rRomeo29
21 Feb 2018
Re: 671 - 676p support From another poster:---------- ---------- "Market players seem intent on keeping the SP bottled within a tight band as it's apparent that there are AT buys at around 670 and AT sells at around 675.Wonder why..."I also suspected that someone has "maintained" PFG as they wanted.
rRomeo29
20 Feb 2018
Re: 671 - 676p support "If major shareholders behaved together in the manner you describe they would be involved in serious criminal behaviour..."- just like US, British and German banks, Deutsche Bank together with Barclays & JPMorgan fixed and cornered the currency interest rate (Libor) market, and now beeing fined a cple of 100`s millions- just as the gold market has been fixed- just like Goldmann kept selling credit default, knowing that those were becoming worthless (and placing a huge bet on default - just like Invesco, the former employer of Neil, owns the majority stake together with Woodford today. It is very very likely that these two majority holders meet and talk on a regular basis.- If they wanted PFG to hold 1,000p it would take one phone call.- If they would be happy with the shorters target of 485p, then they would have let the Sp driven down.It is more likely IMHO that the Sp has been maintained at a certain level over the past weeks, and professional traders (from Invesco and Woodford) used to opportunity to trade those ridiculous 20% spikes and all of a sudden 20% downspikes.
Chucko63
19 Feb 2018
Re: 671 - 676p support Criminal, quite likely. But they would be able to plead insanity as I understand the scheme proposed.A more likely explanation is that Woodford and Barnett are happy to add at given levels. I suppose they believe PFG gets through the current troubles and with the sell off reducing their holdings to around 2% of their funds, they have room to add. Having said that, they would look pretty stupid if their view turned out to be incorrect, and in the case of Woodford, that would be on top of several other mishaps of late.
TX2
19 Feb 2018
Re: 671 - 676p support LOL!If major shareholders behaved together in the manner you describe they would be involved in serious criminal behaviour!
rRomeo29
18 Feb 2018
Re: 671 - 676p support ---------- ---"...why an investment fund would want to support a share price."Your question newly formulated: Why would the (virtual) owner of PFG who holds more than 70% of its shares support the share price?Institutional investors, who together hold around 70-75% of the shares, speak on a regular basis. This is why they have an interest to protect their capital. One example is a t/o scenario, where they need a valid three months average price.It would be very bad for them to let PFG crash to 485p (as shorters want it) and then start a takeover negotiation.Yet another reason to support a certain share price is because the 75% stakeholders (who can be regarded as company insiders) have early knowledge that PFG is generating cash and earning money again, which will evolve into a dividend later on this year. With this knowledge they will at all cost support a certain share price i.o. to protect their sure-thing future investment. They can not allow this to fall below the fair (cash generating) value.If you scroll back you see that they have done just that when PFG was 750p. And now someone is supporting the Sp when PFG touches 670ish.Ha ha, it surely isnt me, who is placing those 10,000, 25,000 and even 80,000 share buys you see as soon as the Sp crosses a certain line.The share price always speaks the truth. It looks like someone still has an interest to hold a certain level here. Only company in siders (and Woodford) know the reason why
cropperdog
12 Feb 2018
Re: 671 - 676p support rRomeo29 - why would Woodford, or any other fund for that matter, want to support the share price? Surely, the lower the share price goes the more they can average down their large holding bought at a much higher price? I can see no reason why an investment fund would want to support a share price.
romaron
12 Feb 2018
Invesco and Woodford There seems to be some who think that Invesco and Woodford are run by amateurs or simpletons. They could be right but both know about falling knives. I was reading up on NSF and listening to their CEO who could hardly retain his glee at the current problems PFG have. They believe that self employed agents are the answer and so far are being proved right. They are though a niche player.I'm wondering if what caused these events was unavoidable? I doubt Peter Crook suddenly lost his touch and the decision to move away from potentially damaging loose cannons (agents cutting corners) in a world where more people are satisfying their needs through the internet seemed sensible. My own thoughts are that the Vanquis and MoneyBarn investigations put the wind up Crook the company and they were worried that the CCD might bring fresh complaints. Throw in that 'doorstep lending' could be heading the same way as milk deliveries and a second post and you can make an argument.I also read (I think it was on Alphaville) that NSF was a small player and did not have the scale to match PFG. The number given was 3 per cent compared to PFG. I think that there are vulture funds and recovery companies (usually US based) following these developments closely. What makes it even more interesting is that the company is controlled by just 2 large investors imo. I think that Invesco and Woodford have quite a strong hand and it would be amazing if they don't regularly have meetings with each other. A company like PFG is very attractive to companies that look for bargains due to its scale and infrastructure. I think that either the current management sort it out or it gets sold. Both would mean a higher price than today's.*NSF are not in Credit Card or Car Finance
meisterx
09 Feb 2018
Back to 875p? Good luck
rRomeo29
06 Feb 2018
Re: 671 - 676p support ...and 702.60p.Nicely stabilized.Like said, someone is probably bringing his investment buddies on board of PFG in order to produce a turnaround.
rRomeo29
06 Feb 2018
671 - 676p support live 681.20-26.80 (-3.79%)After the global market meltdown PFG is still holding up somehow. Also remember that only days ago Malcolm & his club called some of their friends to buy in and support the share price.That's why you've see the spike to 720ish.Now first chance to build a bottom 670`s.
rRomeo29
02 Feb 2018
Re: the next steps ahead 812p - The 727p line is about to be triggered- Lost of news covering this over the weekend- Expect a decent opening on Monday- if 727 is breached, then rise to 790p for gap closing.
kolwezimundele
01 Feb 2018
Re: the next steps ahead 812p If the share is reliant on one source (Woodford) for support as you say, then it is simply not invest-able for small retail holders ATM.
rRomeo29
01 Feb 2018
Re: the next steps ahead 812p Its important now that 671p is maintained by the main market participants.At the moment things look like more sideways ahead. At least its stable.You see large supporting buys as soon as 670-627p is touched. Also we must note that PFG is quite oversold now. One problem is that Woodford (as well as Invesco) are taking more and more hits elsewhere (...CPI), and in the future they might not be able to support PFG anymore.If the Sp would not have seen supporting buys, then we would be 500ish by now.If Woodford runs out of fresh cash to buy more shares, then his only option will be to let PFG bottom out (probably 589 / 485 and 450p) and then quickly announce a takeover at that super-discount.Actually it looks like Woodford & his club of II's are looking to do just that.Whoever stays invested after 671p falls apart, must be ready to carry all of the next steps. Or even have the guts to hold on to his stake and see it down to ridiculous low price levels - and then wait for the takeover scenario that follows.
rRomeo29
27 Jan 2018
Re: the next steps ahead 812p Next bullish alert only if the 702 barrier is climbed (confirmed at 710p). Then quick rise to 740 and 790p.
rRomeo29
27 Jan 2018
Re: the next steps ahead 812p R2D2, what does this mean? Could you translate this into simple foreign English for me?Thanks!---------- ----"...if you could put some confidence limits on the assertions of what you think likely to happen."
