferring to:
Operating Margin
ROA
ROCE
& ROE
- thus demonstrating SLP has a previous history of, and currently, a better conversion of paper profits - into cash! (ie., profit is vanity; cash is sanity :)

Those are the facts currently! Today! SLP has the proven superiority - all the rest are pretenders to the throne.

If you belive in jam tomorrow forecasts always come true, then who am to say contrary to the THS jam tomorrow figures by others.

I have only one thing to say to the pretenders - NOW PROVE IT - BY RESULTS.

I'm not saying THS won't- but until then, SLP is the king - all others are on balance sheet metrics, pretenders to the throne.

You can't have the king's crown until you show proof of results - jam tomoorow won't cut it.

SLP's forward P/E ratio based solely on company & market guidance forecasts is:
P/E 4.09

- Not even up to half the value of the industry averages!

On the same methodolgy I'm "only" :) seeing THS's forward P/E ratio as:
P/E4.89 - not 2 (as suggested below).

Whatever, projections to value THS the better prospect than SLP remain in the jam tomorrow category. Both have damn good, beltin' forward P/E ratios, indicating great potential for a market re-rating.

It's like splitting hairs; as in: what's the point of it?

My 115 bid order set weeks ago just triggered@ 114.7

Pleasing :)

Now not only did my previous top-up move me from underweight to balanced, this one has tipped me just into the overweight camp. So from here on in I want to-die for bargains only.

Seaangler @
" Velo. Really? What a brave sole you are at the end of a keyboard. Take your childish insults and quotation marks to the likely very few who give a FF what you think. Meanwhile I will get on with retiring very early..... hang on I guess I’ve been semi retired for the last 20 years. I wonder how I managed that with a complete lack of skill and ability?"
------------------

Knew you wouldn't leaves things lie, and just had to scratch that itch and do as Boring Old Farts always do - and go off on a wild rant!

What's with the insecure seeking of public self validation? - Of trying to persuade internet strangers that you are wealthy & successful? Are you that needy, that insecure? I only innocently asked for some non-financial details of your success
- and you hit the anger and rudeness button in reply. What were you afraid of?

So you're from the last age group that benefitted greatly from generous pension schemes; hardly skill and ability is it? Literally can't move on these boards from semi-retired posters living on generous early retirement pensions.

You can dish it out but like all attention-seeking Boring Old Farts - you are incapable of receiving it back in kind.

Will be (privately) attempting to come up with an SP that is a fair valuation for current conditions until the company does eventually commence turning in some profit/earnings. Until then all is 'jam tomorrow', so no one can demand or expect an SP that reflects what they think should be fair. That's only possible once the company starts turning in profits.

Instead of lamenting the lost £7+ SP, I thought I'd start with what the consensus of the brokers analysts was for ITM - and was surprised to learn this £7 carry-on has been all down to them.

Did you know there are 11 registered in-house brokers analysts for ITM?
And their consensus valuation of the SP, as a group is given currently as of tonight as £7.34 !

(Up above LSE show only one broker's forecast for 2021, the others beneath it are for one, per prior year, going back to 2013. It is a free site remember).

The consensus forecast of all 11 brokers is shown below (but only 9 are listed as active in the consensus guidance).
Listing them here so that any articles you read, you can check whether it's from a source with direct contact with ITM, or others using guesswork based on public data.

Incidentally,
3 issue guidance as a 'Strong Hold'
4 as a 'Buy'
2 as a 'Hold'.
None recommend a Sell.

- So, all are 100% bullish.

---------------------

The 11 'Named' brokers and Analysts are:

Incorporated - Annabel Hewson ,
Investec Bank (UK) Plc - Marc Elliott ,
Panmure Gordon - Lacie Midgley ,
Bryan Garnier - Xavier Regnard
BofA Global Research ,
Stifel Nicolaus and Company,
HSBC ,
Citi
First Berlin Equity Research ,
Davy ,
JPMorgan

- If a named analyst is published I take that is confirmation a specialist analyst is nominated.
- Where no name is provided I take that to mean guidance is from the general pool.

- But truth is, I'm unsure why some provide an analyst by personal name, and others don't.

Seaangler @
"Velo. Not prepared to get drawn in to your games and I wouldn’t ask you to reappraise your previous posts. No one deserves that.

---------------

Fine with me - you Boring Old Fart :)

The toxic negativity in your posts suggest to me your 500% gain over 2 years is entirely down to sheer blind luck, so unlikely to ever be repeated by you ever again.
Still, to be fair, you don't claim either skill or ability - so that's a positive in honesty that's in your favour, I suppose.

Quite impressed with the content of your post there @ 17:12pm, BilboBurgler.

It strikes me as written by someone unafraid to walk their own path away from the herd, and think independently.
Commendable as in - Very!

Have to admit, although I go out of my way to make sure I have as full a grasp of fundamentals as is possible, I use entirely other means to track SP performance for more precision.

And although you say dump fundamentals and I get why you say that, I find it's still useful to know the debt situation, the cash/ liquidity position etc., so that one is not buying something that is in danger of collapsing anytime soon.

As said, I fully understand and agree with your reservations about depending solely on fundamentals alone, but am less convinced you truly mean to include Chartism too.
There's something about your phraseology that leads me to interpret that you've never had much interest in charts to start with, so perhaps are dismissive of charts/technicals on principle, rather than from a deep study of them
- whilst it's quite clear your doubts about fundamentals are genuine and proven.
Am I right in that your objection to Chartism is more a belief decision than from direct investigation? :) No need to reply, just an ad hoc observation on my part.

Whatever - an impressive content-filled post. Thank you.

" And I thought my 118.77 was good today. "

-----------

Mark - Yep, just rechecked, 118.75 @ 13:34pm