We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mood Media | MM. | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 25.50 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25.50 | 25.50 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 02/2/2012 12:14 by saucepan 320,000 buy gone through. Institutional accumulation?MM. certainly has a head of steam at present. Long may it continue - the low P/E and high growth certainly warrants it. |
Posted at 22/1/2012 17:49 by saucepan Is anyone still looking in on this thread? Do you have an opinion on the Company?MM. came up on one of my ShareScope stock screening filters today, but I cannot find out much info outside of ShareScope. It is flagged as 'Canada's fastest growing company'! It has a Rolling P/E 2 of just 4.7: which seems incongruous for such a high growth stock. However, I note that a director regularly off-loads his shares, so that is obviously not so good. |
Posted at 29/9/2008 18:56 by wdurham 8trader - "Are you suggesting that all Aim stocks should be mm/sets mixed ?" *ALL* SETS stocks - including the FTSE 100 - are MM/SETS mixed. Don't any of you here know what's actually going on? SETSmm was founded to enable lower liquidity AIM stocks to be traded on SETS, with the MMs providing firm 2 way quotes in the event of their being no business direct on the book. This system was extended to the entire UK LSE stock market, and renamed SETS. MMs now provide firm two way quotes on every equity traded on the LSE. Go and read the LSE website, where it is laid out, chapter and bl@@dy verse! "From 29 October 2007, SETSmm and SETS were united to create a single powerful platform for the trading of the constituents of the FTSE All Share Index and higher-traded AIM securities. The combined service, called SETS, combines: Order-driven trading with integrated market making guaranteeing 2-way prices in all securities. One approach (full execution including quotes) and one set of rules for the trading of the more liquid UK securities" The system that the petition-originators want already exists - SETS. It's just a matter of getting it extended to all of AIM instead of just the bigger companies. And then, of course, you have to bully the brokers into offering DMA to their clients. At present there are only 2 brokers that offer the DMA facility for straight equities. |
Posted at 29/9/2008 14:46 by 8trader malkieAre you suggesting that all Aim stocks should be mm/sets mixed ? I suppose it will improve things, i'll stick by the mm's cutting their own throats, if they dont make a fair spread then they wont get the business and they will not make the money. |
Posted at 28/9/2008 15:35 by wdurham hi, malkie - Don't think you quite understood what I wrote - "SETS - an order-book driven system, whereby investors who have DMA can enter orders directly on the LSE order book. Market makers are also obliged to maintain 2-way firm quotes on the said order book so that investors can buy and sell even if there are no orders - other than the MM firm quotes - on the book. DMA - a service offered by brokers to their clients enabling them to enter orders direct on the order book, without obliging them to go through market makers and pay yellow strip price." I wasn't talking about the broker's order book but THE order book! I don't have DMA because my preferred broker doesn't offer it, so don't know the minutiae - but as far as I can see, if you DO use a broker that offers DMA, your orders go straight on the book via your broker's connection to the exchange. As a private investor, you can never have that direct connection yourself, in your own right, only through an intermediary. As far as I am aware - and I just checked - TSX and ASX operate in much the same way. Joe Public can't simply log into the exchange and put orders on the book. It has to be done via a broker or other intermediary, if only so that the order details can be filtered to ensure they meet exchange rules and regs. Without those checks and filters, any order of any size at any price could be put onto the book, causing chaos and a breakdown of orderly trading in a matter of seconds....! There's an interesting article here about how to get the best prices/spreads out of SEAQ, which is now a bit old but still useful. It also discusses DMA in brief: The real root of all of the problems is the growth of non-advisory, execution-only electronic trading over the last few years, so that ringing your broker is now not even considered as a means of placing a trade! There are folk investing/trading now who have never done anything other than electronic trading from their PCs, and that have never even spoken to their broker, and perhaps don't even know that they can... But how many times do you see "I can't buy!" when all the poster really means is that the electronic system won't deal with him and demands a limit order for later execution, or electronic trading has been suspended. The answer is ALWAYS, if you are serious about the trade, to pick up the phone.....you will not only get filled (as long as your order is not outrageous in terms of size) but you might even get a better price! Many electronic brokers just take the yellow strip - though some "price improvers" will do what they can to get inside the spread for you. My broker proudly tells me on-screen, when I complete an electronic order, if it has done me a better deal than the yellow strip - which is nearly always! I totally agree that SEAQ is a real pain. About half the stocks I own are still SEAQ based, and yes, I deplore the spreads. But (a) I understand why they are so large in low-liquidity stocks; (b) I deliberately avoid trading such stocks on a regular basis, sticking to fairly long term deals; and (c) if the spread is truly horrendous, I don't deal at all, no matter how tempted I might be. After all, a stock with a massive spread is viewed by the MMs as risky to their financial health/wealth - should we not take note of that and wonder if we WANT to be exposed to so much risk? I can't see any way of bullying the MMs into surrendering their big spreads on high risk, low-liquidity stocks - it is, after all, their safeguard against being caught in a large loss-making position. They are obliged to trade at NMS or below at no worse than yellow-strip prices - they have no choice under LSE rules. The spread helps them moderate losses. In the old days it used to be called the "jobber's turn" - I remember learning about it in A Level Economics! The only alternative is what you have suggested - doing what the MM system was designed to avoid - and contacting other shareholders direct. If your dealing requirement is large, then this can be by far the most effective route. A friend of mine was recently able to place a very large holding in a TSX listed company at favourable prices simply by calling the company and asking them to find him a buyer.... Or you could set up a website along the lines of Genes Reunited, where in a secure and anonymous environment, those with a sell requirement could make contact with those who had a buy requirement. But how would you secure any subsequent transactions and ensure that nobody defaulted? Answer: you couldn't! Again, the SEAQ system was developed to circumvent all these problems... Our best hope is for SETS to be extended all the way down the AIM rankings, and whether we have DMA or not, we will benefit, because yellow strip spreads tend to shrink in an order book environment. We benefit from that even if we still have to buy via the broker/MM chain. |
Posted at 26/9/2008 18:17 by wdurham Rapier - It is a fact that the SETSmm system has been extended right across the board, and has completely replaced the previous SETS system. Every stock traded on SETS, from the FTSE 100 down, now has the additional backup - so it's there when required - of two-way firm quotes from market makers who care to make a market in the stock. Read the LSE website - all the info is there. Belabed - The SETS system used for trading larger-cap AIM stocks like Meldex is exactly the same SETS that is used for trading any other stock on the LSE, including the FTSE 100. If you think differently then you are wrong. Malkie - "I have been advised that there are "orderly market" issues with smaller illiquid stocks which prohibit DMA and are only supported by the Market Maker system. Ultimately this this is decided by the LSE." Malkie, are you sure you aren't confusing DMA with the move to SETS? I can see that liquidity issues might prevent the LSE from moving a stock to SETS, but having granted DMA to any broker, they can't control which stocks that broker allows his clients to trade in! At the end of the day, access to DMA is bought from the LSE by those BROKERS that are prepared to pay for it. Nothing to do with individual stocks that those brokers might see fit to trade on behalf of their clients. For instance, can you imagine the LSE saying to IDealing "Well, yes, you can offer DMA to some of your clients, but only to those that don't invest in piddly AIM stocks"? However, whether or not a stock moves up to SETS or remains on SEAQ *IS* an LSE decision. Companies can request a move to the SETS platform - I know of at least one that tried for some time and eventually succeeded - but largely it is an LSE decision based on volumes, market cap, liquidity etc etc. The parameters for moving up to SETS are published on the LSE website. I repeat that the only solution to this, given that the LSE *HAVE TO* remain onside with MiFID and all the other host of rules and regulations, is for: a. the LSE to extend SETS all the way down the AIM rankings b. many more brokers to bite the bullet and pay the LSE fees which will enable them to offer DMA to their clients. And as I said before (a) without (b) is pretty much a waste of time. Just to clarify: SETS - an order-book driven system, whereby investors who have DMA can enter orders directly on the LSE order book. Market makers are also obliged to maintain 2-way firm quotes on the said order book so that investors can buy and sell even if there are no orders - other than the MM firm quotes - on the book. DMA - a service offered by brokers to their clients enabling them to enter orders direct on the order book, without obliging them to go through market makers and pay yellow strip price. So what you need first is for the stocks you want to trade to be on SETS. This is the LSE's department. Then you need to find a broker that offers DMA. This is the broker's department. |
Posted at 25/9/2008 15:58 by rapier686 Wdurham,Re: "SETSmm is now all there is". Thanks, I hadn't realised that. Although looking through the quite sizeable order books for HBOS,Barclays and Lloyds WINS is the only named MM quote I can see. Interactive Brokers have an awful lot of gumph to get through to understand their offering and open an account. But they are cheap - it really is £6 per trade not fill. And that's expensive for them, ASX is 0.08% (min A$6). I commend them. They don't do SEAQ though - and who can blame them given this thread! Re: "What you describe as piddly quantities is not at the market makers' discretion" Of course it is - they can advertise a price a bigger size than the minimum if they like. They VERY rarely do so though, in Serabi 8 MMs are currently quoting in 10k - a mere £100 worth. Only AMBR have upped their size to 50k with the plummet and even that's only £500. I am not accusing them of flouting the rules, I'm sure they aren't. But I am accusing them of offerring a pretty useless and expensive service. We'd be better off their monopoly broken and I wouldn't mind if that meant they didn't want to play. But I agree that extending SETS to all stocks, and more brokers offering DMA fits the bill. SEAQ is a waste of time - but is unlikely to waste much more of my money! |
Posted at 24/9/2008 17:30 by wdurham malkie - If you want to put orders on the order book you need DMA. Without DMA you are stuck with sending your broker to a market maker. But DMA can't replace the market makers, because the rules require that the market makers are still there on the SETS order book, every day, making firm two way quotes to ensure liquidity in the absence of other orders on the book. The LSE have no input at all into which stocks are traded via DMA. Only the brokers can decide whether to offer it to their clients. If you mean the the LSE decide whether a stock is traded on SETS, yes, the LSE do decide which stocks are traded on that platform and which remain on SEAQ. Although companies can apply to move from SEAQ to SETS if they wish, and if they meet the criteria, they will be moved. Rapier - SETSmm is now all there is. It's all explained on the LSE website. The functionality of permanent 2-way market maker quotes on the book has been extended to the whole LSE order book system, which is now simply known as SETS. The "mm" has been dropped. I don't know about Interactive Brokers because I didn't check them out, but IDealing charges per fill, on the grounds that every execution attracts the same charge from the LSE, whether it is a full fill or not. If your broker needs 2 or three executions to complete your order, then he pays 2 or 3 times the fee, and IDealing charge on that fee to their client. What you describe as piddly quantities is not at the market makers' discretion. Every quarter, the LSE reviews the previous 12 months' trades in every stock and adjusts the NMS/EMS if necessary. The rolling 4 x quarter figures are designed to iron out spikes which are not representative of normal trading. I still maintain that what is needed is the extension of SETS to all AIM stocks, and a much wider selection of brokers offering DMA. That would solve the entire situation without raising any regulatory issues under MiFID or the like, as everything required is already in place. |
Posted at 24/9/2008 08:36 by wdurham malkie - As requested, putting a comment or two here. As you know, some of the larger cap stocks on AIM are traded on the SETS system, so for those stocks, investors are not at the mercy of the market makers. The price can be influenced by the MMs buy and sell quotes, but cannot be controlled by them all the while there are non-MM orders on the book. But the rest of AIM is stuck with SEAQ - whereby prices and spreads are dictated by market makers. SEAQ has many disadvantages. But it does have a few advantages: 1. If an investor wants to buy or sell, he does not have to wait until someone comes along who will match with him, but can buy or sell straight away. The market makers are bound to deal in any size at or under NMS at the yellow strip price. In periods when prices are moving rapidly, they may restrict or suspend electronic trading in a certain stock, which means investors can't buy or sell via the automated online system, but have to communicate directly with their broker in order to deal. But the MMs are obliged by the rules to deal at or under NMS - they can't just say "Sorry, we haven't got any..." or "No we don't want them..." 2. Extended settlement is often available, depending on the broker, although there may be a small premium. This is impossible via an order book system. 3. Dealing charges to your broker are relatively low. HOWEVER, the big point here is that, even if all stocks were traded via the order book, very few private investors have brokers who will give them direect market access. Those that do have dealing charges which are considerably higher than PIs are used to, because DMA costs money - every deal executed on the order book carries a charge to the broker. The LSE website lists only two brokers who offer DMA for cash deals. The other three only offer derivatives. There may be other brokers who offer DMA - but I did not find any during some (fairly superficial) initial research on the SETS market earlier this year. So most private investors are still stuck without access to the order book, and have to buy and sell off-book via the broker/MM route as per SEAQ. The yellow strip price still applies, though, so those trading SETS stocks are likely to get better pricing/spreads. You may be approaching the problem from the wrong end, malkie. The system you advocate already exists, and many liquid or semi liquid AIM stocks are already on the platform. Bit by bit the LSE are extending the range of SETS further down the AIM rankings. The problem here is direct market access. As I see it, a campaign of this kind should have two objectives: 1. Extend SETS throughout AIM as soon as practicable - which means lobbying the LSE 2. Make DMA available for all - which means ganging up on the brokers (2) is actually the most important, because without it, (1) is only partially worthwhile. |
Posted at 06/9/2008 11:58 by timanglin The MM system generates huge spreads and is purely biased towards MM profit, of which i single handedly have probably improved significantly.For me, AIM is purely for 2-3 year investments - NOT 'trading', and in small amounts, with dividend payers. As far as i am concerned the only reason to buy an AIM stock is if it is a more than double bagger in a 2-3 year timeframe, of which there are not many about. The reason for keeping my investments(in general) in small amounts is in order to exit sharply, if necessary. Bluntly for me AIM is a bit of a hobby, with some pocket money, because i like watching the stories unfold and it keeps me in tune with the outside world. This policy of, in general, keeping to dividend payers with growth prospects, narrows my purchasing possibilities to a mere handful. Remember some currect accounts are paying 8% pa interest. To break my rule, I am in small amounts in SER and MRP, small amounts, because of the growth prospects. GVC continues to be my main holding for the above reasons. |
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
