Just Share Discussion Threads

[spectoacc] 07/9/2018 16:45

@NAV_Mike - curious that they didn't re-evaluate yesterday tho. Results (or at least the conf call) seemed to be taken reasonably well.

Still feels like all bets off for JUST until PRA come to their decision.

[nav_mike] 07/9/2018 16:36

2m trade @ 84.5 gone through....that could be a buy I guess...giving the MMs a nice turn on the load they took in at 80p?

On the other hand theres 945k on the sell side in the closing auctin at 84.5 so who knows

I guess theres some big holders re-evaluating their holding after yesterdays results and update

[spectoacc] 07/9/2018 16:32

@edwardt - they'll wait until the PRA make their decision, then say sell (which will no doubt be the time to buy).

[edwardt] 07/9/2018 16:29

if ic are still saying buy i am worried that i am long.

[nav_mike] 07/9/2018 14:34

After the last four big trades went through at aorund 2pm, the price has tried to rally...perhaps they are done for the day.

Has taught me a lesson, cant value a financial stock using accounting eyes only :(

[scrapheap] 07/9/2018 14:31

The IC has been caught out too with their buy tip at 141p a few months ago... they still say buy now...

[nav_mike] 07/9/2018 14:10

Given the size of the four that have just gone through, I would have to wager they are worked sells from earlier in the day.

Brokers take the orders first thing, work them through on SETS, then report when done

Although in the current market, absolutely anything is possible i guess :)

[scrapheap] 07/9/2018 14:07

I thought 'O' trades were 'normal' ones and possible those are buys unless they are delayed reporting ones from earlier due to size.

[nav_mike] 07/9/2018 14:05

Some large off book trades going through in the last hour or so....some big holders have been spooked today I think

Edit - are these the sell orders that triggered todays mini-collapse? are they now finished?

[scrapheap] 07/9/2018 13:42

Ironic that it was SHIP (now the ERC) thing which brought in the NNEG to reassure joe public and regulators...

[spectoacc] 07/9/2018 13:34

Seriously, you think anyone would look at JUST with the current uncertainty? Why?

Good point above about lack of director buying.

JUST (in former two-company guise) hammered by George Osborne's annuity rule change, now also by PRA (thanks @Eumaeus for v interesting post).

[mount teide] 07/9/2018 13:26

Stock on Loan has reduced to 5.0% in Euroclear's latest report - comprising just 1.17% of notifiable positions - how hedge funds have avoided triggering notifiable positions with the other 3.83% is a scandal the FCA and SFO should be all over.

[scrapheap] 07/9/2018 13:25

L&G is market leader but there's plenty of other players out there in LTM.

[topvest] 07/9/2018 13:23

Net result of the PRAs actions is that CUSTOMERS LOSE OUT. JUST are an innovative company giving customers what they want. What fun it is being a Regulator and ruining good companies...and you get paid to do it!

[topvest] 07/9/2018 13:20

What market share would L&G and Just combined have though thinking about it...would it get referred?

[scrapheap] 07/9/2018 13:17

True - they all sold out well over 130p after all!!!

[edwardt] 07/9/2018 13:15

private equity!!!

[scrapheap] 07/9/2018 13:10

I agree - my thinking of possible suitors:

Aviva - not likely, only other provider of INAs in market (having bought Friends)

L&G - likely, leading LTM provider, good fixed term annuities and can swallow maturing Just FTAs (which they no longer offer)

Royal London - possible, not involved in any of Just's areas really so would be new string to their bow of retirement products

Canada Life - possible, swallowed Retirement Advantage and could build on that with Just

LV - not likely, have they capital issues themselves?

Pru - not likely. V specific areas of interest these days and outsourced annuity biz to Just's Hub so recently.

Banks (eg Scot Wid) - can't see it. Got enough regulatory risk!

Who else have I missed.

[topvest] 07/9/2018 12:43

Yes, its not looking good at all, albeit its hopefully a temporary situation. The PRA are doing the damage. That's regulators for you! They are paid to keep changing the rules, so keep changing the rules they will. Don't ask a barbour if you need a haircut!
This is really an odd company. Regulation over-shadows great financials.

I think its going to be taken out. Legal & General must be sizing this up - what a great opportunity for them. Rather than adding here I've bought some Legal & General today.

[nav_mike] 07/9/2018 12:31

Well the sellers/shorters seem to have really got their teeth into this company now and are betting that the regulators are going to ruin this business.

Way to go UK 2018!

[topvest] 07/9/2018 12:30

Fear is taking hold. 50% off in 3 months after excellent results.

[scrapheap] 07/9/2018 12:16

It occurs to me the share price maybe should be suspended - there's no way to value the business as the results suggest with the accountant qualification

There's a great performing business BUT an outside of control regulatory issue which could have a massive or minimal impact, this leaves the share price open to insider trading risks and/or disorderly market.

It's not nice to do but the basis for attributing a value is just so hard...

Problem is what it does to Just's reputation and new business if that was to happen.

There's no wins here other than getting the position clarified asap.

[scrapheap] 07/9/2018 11:23

Funny sort of put option....

[dasv] 07/9/2018 11:17

eumaeus - Correct me if I am wrong: the rationale of applying Black 1976 to NNEG's is to model their value on the basis of their likelihood of being triggered.

Would you agree that if the past experience of NNEG events in no way aligns with the predicted likelihood on the basis of the Black 1976 formula, then there is a case for not modelling NNEG's on that basis?

I.e. an alternative could be stochastic modelling based on economic assumptions?

Why is it more correct to argue that a model of house price inflation will be based on the deferred rate rather than HPI?

Surely the reason why Black Scholes won the Nobel Prize was because their equations modeled something real accurately: the applied maths worked. If the applied maths doesn't apply then why should it be applied?

[bolador] 07/9/2018 10:57

"You will have to pay a fine for speeding, yes I know that this was not a restricted area when you drove through, but we feel that if there had been a speed limit then you would have committed an offence despite the fact that you were driving at 20 mph. This is not a retrospective rule change but merely a recognition that the road concerned had been incorrectly assessed as a public amenity.
The current speed limit is under further review but a limit of between one mph and 70 mph will be applied at some date a very long way off or shortly."