Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Warthog Plc LSE:WHOG London Ordinary Share GB0030013675 ORD 1P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  +0.00p +0.00% 0.03p 0.00p 0.00p - - - 0.00 05:00:10
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Unknown - - - - 0.10

Warthog (WHOG) Latest News

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

Warthog (WHOG) Share Charts

1 Year Warthog Chart

1 Year Warthog Chart

1 Month Warthog Chart

1 Month Warthog Chart

Intraday Warthog Chart

Intraday Warthog Chart

Warthog (WHOG) Discussions and Chat

Warthog (WHOG) Most Recent Trades

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

Warthog (WHOG) Top Chat Posts

DateSubject
11/1/2006
11:46
storminsteve: Whog share price is much to high.It should be around 0.25 at the most.
30/12/2005
10:38
novemberrain: Why is whog share price this high. it is only worth 0.2 or less. Tiger would need to be $5.
23/8/2005
16:38
wantage: Eletellier.I'm glad you're feeling so complacent abt the WHOG share price. Just because it has parted company for the moment, doen not mean it will not follow suit if TGTL dives.At then of the day all it owns are TGTL shares, no more, no less.
13/2/2005
22:14
kingcnut: like i said i make it 346.39m shares in issue and agree with most of above 4m trade was a sell holding the whog price back but not tgtl which should keep rising now until release of gizmondo. i like the analogy from an earlier posted of whog share price attached to tgtl share price by a piece of elastic and the longer whog stays at these levels and tgtl keeps rising the more energy is building until twang. dont think this as been posted "Vancouver, Canada – February 11, 2005 - Intrinsyc Software International Inc. (TSX:ICS) announces the successful use of its wireless telephony software suite in deploying many of the features of the Gizmondo multi-entertainment device. Intrinsyc Software was contracted to develop much of the operating software for the new Gizmondo hand-held wireless gaming device. Intrinsyc Software completed a full Microsoft Windows CE port, including SecureSD drivers, Bluetooth integration, power management and 3D graphics driver integration with nVidia. Key to the development was Intrinsyc's wireless telephony software suite, which included: ▪ modem interface, GPRS integration, SDK, dialer example, SMS engine and control panel applets. ▪ use of its XML-based UI skin engine. This allows fully customizable but very easy branding of the UI and also multiple, user switchable UIs to be provided on a single unit. ▪ development of several custom applications, including the camera application, while integrating standard Microsoft Windows CE components such as Microsoft Internet Explorer and Microsoft Media Player, and off-the-shelf, third party IP such as an MMS engine. "Intrinsyc's wireless telephony software suite provided the perfect complement to the Windows CE operating system used with the Gizmondo multi-entertainment device," said Steve Carroll, CTO of Gizmondo Europe Ltd. "Use of Intrinsyc's software was a major factor in reducing project timescales, as well as facilitating the robust integration of the device's numerous features." "We are very pleased with the partnership between Gizmondo and Intrinsyc Software," said Vince Schiralli, Intrinsyc Software's President and COO. "Gizmondo is an excellent example of the successful application of Intrinsyc Software's wireless technology platform. We believe that this capability and our expertise in Microsoft Windows CE are ideal building blocks to address the feature-phones market."
21/1/2005
08:12
kingcnut: remember why we bought WHOG SPARKYS research with updated figures TGTL expect to sell 7m units in the first year and already have orders for 3.5m. Currently, Gizmondo's listed sales price is about $ 400; assuming a gross margin on sales of only 15% (or about $ 60 per unit). So, a worst case 3.5 million units would translate into gross income of about $ 210 million and a best-case 7 million units would generate gross income of about $420 million. Moving on to all the post-sales revenues that are likely to be associated with each Gizmondo sale, first and foremost we should consider gaming software sales. The number of software units sold for each console sold, which is commonly known throughout the industry as a "tie ratio," is influenced by many factors ranging from the quality and prices of the software to the nature of the relationship between the game producer and the console maker. In the case of TGTL, the company has no low-margin prior-console games to convert; it has a 12-game in-house portfolio from its recent acquisition of Warthog; it has been licensed to sell five Microsoft games; and it stands well positioned to benefit from the powerful overall lure of next generation games. For these reasons, during the first year of full production TGTL will sell at least 5 games for every Gizmondo unit it sells and that on each game sale TGTL will realize gross income of at least $ 10. And because not all the first year units will be owned for a full 12 months, all post-sale revenue items will be divided by two, so as to conservatively reflect a six-month average instead of 12 full months. So totalling this up, TGTL's gross income from game sales will be approximate $ 25 per unit and will fall between $ 87.5 million and $ 175 million during the first full year of production. Also along the lines of post-sale income, TGTL will hopefully be participating in related monthly service plans, in Smart Adds, in MP3 music sales, and in video sales. Lacking available data at this point, i think it's conservative to estimate that each unit will generate an average of at least $ 10 every month from this non-gaming combination of service plans, Smart Adds, and music & video sales. Again dividing this $ 120 annual amount by two to reflect part-year ownership, i conservatively estimate that during year one each Gizmondo unit will generate at least $ 60 in gross income from non-gaming-related post-sale revenues. Using a range of 3.5 million to 7 million units, this translates into post-sale non-gaming gross income between $ 210 and $ 420 million. And lastly, we must not overlook after-market accessory sales. Within this group, i would include everything from battery, cable, charger, and earphone replacements to carrying cases, video viewing cradles, custom casings, and all the other related gadgets that are sure to follow. For purposes of this analysis, I estimate that annual gross income from accessory sales will total about $ 20 per unit. Dividing this amount by two, gross income derived from first year accessory sales will fall between $ 35 million and $ 70 million. To sum up all these predictions, under a worst-case scenario of 3.5 million units we have gross income of $ 210 million from unit sales, $ 87.5 million from gaming software sales, $ 210 million from non-gaming sales, and $ 35 million from accessory sales. This adds up to worst-case gross income of $ 542.5 million. And under a best-case scenario of 7 million units we have gross income of $ 420 million from unit sales, $ 175 million from gaming software sales, $ 420 million from non-gaming sales, and $ 70 million from accessory sales. This adds up to best-case gross income of $ 1085 million. Now bear in mind, the above numbers are gross income totals, not sales. In other words, the cost of goods sold (production labour & material) has already been netted out. So to arrive at TGTL's pre-tax net income, i must now deduct general & administrative (operating) expenses from the above gross income totals. As with most companies, TGTL's operating expenses are likely to vary with sales volume and ideally as unit sales increase resulting economies of scale will reduce general & administrative expenses, at least when expressed as a percentage of sales. But for the purposes of this write-up, i will conservatively assume under both the best and worst case scenarios presented above, that operating expenses will be approximate 25% of gross income during the first full year of production. So assuming that 75% of the above gross income totals will be pre-tax net income, Tiger Telematics will report first year net income in the range of $ 400 to $ 800 million. The next obvious question is; what would these net income figures translate into on a per share basis? Well i have no way of knowing how many TGTL shares will be outstanding at the end of the company's first year of production, but in an effort to remain conservative let's assume that under our worst-case scenario of 3.5 million units TGTL has 50 million shares outstanding, and that under our best-case scenario there are 75 million shares outstanding. To put these share count estimates into better perspective, i believe that there are approximately 33 million shares now outstanding; so a level of 50 million would represent a 51% increase over the next year and a level of 75 million would be a 127% increase. these outstanding share estimates are ultra-conservative in that they leave TGTL's management ample room to cut additional gaming deals, to finance any needed expansion, and to even further vertically integrate through additional acquisitions during the all-important first year. Doing the math, the above net income on 3.5 million units of $ 400 million divided by 50 million outstanding shares, would yield worst-case scenario per share earnings of $ 8.00. Similarly, the above net income on sales of 7 million units, of $ 800 million, would yield best-case scenario earnings of $ 16.00 a share. The next logical question is; what share prices would the above earnings range produce? To answer this question, we must try and predict the Price-Earnings (PE) ratio that TGTL shares will command. though this next generation of multi-functional consoles is worthy of its own industry label, at present there is no such collection of member firms. And for this reason, there are no existing measures upon which to base an industry-wide PE estimate. Looking around for firms that share product and market outlook similarities, one will find much deviation in PE ratios. As examples, Research in Motion (RIMM) is now trading at a hefty 85 times earnings, but meanwhile Atari (ATAR) shares trade at 16 times earnings. The same holds true among the gaming software companies, with Electronic Arts (ERTS) and THQ (THQI) now trading at multiples of 32 and 35 respectively and with Take-Two Interactive Software (TTWO) and Activision (ATVI) now both trading at 24 times earnings. Personally, in light of Gizmondo's promising near-term outlook and its explosive long-term potential, a first-year multiple in excess of 25 is not only possible but also very probable. But to remain conservative, i will assume in this write-up a first-year PE ratio of 18, which is the multiple at which the Dow Jones Industrial Average now trades. Applying this multiple of 18 to the above $ 8.00 and $ 16.00 per share earnings amounts, i predict a first-year TGTL share price range of $ 144 to $ 288. And if instead we apply a PE multiple of 25 to the above $ 8.00 - $ 16.00 EPS range, the share price range would be $200 to $ 400! Furthermore, if at any time during the next year TGTL were to sell more units than estimated above, realize wider gross margins on games sale than assumed herein, generate higher music and video sales than predicted above, or gets either an additional version of Gizmondo or its planned AltioLive-equipped Bizmondo on retail shelves within a year; i think the above share price estimates would have to be adjusted upward sharply. And as we look ahead to year two, bear in mind that the Gizmondo unit base will then be bigger; so i won't be dividing, as he did above, all the post-sale revenues associated with first-year units by two in order to reflect a six-month ownership average. So sales in the lower end, of just 3.5 million units equates to a WHOG share price of around 10p and if the rumoured Chinese deal should be true and orders are placed for the 30 million units suggested then you can multiply that figure by 10.
17/1/2005
01:10
kingcnut: UPDATE ON SPARKYS DATA TGTL expect to sell 7m units in the first year and already have orders for 3.5m. Currently, Gizmondo's listed sales price is about $ 400; assuming a gross margin on sales of only 15% (or about $ 60 per unit). So, a worst case 3.5 million units would translate into gross income of about $ 210 million and a best-case 7 million units would generate gross income of about $420 million. Moving on to all the post-sales revenues that are likely to be associated with each Gizmondo sale, first and foremost we should consider gaming software sales. The number of software units sold for each console sold, which is commonly known throughout the industry as a "tie ratio," is influenced by many factors ranging from the quality and prices of the software to the nature of the relationship between the game producer and the console maker. In the case of TGTL, the company has no low-margin prior-console games to convert; it has a 12-game in-house portfolio from its recent acquisition of Warthog; it has been licensed to sell five Microsoft games; and it stands well positioned to benefit from the powerful overall lure of next generation games. For these reasons, during the first year of full production TGTL will sell at least 5 games for every Gizmondo unit it sells and that on each game sale TGTL will realize gross income of at least $ 10. And because not all the first year units will be owned for a full 12 months, all post-sale revenue items will be divided by two, so as to conservatively reflect a six-month average instead of 12 full months. So totalling this up, TGTL's gross income from game sales will be approximate $ 25 per unit and will fall between $ 87.5 million and $ 175 million during the first full year of production. Also along the lines of post-sale income, TGTL will hopefully be participating in related monthly service plans, in Smart Adds, in MP3 music sales, and in video sales. Lacking available data at this point, i think it's conservative to estimate that each unit will generate an average of at least $ 10 every month from this non-gaming combination of service plans, Smart Adds, and music & video sales. Again dividing this $ 120 annual amount by two to reflect part-year ownership, i conservatively estimate that during year one each Gizmondo unit will generate at least $ 60 in gross income from non-gaming-related post-sale revenues. Using a range of 3.5 million to 7 million units, this translates into post-sale non-gaming gross income between $ 210 and $ 420 million. And lastly, we must not overlook after-market accessory sales. Within this group, i would include everything from battery, cable, charger, and earphone replacements to carrying cases, video viewing cradles, custom casings, and all the other related gadgets that are sure to follow. For purposes of this analysis, I estimate that annual gross income from accessory sales will total about $ 20 per unit. Dividing this amount by two, gross income derived from first year accessory sales will fall between $ 35 million and $ 70 million. To sum up all these predictions, under a worst-case scenario of 3.5 million units we have gross income of $ 210 million from unit sales, $ 87.5 million from gaming software sales, $ 210 million from non-gaming sales, and $ 35 million from accessory sales. This adds up to worst-case gross income of $ 542.5 million. And under a best-case scenario of 7 million units we have gross income of $ 420 million from unit sales, $ 175 million from gaming software sales, $ 420 million from non-gaming sales, and $ 70 million from accessory sales. This adds up to best-case gross income of $ 1085 million. Now bear in mind, the above numbers are gross income totals, not sales. In other words, the cost of goods sold (production labour & material) has already been netted out. So to arrive at TGTL's pre-tax net income, i must now deduct general & administrative (operating) expenses from the above gross income totals. As with most companies, TGTL's operating expenses are likely to vary with sales volume and ideally as unit sales increase resulting economies of scale will reduce general & administrative expenses, at least when expressed as a percentage of sales. But for the purposes of this write-up, i will conservatively assume under both the best and worst case scenarios presented above, that operating expenses will be approximate 25% of gross income during the first full year of production. So assuming that 75% of the above gross income totals will be pre-tax net income, Tiger Telematics will report first year net income in the range of $ 400 to $ 800 million. The next obvious question is; what would these net income figures translate into on a per share basis? Well i have no way of knowing how many TGTL shares will be outstanding at the end of the company's first year of production, but in an effort to remain conservative let's assume that under our worst-case scenario of 3.5 million units TGTL has 50 million shares outstanding, and that under our best-case scenario there are 75 million shares outstanding. To put these share count estimates into better perspective, i believe that there are approximately 33 million shares now outstanding; so a level of 50 million would represent a 51% increase over the next year and a level of 75 million would be a 127% increase. these outstanding share estimates are ultra-conservative in that they leave TGTL's management ample room to cut additional gaming deals, to finance any needed expansion, and to even further vertically integrate through additional acquisitions during the all-important first year. Doing the math, the above net income on 3.5 million units of $ 400 million divided by 50 million outstanding shares, would yield worst-case scenario per share earnings of $ 8.00. Similarly, the above net income on sales of 7 million units, of $ 800 million, would yield best-case scenario earnings of $ 16.00 a share. The next logical question is; what share prices would the above earnings range produce? To answer this question, we must try and predict the Price-Earnings (PE) ratio that TGTL shares will command. though this next generation of multi-functional consoles is worthy of its own industry label, at present there is no such collection of member firms. And for this reason, there are no existing measures upon which to base an industry-wide PE estimate. Looking around for firms that share product and market outlook similarities, one will find much deviation in PE ratios. As examples, Research in Motion (RIMM) is now trading at a hefty 85 times earnings, but meanwhile Atari (ATAR) shares trade at 16 times earnings. The same holds true among the gaming software companies, with Electronic Arts (ERTS) and THQ (THQI) now trading at multiples of 32 and 35 respectively and with Take-Two Interactive Software (TTWO) and Activision (ATVI) now both trading at 24 times earnings. Personally, in light of Gizmondo's promising near-term outlook and its explosive long-term potential, a first-year multiple in excess of 25 is not only possible but also very probable. But to remain conservative, i will assume in this write-up a first-year PE ratio of 18, which is the multiple at which the Dow Jones Industrial Average now trades. Applying this multiple of 18 to the above $ 8.00 and $ 16.00 per share earnings amounts, i predict a first-year TGTL share price range of $ 144 to $ 288. And if instead we apply a PE multiple of 25 to the above $ 8.00 - $ 16.00 EPS range, the share price range would be $200 to $ 400! Furthermore, if at any time during the next year TGTL were to sell more units than estimated above, realize wider gross margins on games sale than assumed herein, generate higher music and video sales than predicted above, or gets either an additional version of Gizmondo or its planned AltioLive-equipped Bizmondo on retail shelves within a year; i think the above share price estimates would have to be adjusted upward sharply. And as we look ahead to year two, bear in mind that the Gizmondo unit base will then be bigger; so i won't be dividing, as he did above, all the post-sale revenues associated with first-year units by two in order to reflect a six-month ownership average. So sales in the lower end, of just 3.5 million units equates to a WHOG share price of around 10p and if the rumoured Chinese deal should be true and orders are placed for the 30 million units suggested then you can multiply that figure by 10.
16/1/2005
10:42
soysoy: very good stuf there http://www.advfn.com/cmn/fbb/thread.php3?id=7911788&from=3 soysoy - 16 Jan'05 - 10:35 - 505 of 505 edit Invisage - 11 Dec'04 - 19:30 - 1 of 130 Market Makers- the official version 1. What are Market Makers? a. What are Market Makers? i. Market Makers are companies who have agreed with their clients and who have been approved by regulators to "Make a market" in the shares of the client. b. Who are the Market Makers? i. They are usually large international banking organisations, usually with thousands if not tens of thousands of employees' worldwide. c. What is the job of a Market Maker? i. Simply it is to make a market, i.e. to ensure that there is always a market in which investors can buy and sell shares of the clients they are Market Makers for. d. Who is a Market Maker responsible to? i. Their shareholders. ii. Their clients. iii. The broker with whom they are entering into a contract with. iv. Whilst not strictly "responsible to" the regulator the Market Maker has to be able to demonstrate that the obvious conflict of interests arising from this list are dealt with in an appropriate manner, and that no one is especially advantaged or disadvantaged. e. What is a client in the Market Maker context? i. The client is the quoted company. Quoted companies have contracts with the Market Makers in their stock. They are usually large international banking organisations, usually with thousands if not tens of thousands of employees' worldwide. 2. Market Manipulation or doing their job? a. Do Market Makers manipulate the market? i. "Market Manipulation" is an emotive term, and conjurors images of shady deals and exploitation. Market Makers are not elusive companies that appear then vanish overnight. Market Makers are duty bound to make a market and to meet the needs of those they are responsible to (See 1d.) to this end they may try to influence the market. b. How Do Market Makers make their money? i. Market Makers make money from buying shares at a lower price to which they sell them. This is the bid/offer spread. (See 4.) The more actively a share is traded the more money a Market Maker makes. c. Surely a Market Maker raising/lowering the price on news/rumour without any buying or selling is manipulating the market? i. No, not really. If the Market Maker was to keep the price steady on the release of news they would find themselves with lots of buys or sells which they had no choice but to fulfil at the screen price but before they could find matching orders (buys for sells, sells for buys) they would have to change the price and they would then loose money through market exposure. This is bad for them and for us. (See 3.) d. Why do Market Makers raise prices on Monday morning for shares tipped in the Sunday press? i. This is the same as question 2c, because the Market Maker needs to ensure that there are enough sellers to fulfil the needs of the buyers responding to the tips. e. Suppose my screen shows all sells and the price is increasing, what is the Market Maker doing? i. An explanation of this phenomenon is given for Tadpole, which very briefly shot up to 73p before settling back comfortably to the 50p support level. The likeliest explanation is that the Market Maker had an Institutional order to fill and no stock to fill it with (this trade would not have shown up on peoples screen until somewhat later), under thier obligations to create liquidity in the share the Market Maker is obliged to gather a stock holding, only possible if they can encourage people to sell, which can be achieved by raising the price. The order is likely to have been large enough to be significantly outside the NMS thus allowing the Market Maker to gather a fairly significant premium on the price (probably being some-where between 50p and 73p allowing the Market Maker to offset gains against losses and still profit). Once the order is filled and the market volumes return to thier "normal" levels, so does the share price. f. Do Market Makers ever lower prices to "panic" investors into selling, sometimes called "shaking the tree"? i. Yes, moving the price up, encourages sells, moving it down also encourage sells, take another look at Tadpole, in the first instance, the price was hiked way up despite the 50p support level, but at 50p few of the people who got in between 20p and 45p are going to sell (and look how many buyers there were still at 50p), the rise was meteoric, smart money just ignored it as it only lasted about 2 hours, but what was probably caught was huge investors who were in way before 20p and had forgotten about it, now they want out. The Market Makers order gets filled, the price settles back to a smart support level and volumes decrease, however the Market Makers gets another order to fill, maybe not so big, maybe not so prepared to pay the premium, but you also know that there are a lot of people out there waiting to see if it's going to shoot up past the 50p support level again or dip and if it dips they're going to sell now before it dips back past their 100% profit level. g. Surely delaying the posting of trades is Market Manipulation? i. This was allowed as part of the SETS trading system when institutional investors pointed out that with 100% transparency, any other institutional investor would be able to trade against that position which would put their client holdings in jeopardy. Further, with 100% transparency, if it could be seen that an institutional investor was (for whatever reason) adjusting a large holding in a particular company it could also scare private investors into selling or alternatively encourage them to invest without doing thier own research. Both scenarios lead to either over- or under-selling and an inaccurate reflection of the company in the share price as a direct result. h. Do Market Makers try to reduce volatility? i. Sometimes, usually at the request of the client (see 1e), this is mostly done by increasing the bid/offer spread therefore discouraging trading especially by day traders and also by marketing the clients shares to institutions in the hope they will take up long term positions. ii. By asking their client to reduce the number of news releases. i. Do Market Makers encourage liquidity? i. Yes, partly because they have a duty to their client to ensure an active marking in their clients shares, and partly because they have a duty to their shareholders, it is only through trading/liquidity that Market Makers make money. j. How do Market Makers encourage liquidity? i. Partly just by being there, by being the enabler to liquidity, they will always buy or sell shares if you want to. ii. By narrowing spreads. iii. By encouraging their client to produce news releases. 3. Are Market Makers risk adverse? a. Does a Market Maker hold "stocks" of the shares they make a market in? i. No. Market Makers are there to make a market, not to act as some form of stock control system. At any one time a Market Maker is likely to have a position in the stocks they are the Market Makers for, but this position could just as easily be short as long. However having a position (of either persuasion gives market exposure and Market Makers try to avoid this.) (See 3d.) b. Can Market Makers take a short position? i. No and yes. Market Makers are not supposed to allow themselves to go short, but in process of making a market they may well find themselves short of a stock. If this happens a Market Maker has a number of options, purchase from another Market Maker, fiddle with the price in the hope that enough sellers will emerge to cover the short or borrow the shares from an institutional investor. c. What is market exposure? i. Market exposure is the amount of money you have exposed to the vagaries of the market, i.e. the amount of money you could loose or gain from your positions open in the market. d. Why do Market Makers avoid market exposure? i. Simply because a Market Maker who is over exposed to the market is giving systematic risk to the whole market. Ill explain... If a Market Maker was to take up lots of large position across the whole range of shares they make a market in then if there was a market crash the Market Maker may find themselves bankrupt (ala Nick Leeson and Barings) and therefore unable to make a market. Once there is no longer a market the shares will become pretty worthless (if you cant sell something, at any price, what is it worth?), this in turn could force other Market Makers to go bankrupt and the whole thing would spiral down into a very unpleasant mess. We would all loose vast amounts of money from our pensions, endowment policies, insurance funds, Unit Trusts, Investment Trust and direct equity investments, in addition to which an important source of cash for companies would vanish! 4. Prices; how do they work? a. What do the on screen prices reflect? i. The prices you see on screen are the best prices currently being offered by any and all the Market Makers for the share you are looking at. b. Why do spreads change? i. Market Makers can and do change their spreads, but nowhere near as often as you see the spread change on the screens. (See 2h.) ii. The main reason that spreads change on screen is because the screen shows you the best prices on offer. c. Why are some spreads so large? i. The stock may be very volatile and the Market Makers needs to protect themselves from sharp price movements and market exposure. ii. The client (see 1e.) may have asked the Market Makers to reduce volatility. iii. The price and NMS combination maybe so small that the Market Makers need a large spread to ensure that they cover their costs and make a profit. d. What's an inverted price? i. The prices you see are always "the best prices" it is possible that Market Maker A is offering to sell the shares for less than Market Maker B is offering to buy them at. Normally the reverse is true, so this is know as an "Inverted Price". e. Do Market Makers have to buy and sell at the quoted prices? i. Yes, so long as the quantity of shares you want to trade is equal to or less than the NMS. f. How come my broker can sometimes get a better price than those onscreen? i. Basically because Market Makers compete with one another for business. When your broker calls the Market Maker he is giving them the opportunity to 'bid' for the business, the Market Maker may well improve on the price on offer via the screens. The Market Maker only makes money when they are buying and selling, so the Market Maker will prefer to see the business go through their books at a reduce margin than allow it to go to another Market Maker. g. What is Normal Market Size (NMS)? i. It is the quantity of shares for which the Market Makers are quoting prices. IE for which the prices are valid. h. Why don't Market Makers set a price based on intrinsic value? i. The first person that comes up with a calculation that is 100% accurate for 100% of quoted companies is going to be very rich indeed. Market Makers no more 'know' the intrinsic value of share than you or I do. ii. If they got the calculation wrong everybody would be buying or everybody would be selling, leaving the Market Maker with huge market exposure. iii. Intrinsic value is still a notional value, since surely something is worth exactly as much as they highest bidder is willing to pay. iv. Many investors value "in fashion" shares at far more than the traditional "intrinsic" valuation methods would yield, again this would lead the Market Maker having huge market exposure. i. How come I don't see my trade listed? i. Trades for less than 3000 units don't have to be reported. ii. Some stocks don't have to have trades reported. iii. Your broker has batched up your trade with others. iv. Your trade was large enough to cause the Market Maker to treat it differently, it will be reported at a later stage. v. Your broker arranged the trade via an alternative to Market Makers. j. Do Market Makers make money from the raise or fall in share prices? i. Probably not. Market Makers make money from trading, at all times they try to minimise the open positions they have, so the actual price of a share is of little consequence to them. (See 3.)
11/1/2005
13:34
upthepool: this is where I believe we are at the moment. given an exchange rate of $1.9 to the £: a TGTL price of $23 equates to a WHOG price of 1.64p. As I said last night, this can be traded based on the difference betwen the two companies prices, therefore, given where TGTL closed last night 1.4p for WHOG this morning was oversold. So, the WHOG share price now is at about parity with that of TGTL, let's se where TGTL opens be lucky all 'pool
08/11/2004
10:57
responsible lad: The share price only weakened on 2 lousy sells at 9.52-9.54am. That is a very good sign, since once these sells are replaced the WHOG share price will start to go back up in price. MM's only reacting on buys and sells, so keep watching them as that will tell you where the price is going today.
08/11/2004
09:41
responsible lad: You lot where deramping on Friday remember and got it badly wrong. There are plenty of small buys going threw again, with the possiblity of larger buys showing up soon @0.9p. The buys @0.9p are sells at the moment, but soon 0.9p will be buys. 0.9p+ will be the bid price here to stay for WHOG. Just because WHOG becomes a little overvalued which there is nothing wrong with compared to the like of Forbidden Techology and Futuregen. Some overvalued stocks just get more overvalued on the market. It is a well known factor. I remain bullish about the WHOG share price further increasing over this week.
Warthog 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:41 V: D:20161203 13:50:48