Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he advised clients before the press release but shares didn't move until the press release? "The clients would have been able to take a position on relevant shares before the market knew. Does that explain it better? It’s called insider trading. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he advised clients before the press release but shares didn't move until the press release?
The clients would have been able to take a position on relevant shares before the market knew. Does that explain it better? It’s called insider trading. "Err no. A position is simply holding shares isn't it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he advised clients before the press release but shares didn't move until the press release?
The clients would have been able to take a position on relevant shares before the market knew. Does that explain it better? It’s called insider trading.
Err no. A position is simply holding shares isn't it? "Err I said take a position not have a position. Having a position is holding shares as you say. Taking a position is buying shares. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he advised clients before the press release but shares didn't move until the press release?
The clients would have been able to take a position on relevant shares before the market knew. Does that explain it better? It’s called insider trading.
Err no. A position is simply holding shares isn't it?
Err I said take a position not have a position. Having a position is holding shares as you say. Taking a position is buying shares. "But you said the market didn't move until the press release. Anyway, I'm sure we'll see him arrested for insider trading just now then  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Source the Sunday times. George Pascoe Watson a lobbyist for Portland group a £15Billion pound company was appointed quietly as an advisor on a government team set up to look at Covid. He worked for free but represents large corporations. He was also able to advise clients and who knows who else of the latest lockdown before it reached the press. Anyone notice how shares moved on that press release. How is that right in anyone’s book. The times calls how the Tories are running this government as a Chumocracy. How very true." You might as well give up. You will never convince certain posters. No matter what, they will refuse to see anything wrong.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Source the Sunday times. George Pascoe Watson a lobbyist for Portland group a £15Billion pound company was appointed quietly as an advisor on a government team set up to look at Covid. He worked for free but represents large corporations. He was also able to advise clients and who knows who else of the latest lockdown before it reached the press. Anyone notice how shares moved on that press release. How is that right in anyone’s book. The times calls how the Tories are running this government as a Chumocracy. How very true. You might as well give up. You will never convince certain posters. No matter what, they will refuse to see anything wrong. "You’re right. Silverback is a lost cause. However those who are not part of the Tory cult and are genuinely open-minded will read this thread with interest. The brainwashed who do t want to see won’t see. Every post that can expose this evil gvt and what’s really happening helps the people with intellectual honesty. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he advised clients before the press release but shares didn't move until the press release?
The clients would have been able to take a position on relevant shares before the market knew. Does that explain it better? It’s called insider trading.
Err no. A position is simply holding shares isn't it?
Err I said take a position not have a position. Having a position is holding shares as you say. Taking a position is buying shares.
But you said the market didn't move until the press release.
Anyway, I'm sure we'll see him arrested for insider trading just now then "You’re being obtuse which is an interesting trait. Feel free to read the article but make sure you have a dictionary handy for the big words! To help you Oxford English Dictionary. : Obtuse . Slow to understand. Not quick or alert in perception. Oh fuck Perception : opinions and beliefs or maybe grasp! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he advised clients before the press release but shares didn't move until the press release?
The clients would have been able to take a position on relevant shares before the market knew. Does that explain it better? It’s called insider trading.
Err no. A position is simply holding shares isn't it?
Err I said take a position not have a position. Having a position is holding shares as you say. Taking a position is buying shares.
But you said the market didn't move until the press release.
Anyway, I'm sure we'll see him arrested for insider trading just now then
You’re being obtuse which is an interesting trait. Feel free to read the article but make sure you have a dictionary handy for the big words!
To help you Oxford English Dictionary. : Obtuse . Slow to understand. Not quick or alert in perception.
Oh fuck
Perception : opinions and beliefs or maybe grasp!
"Pointing out a flaw in your argument is not being obtuse. Now when can we expect to see him arrested for insider trading? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he advised clients before the press release but shares didn't move until the press release?
The clients would have been able to take a position on relevant shares before the market knew. Does that explain it better? It’s called insider trading.
Err no. A position is simply holding shares isn't it?
Err I said take a position not have a position. Having a position is holding shares as you say. Taking a position is buying shares.
But you said the market didn't move until the press release.
Anyway, I'm sure we'll see him arrested for insider trading just now then
You’re being obtuse which is an interesting trait. Feel free to read the article but make sure you have a dictionary handy for the big words!
To help you Oxford English Dictionary. : Obtuse . Slow to understand. Not quick or alert in perception.
Oh fuck
Perception : opinions and beliefs or maybe grasp!
Pointing out a flaw in your argument is not being obtuse.
Now when can we expect to see him arrested for insider trading? "You’re obviously struggling with the concept . He won’t be arrested as he’s not buying any shares. It’s the people he’s shared the information with who are open to the allegation. You were struggling with the concept of holding or taking a position so yes you were obtuse. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Source the Sunday times. George Pascoe Watson a lobbyist for Portland group a £15Billion pound company was appointed quietly as an advisor on a government team set up to look at Covid. He worked for free but represents large corporations. He was also able to advise clients and who knows who else of the latest lockdown before it reached the press. Anyone notice how shares moved on that press release. How is that right in anyone’s book. The times calls how the Tories are running this government as a Chumocracy. How very true." No one can predict how shares will move and quite often movements can be irrational . I would prefer to assume that he has the best interests of the Country at heart. Apart from the fact the people would have to have cash available to buy shares , is there a single bit of evidence that he purchased a single share. The rise in share prices this week is good news for investors and pensioners. However only a fool would buy shares based purely on the impact of a vaccine ( of which the side impacts have yet to be assessed and is not yet approved). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whilst this practice is now more blatant under the Tories it's not exactly new. Yes the Tory disciples tug their forlocks to their betters and say yes m'lord, excusing every increasingly audacious piece of corruption as being ok because that's what the ruling class is allowed to do and they know best, a certain amount of cronyism goes on regardless of the party. Take the examples of the 'Big 4' accountancy firms. Deloitte, Ernst & Young, Price Waterhouse Coopers, and KPMG not only provide governments with inordinate amounts of 'expertise' they are at the same time advising the companies who are bidding for government contracts. They then routinely operate a revolving door policy where they provide (free of charge) consultants to work on secondment to government departments, and also provide lucrative directorships to former ministers and advisors. This sort of corruption isn't new, it's just more brazen under the Tories because they've proven they can treat a significant amount of the electorate like shit and they will still receive their votes." I heard there was a move to break up the big for as a response to their blatantly bias conflicts of interest. Not sure if that’s going anywhere. Those four sign off companies who are blatantly illegally trading in insolvency but never get held to account. Vested interests run riot. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Source the Sunday times. George Pascoe Watson a lobbyist for Portland group a £15Billion pound company was appointed quietly as an advisor on a government team set up to look at Covid. He worked for free but represents large corporations. He was also able to advise clients and who knows who else of the latest lockdown before it reached the press. Anyone notice how shares moved on that press release. How is that right in anyone’s book. The times calls how the Tories are running this government as a Chumocracy. How very true. No one can predict how shares will move and quite often movements can be irrational . I would prefer to assume that he has the best interests of the Country at heart. Apart from the fact the people would have to have cash available to buy shares , is there a single bit of evidence that he purchased a single share. The rise in share prices this week is good news for investors and pensioners. However only a fool would buy shares based purely on the impact of a vaccine ( of which the side impacts have yet to be assessed and is not yet approved). " Why did he release the information before the official government release? He was authorised to do so he claims but why would they allow such a release? You are assuming they will buy shares to keep which is what pension funds do in things like safe utilities. They trade at low risk always. Hundreds of big companies trade on shorts and struggling companies because a quick profit can be made but also you can lose your shirt. It’s high risk. Trading on a government secret is gold dust for a trader. On budget day the press and markets are not allowed to know the chancellors plans in advance to avoid taking advantage of share prices. Knowing what was to be announced in advance would be extremely valuable for traders. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whilst this practice is now more blatant under the Tories it's not exactly new. Yes the Tory disciples tug their forlocks to their betters and say yes m'lord, excusing every increasingly audacious piece of corruption as being ok because that's what the ruling class is allowed to do and they know best, a certain amount of cronyism goes on regardless of the party. Take the examples of the 'Big 4' accountancy firms. Deloitte, Ernst & Young, Price Waterhouse Coopers, and KPMG not only provide governments with inordinate amounts of 'expertise' they are at the same time advising the companies who are bidding for government contracts. They then routinely operate a revolving door policy where they provide (free of charge) consultants to work on secondment to government departments, and also provide lucrative directorships to former ministers and advisors. This sort of corruption isn't new, it's just more brazen under the Tories because they've proven they can treat a significant amount of the electorate like shit and they will still receive their votes. I heard there was a move to break up the big for as a response to their blatantly bias conflicts of interest. Not sure if that’s going anywhere. Those four sign off companies who are blatantly illegally trading in insolvency but never get held to account. Vested interests run riot. " Any qualified accountant signing off the accounts of an insolvent company would be struck off . Events may have changed after the accounts were signed . If you have any supporting evidence of accounts being signed off for insolvent companies, maybe report them to the relevant regulatory organisations. During audits detailed testing is undertaken and solvency tested in detail. The various assumptions made will be outlined in detail in the directors report. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he advised clients before the press release but shares didn't move until the press release?
The clients would have been able to take a position on relevant shares before the market knew. Does that explain it better? It’s called insider trading.
Err no. A position is simply holding shares isn't it?
Err I said take a position not have a position. Having a position is holding shares as you say. Taking a position is buying shares.
But you said the market didn't move until the press release.
Anyway, I'm sure we'll see him arrested for insider trading just now then
You’re being obtuse which is an interesting trait. Feel free to read the article but make sure you have a dictionary handy for the big words!
To help you Oxford English Dictionary. : Obtuse . Slow to understand. Not quick or alert in perception.
Oh fuck
Perception : opinions and beliefs or maybe grasp!
Pointing out a flaw in your argument is not being obtuse.
Now when can we expect to see him arrested for insider trading? "The only thing that you're really pointing out is your lack of understanding of how insider trading works. Nothing will happen over it though because you just have to look at the scale of corruption going on in this Government of ours in procedures broken left right and centre, the blatant favoritisms being shown and the billions involved already that a bit of insider trading is near the bottom of the pile of stench. History will probably one day acknowledge all of this but it'll be far enough into the future to not actually affect anyone involved. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whilst this practice is now more blatant under the Tories it's not exactly new. Yes the Tory disciples tug their forlocks to their betters and say yes m'lord, excusing every increasingly audacious piece of corruption as being ok because that's what the ruling class is allowed to do and they know best, a certain amount of cronyism goes on regardless of the party. Take the examples of the 'Big 4' accountancy firms. Deloitte, Ernst & Young, Price Waterhouse Coopers, and KPMG not only provide governments with inordinate amounts of 'expertise' they are at the same time advising the companies who are bidding for government contracts. They then routinely operate a revolving door policy where they provide (free of charge) consultants to work on secondment to government departments, and also provide lucrative directorships to former ministers and advisors. This sort of corruption isn't new, it's just more brazen under the Tories because they've proven they can treat a significant amount of the electorate like shit and they will still receive their votes. I heard there was a move to break up the big for as a response to their blatantly bias conflicts of interest. Not sure if that’s going anywhere. Those four sign off companies who are blatantly illegally trading in insolvency but never get held to account. Vested interests run riot. Any qualified accountant signing off the accounts of an insolvent company would be struck off . Events may have changed after the accounts were signed . If you have any supporting evidence of accounts being signed off for insolvent companies, maybe report them to the relevant regulatory organisations. During audits detailed testing is undertaken and solvency tested in detail. The various assumptions made will be outlined in detail in the directors report. " Carillon was the most recent where the auditors were blamed along with the directors but didn’t face any action. Will that do? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he advised clients before the press release but shares didn't move until the press release?
The clients would have been able to take a position on relevant shares before the market knew. Does that explain it better? It’s called insider trading.
Err no. A position is simply holding shares isn't it?
Err I said take a position not have a position. Having a position is holding shares as you say. Taking a position is buying shares.
But you said the market didn't move until the press release.
Anyway, I'm sure we'll see him arrested for insider trading just now then
You’re being obtuse which is an interesting trait. Feel free to read the article but make sure you have a dictionary handy for the big words!
To help you Oxford English Dictionary. : Obtuse . Slow to understand. Not quick or alert in perception.
Oh fuck
Perception : opinions and beliefs or maybe grasp!
Pointing out a flaw in your argument is not being obtuse.
Now when can we expect to see him arrested for insider trading?
The only thing that you're really pointing out is your lack of understanding of how insider trading works.
Nothing will happen over it though because you just have to look at the scale of corruption going on in this Government of ours in procedures broken left right and centre, the blatant favoritisms being shown and the billions involved already that a bit of insider trading is near the bottom of the pile of stench.
History will probably one day acknowledge all of this but it'll be far enough into the future to not actually affect anyone involved. "Maybe. But why didn't the share prices jump before the press release? And aren't Portland more pals of Tony Blair than this government? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just dug out an old report In this case EY were the main culprit in encouraging shady practices to show more cash than was true. Result More than 2,000 jobs lost £2.6bn in unfunded pension liabilities with 27,000 members facing reduced pensions £2bn owed to around 30,000 suppliers who will receive little from the liquidation £150m of taxpayer’s money spent to keep services running Total liabilities of around £7bn That didn’t happen overnight. " However if you invest in a company or supply it you have to accept there is a possibility that you will not be paid or lose your entire investment. Life moves on , I lost my entire investment in Carillon. I cam hsrdly blame the auditors, that is a risk which I took. Those losing jobs will simply have got new ones elsewhere so no loss to anyone. Pension liabilities are an issue with many companies, the problem would not be unique to Carillion. You mention 30000 suppliers . That is a large number . I think we can safely assume that some of those suppliers will have undertaken their own credit risk report on Carillion and took the risk to carry on. Any company that was concerned about not being paid has two choices. 1. Pull out of the contract 2. Take out credit risk insurance. It seems odd that if there were 30000 suppliers none foresaw the risks which they were undertaking. Maybe the problem at Carillion was that the margins on contracts were too low. When you refer to cash do you mean cash because in theory that figure is indisputable.? All bank balances will be backed up by audit certificates. Or do you mean assets and liabilities and the matching of costs against revenues and at what point in time the margin on a contract should be taken | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just dug out an old report In this case EY were the main culprit in encouraging shady practices to show more cash than was true. Result More than 2,000 jobs lost £2.6bn in unfunded pension liabilities with 27,000 members facing reduced pensions £2bn owed to around 30,000 suppliers who will receive little from the liquidation £150m of taxpayer’s money spent to keep services running Total liabilities of around £7bn That didn’t happen overnight. However if you invest in a company or supply it you have to accept there is a possibility that you will not be paid or lose your entire investment. Life moves on , I lost my entire investment in Carillon. I cam hsrdly blame the auditors, that is a risk which I took. Those losing jobs will simply have got new ones elsewhere so no loss to anyone. Pension liabilities are an issue with many companies, the problem would not be unique to Carillion. You mention 30000 suppliers . That is a large number . I think we can safely assume that some of those suppliers will have undertaken their own credit risk report on Carillion and took the risk to carry on. Any company that was concerned about not being paid has two choices. 1. Pull out of the contract 2. Take out credit risk insurance. It seems odd that if there were 30000 suppliers none foresaw the risks which they were undertaking. Maybe the problem at Carillion was that the margins on contracts were too low. When you refer to cash do you mean cash because in theory that figure is indisputable.? All bank balances will be backed up by audit certificates. Or do you mean assets and liabilities and the matching of costs against revenues and at what point in time the margin on a contract should be taken " The figures produced by the auditors showed a company which appeared to be far stronger than it was. Insurance and credit check will have been done based on those figures. So that is manipulating the status of the company showing a healthier state than was the case. Tha cash I mentioned is EY suggestion that the creditors payments should be extended to 126days to improve cash at the bank. That is a written fact. The MPs on the select committee in the investigation into Carillion’s collapse wanted more information regarding those creditors debts being moved into the following years account so the snap shot of at bank and liabilities along with the net position looked healthier than the reality. I don’t suppose for one min they will ever get that or it will result in anyone being prosecuted for this as they will tie and investigation up for years . So You just buy shares forget about them and hope for the best or do you watch the company’s performance? So yes I think you can blame the auditors as if you knew Carillon were struggling you could have sold your shares earlier and lost a lot less. That’s the reality of bad information from auditors. How many pension funds got taken down due to the false picture? Blue chip company remember and always a nice safe bet EY said so . As I said that £ 7Billion wasn’t an overnight debt that had taken time to accrue and so would certainly have been visible to an auditor. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Source the Sunday times. George Pascoe Watson a lobbyist for Portland group a £15Billion pound company was appointed quietly as an advisor on a government team set up to look at Covid. He worked for free but represents large corporations. He was also able to advise clients and who knows who else of the latest lockdown before it reached the press. Anyone notice how shares moved on that press release. How is that right in anyone’s book. The times calls how the Tories are running this government as a Chumocracy. How very true. You might as well give up. You will never convince certain posters. No matter what, they will refuse to see anything wrong. "So very true. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whilst this practice is now more blatant under the Tories it's not exactly new. Yes the Tory disciples tug their forlocks to their betters and say yes m'lord, excusing every increasingly audacious piece of corruption as being ok because that's what the ruling class is allowed to do and they know best, a certain amount of cronyism goes on regardless of the party. Take the examples of the 'Big 4' accountancy firms. Deloitte, Ernst & Young, Price Waterhouse Coopers, and KPMG not only provide governments with inordinate amounts of 'expertise' they are at the same time advising the companies who are bidding for government contracts. They then routinely operate a revolving door policy where they provide (free of charge) consultants to work on secondment to government departments, and also provide lucrative directorships to former ministers and advisors. This sort of corruption isn't new, it's just more brazen under the Tories because they've proven they can treat a significant amount of the electorate like shit and they will still receive their votes." Yep but in the eu they get free lunches etc | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just dug out an old report In this case EY were the main culprit in encouraging shady practices to show more cash than was true. Result More than 2,000 jobs lost £2.6bn in unfunded pension liabilities with 27,000 members facing reduced pensions £2bn owed to around 30,000 suppliers who will receive little from the liquidation £150m of taxpayer’s money spent to keep services running Total liabilities of around £7bn That didn’t happen overnight. However if you invest in a company or supply it you have to accept there is a possibility that you will not be paid or lose your entire investment. Life moves on , I lost my entire investment in Carillon. I cam hsrdly blame the auditors, that is a risk which I took. Those losing jobs will simply have got new ones elsewhere so no loss to anyone. Pension liabilities are an issue with many companies, the problem would not be unique to Carillion. You mention 30000 suppliers . That is a large number . I think we can safely assume that some of those suppliers will have undertaken their own credit risk report on Carillion and took the risk to carry on. Any company that was concerned about not being paid has two choices. 1. Pull out of the contract 2. Take out credit risk insurance. It seems odd that if there were 30000 suppliers none foresaw the risks which they were undertaking. Maybe the problem at Carillion was that the margins on contracts were too low. When you refer to cash do you mean cash because in theory that figure is indisputable.? All bank balances will be backed up by audit certificates. Or do you mean assets and liabilities and the matching of costs against revenues and at what point in time the margin on a contract should be taken The figures produced by the auditors showed a company which appeared to be far stronger than it was. Insurance and credit check will have been done based on those figures. So that is manipulating the status of the company showing a healthier state than was the case. Tha cash I mentioned is EY suggestion that the creditors payments should be extended to 126days to improve cash at the bank. That is a written fact. The MPs on the select committee in the investigation into Carillion’s collapse wanted more information regarding those creditors debts being moved into the following years account so the snap shot of at bank and liabilities along with the net position looked healthier than the reality. I don’t suppose for one min they will ever get that or it will result in anyone being prosecuted for this as they will tie and investigation up for years . So You just buy shares forget about them and hope for the best or do you watch the company’s performance? So yes I think you can blame the auditors as if you knew Carillon were struggling you could have sold your shares earlier and lost a lot less. That’s the reality of bad information from auditors. How many pension funds got taken down due to the false picture? Blue chip company remember and always a nice safe bet EY said so . As I said that £ 7Billion wasn’t an overnight debt that had taken time to accrue and so would certainly have been visible to an auditor. " You are arguing with a person who doesnt see a problem with a company being given a contract by a gmnt to build a hospital.Said company doesnt even finish a half arsed job before going bust,and The tax payer bailing them out. Honestly dont bother,life is too short. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just dug out an old report In this case EY were the main culprit in encouraging shady practices to show more cash than was true. Result More than 2,000 jobs lost £2.6bn in unfunded pension liabilities with 27,000 members facing reduced pensions £2bn owed to around 30,000 suppliers who will receive little from the liquidation £150m of taxpayer’s money spent to keep services running Total liabilities of around £7bn That didn’t happen overnight. However if you invest in a company or supply it you have to accept there is a possibility that you will not be paid or lose your entire investment. Life moves on , I lost my entire investment in Carillon. I cam hsrdly blame the auditors, that is a risk which I took. Those losing jobs will simply have got new ones elsewhere so no loss to anyone. Pension liabilities are an issue with many companies, the problem would not be unique to Carillion. You mention 30000 suppliers . That is a large number . I think we can safely assume that some of those suppliers will have undertaken their own credit risk report on Carillion and took the risk to carry on. Any company that was concerned about not being paid has two choices. 1. Pull out of the contract 2. Take out credit risk insurance. It seems odd that if there were 30000 suppliers none foresaw the risks which they were undertaking. Maybe the problem at Carillion was that the margins on contracts were too low. When you refer to cash do you mean cash because in theory that figure is indisputable.? All bank balances will be backed up by audit certificates. Or do you mean assets and liabilities and the matching of costs against revenues and at what point in time the margin on a contract should be taken The figures produced by the auditors showed a company which appeared to be far stronger than it was. Insurance and credit check will have been done based on those figures. So that is manipulating the status of the company showing a healthier state than was the case. Tha cash I mentioned is EY suggestion that the creditors payments should be extended to 126days to improve cash at the bank. That is a written fact. The MPs on the select committee in the investigation into Carillion’s collapse wanted more information regarding those creditors debts being moved into the following years account so the snap shot of at bank and liabilities along with the net position looked healthier than the reality. I don’t suppose for one min they will ever get that or it will result in anyone being prosecuted for this as they will tie and investigation up for years . So You just buy shares forget about them and hope for the best or do you watch the company’s performance? So yes I think you can blame the auditors as if you knew Carillon were struggling you could have sold your shares earlier and lost a lot less. That’s the reality of bad information from auditors. How many pension funds got taken down due to the false picture? Blue chip company remember and always a nice safe bet EY said so . As I said that £ 7Billion wasn’t an overnight debt that had taken time to accrue and so would certainly have been visible to an auditor. " Hello. I fail to understand the correlation between between cash at bank and extending creditors payments to 126 days The cash at bank will be fixed at a specific point in time and backed up by audit certificates and bank statements. These facts are indisputable and will be disclosed in the accounts and on the companies bank accounts on a daily basis . Do you not mean that payment terms to suppliers were extended to 126 days in an attempt to improve company liquidity/ cash flow. ? . Liabilities as disclosed on the balance sheet are not cash but have to be paid eventually. In the example to which you refer payment terms were simply extended to preserve the cash flow of Carillion. Most suppliers if they had the choice between being paid late or risk a company going into liquidation would opt for late payment. Any supplier concerned about losing money could have insured their debt. Audits are simply a snap shot of a company's position at a point in time . It is up to suppliers to carry out their own risk assessment. There are also varies caveats attached to the purpose for which reports should be used. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just dug out an old report In this case EY were the main culprit in encouraging shady practices to show more cash than was true. Result More than 2,000 jobs lost £2.6bn in unfunded pension liabilities with 27,000 members facing reduced pensions £2bn owed to around 30,000 suppliers who will receive little from the liquidation £150m of taxpayer’s money spent to keep services running Total liabilities of around £7bn That didn’t happen overnight. However if you invest in a company or supply it you have to accept there is a possibility that you will not be paid or lose your entire investment. Life moves on , I lost my entire investment in Carillon. I cam hsrdly blame the auditors, that is a risk which I took. Those losing jobs will simply have got new ones elsewhere so no loss to anyone. Pension liabilities are an issue with many companies, the problem would not be unique to Carillion. You mention 30000 suppliers . That is a large number . I think we can safely assume that some of those suppliers will have undertaken their own credit risk report on Carillion and took the risk to carry on. Any company that was concerned about not being paid has two choices. 1. Pull out of the contract 2. Take out credit risk insurance. It seems odd that if there were 30000 suppliers none foresaw the risks which they were undertaking. Maybe the problem at Carillion was that the margins on contracts were too low. When you refer to cash do you mean cash because in theory that figure is indisputable.? All bank balances will be backed up by audit certificates. Or do you mean assets and liabilities and the matching of costs against revenues and at what point in time the margin on a contract should be taken The figures produced by the auditors showed a company which appeared to be far stronger than it was. Insurance and credit check will have been done based on those figures. So that is manipulating the status of the company showing a healthier state than was the case. Tha cash I mentioned is EY suggestion that the creditors payments should be extended to 126days to improve cash at the bank. That is a written fact. The MPs on the select committee in the investigation into Carillion’s collapse wanted more information regarding those creditors debts being moved into the following years account so the snap shot of at bank and liabilities along with the net position looked healthier than the reality. I don’t suppose for one min they will ever get that or it will result in anyone being prosecuted for this as they will tie and investigation up for years . So You just buy shares forget about them and hope for the best or do you watch the company’s performance? So yes I think you can blame the auditors as if you knew Carillon were struggling you could have sold your shares earlier and lost a lot less. That’s the reality of bad information from auditors. How many pension funds got taken down due to the false picture? Blue chip company remember and always a nice safe bet EY said so . As I said that £ 7Billion wasn’t an overnight debt that had taken time to accrue and so would certainly have been visible to an auditor. You are arguing with a person who doesnt see a problem with a company being given a contract by a gmnt to build a hospital.Said company doesnt even finish a half arsed job before going bust,and The tax payer bailing them out. Honestly dont bother,life is too short."  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just dug out an old report In this case EY were the main culprit in encouraging shady practices to show more cash than was true. Result More than 2,000 jobs lost £2.6bn in unfunded pension liabilities with 27,000 members facing reduced pensions £2bn owed to around 30,000 suppliers who will receive little from the liquidation £150m of taxpayer’s money spent to keep services running Total liabilities of around £7bn That didn’t happen overnight. However if you invest in a company or supply it you have to accept there is a possibility that you will not be paid or lose your entire investment. Life moves on , I lost my entire investment in Carillon. I cam hsrdly blame the auditors, that is a risk which I took. Those losing jobs will simply have got new ones elsewhere so no loss to anyone. Pension liabilities are an issue with many companies, the problem would not be unique to Carillion. You mention 30000 suppliers . That is a large number . I think we can safely assume that some of those suppliers will have undertaken their own credit risk report on Carillion and took the risk to carry on. Any company that was concerned about not being paid has two choices. 1. Pull out of the contract 2. Take out credit risk insurance. It seems odd that if there were 30000 suppliers none foresaw the risks which they were undertaking. Maybe the problem at Carillion was that the margins on contracts were too low. When you refer to cash do you mean cash because in theory that figure is indisputable.? All bank balances will be backed up by audit certificates. Or do you mean assets and liabilities and the matching of costs against revenues and at what point in time the margin on a contract should be taken The figures produced by the auditors showed a company which appeared to be far stronger than it was. Insurance and credit check will have been done based on those figures. So that is manipulating the status of the company showing a healthier state than was the case. Tha cash I mentioned is EY suggestion that the creditors payments should be extended to 126days to improve cash at the bank. That is a written fact. The MPs on the select committee in the investigation into Carillion’s collapse wanted more information regarding those creditors debts being moved into the following years account so the snap shot of at bank and liabilities along with the net position looked healthier than the reality. I don’t suppose for one min they will ever get that or it will result in anyone being prosecuted for this as they will tie and investigation up for years . So You just buy shares forget about them and hope for the best or do you watch the company’s performance? So yes I think you can blame the auditors as if you knew Carillon were struggling you could have sold your shares earlier and lost a lot less. That’s the reality of bad information from auditors. How many pension funds got taken down due to the false picture? Blue chip company remember and always a nice safe bet EY said so . As I said that £ 7Billion wasn’t an overnight debt that had taken time to accrue and so would certainly have been visible to an auditor. You are arguing with a person who doesnt see a problem with a company being given a contract by a gmnt to build a hospital.Said company doesnt even finish a half arsed job before going bust,and The tax payer bailing them out. Honestly dont bother,life is too short." . As the contact would be based on stage payments , only the value of the work undertaken would be paid to Carillion ( or the liquidators who would collect post liquidation debts ). The payments to other contractors to finish work would have to be paid regardless of whom undertook the finished job so it is difficult to see if any real losses are involved ( just minor disruption in the building programme) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whilst this practice is now more blatant under the Tories it's not exactly new. Yes the Tory disciples tug their forlocks to their betters and say yes m'lord, excusing every increasingly audacious piece of corruption as being ok because that's what the ruling class is allowed to do and they know best, a certain amount of cronyism goes on regardless of the party. Take the examples of the 'Big 4' accountancy firms. Deloitte, Ernst & Young, Price Waterhouse Coopers, and KPMG not only provide governments with inordinate amounts of 'expertise' they are at the same time advising the companies who are bidding for government contracts. They then routinely operate a revolving door policy where they provide (free of charge) consultants to work on secondment to government departments, and also provide lucrative directorships to former ministers and advisors. This sort of corruption isn't new, it's just more brazen under the Tories because they've proven they can treat a significant amount of the electorate like shit and they will still receive their votes. I heard there was a move to break up the big for as a response to their blatantly bias conflicts of interest. Not sure if that’s going anywhere. Those four sign off companies who are blatantly illegally trading in insolvency but never get held to account. Vested interests run riot. Any qualified accountant signing off the accounts of an insolvent company would be struck off . Events may have changed after the accounts were signed . If you have any supporting evidence of accounts being signed off for insolvent companies, maybe report them to the relevant regulatory organisations. During audits detailed testing is undertaken and solvency tested in detail. The various assumptions made will be outlined in detail in the directors report. " Ahahaha seriously? What happened to Deloitte after RBS? What happened to KPMG after New Century and Fannie Mae? What happened to PwC after Northern Rock? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just dug out an old report In this case EY were the main culprit in encouraging shady practices to show more cash than was true. Result More than 2,000 jobs lost £2.6bn in unfunded pension liabilities with 27,000 members facing reduced pensions £2bn owed to around 30,000 suppliers who will receive little from the liquidation £150m of taxpayer’s money spent to keep services running Total liabilities of around £7bn That didn’t happen overnight. However if you invest in a company or supply it you have to accept there is a possibility that you will not be paid or lose your entire investment. Life moves on , I lost my entire investment in Carillon. I cam hsrdly blame the auditors, that is a risk which I took. Those losing jobs will simply have got new ones elsewhere so no loss to anyone. Pension liabilities are an issue with many companies, the problem would not be unique to Carillion. You mention 30000 suppliers . That is a large number . I think we can safely assume that some of those suppliers will have undertaken their own credit risk report on Carillion and took the risk to carry on. Any company that was concerned about not being paid has two choices. 1. Pull out of the contract 2. Take out credit risk insurance. It seems odd that if there were 30000 suppliers none foresaw the risks which they were undertaking. Maybe the problem at Carillion was that the margins on contracts were too low. When you refer to cash do you mean cash because in theory that figure is indisputable.? All bank balances will be backed up by audit certificates. Or do you mean assets and liabilities and the matching of costs against revenues and at what point in time the margin on a contract should be taken The figures produced by the auditors showed a company which appeared to be far stronger than it was. Insurance and credit check will have been done based on those figures. So that is manipulating the status of the company showing a healthier state than was the case. Tha cash I mentioned is EY suggestion that the creditors payments should be extended to 126days to improve cash at the bank. That is a written fact. The MPs on the select committee in the investigation into Carillion’s collapse wanted more information regarding those creditors debts being moved into the following years account so the snap shot of at bank and liabilities along with the net position looked healthier than the reality. I don’t suppose for one min they will ever get that or it will result in anyone being prosecuted for this as they will tie and investigation up for years . So You just buy shares forget about them and hope for the best or do you watch the company’s performance? So yes I think you can blame the auditors as if you knew Carillon were struggling you could have sold your shares earlier and lost a lot less. That’s the reality of bad information from auditors. How many pension funds got taken down due to the false picture? Blue chip company remember and always a nice safe bet EY said so . As I said that £ 7Billion wasn’t an overnight debt that had taken time to accrue and so would certainly have been visible to an auditor. Hello. I fail to understand the correlation between between cash at bank and extending creditors payments to 126 days The cash at bank will be fixed at a specific point in time and backed up by audit certificates and bank statements. These facts are indisputable and will be disclosed in the accounts and on the companies bank accounts on a daily basis . Do you not mean that payment terms to suppliers were extended to 126 days in an attempt to improve company liquidity/ cash flow. ? . Liabilities as disclosed on the balance sheet are not cash but have to be paid eventually. In the example to which you refer payment terms were simply extended to preserve the cash flow of Carillion. Most suppliers if they had the choice between being paid late or risk a company going into liquidation would opt for late payment. Any supplier concerned about losing money could have insured their debt. Audits are simply a snap shot of a company's position at a point in time . It is up to suppliers to carry out their own risk assessment. There are also varies caveats attached to the purpose for which reports should be used. " The caveats avoid blame in every way don’t they. I’m inferring as are the MPs looking into this that the audit didn’t include money owed which as you know is early illegal. That’s the point. A supposedly healthy company suddenly had £7Billion net position. I’ve gone through enough audits to know what is and isn’t included thanks. If the snapshot isn’t true the credit checks are pointless as you also know. No companies agree credit on an insolvent company and you certainly won’t get insurance. They won’t want to increase their debt.knowing the company can’t pay. They would want a payment plan to reduce the debt whilst possibly agreeing any further work. I’ve been involved in situations where a company was struggling and insisted on payment plans to reduce their debts while keeping the client trading. Only once was the company sadly insolvent and this needed myself and a few other creditors to inject cash to keep the company going for another year. A director had stolen money and run off so the older partner was in a mess. He was a nice guy so we wanted to help and of course get our cash. The Carillion creditors did not have a choice on extended payments or any payments unless their supplies were critical such as fuel. And now back to the OP if that’s ok with you on why was a lobbyist included in sensitive information and allowed to release said information. To the market. He was not paid so probably not covered under any contract so we must assume official secrets was used. If that’s the case then again why was he allowed to circumvent. It’s stinks of a pals arrangement yet again . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he advised clients before the press release but shares didn't move until the press release?
The clients would have been able to take a position on relevant shares before the market knew. Does that explain it better? It’s called insider trading.
Err no. A position is simply holding shares isn't it?
Err I said take a position not have a position. Having a position is holding shares as you say. Taking a position is buying shares.
But you said the market didn't move until the press release.
Anyway, I'm sure we'll see him arrested for insider trading just now then
You’re being obtuse which is an interesting trait. Feel free to read the article but make sure you have a dictionary handy for the big words!
To help you Oxford English Dictionary. : Obtuse . Slow to understand. Not quick or alert in perception.
Oh fuck
Perception : opinions and beliefs or maybe grasp!
Pointing out a flaw in your argument is not being obtuse.
Now when can we expect to see him arrested for insider trading?
The only thing that you're really pointing out is your lack of understanding of how insider trading works.
Nothing will happen over it though because you just have to look at the scale of corruption going on in this Government of ours in procedures broken left right and centre, the blatant favoritisms being shown and the billions involved already that a bit of insider trading is near the bottom of the pile of stench.
History will probably one day acknowledge all of this but it'll be far enough into the future to not actually affect anyone involved.
Maybe. But why didn't the share prices jump before the press release? And aren't Portland more pals of Tony Blair than this government? "I don't know the details of this issue, just saying what can constitute insider trading. Share prices don't start to rise significantly when a small amount of investors start taking up positions quietly before news is to be released that then generates enough market activity and the general scramble for shares starts, then the price starts to rise but the jobs done then for the ones already in position who knew what announcement was coming. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he advised clients before the press release but shares didn't move until the press release?
The clients would have been able to take a position on relevant shares before the market knew. Does that explain it better? It’s called insider trading.
Err no. A position is simply holding shares isn't it?
Err I said take a position not have a position. Having a position is holding shares as you say. Taking a position is buying shares.
But you said the market didn't move until the press release.
Anyway, I'm sure we'll see him arrested for insider trading just now then
You’re being obtuse which is an interesting trait. Feel free to read the article but make sure you have a dictionary handy for the big words!
To help you Oxford English Dictionary. : Obtuse . Slow to understand. Not quick or alert in perception.
Oh fuck
Perception : opinions and beliefs or maybe grasp!
Pointing out a flaw in your argument is not being obtuse.
Now when can we expect to see him arrested for insider trading?
The only thing that you're really pointing out is your lack of understanding of how insider trading works.
Nothing will happen over it though because you just have to look at the scale of corruption going on in this Government of ours in procedures broken left right and centre, the blatant favoritisms being shown and the billions involved already that a bit of insider trading is near the bottom of the pile of stench.
History will probably one day acknowledge all of this but it'll be far enough into the future to not actually affect anyone involved.
Maybe. But why didn't the share prices jump before the press release? And aren't Portland more pals of Tony Blair than this government?
I don't know the details of this issue, just saying what can constitute insider trading.
Share prices don't start to rise significantly when a small amount of investors start taking up positions quietly before news is to be released that then generates enough market activity and the general scramble for shares starts, then the price starts to rise but the jobs done then for the ones already in position who knew what announcement was coming. "Thank you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he advised clients before the press release but shares didn't move until the press release?
The clients would have been able to take a position on relevant shares before the market knew. Does that explain it better? It’s called insider trading. "When you say take a position do you have any evidence to suggest that anyone attempted to take a position or is that simply speculation. I cannot see many ( if any ) reputable people risk losing their job for making a few quid by taking a position. In any event the movement in the stock market on the day concerned was entirely unpredictable. ( even with the announcement of a vaccine which has yet to be approved). A data mining exercise would quickly identify any suspect trading on the days concerned. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Source the Sunday times. George Pascoe Watson a lobbyist for Portland group a £15Billion pound company was appointed quietly as an advisor on a government team set up to look at Covid. He worked for free but represents large corporations. He was also able to advise clients and who knows who else of the latest lockdown before it reached the press. Anyone notice how shares moved on that press release. How is that right in anyone’s book. The times calls how the Tories are running this government as a Chumocracy. How very true." Well I hope those who voted tory feel good about themselves. I hope your feeling keep you warm this winter. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whilst this practice is now more blatant under the Tories it's not exactly new. Yes the Tory disciples tug their forlocks to their betters and say yes m'lord, excusing every increasingly audacious piece of corruption as being ok because that's what the ruling class is allowed to do and they know best, a certain amount of cronyism goes on regardless of the party. Take the examples of the 'Big 4' accountancy firms. Deloitte, Ernst & Young, Price Waterhouse Coopers, and KPMG not only provide governments with inordinate amounts of 'expertise' they are at the same time advising the companies who are bidding for government contracts. They then routinely operate a revolving door policy where they provide (free of charge) consultants to work on secondment to government departments, and also provide lucrative directorships to former ministers and advisors. This sort of corruption isn't new, it's just more brazen under the Tories because they've proven they can treat a significant amount of the electorate like shit and they will still receive their votes. I heard there was a move to break up the big for as a response to their blatantly bias conflicts of interest. Not sure if that’s going anywhere. Those four sign off companies who are blatantly illegally trading in insolvency but never get held to account. Vested interests run riot. Any qualified accountant signing off the accounts of an insolvent company would be struck off . Events may have changed after the accounts were signed . If you have any supporting evidence of accounts being signed off for insolvent companies, maybe report them to the relevant regulatory organisations. During audits detailed testing is undertaken and solvency tested in detail. The various assumptions made will be outlined in detail in the directors report. Ahahaha seriously? What happened to Deloitte after RBS? What happened to KPMG after New Century and Fannie Mae? What happened to PwC after Northern Rock?" If you are concerned about losses incurred maybe chase those who defaulted on loans . As most mortgage deeds will be prepared / reviewed by solicitors , maybe blame the legal profession for not foreseeing difficulties . Auditors simply sign off a snap shot of a companies position at a point in time and there are numerous caveats attached to the purposes for which an audit report may be used . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he advised clients before the press release but shares didn't move until the press release?
The clients would have been able to take a position on relevant shares before the market knew. Does that explain it better? It’s called insider trading. When you say take a position do you have any evidence to suggest that anyone attempted to take a position or is that simply speculation. I cannot see many ( if any ) reputable people risk losing their job for making a few quid by taking a position.
In any event the movement in the stock market on the day concerned was entirely unpredictable. ( even with the announcement of a vaccine which has yet to be approved).
A data mining exercise would quickly identify any suspect trading on the days concerned. "Reputable people that’s funny.. They take risks daily with their jobs and any verbal rumours that leak out can start a stampede for shares. You have a very naive view on trading. I tripled my money on a company called Valaris this year as they were heading for bankruptcy. The shares were originally trading in the £60 area but when the rumours of trouble got louder the shares dropped to 30p. That’s when I bought. True enough as I suspected a rumour of a take over sent the shares to 72p I sold. The rumour mill went quiet the shares dropped to around 20p I bought again and sold around 54p region after another desperate rumour. This I repeated one more time before getting out . The shares were suspended from trading at 33p. The company was taken over in a closed debt share deal. Rumours drive a good profit or loss for traders every day. If I knew the Kuwait government was planning a rescue takeover deal a few days ahead of anyone else I would have thrown a fortune at those shares knowing they would go into the stratosphere. Knowing a business deal in advance on a vaccine for possibly treating the world is gold dust to traders. The guy who owns the company responsible has had his net worth go up €15Billion. The rest of that growth on any remaining company shares if there were any traded publicly would have been made by traders. Knowing the good news in advance would be very predictable on shares. That’s simplistic stuff you can’t disagree with. Saying it’s unpredictable is nonsense. Prove someone had prior knowledge of a share uplift and you would have half of the city in jail ha ha. I don’t have any evidence Putin was behind the Russian takeover of Ukraine but I’m pretty certain that he did. Or do you wish to blame someone else? The principle of prior knowledge that was disclosed is the whole point of the post not the investigating ability of The City of London police. You are distracting from the point yet again to try and win an argument. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he advised clients before the press release but shares didn't move until the press release?
The clients would have been able to take a position on relevant shares before the market knew. Does that explain it better? It’s called insider trading. When you say take a position do you have any evidence to suggest that anyone attempted to take a position or is that simply speculation. I cannot see many ( if any ) reputable people risk losing their job for making a few quid by taking a position.
In any event the movement in the stock market on the day concerned was entirely unpredictable. ( even with the announcement of a vaccine which has yet to be approved).
A data mining exercise would quickly identify any suspect trading on the days concerned.
Reputable people that’s funny.. They take risks daily with their jobs and any verbal rumours that leak out can start a stampede for shares. You have a very naive view on trading.
I tripled my money on a company called Valaris this year as they were heading for bankruptcy.
The shares were originally trading in the £60 area but when the rumours of trouble got louder the shares dropped to 30p. That’s when I bought. True enough as I suspected a rumour of a take over sent the shares to 72p I sold. The rumour mill went quiet the shares dropped to around 20p I bought again and sold around 54p region after another desperate rumour.
This I repeated one more time before getting out . The shares were suspended from trading at 33p.
The company was taken over in a closed debt share deal.
Rumours drive a good profit or loss for traders every day.
If I knew the Kuwait government was planning a rescue takeover deal a few days ahead of anyone else I would have thrown a fortune at those shares knowing they would go into the stratosphere.
Knowing a business deal in advance on a vaccine for possibly treating the world is gold dust to traders. The guy who owns the company responsible has had his net worth go up €15Billion. The rest of that growth on any remaining company shares if there were any traded publicly would have been made by traders. Knowing the good news in advance would be very predictable on shares. That’s simplistic stuff you can’t disagree with. Saying it’s unpredictable is nonsense.
Prove someone had prior knowledge of a share uplift and you would have half of the city in jail ha ha.
I don’t have any evidence Putin was behind the Russian takeover of Ukraine but I’m pretty certain that he did. Or do you wish to blame someone else? The principle of prior knowledge that was disclosed is the whole point of the post not the investigating ability of The City of London police.
You are distracting from the point yet again to try and win an argument.
"I thought the point of this post was to knock the government? And I don't know why that guy in particular was appointed but aren't Portland more chums of the Labour Party? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he advised clients before the press release but shares didn't move until the press release?
The clients would have been able to take a position on relevant shares before the market knew. Does that explain it better? It’s called insider trading. When you say take a position do you have any evidence to suggest that anyone attempted to take a position or is that simply speculation. I cannot see many ( if any ) reputable people risk losing their job for making a few quid by taking a position.
In any event the movement in the stock market on the day concerned was entirely unpredictable. ( even with the announcement of a vaccine which has yet to be approved).
A data mining exercise would quickly identify any suspect trading on the days concerned.
Reputable people that’s funny.. They take risks daily with their jobs and any verbal rumours that leak out can start a stampede for shares. You have a very naive view on trading.
I tripled my money on a company called Valaris this year as they were heading for bankruptcy.
The shares were originally trading in the £60 area but when the rumours of trouble got louder the shares dropped to 30p. That’s when I bought. True enough as I suspected a rumour of a take over sent the shares to 72p I sold. The rumour mill went quiet the shares dropped to around 20p I bought again and sold around 54p region after another desperate rumour.
This I repeated one more time before getting out . The shares were suspended from trading at 33p.
The company was taken over in a closed debt share deal.
Rumours drive a good profit or loss for traders every day.
If I knew the Kuwait government was planning a rescue takeover deal a few days ahead of anyone else I would have thrown a fortune at those shares knowing they would go into the stratosphere.
Knowing a business deal in advance on a vaccine for possibly treating the world is gold dust to traders. The guy who owns the company responsible has had his net worth go up €15Billion. The rest of that growth on any remaining company shares if there were any traded publicly would have been made by traders. Knowing the good news in advance would be very predictable on shares. That’s simplistic stuff you can’t disagree with. Saying it’s unpredictable is nonsense.
Prove someone had prior knowledge of a share uplift and you would have half of the city in jail ha ha.
I don’t have any evidence Putin was behind the Russian takeover of Ukraine but I’m pretty certain that he did. Or do you wish to blame someone else? The principle of prior knowledge that was disclosed is the whole point of the post not the investigating ability of The City of London police.
You are distracting from the point yet again to try and win an argument.
I thought the point of this post was to knock the government? And I don't know why that guy in particular was appointed but aren't Portland more chums of the Labour Party? "Whataboutery at its finest! 
The point is that the chumocracy of Bojo and his pals uses unpaid specialists to drive through unpalatable ideas precisely because the only person they can answer to is him. Doing it from the goodness of ones heart is I am afraid bollocks. Whether they are earning brownie points towards a obe etc or passing information to their buddies depends on your view of how competent this government is. Personally I think they are incompetent and mendacious but what do I know? I am just a saddo posting my pov about the state of the nation on a sex site! Lmao again!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he advised clients before the press release but shares didn't move until the press release?
The clients would have been able to take a position on relevant shares before the market knew. Does that explain it better? It’s called insider trading. When you say take a position do you have any evidence to suggest that anyone attempted to take a position or is that simply speculation. I cannot see many ( if any ) reputable people risk losing their job for making a few quid by taking a position.
In any event the movement in the stock market on the day concerned was entirely unpredictable. ( even with the announcement of a vaccine which has yet to be approved).
A data mining exercise would quickly identify any suspect trading on the days concerned.
Reputable people that’s funny.. They take risks daily with their jobs and any verbal rumours that leak out can start a stampede for shares. You have a very naive view on trading.
I tripled my money on a company called Valaris this year as they were heading for bankruptcy.
The shares were originally trading in the £60 area but when the rumours of trouble got louder the shares dropped to 30p. That’s when I bought. True enough as I suspected a rumour of a take over sent the shares to 72p I sold. The rumour mill went quiet the shares dropped to around 20p I bought again and sold around 54p region after another desperate rumour.
This I repeated one more time before getting out . The shares were suspended from trading at 33p.
The company was taken over in a closed debt share deal.
Rumours drive a good profit or loss for traders every day.
If I knew the Kuwait government was planning a rescue takeover deal a few days ahead of anyone else I would have thrown a fortune at those shares knowing they would go into the stratosphere.
Knowing a business deal in advance on a vaccine for possibly treating the world is gold dust to traders. The guy who owns the company responsible has had his net worth go up €15Billion. The rest of that growth on any remaining company shares if there were any traded publicly would have been made by traders. Knowing the good news in advance would be very predictable on shares. That’s simplistic stuff you can’t disagree with. Saying it’s unpredictable is nonsense.
Prove someone had prior knowledge of a share uplift and you would have half of the city in jail ha ha.
I don’t have any evidence Putin was behind the Russian takeover of Ukraine but I’m pretty certain that he did. Or do you wish to blame someone else? The principle of prior knowledge that was disclosed is the whole point of the post not the investigating ability of The City of London police.
You are distracting from the point yet again to try and win an argument.
I thought the point of this post was to knock the government? And I don't know why that guy in particular was appointed but aren't Portland more chums of the Labour Party?
Whataboutery at its finest!
The point is that the chumocracy of Bojo and his pals uses unpaid specialists to drive through unpalatable ideas precisely because the only person they can answer to is him. Doing it from the goodness of ones heart is I am afraid bollocks. Whether they are earning brownie points towards a obe etc or passing information to their buddies depends on your view of how competent this government is. Personally I think they are incompetent and mendacious but what do I know? I am just a saddo posting my pov about the state of the nation on a sex site! Lmao again! "I suspect there is much more going on behind the scenes but yadda yadda something about diane Abbott and you are wasting your time. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he advised clients before the press release but shares didn't move until the press release?
The clients would have been able to take a position on relevant shares before the market knew. Does that explain it better? It’s called insider trading. When you say take a position do you have any evidence to suggest that anyone attempted to take a position or is that simply speculation. I cannot see many ( if any ) reputable people risk losing their job for making a few quid by taking a position.
In any event the movement in the stock market on the day concerned was entirely unpredictable. ( even with the announcement of a vaccine which has yet to be approved).
A data mining exercise would quickly identify any suspect trading on the days concerned.
Reputable people that’s funny.. They take risks daily with their jobs and any verbal rumours that leak out can start a stampede for shares. You have a very naive view on trading.
I tripled my money on a company called Valaris this year as they were heading for bankruptcy.
The shares were originally trading in the £60 area but when the rumours of trouble got louder the shares dropped to 30p. That’s when I bought. True enough as I suspected a rumour of a take over sent the shares to 72p I sold. The rumour mill went quiet the shares dropped to around 20p I bought again and sold around 54p region after another desperate rumour.
This I repeated one more time before getting out . The shares were suspended from trading at 33p.
The company was taken over in a closed debt share deal.
Rumours drive a good profit or loss for traders every day.
If I knew the Kuwait government was planning a rescue takeover deal a few days ahead of anyone else I would have thrown a fortune at those shares knowing they would go into the stratosphere.
Knowing a business deal in advance on a vaccine for possibly treating the world is gold dust to traders. The guy who owns the company responsible has had his net worth go up €15Billion. The rest of that growth on any remaining company shares if there were any traded publicly would have been made by traders. Knowing the good news in advance would be very predictable on shares. That’s simplistic stuff you can’t disagree with. Saying it’s unpredictable is nonsense.
Prove someone had prior knowledge of a share uplift and you would have half of the city in jail ha ha.
I don’t have any evidence Putin was behind the Russian takeover of Ukraine but I’m pretty certain that he did. Or do you wish to blame someone else? The principle of prior knowledge that was disclosed is the whole point of the post not the investigating ability of The City of London police.
You are distracting from the point yet again to try and win an argument.
I thought the point of this post was to knock the government? And I don't know why that guy in particular was appointed but aren't Portland more chums of the Labour Party? "Portland is a £15 Billion pound company. Not sure they need to favour anyone. They are lobbyists and try to change policy for the benefit of their global clients. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he advised clients before the press release but shares didn't move until the press release?
The clients would have been able to take a position on relevant shares before the market knew. Does that explain it better? It’s called insider trading. When you say take a position do you have any evidence to suggest that anyone attempted to take a position or is that simply speculation. I cannot see many ( if any ) reputable people risk losing their job for making a few quid by taking a position.
In any event the movement in the stock market on the day concerned was entirely unpredictable. ( even with the announcement of a vaccine which has yet to be approved).
A data mining exercise would quickly identify any suspect trading on the days concerned.
Reputable people that’s funny.. They take risks daily with their jobs and any verbal rumours that leak out can start a stampede for shares. You have a very naive view on trading.
I tripled my money on a company called Valaris this year as they were heading for bankruptcy.
The shares were originally trading in the £60 area but when the rumours of trouble got louder the shares dropped to 30p. That’s when I bought. True enough as I suspected a rumour of a take over sent the shares to 72p I sold. The rumour mill went quiet the shares dropped to around 20p I bought again and sold around 54p region after another desperate rumour.
This I repeated one more time before getting out . The shares were suspended from trading at 33p.
The company was taken over in a closed debt share deal.
Rumours drive a good profit or loss for traders every day.
If I knew the Kuwait government was planning a rescue takeover deal a few days ahead of anyone else I would have thrown a fortune at those shares knowing they would go into the stratosphere.
Knowing a business deal in advance on a vaccine for possibly treating the world is gold dust to traders. The guy who owns the company responsible has had his net worth go up €15Billion. The rest of that growth on any remaining company shares if there were any traded publicly would have been made by traders. Knowing the good news in advance would be very predictable on shares. That’s simplistic stuff you can’t disagree with. Saying it’s unpredictable is nonsense.
Prove someone had prior knowledge of a share uplift and you would have half of the city in jail ha ha.
I don’t have any evidence Putin was behind the Russian takeover of Ukraine but I’m pretty certain that he did. Or do you wish to blame someone else? The principle of prior knowledge that was disclosed is the whole point of the post not the investigating ability of The City of London police.
You are distracting from the point yet again to try and win an argument.
I thought the point of this post was to knock the government? And I don't know why that guy in particular was appointed but aren't Portland more chums of the Labour Party?
Portland is a £15 Billion pound company. Not sure they need to favour anyone. They are lobbyists and try to change policy for the benefit of their global clients. "What, with people like the dodgy EU commission? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he advised clients before the press release but shares didn't move until the press release?
The clients would have been able to take a position on relevant shares before the market knew. Does that explain it better? It’s called insider trading. When you say take a position do you have any evidence to suggest that anyone attempted to take a position or is that simply speculation. I cannot see many ( if any ) reputable people risk losing their job for making a few quid by taking a position.
In any event the movement in the stock market on the day concerned was entirely unpredictable. ( even with the announcement of a vaccine which has yet to be approved).
A data mining exercise would quickly identify any suspect trading on the days concerned.
Reputable people that’s funny.. They take risks daily with their jobs and any verbal rumours that leak out can start a stampede for shares. You have a very naive view on trading.
I tripled my money on a company called Valaris this year as they were heading for bankruptcy.
The shares were originally trading in the £60 area but when the rumours of trouble got louder the shares dropped to 30p. That’s when I bought. True enough as I suspected a rumour of a take over sent the shares to 72p I sold. The rumour mill went quiet the shares dropped to around 20p I bought again and sold around 54p region after another desperate rumour.
This I repeated one more time before getting out . The shares were suspended from trading at 33p.
The company was taken over in a closed debt share deal.
Rumours drive a good profit or loss for traders every day.
If I knew the Kuwait government was planning a rescue takeover deal a few days ahead of anyone else I would have thrown a fortune at those shares knowing they would go into the stratosphere.
Knowing a business deal in advance on a vaccine for possibly treating the world is gold dust to traders. The guy who owns the company responsible has had his net worth go up €15Billion. The rest of that growth on any remaining company shares if there were any traded publicly would have been made by traders. Knowing the good news in advance would be very predictable on shares. That’s simplistic stuff you can’t disagree with. Saying it’s unpredictable is nonsense.
Prove someone had prior knowledge of a share uplift and you would have half of the city in jail ha ha.
I don’t have any evidence Putin was behind the Russian takeover of Ukraine but I’m pretty certain that he did. Or do you wish to blame someone else? The principle of prior knowledge that was disclosed is the whole point of the post not the investigating ability of The City of London police.
You are distracting from the point yet again to try and win an argument.
"Hi . This is the internet ( cyberworld ) so it would make no difference to me personally whether I on or lost an argument . In the example to which you refer , you appear to have attempted to catch a falling knife . You have acted on rumours but do not schedule what investigations you undertook to verify the validity of the rumours . While the result on this occasion was very favourable to you , you could also have equally lost your entire investment , In these situations most people will happily talk about their profits and keep quiet about their losses . No one would be able to predict the impact of announcements relating to vaccines for Covid 19 . Anyone buying on the strength of a rumour is simply taking a risk . Markets could have moved upwards , downwards or failed to react . It is quite possible that the release of a pending vaccine was already built into share prices ( quite a few companies are still working on vaccines ) and equally share prices could have fallen if the tunaround time of the vaccine was below expectations . The insider trading to which you refer relating to the announcement of a vaccine is a criminal offence and anyone involved liable to a prison sentence. Those involved would be comparatively easy to identify via a data mining exercise ( and even easier if they choose to boast about their gains ) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he advised clients before the press release but shares didn't move until the press release?
The clients would have been able to take a position on relevant shares before the market knew. Does that explain it better? It’s called insider trading. When you say take a position do you have any evidence to suggest that anyone attempted to take a position or is that simply speculation. I cannot see many ( if any ) reputable people risk losing their job for making a few quid by taking a position.
In any event the movement in the stock market on the day concerned was entirely unpredictable. ( even with the announcement of a vaccine which has yet to be approved).
A data mining exercise would quickly identify any suspect trading on the days concerned.
Reputable people that’s funny.. They take risks daily with their jobs and any verbal rumours that leak out can start a stampede for shares. You have a very naive view on trading.
I tripled my money on a company called Valaris this year as they were heading for bankruptcy.
The shares were originally trading in the £60 area but when the rumours of trouble got louder the shares dropped to 30p. That’s when I bought. True enough as I suspected a rumour of a take over sent the shares to 72p I sold. The rumour mill went quiet the shares dropped to around 20p I bought again and sold around 54p region after another desperate rumour.
This I repeated one more time before getting out . The shares were suspended from trading at 33p.
The company was taken over in a closed debt share deal.
Rumours drive a good profit or loss for traders every day.
If I knew the Kuwait government was planning a rescue takeover deal a few days ahead of anyone else I would have thrown a fortune at those shares knowing they would go into the stratosphere.
Knowing a business deal in advance on a vaccine for possibly treating the world is gold dust to traders. The guy who owns the company responsible has had his net worth go up €15Billion. The rest of that growth on any remaining company shares if there were any traded publicly would have been made by traders. Knowing the good news in advance would be very predictable on shares. That’s simplistic stuff you can’t disagree with. Saying it’s unpredictable is nonsense.
Prove someone had prior knowledge of a share uplift and you would have half of the city in jail ha ha.
I don’t have any evidence Putin was behind the Russian takeover of Ukraine but I’m pretty certain that he did. Or do you wish to blame someone else? The principle of prior knowledge that was disclosed is the whole point of the post not the investigating ability of The City of London police.
You are distracting from the point yet again to try and win an argument.
Hi . This is the internet ( cyberworld ) so it would make no difference to me personally whether I on or lost an argument .
In the example to which you refer , you appear to have attempted to catch a falling knife . You have acted on rumours but do not schedule what investigations you undertook to verify the validity of the rumours . While the result on this occasion was very favourable to you , you could also have equally lost your entire investment , In these situations most people will happily talk about their profits and keep quiet about their losses .
No one would be able to predict the impact of announcements relating to vaccines for Covid 19 . Anyone buying on the strength of a rumour is simply taking a risk . Markets could have moved upwards , downwards or failed to react . It is quite possible that the release of a pending vaccine was already built into share prices ( quite a few companies are still working on vaccines ) and equally share prices could have fallen if the tunaround time of the vaccine was below expectations .
The insider trading to which you refer relating to the announcement of a vaccine is a criminal offence and anyone involved liable to a prison sentence. Those involved would be comparatively easy to identify via a data mining exercise ( and even easier if they choose to boast about their gains )
"Indeed the Internet forum is not life or death I agree. I also am happy to admit I’ve lost my shirt on some of my trades both shorting and long term holds. So am not immune to getting it wrong . I only play with a pot of money I can afford to lose so I’m not desperately worried and year to year only use the previous years profit so reducing my risk further. I got the rumours from press releases related to banks and companies involved in the rescue talks . One buy to many and as you say the knife would have sliced but I’d only re- invested profit in the third buy so reduced the risk. The information about the passing on of information regarding the vaccine was from the Financial Times so I would think they could verify their sources as accurate and true to avoid being sued. I refer to my previous comment on insider trading in answer to your last comment in that matter. IMPORTANT I will however apologies in public for my comment on your trading being naive. That was rude and uncalled for along with being totally unfounded. Warren Buffet made his fortune on mostly safe bets. So that system also works . He did however fail dismally with a cloth manufacturer. He was told repeatedly it was a bad idea to invest by his team and brokers but he felt it was right and would work without really checking his own information. Despite his best efforts the company subsequently went bust losing Buffet quite a few million. He took the name of that company and called his whole trading group by the same name Berkshire Hathaway. He said that will remind him everyday that he gets it wrong and no matter what his feelings are the facts are alway right. If it looks like a duck, quack likes a duck then it’s a duck and definitely won’t be a swan. That analogy reminds me of Brexit. The facts say it’s going to be a bad thing but no ones listening due to emotion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So he advised clients before the press release but shares didn't move until the press release?
The clients would have been able to take a position on relevant shares before the market knew. Does that explain it better? It’s called insider trading. When you say take a position do you have any evidence to suggest that anyone attempted to take a position or is that simply speculation. I cannot see many ( if any ) reputable people risk losing their job for making a few quid by taking a position.
In any event the movement in the stock market on the day concerned was entirely unpredictable. ( even with the announcement of a vaccine which has yet to be approved).
A data mining exercise would quickly identify any suspect trading on the days concerned.
Reputable people that’s funny.. They take risks daily with their jobs and any verbal rumours that leak out can start a stampede for shares. You have a very naive view on trading.
I tripled my money on a company called Valaris this year as they were heading for bankruptcy.
The shares were originally trading in the £60 area but when the rumours of trouble got louder the shares dropped to 30p. That’s when I bought. True enough as I suspected a rumour of a take over sent the shares to 72p I sold. The rumour mill went quiet the shares dropped to around 20p I bought again and sold around 54p region after another desperate rumour.
This I repeated one more time before getting out . The shares were suspended from trading at 33p.
The company was taken over in a closed debt share deal.
Rumours drive a good profit or loss for traders every day.
If I knew the Kuwait government was planning a rescue takeover deal a few days ahead of anyone else I would have thrown a fortune at those shares knowing they would go into the stratosphere.
Knowing a business deal in advance on a vaccine for possibly treating the world is gold dust to traders. The guy who owns the company responsible has had his net worth go up €15Billion. The rest of that growth on any remaining company shares if there were any traded publicly would have been made by traders. Knowing the good news in advance would be very predictable on shares. That’s simplistic stuff you can’t disagree with. Saying it’s unpredictable is nonsense.
Prove someone had prior knowledge of a share uplift and you would have half of the city in jail ha ha.
I don’t have any evidence Putin was behind the Russian takeover of Ukraine but I’m pretty certain that he did. Or do you wish to blame someone else? The principle of prior knowledge that was disclosed is the whole point of the post not the investigating ability of The City of London police.
You are distracting from the point yet again to try and win an argument.
Hi . This is the internet ( cyberworld ) so it would make no difference to me personally whether I on or lost an argument .
In the example to which you refer , you appear to have attempted to catch a falling knife . You have acted on rumours but do not schedule what investigations you undertook to verify the validity of the rumours . While the result on this occasion was very favourable to you , you could also have equally lost your entire investment , In these situations most people will happily talk about their profits and keep quiet about their losses .
No one would be able to predict the impact of announcements relating to vaccines for Covid 19 . Anyone buying on the strength of a rumour is simply taking a risk . Markets could have moved upwards , downwards or failed to react . It is quite possible that the release of a pending vaccine was already built into share prices ( quite a few companies are still working on vaccines ) and equally share prices could have fallen if the tunaround time of the vaccine was below expectations .
The insider trading to which you refer relating to the announcement of a vaccine is a criminal offence and anyone involved liable to a prison sentence. Those involved would be comparatively easy to identify via a data mining exercise ( and even easier if they choose to boast about their gains )
Indeed the Internet forum is not life or death I agree.
I also am happy to admit I’ve lost my shirt on some of my trades both shorting and long term holds. So am not immune to getting it wrong .
I only play with a pot of money I can afford to lose so I’m not desperately worried and year to year only use the previous years profit so reducing my risk further.
I got the rumours from press releases related to banks and companies involved in the rescue talks . One buy to many and as you say the knife would have sliced but I’d only re- invested profit in the third buy so reduced the risk.
The information about the passing on of information regarding the vaccine was from the Financial Times so I would think they could verify their sources as accurate and true to avoid being sued.
I refer to my previous comment on insider trading in answer to your last comment in that matter.
IMPORTANT
I will however apologies in public for my comment on your trading being naive. That was rude and uncalled for along with being totally unfounded.
Warren Buffet made his fortune on mostly safe bets. So that system also works .
He did however fail dismally with a cloth manufacturer.
He was told repeatedly it was a bad idea to invest by his team and brokers but he felt it was right and would work without really checking his own information.
Despite his best efforts the company subsequently went bust losing Buffet quite a few million.
He took the name of that company and called his whole trading group by the same name Berkshire Hathaway.
He said that will remind him everyday that he gets it wrong and no matter what his feelings are the facts are alway right.
If it looks like a duck, quack likes a duck then it’s a duck and definitely won’t be a swan.
That analogy reminds me of Brexit. The facts say it’s going to be a bad thing but no ones listening due to emotion.
"Hello . Thank you for taking the time to write an an apology .However , as you correctly point out / agree the internet is not real life . Your comment ( which in any event did not offend me in any way ) was very polite compared to some of the comments which I have received in the past . I can never understand why people choose to post comments designed to insult on internet forums as it is simply a reflection on those posting the derogatory comment , not the person whom the insult is aimed at . My view is a simple one - successful people have no need to insult others . Only a fool would expect everyone to agree with their opinions - it is different ideas and opinions that make the forums more interesting . In summary thank you for he apology though I was not offended in any way - it is a free society and you are entitled to express your opinions as you please | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
