Camellia Share Discussion Threads

[skirbell] 27/7/2001 13:03

I agree with IanW on some of the points raised. The big institutions probably don't like having to tell everyone of their positions after the event has actually happened as they do now. By having to inform everyone when they place the trades, competitors and traders will try to make money off of the situation. If everyone knew that big company A wanted to buy a large number of shares and an MM was trying to fill the order, everyone would then start buying a few in the expectation that the price would rise a few pence. With all of this sudden buying pressure, you'll introduce a lot of unnecessary volatility into the market which would be bad for all concerned.

I'd be interested in seeing details of the stocks that the MMs hold but again, I suspect that this would create opportunities to allow larger companies to create a false market by hedging etc. One thing I'm not sure on, and maybe someone can enlighten me, are the rules regarding MMs going short. Are they actually allowed to do so? And if not, surely catching them would be quite simple for any auditor (or even the registrar)?

I agree with the comments on insider trading but look from the perspective of the SFA. How do you identify trades that are based upon insider information? Millions of trades happen each week and checking all of them would be nigh on impossible. However, when they do catch those responsible, I think the punishment should be harsher.

The unfortunate situation is that if the rules are changed, someone, somewhere will find a way of exploiting them and the rules will have to be changed again. At least at the moment, the goal posts stay in the same place, even if they're not very wide.

Stuart

[johnmfrancis] 27/7/2001 12:44

IanW,

How is the game played then in your opinion ?

[ianw] 26/7/2001 16:01

Its a nice thought John but as we all know thats not how the game is played.

Interested to know peoples experiences with the SFA or Compliance officers.(i`m sure there`s some stories to tell out there.)

[johnmfrancis] 26/7/2001 10:58

Many small investors personal fortunes
will have been decimated during the last
year for a whole variety of reasons.

Even with level 2 information I feel
a whole lot of information is witheld
from investors which if they had known
about they would not have taken that
buy/sell/hold decision. For example
how many times have you been amazed
to see say a 20:1 buy/sell ratio
and the price not move. Only to
see several days later a huge late
reported (protected trade) sell ?

I think it is time for all of us
to put together a campaign for more
freedom of information to put to the
LSE for consideration. All rules
and regulations need revising and
updating from time to time and I feel
that with the advent of the internet
and much trading and information
sharing and trading taking place via
it during recent years then these
regulations ought to be more
frequently addressed.

Please could everyone post their
ideas on how the LSE could be
improved for everyone so say these
can be presented for consideration.
I certainly believe the recent rule
making it an offence to knowingly
post false information on BBS was
a step in the right direction.

A few of my "radical" ideas are as
follows

1.What I and many otheres would like to see is a type
of level 2 info whereby all MMS current stock levels
and order books are public information so we can all see
fair play. There should be no late trade reporting - all
trades without exception should be reported immediatley.
If a trade is a short it should be reported as such also.
All trades and orders of a certain size should have the
identity of the buyer/seller published and the associated
MM.To prevent the existance of a behind the scenes grey market
IE a behind the scenes agreements between MArket maker and
CLient heavy regulation should be introduced.
No one with any sense of fairness could surely object to
this. What I am trying to say is that price should be
soley determined by supply and demand and not shady
behind the scenes deals.

2.Insider dealing should be heavily clamped down
on. We need to see more proscutions for this and
evidence that current rules are being rigourously
applied.

3.The recent Redstone fiasco should be thoroghly
investigated, If it is indeed true that a Market
Maker has (or colluded with other MMS) to create
a false market IE going short of many millions
of shares so other branches of the same firm
can get the shares for next to nothing then
this sort of activity should be made illegal
(against LSE rules) and be punishable by a
heavy fine and the MMS made to reverse all
relevant trades. Drastic share price collapses
in similar situations should also be followed
up and investigated for evidence of similar
activity.

4.The LSE should issue monthly news bulletins
summarising regulatory activity that is going
on the detail of which should be public info.
This should include how we as a community of
private investors can take steps to request
a change in the rules.

Once all ideas are collated perhaps we can
have a volunteer to out these all into
an official letter to the LSE. Perhaps
we can also get the various financial
press interested in publishing such
a letter. We would also like an
official reaction and explanation to
all points raised.

Come on you lot all ideas encouraged -
it is for everyone's benefit who believes
in fair play for all !!

[jhan66] 08/5/2001 13:23

Epic code should be CAB.
I bought this share last week and I'm fed up of that guy PG. trying to pinch all my best stocks.

[sjc] 08/5/2001 13:14

Anyone follow this stock.Gyllenhammar has a good record of flushing out value in small cap stocks.