Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[chunchunmai] 28/6/2013 09:01

Many thanks netley

[n3tleylucas] 28/6/2013 08:57

chunchunmai,

Sadly this appears to be the only free method of assessing stock on loan with any degree of accuracy atm. Bear in mind there is often a lag in reporting.



Go to the chart towards the bottom right and pop the SEDOL or ISIN into the box, tickers work too, although on some stocks US tickers will show instead of UK ones, so ISIN or SEDOL is more reliable.

Quickest way to find ISIN? Click "Quote" at the top of this page, you'll see the ISIN between "Type" and "Description".

[writz] 28/6/2013 08:51

Thanks, xippy, that's helpful information. My interest is slightly O/T, but I noticed that GKP's SOL rose steeply to 5% last October and has only recently begun to decline. I assumed this indicated that one or more institutions intended to run periodic short positions on the stock. Hard to be sure, but it sounds to me as if the settlement business you refer to would tend to keep a certain low % of stock on loan more or less constantly, so I'm struggling to interpret the variations!

[roundup] 28/6/2013 08:47

Scrutable, I wish they would make you their PR man

[xippy] 28/6/2013 08:43

Writz - 4086

Have edited my original Post. The origiinal reason for allowing stock borrowing is to ease the settlement process in the market, e.g. when a broker has traded for a client but the client fails to deliver the stock on time. The Broker is laible for fines etc. so will borrow the stock in order to settle. They then charge the client for the late delivery.

If the stock is physical rather than electronic (in CREST) they will usually extend the settement date when trading to T+10 to ensure that transfer forms have time to go out and be received back in the post along with the physical stock. the broker then has the stock de-materialised into Crest and settles as normal, via electronic settlement Delivery Versus Payment (DVP)

It definately isn't all about shorting. Generally an institution wouldn't borrow the stock unless they needed it as it costs to do so. The other thing to note is that with borrowed stock,the beneficial owner (the lender) still retains all the rights to dividends, bonus issues etc. It causes no end of grief when a company annnounces a rights issue and there is stock out on loan. The borrower of the stock has to manufacturer the rights to give back to the lender and the same with dividends. Borrowing stock is not for the faint hearted!

X

[nevmyers] 28/6/2013 08:40

Dig

thanks for the screen shot, who you use for level 2?

[chunchunmai] 28/6/2013 08:34

Netley, re 4078, para 1, where would I find info about stock on loan/shorted shares for any given company?Thanks

[writz] 28/6/2013 08:30

xippy, can you explain a bit more about:

"The reason to borrow the stock is because when the institution sells, they have to deliver, on settlement date, stock they haven't got. They MUST deliver or face fines, or the trade even being cancelled, I.E. bought in."

Do you mean that institutions borrow stock for purposes other than shorting?

Also, when SOL declines, I presume this indicates that institutions are giving stock back and is only a proxy measure for the amount being used in short positions (as you can borrow stock without using it).

[jointer13] 28/6/2013 08:23

good post scrutable.

[nevmyers] 28/6/2013 08:22

I'm assuming level 2 looks pretty similar to yesterday since most of the orders on there wouldn't have been filled, see if anyone tries to drive it down a bit to set off a few stops.

[worraps] 28/6/2013 08:02

Fantastic post, SCRUTABLE, it's always good and reassuring to see the facts laid out, and highlights just how farcical the present state of affairs is.

[rogerbridge] 28/6/2013 07:56

Well done Scrutable.

[skylite] 28/6/2013 07:53

I honestly think they've passed the point of a low ball offer Scrut.

[n3tleylucas] 28/6/2013 07:53

If you see shorts suddenly rocket, as they did here, from 500,000 to 2,500,000 in no time at all, it is an indication that the stock might be too high, and could be about to fall.

It is not anti-capitalist at all, on the contrary, it is another method of helping investors judge value.

Shorting also provides much needed liquidity, helping to narrow spreads.

In a panic, if there were no shorters, a fall would ALWAYS be much greater.

The moral argument against borrowing stock to short? About as strong as the argument against T-trading, CFD's or SB's. In fact I'd judge CFD's & SB's as far more damaging, in purely moral terms, than proper shorting, because of the leverage used, and the potential damage caused when unwinding.

I note with interest that SCRUTABLE of all posters is a big user of SB's, yet is morally outraged by shorting. I find that to be absolutely astonishing, as I'm sure many experienced traders will do too.

The lack of knowledge and insight displayed by many so called experienced investors on such subjects is alarming, and grist to the mill for the more canny and ruthless out there.

Very amusing too! LOL

In fact, weren't the activities of Digger and others on Monday essentially the same trading mechanics as shorting? Sell shares, in the hope of buying back lower?

Look a little closer to home for reasons this has lost 100p in such a short time, you might be surprised (and shocked) by what you find.

[engelo] 28/6/2013 07:26

Retiree - Thx for 4015 will correct my original post.

[engelo] 28/6/2013 07:24

scrut: thanks for 4073. You've stuck to iodine which looks great on its own :-)

V encouraging contact with JP and Lance. Yes they sympathise but may have reasons (patent, contracts due to be signed etc) for not shouting atm. Latest RNSs have been steady and restrained.

[engelo] 28/6/2013 01:51

Slightly off topic: MNC are an explorer with potentially the largest copper mine in the world in Chile. RNS out yesterday. funded to 2015. May sound good, but...

1. If you feel a bit down (as I do) with the IOF share price chart have a look at theirs about 90% down over 12 months.

2. They have assets in Peru and elsewhere and are probably exiting from Chile altogether which imo reflects their assessment of the energy, water and political problems that they see ahead.

Further evidence to support IOF and IOChem view of the poor prospects for miners in Chile which will affect SQM and our other competitors there.

edit: a few changes for clarity and reissued 7 am.

[warmsun] 28/6/2013 01:12

Good post Scrut, thank you ...I hope they have listened to you!