trousers Posted 20 March, 2009 Posted 20 March, 2009 (edited) Several sub 14p 4 and 5 figure trades today. Yes, I know that's peanuts in terms of market cap but things have been very, very quiet on the shares front over the last couple of weeks. I assume it's nothing to do with next week being the admin deadline....? Edited 20 March, 2009 by trousers
Window Cleaner Posted 20 March, 2009 Posted 20 March, 2009 Several sub 14p 4 and 5 figure trades today. Yes, I know that's peanuts in terms of market cap but things have been very, very quiet on the shares front over the last couple of weeks. I assume it's nothing to do with next week being the admin deadline....? I think it's just someone anticipating a bad result tomorrow, if we lose the SP might take a giant hit come Monday morning.
trousers Posted 21 March, 2009 Author Posted 21 March, 2009 85,000 shares sold highest for a while? Highest for 3 or 4 weeks
trousers Posted 26 March, 2009 Author Posted 26 March, 2009 Share price down 7.14% today. 25,000 shares traded at 12p. Bid price = 11p; Offer price = 15p Single figure here we come?
Nexstar Posted 26 March, 2009 Posted 26 March, 2009 1p shares soon? Surely at that price someone would be stupid not to buy us?
trousers Posted 26 March, 2009 Author Posted 26 March, 2009 By the way, WH Ireland shares have slumped from 72.5p on Tuesday to 59p today. Their preliminary results were published this week - Loss before tax of £4.02m (2007: profit of £3.93m) http://www.londonstockexchange.com/LSECWS/IFSPages/MarketNewsPopup.aspx?id=2119957&source=RNS
Johnny Bognor Posted 26 March, 2009 Posted 26 March, 2009 By the way, WH Ireland shares have slumped from 72.5p on Tuesday to 59p today. Their preliminary results were published this week - Loss before tax of £4.02m (2007: profit of £3.93m) http://www.londonstockexchange.com/LSECWS/IFSPages/MarketNewsPopup.aspx?id=2119957&source=RNS If I have a business that I want to run into the ground, Lowe will be my main man. His track record of destroying shareholder value is remarkable.
saintwarwick Posted 26 March, 2009 Posted 26 March, 2009 If I have a business that I want to run into the ground, Lowe will be my main man. His track record of destroying shareholder value is remarkable. I think with the global economic slump most shares are hitting rock bottom, still we can always blame Lowe for this worldwide downturn
Mole Posted 26 March, 2009 Posted 26 March, 2009 I think with the global economic slump most shares are hitting rock bottom, still we can always blame Lowe for this worldwide downturn So why have SLH shares been falling when the FTSE has been rising? I can provide a graph if you like.
trousers Posted 26 March, 2009 Author Posted 26 March, 2009 If I have a business that I want to run into the ground, Lowe will be my main man. His track record of destroying shareholder value is remarkable. Although, to be fair, there aren't many financial services companies making a mint at the moment
Johnny Bognor Posted 26 March, 2009 Posted 26 March, 2009 Although, to be fair, there aren't many financial services companies making a mint at the moment Nor football clubs...he does know how to pick 'em
saintwarwick Posted 26 March, 2009 Posted 26 March, 2009 So why have SLH shares been falling when the FTSE has been rising? I can provide a graph if you like. Please do but for the last year and not for the last three weeks, thanks.
Mole Posted 26 March, 2009 Posted 26 March, 2009 Please do but for the last year and not for the last three weeks, thanks. Both SLH shares and the FTSE 100 followed a similar downward trend between May 08 and Nov 08, but since then the FTSE has more or less bottomed out. Compare this with SLH shares and over the period between Nov 08 and Mar 09 the contrast is stark. SLH shares have dropped from 26p to 13p - a 50% fall. The FTSE 100 by comparison has only dropped by a percent or two.
alpine_saint Posted 27 March, 2009 Posted 27 March, 2009 Both SLH shares and the FTSE 100 followed a similar downward trend between May 08 and Nov 08, but since then the FTSE has more or less bottomed out. Compare this with SLH shares and over the period between Nov 08 and Mar 09 the contrast is stark. SLH shares have dropped from 26p to 13p - a 50% fall. The FTSE 100 by comparison has only dropped by a percent or two. I bet Lowe wishes he'd accepted Crouch's 65p offer now...
Saint in Paradise Posted 27 March, 2009 Posted 27 March, 2009 I bet Lowe wishes he'd accepted Crouch's 65p offer now... I suspect most people also wish the same.
Johnny Bognor Posted 27 March, 2009 Posted 27 March, 2009 I think with the global economic slump most shares are hitting rock bottom, still we can always blame Lowe for this worldwide downturn Well while we are on the subject, I blame the bankers (wasn't Lowe at Morgan Grenfell and Deutsche Bank), the speculators (WH Ireland and London International Financial Futures Exchange), pen pushers and the regulators. So whilst I don't blame him specifically, solely and personally for the global economic slump, he and his ilk have a lot to answer for. ...... meanwhile, the real wealth creators are having to pay the price.
saintwarwick Posted 27 March, 2009 Posted 27 March, 2009 Both SLH shares and the FTSE 100 followed a similar downward trend between May 08 and Nov 08, but since then the FTSE has more or less bottomed out. Compare this with SLH shares and over the period between Nov 08 and Mar 09 the contrast is stark. SLH shares have dropped from 26p to 13p - a 50% fall. The FTSE 100 by comparison has only dropped by a percent or two. That doesn't prove the footsie is rising which you originally quoted, more to the point it is still dropping.
saintwarwick Posted 27 March, 2009 Posted 27 March, 2009 I bet Lowe wishes he'd accepted Crouch's 65p offer now... Did Crouch offer this much and did he offer at all?
saintwarwick Posted 27 March, 2009 Posted 27 March, 2009 Well while we are on the subject, I blame the bankers (wasn't Lowe at Morgan Grenfell and Deutsche Bank), the speculators (WH Ireland and London International Financial Futures Exchange), pen pushers and the regulators. So whilst I don't blame him specifically, solely and personally for the global economic slump, he and his ilk have a lot to answer for. ...... meanwhile, the real wealth creators are having to pay the price. Was Lowe at Barclays, HSBC, Northern Rock et al? Seems Lowe is now a scapegoat for everything bad that happens.
jonah Posted 27 March, 2009 Posted 27 March, 2009 So why have SLH shares been falling when the FTSE has been rising? I can provide a graph if you like. Try Googling the term "beta correlation". There is very little correlation between SLH and the FTSE - if anything you should be looking at the AIM All Share but even there there's bugger all correlation. It's a football share, it's not priced like the majority of shares even in stable economic times, let alone in the current climate.
Mole Posted 27 March, 2009 Posted 27 March, 2009 That doesn't prove the footsie is rising which you originally quoted, more to the point it is still dropping. Good point, but what the charts clearly illustrate is that SLH are doing considerably worse than most other companies.
trousers Posted 27 March, 2009 Author Posted 27 March, 2009 Good point, but what the charts clearly illustrate is that SLH are doing considerably worse than most other companies. Would be interesting to compare SLH's graph with that of the AIM 'Leisure' sector as a whole.
Mole Posted 27 March, 2009 Posted 27 March, 2009 Try Googling the term "beta correlation". There is very little correlation between SLH and the FTSE - if anything you should be looking at the AIM All Share but even there there's bugger all correlation. It's a football share, it's not priced like the majority of shares even in stable economic times, let alone in the current climate. Can't be arsed, but i'd appreciate it if you could provide a graph. The key period for me is since the credit crunch went public (October time). Saints have been in freefall since then - how does this compare with the AIM all share?
Mole Posted 27 March, 2009 Posted 27 March, 2009 Would be interesting to compare SLH's graph with that of the AIM 'Leisure' sector as a whole. Go for it.
John Smith Posted 27 March, 2009 Posted 27 March, 2009 Try Googling the term "beta correlation". There is very little correlation between SLH and the FTSE - if anything you should be looking at the AIM All Share but even there there's bugger all correlation. It's a football share, it's not priced like the majority of shares even in stable economic times, let alone in the current climate. Thanks Jonah! Well, that's at least 20 seconds of my life I'll never get back. But, it did serve a purpose. I can now communicate with you in the same language, so, I have a questions for you - I am curious about the relationship between correlation of two data return series (r1, r2) and the "beta" resulting from a bi-variate regression (r1=a+b(r2))... Particularly I am concerned with constructing an "optimal hedge ratio" (expected return of a portfolio consisting of r1 and r2 equals zero) using these simple concepts... Which would be better for constructing such a hedge, beta or correlation? It is my understanding that correlation is the average linear relationship between two variables (r1, r2) and that a regression delivers a more robust "hedge value" as it takes into account a constant term that may have statistical significance. This would lead me to believe that the regression output of Beta would be more reliable (and also better in terms of descriptive measures, ie standard deviation). Added insight would be appreciated.
slickmick Posted 27 March, 2009 Posted 27 March, 2009 Thanks Jonah! Well, that's at least 20 seconds of my life I'll never get back. But, it did serve a purpose. I can now communicate with you in the same language, so, I have a questions for you - I am curious about the relationship between correlation of two data return series (r1, r2) and the "beta" resulting from a bi-variate regression (r1=a+b(r2))... Particularly I am concerned with constructing an "optimal hedge ratio" (expected return of a portfolio consisting of r1 and r2 equals zero) using these simple concepts... Which would be better for constructing such a hedge, beta or correlation? It is my understanding that correlation is the average linear relationship between two variables (r1, r2) and that a regression delivers a more robust "hedge value" as it takes into account a constant term that may have statistical significance. This would lead me to believe that the regression output of Beta would be more reliable (and also better in terms of descriptive measures, ie standard deviation). Added insight would be appreciated. Worries me too.
Mole Posted 27 March, 2009 Posted 27 March, 2009 Which would be better for constructing such a hedge, beta or correlation? Privit makes a the best hedges imho.
bigtonesfc Posted 27 March, 2009 Posted 27 March, 2009 Thanks Jonah! Well, that's at least 20 seconds of my life I'll never get back. But, it did serve a purpose. I can now communicate with you in the same language, so, I have a questions for you - I am curious about the relationship between correlation of two data return series (r1, r2) and the "beta" resulting from a bi-variate regression (r1=a+b(r2))... Particularly I am concerned with constructing an "optimal hedge ratio" (expected return of a portfolio consisting of r1 and r2 equals zero) using these simple concepts... Which would be better for constructing such a hedge, beta or correlation? It is my understanding that correlation is the average linear relationship between two variables (r1, r2) and that a regression delivers a more robust "hedge value" as it takes into account a constant term that may have statistical significance. This would lead me to believe that the regression output of Beta would be more reliable (and also better in terms of descriptive measures, ie standard deviation). Added insight would be appreciated. My thoughts exactly!
John Smith Posted 27 March, 2009 Posted 27 March, 2009 Actually, it's ok! I see my mistake, silly boy, so I shall correct it. I think it's worth straightening out the misunderstandings in case people continue reading it. In my original post, I used "beta" in the sense of regression coefficient, not the specific CAPM sense of regression coefficient with the market. In this sense, if I knew the true beta, it would be the variance-minimizing hedge ratio. That is, Y - beta*X would have the smallest variance of any portfolio composed of X and Y with weight 1 on Y. In practice, you estimate beta. That makes it essential to consider the correlation coefficient as well. Suppose I am hedging a basket of stocks that has correlation 0.8 with the S&P500, and correlation 0.1 with a 10-year treasury bond. Say the standard deviation of the basket and the S&P500 are the same, and eight times the standard deviation of the 10-year treasury bond. That means the naive variance minimizing hedge is 80% of notional for both the S&P500 and the 10-year treasury; but the S&P500 is likely to be a very good hedge while the 10-year treasury is about equally likely to increase as decrease variance. Phew, I hadn't realised what total tosh Jonah actually spoke until now, but at least it makes sense, but I think I can safely say that the above realisation clearly shows this!
Weston Super Saint Posted 27 March, 2009 Posted 27 March, 2009 Thanks Jonah! Well, that's at least 20 seconds of my life I'll never get back. But, it did serve a purpose. I can now communicate with you in the same language, so, I have a questions for you - I am curious about the relationship between correlation of two data return series (r1, r2) and the "beta" resulting from a bi-variate regression (r1=a+b(r2))... Particularly I am concerned with constructing an "optimal hedge ratio" (expected return of a portfolio consisting of r1 and r2 equals zero) using these simple concepts... Which would be better for constructing such a hedge, beta or correlation? It is my understanding that correlation is the average linear relationship between two variables (r1, r2) and that a regression delivers a more robust "hedge value" as it takes into account a constant term that may have statistical significance. This would lead me to believe that the regression output of Beta would be more reliable (and also better in terms of descriptive measures, ie standard deviation). Added insight would be appreciated. Jonah, will you hurry up and answer, I'm biting my fingernails off here waiting for the answer
Mole Posted 27 March, 2009 Posted 27 March, 2009 Here's a graph comparitive with SLH's performance...
trousers Posted 27 March, 2009 Author Posted 27 March, 2009 Go for it. I wouldn't like to deny you the honour
Mole Posted 27 March, 2009 Posted 27 March, 2009 I wouldn't like to deny you the honour Go on, we'll be a long time waiting for Jonah to back up his rhetoric with facts.
jonah Posted 27 March, 2009 Posted 27 March, 2009 Ha, very good :-) I think the answer is that you should always delta hedge the first order risk and then you don't need to worry about the correlation. Isn't Delta Hedge that Aussie singer?
Saint 76er Posted 27 March, 2009 Posted 27 March, 2009 By the way, WH Ireland shares have slumped from 72.5p on Tuesday to 59p today. Their preliminary results were published this week - Loss before tax of £4.02m (2007: profit of £3.93m) http://www.londonstockexchange.com/LSECWS/IFSPages/MarketNewsPopup.aspx?id=2119957&source=RNS Thanks for this info Trousers. An 8 million turnaround is not good news even in the present climate. I am therefore wondering if this perhaps means it is less likely now that Lowe could put together a consortium of his WHI pals with a view to a post admin takeover, as genuinely feared by many on this forum?
Mole Posted 27 March, 2009 Posted 27 March, 2009 Thanks for this info Trousers. An 8 million turnaround is not good news even in the present climate. I am therefore wondering if this perhaps means it is less likely now that Lowe could put together a consortium of his WHI pals with a view to a post admin takeover, as genuinely feared by many on this forum? He could, but for all Lowes deficiencies i don't think he'd be that stupid.
JonnyLove Posted 27 March, 2009 Posted 27 March, 2009 So why have SLH shares been falling when the FTSE has been rising? Simple we are part of the AIM market not the FTSE. it is actually quite difficult to get AIM shares to rise at the best of times to be fair.
SaintRobbie Posted 27 March, 2009 Posted 27 March, 2009 I bet Lowe wishes he'd accepted Crouch's 65p offer now... I dunno if he does. I dont think Lowe sees this investment as anything other than an ego-trip, personal challenge. He inherited his position, he has wealth enough elsewhere to live well, he has no need for Saints other than personal pride... and that is what is dangerous.
Wopper Posted 27 March, 2009 Posted 27 March, 2009 I dunno if he does. I dont think Lowe sees this investment as anything other than an ego-trip, personal challenge. He inherited his position, he has wealth enough elsewhere to live well, he has no need for Saints other than personal pride... and that is what is dangerous. Must make a good living out of his pigs.
trousers Posted 27 March, 2009 Author Posted 27 March, 2009 12p and falling. Aye. 4,000 @ 10.40p Cripes
SaintRobbie Posted 27 March, 2009 Posted 27 March, 2009 Must make a good living out of his pigs. I wouldnt call retired people pigs lol
aintforever Posted 27 March, 2009 Posted 27 March, 2009 I think the share price reflects what we all know - relegation means certain administration. Whilst, because we can cull the wage bill, admin wont be straight away. Barclays will see that what is left of the team will stand no chance of promotion and whilst we are in League 1 we will never be able to pay back the overdraft so they will call it in.
trousers Posted 28 March, 2009 Author Posted 28 March, 2009 (edited) SLH share price closed down 11.54% today. Last trade @ 10p (In other news.... WH Ireland Share Price down 15.25% to 50p) Edited 28 March, 2009 by trousers
Amesbury Saint Posted 28 March, 2009 Posted 28 March, 2009 I bet Lowe wishes he'd accepted Crouch's 65p offer now... I bet Crouch is pleased he did not! Must be time for LC to make his move for complete control soon?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now