Mouchel Share Discussion Threads

[abcd1234] 17/1/2012 13:45

yup davidlloyd, most of the market has been short on this, so perhaps

[davidlloyd] 17/1/2012 13:43

is this just a short squeeze game going on here or something slightly more substantial? Time will tell I suppose.
DL

[abcd1234] 17/1/2012 13:38

looking at the chart....shows how much it fell in december/it was higher then

[mulebraker] 17/1/2012 13:38

No abcd long with a few I kept after the deluge to remind me to be VERY careful with penny dreadfuls

lol

[howdlep] 17/1/2012 13:36

if the mm's have large buy orders to work through the system, then they have to try and raise stock. There will be dips, but they are being bought and that means higher prices

[paragon157] 17/1/2012 13:33

Looks like the Spivs/MMs want your Stock ? .. Lmao at it all as usual

[abcd1234] 17/1/2012 13:20

mulbreaker: are you "short" mchl ?
t.i.a

[howdlep] 17/1/2012 13:19

dips being bought and mm's having to widen spread quickly. We have had no "we know of no reason for the rise in the sp" RNS which is normally enforced by the NOMAD so credence should perhaps be given to wallywoo's post.
As I have stated for the last few days, this is still a high risk/high reward play. A lot has happened to the company in the last twelve months, but with increased bank borrowing organised, awaiting RNS, the company is a more attractive bid target at 8p than over 250p!

[mulebraker] 17/1/2012 13:14

Its disgusting how these penny shares are manipulated by " those in the know" pumping and dumping, watch this share price retrace now.

[wallywoo] 17/1/2012 13:09

Or much more likely, its being taken over / a large division is about to be sold

[mulebraker] 17/1/2012 13:08

Aye ,sellers flooding in now, thats it!

[crosswire] 17/1/2012 13:07

Beware the speeding ticket!

[mulebraker] 17/1/2012 13:06

RNS as to why please?

[deanroberthunt] 17/1/2012 13:04

crikey, it's going orbital

[paragon157] 17/1/2012 13:01

howdlep

Nice call on this earlier !

[paragon157] 17/1/2012 13:00

deanroberthunt

Lol .. Lets wait and see shall we as always !

[goofball25] 17/1/2012 12:52

lol was going to have a punt here but I thought id wait for the 5% to retrace an hour ago.

[howdlep] 17/1/2012 12:39

mm's trying to attract sellers but buyers having to pay a premium for size!

[deanroberthunt] 17/1/2012 12:30

or could it be another bull trap, a la just before Xmas !!!!

[mulebraker] 17/1/2012 12:26

Don`t give the FT your name pikey!

[howdlep] 17/1/2012 12:21

This is beginning to look interesting and could move much higher once momentum gets hold. We have exhausted the sellers and now the buyers have control, knowing that a very positive RNS is coming re that borrowing limit extension.

[deanroberthunt] 17/1/2012 12:20

WOTS UP DOC ?

[howdlep] 17/1/2012 11:57

pikey01,

Thank you for your reply.

I didn't take it personally at all.

Re the SAP installation, it may well relate to the "Connect" package. However, it is just a question of whether it is future capex or not. I guess the answer would only be found in the budget for 2011. Perhaps Mr Shearer will expand in due course. I feel sure he will.

In the meantime, we have lots of buyers coing in today, including many automated trades. So word is spreading as we build up to that RNS.
Lots of press coverage over the weekend would be most welcome.

[pikey01] 17/1/2012 11:43

Well I have just re-read the FT article, and the relevant bit (I believe I can post a snip as long as I acknowledge it is from the FT!) is:

Mr Rumbles has brought in Ernst & Young to review the company and its cost base, putting at risk Mouchel's 8,650 employees. It is also planning to cut spending on corporate property and £5m on advanced SAP accounting software normally used by global manufacturers.

-------

Which is not specific about whether he is referring to the "Connect" SAP installation, or further spend - however it reads to me that he is referring to the existing "Connect" system, so I stand by my numbers. YMMV ;-)

FTR my comment about people not liking facts wasn't aimed at you specifically, but as I wrote it at the end of a post ostensibly replying to one you had written I can understand why you may have inferred it was: Apologies!