This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

SDL - Sundance Resources

Jump to new
Iggy_Pop said:
One lesson I have learn't is if a Chinese Company is involved in the takeover - sell.
Click to expand...

Absolutly!

ASIC Should prosecute on this -

View attachment SDL Credit Swiss.pdf

Oh look at where they are based!!
Credit Suisse Hong Kong to buy again soon? I wonder.
The announcement - no longer substantial share holder statement - came out on the day the stock stopped trading!
Bit obvious, leave it to another.
I'll bet bribes to Hanlon on that one!
Buying at .29 .285 so far.
 
I don't know that there is much to be surprised about with anything that happens with SDL.
Will the drop today find support or are holders selling out ?
Is this another tempting but idiotic stock to be looking at at this moment - the wrangling for this company makes for a sore head.
 
mr. jeff said:
Is this another tempting but idiotic stock to be looking at at this moment - the wrangling for this company makes for a sore head.
Click to expand...

That's exactly how they want you to be thinking.

It's a bit like rubbing someone’s ego up telling them how great you think they are, then slamming them all over the shop in public whilst you take them for all they are worth!!
Demoralise, divide, conquer, enslave!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Blow said:
Can you please explain what you mean by this? What is "sleezy buying"?
Click to expand...
By sleazy buying I mean - when the market has become full of unrest and political headlines and so forth are dominating the air ways, distracting the majorities attention, sly people who do not want to be noticed buying up on a stock choose such times.
 
Stock recently gave lower low, not by much and with bit of positive interpretation can be seen as double bottom.
For other not good signal to buy right now.

Suppose those who have lots of money can risk some spare money just in case price turns around.

Traders with limited funds wait for good and above all positive signal.
 

So why does that apply to SDL and not the whole market??

Does that make the buying I have been doing of various companies over recent time sleazy?? Sorry, I can not see your logic. I will take advantage of any market confusion and do not consider that sleazy.

Cheers
Country Lad
 
Yes.
But your probably not affiliated with information regarding probable outcomes of corporate activity, as you make your play.
 
notting said:
Yes.
But your probably not affiliated with information regarding probable outcomes of corporate activity, as you make your play.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that you can see that there is insider trading occurring in SDL? I think this was Joe's concern if you were saying that.
 
I want to show you something that got me hitting buttons very hard with all of my hooves.



This happened at the convienient time of 3pm 5 days ago.
I made records of all that went in and out of that trade too.

It wasn't an end or start of day trade.
That's where much of the up tick buying has been since!

As an interested buy stander, I could have sold that much stock on the live market at the first tick buy price 28c.
Could have even got some off at 28.5.
It would have taken a few trades but would not have been that hard and I'm not even a pro!
 
Sorry notting, I can't see anything untoward other than a lot of normal selling, most likely clients with large holdings assuming the takeover will not happen and SDL will need to have a huge capital raising later.

In that period from around the 3pm, the broker doing most of the selling was UBS, and I assume that was clients wanting get out of this mess. None of the other brokers had a pattern of consistent selling.

On that day UBS were on the sell side at a weighted average of 27.4 cents and transacted sells for 37% of the total turnover. After they unloaded for that client, they stopped selling at 3:29 with their last trade at 26, they were on the buy side for only 3.8% of the number of sells they transacted at a weighted average of 27.3 cents.

Looks to me just their clients wanting out with the drop in price due to selling pressure which we see every day.

Not exactly smashing the price to buy back because they didn't buy them back.

Cheers
Country Lad
 
Country Lad said:
Looks to me just their clients wanting out with the drop in price due to selling pressure which we see every day.

Not exactly smashing the price to buy back because they didn't buy them back.
Click to expand...

Always great to see facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

It's too easy to assume that evil instos are running stops and manipulating the market. I guess it's convenient for the average punter, as it puts the blame on something else other than their own trading / investing mistakes. Instead of focusing on learning about market behaviour, they turnaround and say that ASIC should investigate...
 
Country Lad said:
I can't see anything untoward other than a lot of normal selling, d
Click to expand...
Lad,
It was bouncing between .28 and .285 when a single fat finger dropped it to .26 taking all the bases out from underneath it in one hit check the volume to see how much that was. Again it was one sell order.
skc said:
It's too easy to assume that evil instos are running stops and manipulating the market. I guess it's convenient for the average punter, as it puts the blame on something else other than their own trading / investing mistakes.
Click to expand...

Doggy,
Just being a goofy below average punter, I do try to see if there is a running theme which can support my entry and exits.
On this occasion, I had the stupid idea of loading up the bases under .28 which was the number I was happy to keep buying very aggressively under for some, I donno, stupid reason that only makes sense to me.
Then I decided to whip out the loaded bases when the selling got a bit close for comfort.

This idiot punter felt at the time - If I pull now I’ll get it lower.:homer:

As luck would have it, low and behold, it was like pulling the rug out from underneath my mother in law.
Bang down she came with a big fat thud and in went piggy at .265. :birthday:

Fricken insto’s it’s all their fault.
I was hoping to get even more at .26 but it didn't come to Sir Pork !
Oh well, ya never know what tomorrow brings. :22_yikes:
 
notting said:
Lad,
It was bouncing between .28 and .285 when a single fat finger dropped it to .26 taking all the bases out from underneath it in one hit check the volume to see how much that was. Again it was one sell order.
Click to expand...


Just to set the record straight with the facts, the sequence of trading was:

33 trades at 27.5
32 trades at 27
2 trades at 26.5
10 trades at 27
27 trades at 26.5
4 trades at 26
17 trades at 26.5
67 trades at 27

This is a normal pattern for a large parcel placed "at market" price.

As I said earlier, the selling broker did not buy back so there can be no interpretation of "smashing the price" to buy back as you assert because they didn't buy them back.

Sorry if it doesn't fit your conspiracy theory, but I tend to deal in the facts.

Cheers
Country lad
 
Lad,
It was a single sell order!!!! A muppet will think it's many orders because there are many buy orders waiting underneath it so it doesn't get recorded as one order it gets recorded as individual contracts.
It could easily have been executed prudently at .285 to .28.
The same broker doesn't need to buy them back and they don't need to buy them back on the same day.
That's all too obvious.
It's not a conspiracy, it's not a theory. It's what's happening;
It's as plain as day and so far I'm makeing bucket loads out of it.
I called 'the saga' from the moment the take over was made when people were complaining at the .56c share offer!!!
It would have sounded nuts at the time, which I was well aware of, and called it so to show how Ausies don't know when their been done from behind, except for Ruddy it seems. "Rat f&*@#ed"
Check out how GBG is going.
Once you've smashed the story and smashed the technical you have time.
 
notting, methinks you are so determined that there is a conspiracy that you are not even reading the post.

notting said:
Lad,
It was a single sell order!!!!
Click to expand...

I said a large parcel placed "at market" price. What is a large parcel if it isn't a single order?

notting said:
it doesn't get recorded as one order it gets recorded as individual contracts.
Click to expand...

Actually that is not technically correct. It is recorded to the client as one sell order when placed, and then when filled it is invoiced to the client as one contract. I said "trades" and that is how it shows up in the course of sales - a series of trades making up the one sell order.

Again, sorry if it doesn't fit your conspiracy theory, but I tend to deal in the facts and the fact is the trades were quite normal for a large sell parcel placed at market. As you are continuing to be quite illogical about it there is no point in my discussing it further.

Cheers
Country Lad
 
Country Lad said:
most likely clients with large holdings assuming the takeover will not happen
Click to expand...
What was that? Clients, plural .
:silly:

Mate,

It's not a conspiracy.
It's an order plain as day, in black and white, that deliberately tanked the price.

You could argue it was a mistake, a fat finger if you really wanted to, just conveniently popped the price one pip under the year support and year low.
It's a little harder to stand by that argument as it was then immediately followed by up tick buying at the open and close of the days trades where volumes can be harder to be percieved as buying unless you looking for the consisten up ticks at those times.

That's the behaivour of traders who know what they are doing. Not some fricken moron who would

Country Lad said:
drop a large parcel placed "at market" price.
Click to expand...

Then, being the same moron, thinks he has to buy it all back with the same broker on the same day to improve his holding , there buy undoing the technical break down by getting back in so quick and pushing the price back up over the break.


It fits perfectly with a deliberate attempt to break the technical and buy the stops and everyother trade that freeked when they saw it.

Simple
 


This does in no way demonstrate Hanlongs ongoing commitment to complete its acquisition of Sundance as insinuated by the Financial Review earlier this week or as written in this announcement.
All it demonstrates is that Hanlong are conforming to international contract law which will allow them to continue to operate in that playing field and avoid being sued for a breach!!
Not that I did not expect the Chinese to pay.
I also expected this insinuation and market reaction!
What? Would they not hold to contracts after being done already for insider trading, as if!
I do want more however. Down boy, down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MHM - Mount Hope Mining
Replies
2
Views
828
Dona Ferentes
R
Can trading platforms change the value of candles that have already closed?
Replies
8
Views
1K
peter2
Official Trump Crypto $Trump
3 4 5
Replies
87
Views
5K
basilio
M
Exploring Trading Apps: Need Advice!
Replies
3
Views
1K
greggles
  • Sticky
Resources Rising Stars 2024 Conference Gold Coast
Replies
7
Views
2K
Garpal Gumnut
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...