Jessops Share Discussion Threads

[spectoacc] 12/12/2009 09:26

"Work" = efficient market. Markets never fully efficient of course; but I've been making the argument for years that that's mainly due to the inequality between longing/shorting, or "buys/sells".

Think of it this way - if you owned 1,000 JSP bought at a quid, and it cost you £12.50 to trade, then there's no point selling at 1p - it'd cost you a net £2.50! Multiply that up by 1,000's of people, at varying sizes/prices and trade costs, and you have a large chunk of shares that will never be sold even when the price is 10x the "value" & the holders are made well aware of it.

Add in the ignoramuses who appear on this thread telling us what they think of JSP's shops atm, & you've got a weight of buyers & dearth of sellers. Net effect - inefficient market that doesn't "work" & creates false prices.

Got to live with it - but don't like it, doesn't really do anyone any favours.

[sbs] 11/12/2009 15:40

That depends what you mean by "work" then.

[spectoacc] 11/12/2009 07:50

No - I'm saying, just a few posts above, that the market doesn't work. It doesn't work because it's impossible to bring the price into line by shorting JSP.

[sbs] 10/12/2009 20:25

All the info is in the public domain. If you suspend this, aren't you saying that the RNS system doesn't work?

[spectoacc] 10/12/2009 11:33

Agreed; wouldn't even be the problem of a false market if they'd suspended it, if not after the initial news then at least on completion of the deal to transfer the operating business.

[clocktower] 10/12/2009 11:31

Well put SA but this have been suspended some time ago.

[spectoacc] 10/12/2009 07:30

> The whole system's massively geared in favour of longers

Yes it is. Everyone knows JSP is "worth" .097p a share - the directors have said so. So why did it trade up over 1p for so long, and even now be worth a multiple? Because the system's massively geared to going long; shorters aren't able to move the price to where it should be. Makes the market hugely inefficient.

It simply isn't "..a basic tenet of the law of the land that you can't sell something you don't have title to". That's highly ignorant:

1. Shorting isn't, in any way, illegal. Even the ridiculous financials shorts ban was reversed.
2. Many businesses rely on selling something they may not yet "own". Most of Amazon's business model! No warehouses full of stock - sell it to the consumer, then order it from the supplier. In the interim, you're "short".
3. Why do people have such a problem with sell-buy, when they're so comfortable with buy-sell?

[adam] 09/12/2009 22:18

> The whole system's massively geared in favour of longers

No. It is a basic tenet of the law of the land that you can't sell something you don't have title to. In order to go "short" you have to borrow the stock, or more likely the market maker or broker sells stock from another client without them knowing. If you don't want to be called in unexpectedly then arrange your borrowing directly with a stock owner.

[typo56] 03/12/2009 09:22

sportbilly, it was really tough that you got forced out of your short. I was too when I was told they'd become 'unborrowable' and had to close that day. Hmm. Shame that.

[sportbilly1976] 03/12/2009 08:43

Typo,

you are indeed 100% correct. A bank accoutn with exactly £100k in it, or 0.097 pence per share...

...just for clarifiaction to all those currently buying at 10x that price.

[mryesyes] 03/12/2009 03:55

I think this is rather too obviously, and far more obviously, and long overdue
being the Chritmass's Woolies. It is very sad to see, by virtue of not actually being insolvent, the slow and protracted and painful death of such a long, long, long outdated outfit continuing.
To talk about others targetting its customers is a stage JSP were at many many years ago.
There is no upside, there is nothing to look forward to. An autumn leaf sad and discarded by the market, but not taking the plane to Switzerland, just lying down all year and suffering ridicule for existing.
Imagine being the wife of the Chairman of this company, probably goading him daily to get him to plead for a divorce. If they held a party, what would the guests do.....anyone would feel shallow even talking to him.....

[typo56] 02/12/2009 22:30

Unless I'm mistaken Jessops the share (JSP) has nothing to do with selling cameras. Isn't it more like a bank account with about £100k in it?

[dylan400d] 02/12/2009 17:52

@ Dilly4, Currys is not going anywhere they have a fairly strong team and a lot of revenue is being generated. What you have to remember is that they have their fingers in a lot of different pies. Currys also has a lot of bonds and cash reserves in place for stock and other "stuff". They also sell a lot of products people need, such as Washing machines, Fridges etc. Jessops sell cameras...

A good point was made about Jessops on another forum i look at. The old photographer used to have to buy firstly their camera, then lenses, then film then the cost of processing/printing, and if they did home printing all the chemicals to go with will cost a lot. Now in the digital age, most people buy a cheap camera say £60, a memory card £10 and a case £5, then save their photos or send them off to somewhere cheap to be printed like Tesco.

Tesco may take some blame in this market as they are offering very cheap items such as cameras offering them for cheap prices. The other thing... as an Ex DSGI employee i know for a fact that a few years ago Currys aggressively went after Jessops to steal as much market share from them as possible by matching every price and beating it.

The other thing to consider is retail habits have changed, now when you go and buy something most people do not care about the quality of an item they just want something functional and something that has a "high number of megapixels" which is another reason why people no longer want to spend more than £100. When people like Samsung are offering cameras for £80 with 12 megapixels most people think they are getting a bargain as their old Canon with a 6 megapixel camera seems ancient, however little do they know its the lens quality.

Jessops may never come back as it has gone so far. What they need to do is close the company down and start a fresh with a different business model. Another problem is stock... why would i want to wait 28 days for a camera to come in to the high street when i can order the same camera cheaper online. When i buy something from the high street i want it now, why is why i would be willing to pay the extra.

[mitzis] 02/12/2009 13:17

The next woolworths to go.

[lobsterpotz] 02/12/2009 12:51

I think you'll find everything was done and dusted and prepacked many weeks ago, Dilly4. Remaining shops,stock,staff etc already belong to another company and there's precisely £100k put aside for all old JSP shareholders ie .097p a share. That's why some jaws have been dropping at the thought that some PI's, maybe even as I write, are still willing to pay 1p+ each for them.

[dilly4] 02/12/2009 12:35

cheers lobster i wasn't aware of the delist silly me - is it going into receivership?

[ed the business] 02/12/2009 12:30

Looks like the final countdown

[typo56] 02/12/2009 12:05

dilly, I sense that you're new here!

[chesty1] 02/12/2009 12:05

How is this dog still trading...

[dilly4] 02/12/2009 11:15

currys small retail is going to the dogs - the futures are these large trading eatates pc world/type comet & currys superstores sorry to say.plus no choice in these shops as was unimpressed with the selection of camcorders.

[dilly4] 02/12/2009 11:14

currys small retail is going to the dogs - the futures are these large trading eatates pc world/type comet & currys superstores sorry to say.plus no choice in these shops as was unimpressed with the selection of camcorders.

[dilly4] 02/12/2009 11:11

what's with the drop this looks like a delist?

[lobsterpotz] 29/11/2009 13:43

@Dylan

Yes, I have and even the first sentence of this article is a lie:

"High-street photographic retailer Jessops will be de-listed from the London Stock Exchange before Christmas"

The Jessops to be delisted is not a High St photographic retailer and hasn't been for some weeks since. I'm amazed the shares have been permitted to trade once the business was effectively transferred. Some gullible small PIs must have been shafted!