Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Mayflower LSE:MFW London Ordinary Share GB0008002221 ORD 5P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  +0.00p +0.00% 6.75p 0.00p 0.00p - - - 0.00 05:00:10
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Automobiles & Parts 623.1 -2.8 -3.1 - 23.90

Mayflower (MFW) Latest News

Real-Time news about Mayflower (London Stock Exchange): 0 recent articles
More Mayflower News
Mayflower Takeover Rumours

Mayflower (MFW) Share Charts

1 Year Mayflower Chart

1 Year Mayflower Chart

1 Month Mayflower Chart

1 Month Mayflower Chart

Intraday Mayflower Chart

Intraday Mayflower Chart

Mayflower (MFW) Discussions and Chat

Mayflower Forums and Chat

Date Time Title Posts
24/4/200908:29mayflower action group1,092.00
12/11/200422:42mayflower-windfarms benefit5.00
12/11/200422:42MFW Starting to move4.00
12/11/200422:40SIMPSON HAS TO GO and take your FD with you29.00
12/11/200422:38MAYFLOWER A SHARE TO TUCK AWAY4,493.00

Add a New Thread

Mayflower (MFW) Most Recent Trades

No Trades
Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type
View all Mayflower trades in real-time

Mayflower (MFW) Top Chat Posts

DateSubject
04/2/2005
02:28
anomalous: Pace Micro Technology fined £450,000 for Listing Rule breaches FSA/PN/010/2005 27 January 2005 The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has today fined Pace Micro Technology plc (Pace) £450,000 for breaches of the Listing Rules in January and February 2002. The FSA has found that Pace breached the Listing Rules because it failed to ensure its Interim Results Announcement on 8 January 2002 included all relevant information, when it did not reveal that its trade credit insurance, in respect of one of its largest customers, had been withdrawn. It also failed to update the market without delay of a change in its expectation as to its future revenue performance which had occurred on 4 February 2002. When Pace did alert the market as to its financial position on 5 March 2002, its share price fell 67% by close of trading. Gay Huey Evans, Director of Markets at the FSA, said: "The effect of Pace's omission from its Interim Announcement on 8 January 2002 was further compounded by the delay in announcing its changed expectation as to its financial performance until 5 March 2002. These were clear breaches of the Listing Rules. "The FSA requires listed companies to ensure the financial information they release to the market is accurate and provided without delay to enable investors to make informed investment decisions. This is a fundamental protection for shareholders and is vital for the smooth operation of efficient, orderly and competitive markets. "This is the third time in the last 12 months that the FSA has taken action against a company for failing to observe the Listing Rules. It demonstrates how seriously we view a failure by companies to meet expected standards and our determination to take action for such failures." Background Pace is involved in the manufacture, development and distribution of digital television set top boxes. Pace's primary customer base, during this period, was composed of a small number of large European and US companies. One of its largest customers in late 2001 was NTL Group Limited (NTL), a subsidiary of the US-based NTL Inc which was suffering well publicised financial difficulties. NTL, during the first half of Pace's financial year 2001/2002, accounted for 42% of Pace's turnover by volume and 48% by revenue. Pace had made known to the market, in previous Annual Reports, that it maintained a policy of trade credit insurance in respect of its larger customers. Interim Results Announcement of 8 January 2002 In October 2001, NTL placed orders for 450,000 set top boxes, to be delivered in January, February and March 2002, on which Pace's forecasted revenues for the financial year ending 1 June 2002 were dependent. In early December 2001, the size of the order was reduced to 300,000 boxes and the parties continued to discuss payment and delivery terms. On 19 December 2001, Pace's trade credit insurer, NCM, informed Pace that it was withdrawing insurance cover in respect of all of Pace's future shipments to NTL including the October 2001 order. This withdrawal meant that future payments owed by NTL were no longer guaranteed. The matter was not drawn to the attention of the company's corporate brokers and the withdrawal of insurance cover was not mentioned in the Interim Results statement published on 8 January 2002. Pace's Interim Results Announcement on 8 January 2002 showed that the expected turnover for the year ending 1 June 2002 would be broadly similar to the previous year's turnover of £524 million. Key to the realisation of the forecast figure was the receipt of the revenue from NTL's purchase of the 300,000 boxes. Trading Statement of 5 March 2002 On 4 February 2002, Pace changed its expectation of its revenue for its financial year ending 1 June 2002, to £455 million, which was 12.5% less than the market consensus of £520 million. This information was not announced to the market. On 4 March 2002 Pace commenced a review of its performance which indicated that there had been a marked deterioration in its forecasted revenue for the financial year ending 1 June 2002 from £455 million on 4 February to £350 million. This further change in expectation represented a decrease of approximately 30% from the forecast of £524 million implied by the Interim Results of 8 January 2002. Pace issued a Trading Statement on 5 March 2002 setting out its change in expectation. Following the announcement, Pace's share price fell nearly 67% from £3 to £1 at the close of trading. Notes for editors The full text of the Final Notice, dated 26 January 2005, is available on the FSA website. This includes the background to the case, the relevant statutory provisions and the regulatory requirements contravened and the factors taken into account by the RDC when setting the level of the fine. Financial penalties are not treated as income by the FSA. They are applied for the benefit of authorised persons (or the issuers of securities admitted to the official list) as appropriate, and so given back to the industry in subsequent years. Pace Microtechnology is a publicly listed company whose shares are traded on the LSE. Paragraph 9.2 of the version of the Listing Rules, which applied at the time, states that: "A company must notify the Company Announcements Office without delay of all relevant information which is not public knowledge concerning a change: (a) in the company's financial condition; (b) in the performance of its business; or (c) in the company's expectation as to its performance; which, if made public, would be likely to lead to substantial movement in the price of its listed securities." Paragraph 9.3A of the version of the Listing Rules, which applied at the time, stated that: "A company must take all reasonable care to ensure that any statement or forecast or any other information it notifies to the Company Announcements Office or makes available through the UK Listing Authority is not misleading, false or deceptive and does not omit anything likely to affect the import of such statement, forecast or other information." Under section 91(1) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 if the FSA considers that an issuer of listed securities has contravened the Listing Rules, it may impose a penalty of such amount as it considers appropriate. FSA took on new powers under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 on 1 December 2001. The disciplinary sanctions available to the FSA for breaches of the Listing Rules that take place on or after 1 December 2001 include a fine or a public statement. The FSA has taken action for Listing Rules breaches in the following cases since 1 December 2001 - Marconi, SFI, Sportsworld, Universal Salvage and Shell. The FSA wrote to listed retail companies, on 15 December 2004, reminding them of their duties under the Listing Rules to keep the market informed without delay of any developments in their businesses. The FSA regulates the financial services industry and has four objectives under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000: maintaining market confidence; promoting public understanding of the financial system; the appropriate degree of protection for consumers; and fighting financial crime. The FSA aims to promote efficient, orderly and fair markets, help retail consumers achieve a fair deal and improve our business capability and effectiveness. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/press/2005/010.html
30/8/2004
08:12
soysoy: Stockgate" and Naked Shorting – Is it Happening Here? by Wendy Durham 1st June 2004 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tuesday 1st June 2004 Naked shorting is the sale of fictitious shares – i.e. the seller either is NOT required to make an undertaking that he can or will deliver the stock he has sold, or simply fails to deliver. This practice – thought by many to be immoral - is quite capable of bringing a blameless small company to its knees through no fault of its own, although it is fair to say that some weak organisations do cite it as an excuse for their own poor share price performance. On 1st April 2004, new regulations in the US made the practice of naked shorting just about impossible, by requiring that sellers of any stock must be able to deliver the sold shares within 2 days of settlement. Between January and April, hundreds of US companies found themselves listed in Berlin, on the Berlin Stock Exchange, without their knowledge or consent. Why might this be? An overview of what is being called "Stockgate" appears here: http://www.friedlandfinancingnews.com/052204%20Friedland%20Corporate%20Finance%20News.htm The Financial Times had this to say: http://www.rgm.com/articles/ft7.html Another of the many commentaries from the US is here: http://tfc-charts2.w2d.com/forum/index.cgi?noframes%3bread=294241 All of these cite the "arbitrage exception" to the naked shorting rules as being a loophole which can be used now that these companies are listed on a foreign exchange. The wording of this exception – Rule 10a-1 (e)(8) is as follows: (NB – "paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section" refers to the short selling rules) (e) The provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section (and of any exchange rule adopted in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section) shall not apply to: (8) Any sale of a security registered on, or admitted to unlisted trading privileges on, a national securities exchange effected for a special international arbitrage account for the bona fide purpose of profiting from a current difference between the price of such security on a securities market not within or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and on a securities market subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; provided the seller at the time of such sale knows or, by virtue of information currently received, has reasonable grounds to believe that an offer enabling him to cover such sale is then available to him in such foreign securities market and intends to accept such offer immediately; Nowhere is the actual use of this loophole spelled out – but the implication appears to be that the stock is SOLD in the domestic market, in anticipation of immediately BUYING at a lower price in the overseas market to cover the sale and make a profit from the difference in price. However, for this to be a "loophole", there must be an advantage to the US seller – thus one can speculate that if the seller then fails to purchase in the foreign market, the wording of "reasonable grounds to believe" appears to permit any number of excuses for such failure to cover the short. In the meantime, the now-naked short remains open....or is eventually settled via the stock borrow program of the US Depositary Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTC). So what has this to do with UK listed companies? Go first to http://www.berlinerboerse.de/?LANG=en Choose About Us Choose New Companies Choose Listings Then browse through the pages to understand the sheer scope and scale of what was done in just a few weeks during March and April 2004. Allegedly, the bulk listings began earlier than this, but I cannot find evidence of dates on the BSE's website prior to 1st March. 145 UK listed companies – largely small caps and speculative stocks – have been listed on the Berlin Exchange since 1st March. At the same time, hundreds more companies from all over the world, but mainly from the US and Canada, were also listed, largely by the same brokers - 1170 and 1172. It is notable that the majority of companies listed are small cap and/or speculative stocks, particularly the huge number of mining and exploration vehicles. A Google search turns up very many US companies complaining bitterly that within only weeks of the effective outlawing of naked shorting in the US on 1st April, they have discovered that they are now exposed WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT to the same activity via – apparently - the arbitrage loophole. The Berlin Stock Exchange deny that the exchange is being used for naked shorting, but it is a remarkable coincidence that highly speculative US short targets, many of them already in severe trouble, suddenly end up - in their hundreds - listed on a foreign exchange within a very "short" period indeed of the ending of the practice in the US. It is a fact that one of the complainants, Goldspring, which now appears to have been removed from trading, had been listed in Berlin in late November 2003. Its price experienced a fairly volatile rollercoaster ride, from 0.45 Euros in November to approximately 0.8 Euros by mid-Feb. On 1st April the price in Berlin was 0.7 Euros, but immediately began to fall sharply, and by early May, when Goldspring requested the removal of their listing, the price was down to 0.4 Euros. Interestingly, no volume AT ALL was recorded for the stock during the entire period of its listing – a common feature of the recently listed US and UK stocks. There is virtually NO trading going on in Berlin in the shares of these companies. Which once again raises the question: why were they listed? Are UK companies also being targeted via a similar route? Of small cap UK companies that have suffered recently, Bioprogress and Proteome Sciences spring to mind. Both have halved from recent highs, partly due, it has been thought, to organised shorting by hedge funds intent on destabilising a substantial margin trade position to bring the stocks ever lower Proteome Sciences (PRM.BE) has been listed on the Berlin Stock Exchange since Autumn 2000. Bioprogress – as discovered by a sharpeyed ADFVN bulletin board poster known as "Scram" - was listed on 21 April 2004 (BPRG.BE). Both companies are known in the US through an earlier listing on the OTCBB in the case of BPRG, and commercial relationships in the case of PRM. On 1st April – the day from which the focus of US naked shorters was switched to stocks listed in Berlin - Proteome was standing at £1.90 per share, having reached £2.30 on an earlier high, and had been trading steadily for the previous month in the £2.10 - £1.90 range. Bioprogress had come off an earlier unsustainable high at £1.60 to a 6-week trading range of £1.00 - £1.20. On 1st April, Proteome Sciences' share price began to fall sharply and by 28th April had reached 90p. On 29th April, just 8 days after listing in Berlin, Bioprogress began a rapid descent to 75p by 14th May . Neither have recovered more than a fraction of their earlier highs. Coincidence? Perhaps – but perhaps not. Many companies have had a hard time of it during April and May, which has been put down to poor market conditions, macroeconomic effects throughout the world, and general underperformance. In the particular cases of Bioprogress and Proteome, traders were becoming increasingly nervous as expected commercial deals failed to materialise. However, six other UK companies were listed in Berlin on the same day as Bioprogress – 21st April. Their short term charts make interesting reading: Regal Petroleum – share price declined from 10 May Pipex Comms – share price began a decline at the end of March, which has steepened since 29 April. RAB Capital – share price commenced a decline on 20 April, corrected a little on 26 April, but resumed an overall downtrend on 28th African Gold – share price decline commenced 22 April, flattened off from 26 April – 6 May, and then resumed the downtrend. Oystertec – follows a similar pattern to Pipex, though the price has since recovered ASK Central – the company was under offer, which became conditional in early May – hence there was no share price effect. Several more UK companies were listed on 28 April. Of these: Supercart's price – already in decline from 54p to 36p – fell to 23p between 29 April and 20 May. Visonic, after two weeks of trading sideways, commenced falling sharply on 30 April Omega Int began to fall from £1.23 on 4 May to £1.04 by 20 May The charts of two more companies listed on that day, Dignity and Polaron, show them to have been good short candidates. Dignity had experienced a sharp rise – and Polaron appeared to be rapidly declining. However, neither appeared to have suffered ill-effects after their Berlin listing. Another group of UK companies were listed in Berlin on 1 March 2004. A review of their charts is even more interesting! The companies involved are Golden Prospect, Gold Mines of Sardinia, Glencar Mining, Eurasia Mining, Avocet Mining, Randgold, African Eagle, Oxus Gold, Griffin Mining and Tertiary Minerals. It is worth noting that most of the UK companies listed since 1 March are highly speculative, many illiquid, and several were already excellent short candidates. In fact, one has to wonder why this relative handful of 145 companies have been added at all, if it were not for the fact that most of them, at some point, will be or have been first rate shorts. All the above looks at only a few of the UK companies listed in Berlin during the last 3 months, and any evidence that they are being targeted by naked shorters is purely circumstantial. However, the charts and the general absence of any trading in these stocks on the Berlin Exchange do appear to be telling a story. It is clear that there are many more UK companies enjoying a Berlin listing, in addition to the 145 that have been listed since 1st March this year. A random input of various UK tickers, particularly those of speculative stocks, into the Berlin Exchange's search facility turns up a result in many cases. Some will no doubt have chosen to be listed there – others may as yet be unaware. How many more of these older listings are now increasingly vulnerable to a shorting community focused on the Berlin exchange? Proteome Sciences might be a salutary example. Finally - could it be that the "generally poor market conditions" which have been given as a reason for sliding prices in many UK listed smallcap and speculative stocks have been a symptom rather than a cause? Wendy Durham 1st June 2004 This article is the copyright of Fillyaboots.com and may NOT be reproduced or copied elsewhere without our written permission. You are however, welcome to quote extracts provided it is properly attributed and refer to it wherever you wish using the following link http://www.fillyaboots.com/?mount=Frames/whatwe.html Please remember Fillyaboots.com is a free service but
23/3/2004
14:31
oraclemuppet: My opinion is that the fall in MFW price is an over-reaction to the current situation. At the end of the day MFW is still making a profit (unless there is yet another shock next week) of about £6 million. Yes the level of debt is high but what matters is whether they can service the debt. The recent announcements have stated that the write-downs are one-offs and not expected to recur this year. The lenders have agreed a standstill agreement while they conclude negotiations. I'm sure that the new financing deal will be worked out positively for MFW, after all it isn't in the banks interest to pull the rug from under a profitable (albeit somewhat less profitable than last year) company. If MFW was making huge losses and had no hope of recovery then I could see it going under, but looking at the publically available information then it is obvious that a large amount of panic selling is going on and thus assuming no surprises next week then the share price will bounce (dead cat?) I sold several shares in such a panic last year and lived to regret it. This time I am holding - though mainly because I don't have much more to lose anyway :-( Next time I shall set a rigid stoploss at 20% and not budge from it. Good luck to all the holders out there. I would value anyone's opinion on this one.
20/2/2004
15:49
upside: Edviel - no probs... the core of my portfolio, the long-term holds I do within conventional trading accounts and preferably within an ISA. I use E*Trade and Hoodless Brennan for these. The easiest way of shorting that I've found is to use controlled risk spread betting, for which I use IG Index. It is also the cheapest way of doing speculative longs. I only do controlled risk bets so I know exactly how much capital I am putting in harms way :) Basically, say I have £10,000 of MFW shares but I am worried that the price is going to collapse. Obviously I can either sell my holding or alternatively take out an equivalent short. Let's say MFW shares are at 20p, so I have 50,000 shares. I can take out a down bet on MFW at £500 per point. Each £1 you stake in a spread bet is equivalent to playing with 100 shares (this clearly can get quite fun when you're betting on a higher value share!). In practice, the maths is a little more complicated since you have to pay for the spread on the bet as well. So, if IG Index are quoting a controlled risk spread of +/- 0.25p on MFW I will be down £125 the moment I open the bet. For controlled risk bets you also have to put up the maximum loss you are prepared to accept. Ok, so say the MFW price drops 1p. My shares are now worth £9,500. My bet is now up £375 (£500 for 1p drop - £125 opening spread). Lets say it drops another 1p. My shares are now worth £9,000 but my bet is now up £875. Until I close either the long or the short I'm not making any money - all I am doing is taken the transaction costs of setting up the bet. Now, say I believe the price is going to carry on heading south. I can sell my shares and pocket the £9,000 leaving the short open. If the price drops to 10p and I close my short as well at 10.5p I will end up with £13,675 (£9,000 from share sale, plus £4,675 from the bet). Now, if I was 100% sure the price was going to collapse it would clearly be better to just sell up and set up a short. Obviously if the market moves against you in this scenario you end up losing both ways though. You can also do all of the above with CFDs but I dislike trading on margin! I recommend Peter Temple's "The Investor's Toolbox: How to Use Spreadbetting, CFDs, Options, Warrants and Trackers to Boost Returns and Reduce Risk" for a better explanation of strategies like this. Hope that helps!
05/12/2003
22:21
hvs: RSI, Why did you say dont but buy MFW @ 16.5p ???? Do you know what it it is now ?? And picking fight with VS is a lost cause. He CAUGHT YOU OUT , now accept it as a gentleman and let the MFW share price do the talking . Just like THUS at 5p.
25/11/2003
12:03
harrycash: looks like a lot of competion exists in this field but the thoughts were that MFW would have significant advantage with their new vessel which i must say appears overdue; any delivery dates been confirmed?? as for the refinancing - we have been discussing this for over a year now and we appear no closer to a conclusion yet, only MFW can answer this one and we must hope its a positive end to what is the most significant issue with regard to MFW share price and continues to put a 'brake' on any significant uptick.
21/7/2003
06:55
the dart: Morning all, Situation report MM trading(Best Guess) MM's were approached last week my Mayflower to reduce volatility in the stock, they reacted by increasing the spread, and also lowered the price to attempt to spook investors to avoid the price running away too early and falling into potentially more fickle hands. The principal problem for MM's now is to contain the price to allow Mayflower to market to institutional investors, providing a wider shareholder base for the long term. One or two new long institutional holders coming on board over next month would be fantastic news for the share price in the long run to run past 70pence and so on. Another possible reason for this move is to enable the final shares from Credit Sussi or Fidelity or both to be placed at a reasonable price with other institutional investors to provide a firm base for the share price on a long term view, rather than allow 10m or so shares left (best guess) to fall into the hands of short term traders. I believe 3m of the 10m have gone to Zurich during June, with the balance almost certainly held by MM's, who sold much to private investors. The share price rose sharply from 13p to 20p following the change of ownership at the end of May, as the main overhang cleared, again June saw us move up to a new range, as Credit Suiss and Fidelity reduced holding. July saw us test a new high. During July the price behaves according to demand suggesting we are at a SMART trading range, press reports however about Wind farms recently left the MM's with the view that there would be a surge in demand, so they promptly marked up when the trades started to flood in, and promptly marked down when the frenzy abated, in the hope that those who bought for a quick buck would be wrong footed and close their positions, and in response I guess to Mayflowers request. The MM's now have either cleared their books to normal levels, or are indeed still shaking the tree in the hope there will be some sellers at the lower price. This has not worked though, and I beleive they do not have much stock. In my view then, Mayflower are trying to get the best possible base of holding and have asked the MM's to steady the price, and are not keen to release info that would help the share price in the short term, they are happy for short term holders or impatient holders to dump stock, and allow long term holders the opportunity to buy in at better prices to get the best possible base of holders, to then allow a substantial rally in the share price without fear of volatility/ too much profit taking. The strategy used by MM's recently is odd, the only conclusion is what I have spelled out here, since the MM's work for their client they will do their best to achieve this although you will see on L2 going forward, the MM's starting to change quotes back up again. Any one else have any theories over last weeks MM activity and price movement ?
21/6/2003
01:01
addouglas: I was referring to those who go off on their summer holidays and cannot therefore watch the markets from day to day. I was also referring to the market in general, in the fact that during the summer trading volumes reduce significantly, and pick up again in August time. My opinion is that what happens in the market will affect MFW share price to a greater or lesser degree in the short term, until further definitive notification is given my MFW themselves... What is known for sure, is that an interim statement will be given in August. IMHO
22/5/2003
17:07
harrycash: boys, as hvs refers to other posters; i'm not a friend of john harvey as suggested by hvs, he lives in the bahamas and i live in florida, so little connection there other than for nice beaches; however, i do follow his investments mfw being one, he appears to target bombed out stock with possible rebound or buy-out potential, i have to say his record of late has been pretty poor, but he has past successes and i feel he will have a closer relationship with mfw than the rest of us given his shareholding; hopefully mfw will eventually be a winner for him and all that hold mfw stock, i also take comfort in the fact that he has not panicked and dumped his holding, he has continually averaged down and i have a feeling he may well be repeating this at the current share price; only time will tell. with regard to my posting on the Thus site as noted by hvs. I have held shares in Thus for some time and commented often on the risks involved in what has always been perceived as a high risk sector (telco's}; as with my MFW holding I try to look at both sides of the coin and not be blinded just because I bought shares and miss the obvious risks; certain things at Thus were wrong and needed correcting, this they have now done due largely to a strong management team and tight money management, Thus's recent share price rise reflects these facts; MFW presently have a similar risk factor, although not as high, but also without the potential growth factor of Thus who will go FCF before march 04 with a forward looking share price of £1+ by mid 04. Similarily MFW have now to address their own problems and at present the management team appears to be drifting along, this approach I feel is not good enough and cedes control to their lenders in a worst case scenerio, they need to be more pro-active, certainly on news/financing issues; only then will investors have confidence in purchasing their shares. I must repeat my opinion that I see little upside until positive news appears, which is now well overdue, and this restrains me from averaging down at present. luck all.
29/4/2003
08:53
harrycash: hv - MFW issued what was affectively a profit warning back in Oct 02 when they stated business was not improving and 'flat'. this resulted in the present lowly share price,little has changed since then with the bank debt, refinancing, and margin squeeze issues sidelining most from buying back in. Like most that post here I also believe the MFW share price is 'dirt cheap'. However, my caveat remains as before; the lack of positive news will continue to hold back any upward share movement and the shares are a 'risky' bet in this situation with the banks possibly taking control if they don't like the way things are going, leaving shareholders with next to nothing,eg - moni, isys, egs, etccccc. just because the share price is cheap dosen't mean its a bargain in this scenerio. One of the more possible options on MFW is a MBO or VCAP outfit coming in and buying on the cheap, problem is what price do they offer, the NAV looks very suspect and is open to interpretation by those with the cash? all - present downward pressure on share price is not good and feel we could see sub 12p before long, hope i'm wrong but mm don't like this share and none of the major holders appear to have lifted their stakes which you would assume a good option at these levels,why???
Mayflower share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange
Your Recent History
LSE
GKP
Gulf Keyst..
LSE
QPP
Quindell
FTSE
UKX
FTSE 100
LSE
IOF
Iofina
FX
GBPUSD
UK Sterlin..
Stocks you've viewed will appear in this box, letting you easily return to quotes you've seen previously.

Register now to create your own custom streaming stock watchlist.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P:32 V: D:20161210 14:38:36