We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Madara | LSE:MBF | London | Ordinary Share | JE00B1VN4914 | ORD NPV |
| Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 0.125 | 0.00 | 01:00:00 |
| Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - |
| Last Trade Time | Trade Type | Trade Size | Trade Price | Currency |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | O | 0 | 0.125 | EUR |
Madara (MBF) Share Charts1 Year Madara Chart |
|
1 Month Madara Chart |
Intraday Madara Chart |
| Date | Time | Title | Posts |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/10/2003 | 13:00 | How cheap is MBF | 1,642 |
| 10/9/2003 | 15:30 | BELLA MEDIA | 6 |
| 28/7/2003 | 16:54 | bums on seats people | 3 |
| 15/7/2003 | 10:43 | MBF - THE NEW ERA HAS BEGUN | 18 |
| 04/7/2003 | 17:36 | MBF BIG NEWS | - |
| Trade Time | Trade Price | Trade Size | Trade Value | Trade Type |
|---|
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 19/9/2003 10:25 by cableguy00 Guy & AH > good stuff dudes ;-)City Equities are clearly getting in early on with what is probably a 12-month outlook for their clients. From memory, a client of theirs needs to have a minimum of £3,000 to invest with them, but that's only a minimum. Considering their stature in the financial industry, the word will certainly filter around now and I would not be surprised to see more institutional investing in the near future. More significantly though imho is that with there not being any doubt more funding will be required in the future to build more cinemas, the fact that at least one institution is showing an interest at this early stage, I cannot see a problem with raising those funds without the share price being affected even if further shares were to be issued as I'm confident they will most likely be over-subscribed to thus endorsing the new business model further. The back-up to this funding requirement is of course also the deep pockets of those already with a vested interest - apart from Edgar Snr., IMAX themselves. I've always said that this is a long-term play and the fact that City Equities are now in the picture (pardon the pun) goes some way towards endorsing my personal view. This is not intended to be a ramp for MBF if anyone unfamiliar to recent events is having a look in so take my observations with a pinch of salt for now. Confidence is higher now though. Good Luck all Cg00 |
Posted at 19/9/2003 00:55 by ranoszek Woah!!!Why no reaction in the share price? |
Posted at 17/9/2003 13:09 by cableguy00 Actually, it's possible that PCM are selling back the 24.95% stake that they bought - total of approx 297M shares @ mostly 0.18p.In part, what this would acheive for them would make a certain amount of sense as they had said that it was an 'investment' as opposed to the original plan of a reverse takeover. Ed Bronfman Snr had loaned them £1.3M @ 10% interest earlier this year and the profit PCM would make from selling back that 24.95% stake would yield them, guess what?, - yes - approx £130K, which, funny enough, is 10% of £1.3M. Pretty clever eh?? - that's if I'm on the right track... There's got to be more reasoning to it also though. For example, PCM would no longer have a stake in MBF thus allowing the name-change to carry on smoothly to 'Bella Media' which we haven't been given a date for yet and ED Snr could purchase approx 43M shares in MBF with his interest payment. On the other hand, PCM may have increased their stake to almost 50% in MBF getting the shares cheaply as they had in the past and the reverse takeover could soon be facilitated BUT what would the point of that be, so close to the name change. Whatever's going on, you can be guaranteed one thing - it's being very carefully orchestrated still and ONLY the board members know what's going on. All Imo naturally. Anyone able to offer more theories? |
Posted at 14/9/2003 20:51 by sseajack Perhaps some clever PR on it's way ,to raise the profile of the company hoping to raise the share price before trying to raise more cash from their shareholders.i assume it would be much better for them to attempt to raise cash if the share price was 1 or 2p rather than .27 they would certainly get more cash.still cant figure out why these billionaires (bronfman's) are bothering with a 3m pound cash shell,and why not put the cash in themselves a few million is small change for them. |
Posted at 30/8/2003 10:00 by cableguy00 Ranoszek, you're obviously on the ball...that was the first time I'd seen it.The only thing I can think of is that one of the MMs are using this price as a standard offer pre-open so as to get the rest of their books in order first and then return to MBF and fall in line with the others, possibly as simple as that. That 0.41 price works out to a 37% premium on the previous close of 0.3 which probably means nothing in itself except to protect their position in case EVO are aware of news to be released at the open and are keeping stum about it. I'll put it down to 'don't know, don't really care' as this is long-term for me except if the opportunity arises, I have no qualms about trading a few. I also beleive that the timing of that news of Fred's purchase was designed not to affect the price - last thing Friday pm - and would expect to see a few more director buys prior to the meeting on 10th so as to give them an advantage over smaller shareholders in voting on the name change being proposed. From memory, the PCM board held over 80% of the issued share capital over there so virtually complete control over voting rights was established. If you have been looking at pcm also, you'll see that it is succeptible to sharp movements, mostly down to the remaining 'ordinary' shareholders buying or dumping. This could happen here too if the board take up a higher percentage of the issue. Fred's total holding looks to have cost around £10K which isn't a lot really (4M x 0.25p) but it could be the beginning of a much larger stake. The thing that is encouraging about his action is, why put £10k into your company if that stake could potentially get diluted when the company becomes Bella Media? On the other hand, it might be a smoke-screen, 'cos he'll most likely be given a heap of shares in the new company anyway so any dilution would balance out... Just a bit of food for thought... Or just me waffling too much...lol.. Regards all watchers |
Posted at 15/8/2003 11:01 by irwinthegreat Cableguyi think GE is also competing, 4 bidders. bid up, mbf will pick up slowly, that's we want, we do not want day traders, fluctuating the share prices |
Posted at 18/7/2003 08:59 by dusseldorf An excellent description of a Market Maker is given below (generally they control around 30 stocks):A Market Maker runs a 'shop' and you buy shares from him or sell them back to him. The Market Makers act as retailers of shares and display their prices during working hours. The prices may vary (sometimes considerably) during the day, depending on a number of influences. For example, if holders of very large amounts of a share decide to sell (or a combination of a lot of holders of small amounts), then the Market Makers will reduce the price that they are prepared to pay for the share. The converse is true also; if there is a consistent and large enough demand for a share, then the Market Makers will increase the price. Market Makers make money from buying shares at a lower price to which they sell them. This is the bid/offer spread. The more actively a share is traded the more money a Market Maker makes. It is often felt that the Market Makers manipulate the prices. "Market Manipulation" is an emotive term, and conjurers 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 this end they may try to influence the market. Market Makers are however known to lower prices to "panic" investors into selling, sometimes called "shaking the tree"? Moving the price up, encourages sells, moving it down also encourage sell, hence also the term dead cat bounce when a Market Maker will mark a falling stock up to encourage buyers in thinking they have reached the bottom. A good pricing system such as Level 2 will give you an indication which Market Makers are keenly priced. Your broker using the same systems as you now have can sometimes get a better price than those on the screen. This is 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. When you buy and sell shares in most circumstances (SEAQ/AIM) your broker has to go through a Market Maker. The Market Maker works for an institution that makes a market (will buy and sell) that particular stock. They provide the market with liquidity - i.e. there will always be a price you can sell your stock at, there will always be a price you can buy some stock at (unless the share is suspended). Market Makers obviously have a degree of risk. If there is a flood of sellers, because the Market Maker's job is to provide liquidity, he has to buy those shares even though the rest of the market may want to sell. If the price continues to fall he could be left with a lot of stock on his hands that he paid considerably higher prices for than he can sell for now. And vice versa - if a share is rising sharply the Market Maker has to continue selling the stock to the buyers - he could end up "short" of stock. In this situation he has sold stock he has not got, to fulfill all the buy requests, and he has to buy this stock in to balance his books, but at higher prices and makes a loss. The Market Makers are effectively in competition with each other. With the example of IMG above, why would a seller want to sell shares to UBSW at 380, when the seller can deal with MLSB or AITK and receive 385p per shares? If UBSW wants to purchase shares, the Market Maker has to raise its bid price. If Market Makers want to buy shares because they may think the stock is heading up or they are short of stock they have to raise their bid price if theirs is not the best bid on the screen. This can cause the spread to narrow. If Market Makers are keen to sell stock they may want to lower their offer price to tempt buyers in. If all Market Makers start moving their offer prices lower to tempt in buyers and offload stock, certain traders could view this as negative for the short term. If Market Makers need or want to take in more stock they will raise their bid prices - certain traders again could see this as a sign of a short-term upswing in prices. If a Market Maker does not want to trade in the stock he is making a market in he may make his bid/ask spread so wide to discourage anyone to trade with him. If all the Market Makers do this the stock can become illiquid temporarily as no trades are going through - buyers do not want to buy, sellers do not want to sell their stock at what they envisage is a poor bid price |
Posted at 16/7/2003 13:43 by sammyc lucky,mbf used to be in wireless telecomunications industry... i assume supplying wireles broadband speed links to local areas institutions etc to allow other wireless networks to connect. this of course.... did not work out as planned, far too many losses investing +spending the shareholders money on *whatever* and mbf went from 80pence to zilch. The directors last year planned to use mbf as a cash shell and re-invest into another business to help some of the losing shareholders. We can see from yesterdays news that the new investement comes in the form of imax cinemas but b4 yesterday's moment in time, all mbf was... was a cash shell which could have been taking off the market alltogether. leaving us all pocketless. We now await the EGM at the end of the month to talk about the funding of the new IMAX theatre ranges.... or is this just another way of screwing the shareholders out of more money? regards sammyc |
Posted at 16/7/2003 00:55 by cableguy00 Guy >>> Cheers for that insight to the news, very well put indeed and a hearty welcome on your first post - hopefully it won't be your last!!!My feeling here all along has been that MBF is going to be a winner BUT only as a long-term punt as I'm sure you'll agree. It's also very intriguing with having 'Big Ed' on the board considering the bidding going on over at Vivendi with 'Little Ed' and his consortium. The shareprice presently is all that posters on this BB appear to be bothered about and that's fair enough, totally understandable, so that's why I've been saying that I wouldn't put my house on it - yet. What I figure is scaring holders at the moment is that the cash that mbf have in the bank at the moment is going across the big pond and there won't be any value left here. However, if your thoughts on the US co's being owned soon by mbf come into play for real, would not messrs Weinert and Crisman then own close to 50% of mbf's share capital and additional funding raised will then dilute the shareprice further. It's this kind of issue that short-term holders will use as an excuse to jump ship which is also fair enough as there could potentially be no return on their investment for minimum 2 yrs until the cinemas are built and begin to show positive trading in their various locations. Imho the long term prospects are excellent here and there will certainly be more news to be announced - oh to be a fly on the wall at mbf... Again, cheers for the post Regards cg00 |
Posted at 15/7/2003 11:26 by guydaynes cableguy00My first posting here on ADVFN. I normally post over on iii , but I think you're aware I have followed PCM for quite some time, and now MBF. I'd suggest you're confusing yourself a little. Understandably so, it is rather complex. Remember, the reason for MBF was a quick stock market listing for this new venture, and the opportunity to raise funding. Otherwise, it would have needed 3 years accounts. Weinert and Crisman are involved everywhere you look. Between them and an other they will have 34% of Newco LLC, and it is Newco LLC and Bella Films who are building and operating this new IMAX cinema in Springfield. And amongst the directors of Bella Films are... Weinert and Crisman. 15% of Newco LLC will be owned by investors following a fundraising of $600k 51% of Newco LLC will be owned by Newco Inc. Newco Inc. is wholly owned by MBF, where of course the CEO is Weinert and the MD is Crisman. I'll bet the lawyers, advisers and accountants are having a field day here! This is my guess or view, but I would liken this situation to the business with ACOM back in 2000. Weinert and Crisman could well sell their interests in Newco LLC to MBF in return for MBF shares ( as Clive and Chen did with ACOM ). MBF then raises the funding for the next ones. And given the involvement of PCM, it might not be unreasonable to suggest that Asia and perhaps China might be among the favourites for the next one(s). I'd suggest Bronfman's presence makes the fundraising issue somewhat more interesting ( and easier ). Very early days. But some intersting times ahead. Don't think for one minute you have invested in a company which is going to build and operate just one cinema. But they have to start somwhere. Guy |
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
