Ig Share Discussion Threads

[andysand] 06/12/2016 11:37

I think a 590p target price is about right for a short term trade. Today or tomorrow...

[dusseldorf] 06/12/2016 11:33

The irony in IG being shorted is somewhat amusing.

[lydnem] 06/12/2016 11:20

Seems that IG are being banded with the likes of PLUS, which is crazy. IG hedge their position, they dont make money by others losing, PLUS do make money this way. The effect will not be massive on IG because they dont offer big bonuses and the gearing will not be possible elsewhere, so they wont lose clients as a result. There will be a turnover hit though from the reduced sizes, but not to justofy a 30% fall

[deanroberthunt] 06/12/2016 11:19

as previously mentioned just go offshore.

[andysand] 06/12/2016 11:17

A short? That looks insane to me. A big bounce is likely once people realise how easy it will be to circumvent any new regulations.

[deanroberthunt] 06/12/2016 11:17

ok maybe you can ask Simon to include that in the Master Investor report, I''m sure he'd be chuffed.

[deanroberthunt] 06/12/2016 11:10

fy dividend nearly 30p, yep, so ok jsut under 6%....not bad though

[deanroberthunt] 06/12/2016 11:09

Santa has come early.

[wildshot] 06/12/2016 11:08

5.86% based on historic dividend by my reckoning at current price of 535.50.

How do you arrive at 7-8%?

[deanroberthunt] 06/12/2016 11:08

next divi circa 25-28 Jan 2017, should be about 9p/shares

[deanroberthunt] 06/12/2016 11:04

dividend is now 7-8%

[finess] 06/12/2016 10:58

When I did this I never left a bet on over night,whatever I did they always manged to hit the stops up and down.some people wake up to find all money gone due to some unexplained spike over night.More regulation has got to be good but at the end of the day you are gambling and they can take you out.

[andysand] 06/12/2016 10:56

IG will just move operations abroad as they hinted in their statement. I will likely be buying a few after this fall.

[rb1206] 06/12/2016 10:56

Simon..you looking to long or short on IG?

Thx in advance.

[simon cawkwell] 06/12/2016 10:54

SKYSHIP

I reckon that it is not that simple. I have very lately encountered disturbing behaviour at Spreadex. I expect this has been replicated at other firms. I have submitted copy this morning to Master Investor. It should be published very shortly.

Simon Cawkwell

[gbill11] 06/12/2016 10:52

IgIndex don't make any more money if the client wins or loses. They hedge their position and make a tiny percent on each deal. So it is definetly in IgIndex's best interest for the client to keep winning so they keep coming back. So these proposed changes will have some benefits to IgIndex.

[skyship] 06/12/2016 10:49

I have no position here; but to an unbiased outsider the FCA intervention looks like an appalling decision - nanny state rampant. Caveat empteur IMO. Also many of these trades are for hedging purposes, so those 82% losses are not real losses.

When resolved I suspect there will be some loss of volumes; but very much a loss of smaller, less profitable business. In the meantime, of course, uncertainty rules - & Markets hate uncertainty!

[mercury123] 06/12/2016 10:48

I have felt uncomfortable about holding them anyway because I know the profits are made on the back of so many people's losses

[trytotakeiteasy] 06/12/2016 10:45

A long time coming. A broader debate about gambling which has gotten out of hand given the shift online. Before it was a seedy betting shop but now it is online with huge amounts of advertising. The online betting companies are sponsoring football clubs etc and leave a huge number of their clients bankrupt.

For a huge number of people gambling is an addiction in the same way that smoking is. We don't allow advertising for smoking in the UK but we are allowing an explosion in advertising for online gambling.

If it was up to me we would ban gambling apart from say the National Lottery and maybe the annual flutter on the Grand National. What does gambling really add to society apart from broken lives?

Gbill11 - I note your comparison with chocolate. Actually chocolate isn't bad for you although it is high in fat. High levels of sugar are bad for you as it can cause diabetes etc. But 100% chocolate actually is quite good. I understand your argument but I think it breaks down if people are addicted and aren't in control and if it hits other people around them. What I am saying is that there is an explosion of glamorous advertising around CFDs/online gambling and spreadbetting. This seeks to legitimise and normalize the industry. There aren't adequate risk warnings and the whole area just suckers people in. We can allow controlled gambling. However, having heavily promoted online gambling just serves to sucker people in who become addicted. This hits their families and their lives.

[lydnem] 06/12/2016 10:25

I think this is a massive over reaction for IG. I think the effect will be limited.