|
Smug git alert !!!
uknighted - 23 Feb'04 - 14:14 - 2417 of 2493
vh Yep I've seen that smug git. He's name's Shakka.
gunnergonk - 23 Feb'04 - 14:40 - 2418 of 2493
some of you will know what im saying when i say ive read the ok and mine are now gone 26259 @ 2.06 piss poor but i cant afford to take up the issue and i have got the best price i could for them therefore minimising my losses.
gunnergonk - 23 Feb'04 - 14:44 - 2419 of 2493
ive lost well over £2k on this but at least i dont have to see it on my portfolio every time i open it.
uknighted - 23 Feb'04 - 14:50 - 2420 of 2493
Gunner
Think positive - a CGT loss to set off against your CGT gains!!
gunnergonk - 23 Feb'04 - 14:52 - 2421 of 2493
yes then ill have no need to keep opening accounts in everyone elses name and those three offshore tax haven accounts can go as i wont be needing them anymore! lol!
gunnergonk - 23 Feb'04 - 14:55 - 2422 of 2493
damn i just realised i bought the condo in my name doh!
gunnergonk - 23 Feb'04 - 15:30 - 2423 of 2493
my trade showed up and they dropped the bid to 1.50p if your gunner make on this offer u better hurry!
JakNife - 23 Feb'04 - 16:04 - 2424 of 2493
Hello gunnergonk, you posted:
"jak, no because the person that was sold the shares has a guarantee that he will have them delivered!"
Perhaps you'd like to take another read of this announcement here:
http://www.uk-wire.com/cgi-bin/articles/200402090700121472V.html
In particular you should note that the EGM to approve the open offer is not due to take place until the 3rd of March.
Given this I am unsure exactly what the "guarantee" is. It seems clear to me that uknighted has sold shares that do not exist and have not yet been approved, which is exactly what the action group has been accusing the MMs of doing.
Don't worry, though, as far as I'm aware this is perfectly legal, as well as being a profitable and sensible trade to execute. I don't know why more of you aren't doing it.
uknighted - 23 Feb'04 - 16:08 - 2425 of 2493
KevinRTaylor aka JakNife
I repeat again
Post 2400 are you registered to give investment advice.
Post 2409 what's the point you are failing to make?
JakNife - 23 Feb'04 - 16:36 - 2426 of 2493
Hello uknighted
My point is obvious enough even for you to understand.
You have sold shares that do not exist and may never exist. This is something that the action group is currently suing the MMs for. By your own standards you are entering into a transaction that has been previously labelled by members of the action group as "immoral", "illegal" and "market abuse". Not so long ago such a transaction would have been called a transaction in "fake shares". It therefore strikes me that your stance on this one is somewhat hypocritical.
But hey, don't worry, as you know I'm firmly in the camp that thinks there is nothing wrong in what you're done - it's only your fellow action group members that would conclude that you've conducted market abuse. Congratulations on a 100% profit.
Re post 2400 - there is no investment advice in it.
uknighted - 23 Feb'04 - 16:40 - 2427 of 2493
KevinRTaylor you have learnt to cut and paste and write - its about time you learnt to read.
My question re: post 2409, despite two requests, remains unanswered.
In case you are deaf: WHAT POINT ARE YOU TRYING TO MAKE IN YOUR POST 2409.
And post 2400 does not contain investment advice. Perhaps if I cut and paste you will understand "Everyone who isn't going to take up their rights under the open offer should do this really, if only to mitigate their losses."
Bobby2424 I have sold my Open Offer rights and still retain my original holding. If I took up the LSE offer I would have lost out on this opportunity!!!!
bobby2424 - 23 Feb'04 - 16:41 - 2428 of 2493
Gunnergonk and uknighted, surely it would have been better for you guys to settle with the LSE? Because what you guys are now doing (selling shares that technically do not exsist (until the 4th March)) is what, as a group, we were saying Shore and EVO were doing.They were also doing it to such an extent that they were artificially distorting the market.However I do appreciate you must mitigate your losses.
uknighted - 23 Feb'04 - 16:49 - 2429 of 2493
Bobby2424 I have edited post 2423 to answer your question, but here it is again.I have sold my Open Offer rights and still retain my original holding. If I took up the LSE offer I would have lost out on this opportunity!!!!
bobby2424 - 23 Feb'04 - 17:10 - 2430 of 2493
uknighted but your open offer rights do not exsist until the 4th MARCH.The same issue that we had with RSV D4E shares that were going to be issued but fell through.
uknighted - 23 Feb'04 - 17:14 - 2431 of 2493
But Bobby2424, it has been explained to me that if I fail to deliver the broker will go out into the market place and buy the shares on my behalf at the market price to close the trade.
I will not be allowed to wait until new shares appear, I will have to suffer the laws of supply and demand. Strange thing is that back in October EVO and others did not have to rely on such basic economic laws.
knitcraft - 23 Feb'04 - 17:15 - 2432 of 2493
What if............they are suspended meantime?
bobby2424 - 23 Feb'04 - 17:20 - 2433 of 2493
Yes ok agreed uknighted thats good enough for me.Yes if EVO and Shore were bound by those rules then we could argue that the market was/or had been regulated.P.s sorry to bang on but I just needed it sorted out in my head (morally that is) cheers.Oh BTW I know I probably sound like Jacko's flunky but I'm not.
uknighted - 23 Feb'04 - 17:22 - 2434 of 2493
Do I have to explain everything to you Knitwit - then I can't deliver can I?
But why would they be suspended - a sudden rush in the market to buy the shares, an escalating price?
This, knitwit, is what is known as "shorting" - I really didn't think I would ever need to explain this to you!!
(Shall we keep it simple, which thread do you want to continue this debate on?)
Bobby2424
"Are you JakNife in disguise?"
JakNife - 23 Feb'04 - 17:27 - 2435 of 2493
Hello uknighted,
I agree with bobby2424, you're doing the very thing that you're suing the MMs for. Not so long ago people on this board would have posted that you were selling "fake shares". I don't see how you'll be able to keep a straight face in court. You've sold shares that don't yet exist. There is a possibility that the shares may even not be issued if the EGM vote goes against you. It therefore strikes me that your stance on this one is somewhat hypocritical.
I had thought that 2400 was clear but given that you appear to want to read something in that isn't there I have made an amendment, which should make it clearer. I apologise if there was any confusion and I am only too happy to make the change to clear this up.
It now says:
"Everyone who isn't going to take up their rights under the open offer should probably do this really, if only to mitigate their losses."
uknighted - 23 Feb'04 - 17:33 - 2436 of 2493
Kevin
I am shorting this share and coincidentally if the EGM approve the Open Offer and it goes through on schedule then I will be able to use that to close my position. If not I will be exposed to the vagaries of the market place. Is that clear enough?
And post 2409 what does that mean for the umpteenth time of asking?
bobby2424 - 23 Feb'04 - 17:37 - 2437 of 2493
Jaknife the issue I have is that after the market makers shorted RSV shares and the shares were suspended.The MM were not made to go back in to the market to buy our shares so that they could be delivered to us ON TIME
vanhalen - 23 Feb'04 - 17:39 - 2438 of 2493
Grey Market !!!
But MM's were caught so badly naked shorting that not enough shares even existed in the grey market to cover their embarrasing predicament :-)
bobby2424 - 23 Feb'04 - 17:43 - 2439 of 2493
Van Halens right it was the scale of their naked shorting that knackered up the market
vanhalen - 23 Feb'04 - 17:45 - 2440 of 2493
Crikey ..... they nearly had us there .... ROFLMAO !!!
JakNife - 23 Feb'04 - 17:46 - 2441 of 2493
Back at 615 here: http://www.advfn.com/cmn/fbb/thread.php3?id=5347451&from=610
uknighted posted
"Post 610 - Brilliant.
Couldn't have put it better myself :-)"
He was basically singing the praises of Anom's post at 610. Part of Anom's post at 610 reads:
"The shares had not been admitted to the Exchange and could not be traded until admission.
You have therefore admitted that the Market Makers BROKE the rules of the Exchange by trading in equities that did not exist and had not been admitted to the Exchange by the Listing Authority.
Congratulations for proving to the world that your employers, the market makers are crooks."
The claim in this post was that trading in shares that hadn't been admitted to AIM was an illegal act.
Today, uknighted has traded in shares that haven't yet been admitted to AIM.
This therefore leaves us in a quandry. Either the post at 610 is wrong and it is not illegal to trade in shares that haven't yet been admitted to AIM, or, post 610 is correct and uknighted has done something illegal.
So is post 610 wrong or not?
JakNife - 23 Feb'04 - 17:52 - 2442 of 2493
Hello bobby2424,
"Van Halens right it was the scale of their naked shorting that knackered up the market"
As you know, I don't agree that what the MMs did was illegal, but as I read your post I'm left with the impression that you're saying is that it's OK to break the law in a small way but not in a big way.
Is that it? You think that the MMs broke the law to a large extent and so should be punished but that uknighted has only broken the law to a small extent and so shouldn't be punished? Or do we all agree at last that selling shares that haven't yet been admitted to AIM is NOT illegal?
uknighted - 23 Feb'04 - 17:53 - 2443 of 2493
No Kevin
I have "shorted" - a common enough practice but only in a very small quantity - probably less than 0.5% not 160% as the MMs did.
If I have done something illegal are you saying that I am a criminal, please clarify?
If I were you I would quit now while you are not too far behind.
JakNife - 23 Feb'04 - 18:13 - 2444 of 2493
Hello uknighted
You seem to be agreeing with me that post 610 is wrong?
knitcraft - 23 Feb'04 - 18:15 - 2445 of 2493
NO ONE is saying you are a criminal, shorting is perfectly legal, ONLY the case you are bringing to court appears to assume it is illegal.The amount or size of the short is totally irrelevant.
bobby2424 - 23 Feb'04 - 18:22 - 2446 of 2493
re post2442 Jaknife I believe that selling shares that do not exsist is wrong.Full stop.Why? Because it creates a 'false market'The fact it was done on a large scale (distorting the market) by the MM.Or on a small scale by retail investors does not matter as in my view it is wrong.Uknighted claims that he would suffer loses if the EGM voted against the rights issue and the offer shares were not delivered to the market.He claims that shares would be bought in the market (at market price)But the RSV shareholders lost out because the market makers were not forced to deliver our shares on time.
knitcraft - 23 Feb'04 - 18:25 - 2447 of 2493
uknighted
Are you one of those guys who actually believes black is white?
JakNife - 23 Feb'04 - 18:27 - 2448 of 2493
Hello bobby2424,
"I believe that selling shares that do not exsist is wrong."
And that's exactly what uknighted has done. For some reason though you seem to want to make an exception to your opinion for him. That seems hyocritical to me.
gunnergonk - 23 Feb'04 - 18:32 - 2449 of 2493
for peoples clarification as some are obviously so blinkered that they read what they want to see and not what is written:
1) today i sold my holding of 26,597 shares at a price of 2.06p.
2) i did not take up the open offer of more shares.
3) i have not shorted or arranged to short anyone.
4) i have not tryed to sell any shares that i did not already own.
if any one decides to say to the contrary again then i will assume as you have now been warned that you wish me to sue you for defamation of character.
bobby2424 - 23 Feb'04 - 18:33 - 2450 of 2493
The exception being because he claims he would have to go back in to the market to buy the shares at the market rate to deliver them ON TIME. Something the MM got away with.
bobby2424 - 23 Feb'04 - 18:35 - 2451 of 2493
Gunnergonk I need to appologise to you. I'm sorry. I though you had done what uknighted had done.I still don't understand why you did n't settle with the LSE??
gunnergonk - 23 Feb'04 - 18:38 - 2452 of 2493
accepted, thankyou bobby, i did not take up the offer as i was told that it would prejudice my rights to go to court.
gunnergonk - 23 Feb'04 - 18:55 - 2453 of 2493
anyway bobby i assumed that when everyone said "lets stick together" and hold firm and dont sell out your rights to the lse offer, me like a prat thought that was genuine, i did not realise that some people would say one thing and do the other!.
greenchair - 23 Feb'04 - 19:06 - 2454 of 2493
gunnergonk> I for one have not sold any of my 20 odd thousand shares. To mitigate my loss I may sell on the morning of my case hearing. Until then I may sell if it reaches 28p. you never know.
Agincourt - 23 Feb'04 - 19:08 - 2455 of 2493
We would like to inform all visitors that the RSV Shareholders Action Group considers a certain poster to be planting false and misleading information deliberately.
We have reported this person to the Financial Services Authority and would like you to be aware that his boring 'cutting and pasting' routine and pseudo-legal arguments are often in error. Our opinion is that this person is a professional de-ramper, representing the Market Makers and is 'fishing' for information to help their case as well as causing discord. The Market Makers performed a serious market abuse on private investors are presently subject of an enforcement investigation by the FSA.
Please do make up your own mind by reviewing the posts. We welcome honest discussion and debate, but not people who can't behave!
bobby2424 - 23 Feb'04 - 19:10 - 2456 of 2493
Yes I sold out to the LSE.My profits for last years trading were tied up in RSV and if I had invested £250 - £1000 I would have fought on but with £4500 tied up I was not going to lose it all.I whimped out I guess.What the Market Makers did was wrong -nakedly shorting shares,shares that did not exsist distorting the share register.I suspect they are still doing it to other shares but because D4E share issues and rights issues get voted through they have no danger of defaulting on their commitments. Even when they do default they are not forced back in to the market to buy back shares. This is because the LSE is not regulated properly.
vanhalen - 23 Feb'04 - 19:15 - 2457 of 2493
Jak .... not posting your email address then :-)
C'mon i want to repost 2358 !!!
ps ... gunner old boy, i'm still holding all mine, along with many many others :-)
Anomalous - 23 Feb'04 - 19:26 - 2458 of 2493
> Gunnergonk
Maybe if Jacko does not apologise to you, we can both sue him for libel.
I'm still waiting for him to apologise for libelling me. I spoke with the lawyers this morning and they are champing at the bit to go after him. It seems that he's dropped himself in it quite badly by accusing me of 'organising a market abuse'.
The lawyers were laughing when they heard what he had done and said it should be quite a swift victory. I expect to extract a huge settlement to go to charity. Preferably five figures. I discussed it with Clem this morning. He said that they would be quite happy to help when the case comes to Court. This happens all the time they said. Good publicity for ADVFN.
Which charity are you going to send Jacko's money to?
vanhalen - 23 Feb'04 - 19:27 - 2459 of 2493
interesting read
THERE'S NO DOUBT that shorts often drive down the prices of thinly traded stocks. The problem is that such stocks often became tempting to shorts only because they are richly priced as a result of manipulation. A good example of that took place in the mid-1990s, when several microcap brokerage firms, including Hanover Sterling & Co., collapsed after shares they had promoted to sky-high levels were attacked by aggressive shorts. Hanover brokers and managers were subsequently imprisoned for stock fraud.
uknighted - 23 Feb'04 - 19:31 - 2460 of 2493
For the record, I did not accept the LSE offer and continue to hold my original (consolidated) holding.
For Knitwits benefit I KNOW black is not white.
For Knitwits benefit and Kevins I have acted above board making my position patently clear with the broker I dealt with and am prepared to accept the consequences of my actions.
I will NOT be doing any covert deals with any third parties if this goes wrong.
If I cannot deliver the shares myself at the appointed time then I will have to go to the market and buy them at the market price at that time, a market price which I have no control over.
I have not sold more shares than are in existance however, I have sold the same number of shares which form part of a Corporate Action. I quote from the Corporate Action Notice sent to me by my broker:
"Shares issued from this Corporate Action will be applied to your account on or around 4th March."
The settlement date for my trade is 15th March 2004.
Interestingly there is no mention of this Corporate Action being subject to any vote - but that is another story!!
vanhalen - 23 Feb'04 - 19:36 - 2461 of 2493
ooops ... sorry ... double post !!!
|
