- Joined
- 2 June 2011
- Posts
- 5,341
- Reactions
- 242
I must admit though, the story portrayed by the bears is far more interesting and persuasive than the defense put up by the bulls. As you say... time will tell. There is probably little SGH can do to prove the bull case until the cash starts to roll in... around H2 FY16 by their own projection. Until then the share price might move on short term reaction to ASIC or QPP investigations... but a total re-rating is some time away even under the best case scenario.
The bear story is almost always more persuasive, imo. We'll see what happens. With all the reassurances they have now given the market it seems less and less likely that they have dropped the ball in any meaningful way. They are a bunch of compensation lawyers afterall, so they'd know how to cover their own arses.
It would be much easier to have conviction either way if there damn accounts were easier to read. It seems to me like a lot of the bear case revolves around the opaqueness of the accounts and because of that something must be wrong.
Was thinking about this recently, especially after reading something related to this type of "bear story" (ie. hedge-fund driven).The bear story is almost always more persuasive, imo.
The bear story is almost always more persuasive, imo. We'll see what happens. With all the reassurances they have now given the market it seems less and less likely that they have dropped the ball in any meaningful way. They are a bunch of compensation lawyers afterall, so they'd know how to cover their own arses.
It would be much easier to have conviction either way if there damn accounts were easier to read. It seems to me like a lot of the bear case revolves around the opaqueness of the accounts and because of that something must be wrong.
Was thinking about this recently, especially after reading something related to this type of "bear story" (ie. hedge-fund driven).
Something I came across, was the "bear raids" in the early 2000s on Fairfax Financial (a Canadian insurance company listed on the NYSE) by well known massive hedge funds like S.A.C Capital. Their bear theories mainly revolved around the fact that FF was using inter-subsidiary re-insurance to hide a $5B insurance provision deficiency that will wipe out the company's equity. Another massive insurer, in the US, named AIG had provisioning issues in the years earlier. So the theory was plausible.
These big hedge funds were worshipped by brokers and financial analysts alike, who were often thrown a bone by guys like Steven Cohen, were encouraged (that's a euphemism) to write broker / sell-side reports after the shorts were loaded up. Turned out that none of this was true. FF actually tried to sue some of these hedge funds years later, but failed, however a lot of the email discourse they uncovered (which heavily points towards manipulation of stock prices, lies etc) is now on the public record.
The stock markets are an interesting place, that's for sure.
Saw this on another forum:
This research was posted yesterday, 23 Sept, and provides a pretty detailed analysis.
http://www.edisoninvestmentresearch.com/research/report/slater-gordon11
Perhaps a new board of directors and management may get it moving again back in the right direction again.
I doubt that is an issue.
SGH has turned out to be a very disappointing share. The five year monthly chart looks more like a pump and dump sooner than a real company. It is close to a long term support/resistance line of $2.40. If it fails this level it may just turn into a plaything for the boys in shorts. Perhaps a new board of directors and management may get it moving again back in the right direction again.
The board completely screwed the rank and file shareholders..totally screwed.
craft said:Why would that support resistance line still be of significance? 75-80% of all the volume ever traded has occurred since that line was last touched. The volume psychologically anchored to that level and still holding would have to be pretty small I would guess.
G'day craft, a support/resistance line can be a psychological sell/buy trigger regardless of the volume. It doesn't only take volume to drop a price, it is also the sentiment. SGH originally floated for a $1 so if it drops below the $2.40 line then the original IPO investors may cut and run before their doubled money dissipates. That could prove unattractive for the share price.
If you are asking why the $2.40 level should stick and possibly be a floor without the support of much volume.....sometimes it seems good news comes out just at a critical level and bounces a stock back up again off support. Its a fine spectator sport I find!
I don't know - it seems like a stretch to me. If the psychology of the current participants don't lend weight to the support/resistance or any pattern for that matter then what validity can they possibly have?
A chart is a tool which at one glance will tell you the current state of a company, a quick and easy tool to begin with.
The board completely screwed the rank and file shareholders..totally screwed.
I think the jury is out on that one.
On the other point with such a historical level that you are referring to in volume terms I was just curious as to whether you thought current participant psychology drives the price action and therefor the chart or if you tend to think what people read into the chart can drive the price action in a self fulfilling reflexive sort of way.
Cheers
Now tell me i didn't get screwed?.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?