Redde Northgate Share Discussion Threads

[toyin] 11/5/2016 10:58

On the basis of the response below I would assume the new insurance legislation will have no material impact because if it did they would have to release a statement.

All the best

I am replying to your email to Redde of 10 May on the Company’s behalf.

As you will appreciate the Company is not permitted to comment on an ad hoc basis on the possible future impact of external events. If there was, at any point, a material and relevant impact on any of the Company’s operations from an external event, it would be obliged to make a statement to The Stock Exchange and would of course do so.

Thank you again for your email. I am sorry I cannot give you a more specific response.

Kind regards,

[rackers1] 11/5/2016 08:42

mr lame
who is the grecophile ? I presume as you discuss no one apart from your long term lover TW it must be him.
Cant remember when I said that support was broken at 161 - but looking at the price now ..... I see support at 161 has been broken haha

whats your next hot share tip for us all to short el muppito extraordinaire

[nicky name] 10/5/2016 22:29

hvs1/rackers1

I have to congratulate you (not) on your 'guru' technical analysis on Redde, when you confidently assured us here that the 161p support was broken

it seems not

maybe confess to us all exactly how you are connected to the Grecophile?

you aren't the man himself are you?

I suspect that he uses quite a few aliases

[rackers1] 10/5/2016 20:38

Oh god.Nicky lame harping on about winnifroth again.You need help NLame. Google some self help places or seek out a shrink. You have serious problems, although keep up with your share tips. Gives us great shorting chances.Chins upYer mate rackers

[nicky name] 10/5/2016 20:10

Panic Investor

he is good mates with the Grecophile blogger

a mistake in my opinion, to be close to such a loose cannon

pesonally, I would not trust the Grecophile blogger one inch

all those limited companies and family trusts

while disclosing that he has no personal financial interest in companies he damns and tells others to short

at least pauly admits he owns the shares he ramps

[petersinthemarket] 10/5/2016 18:57

NN is always very positive about redd - as I also hold, I wish the mkt agreed.

[panic investor] 10/5/2016 18:42

Always found it a little weird why he didn't register his real name on advfn - plenty going on behind the scenes imho

[bc4] 10/5/2016 18:30

SOLIRI LIKE YOU SAY EVERONE IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINION AND I THINK NICKY NAME IS SPOT ON. BY THE WAY OMHO

[bc4] 10/5/2016 18:23

Let us forget about Quindell and Paul Scott neither have anything to do with REDDE. He has spent the last few years looking for negatives in REDDE he may be good with AIM but sadly not REDDE

[panic investor] 10/5/2016 18:22

Indeed he does and gets it wrong - ACSO ABDP !

[solrei] 10/5/2016 18:00

Come on chaps. Let's not get personal. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Paul Scott does provide some very invaluable and astute coverage of the AIM.

[nicky name] 10/5/2016 17:31

don't be sore paulypilot because you kept selling out of Redde during its momentous rise, and then presented it as one of your great successes

I heard that interview where you were boasting about it

having previously recorded your sales

and dissing Redde as an 'ambulance chaser' and therefore not something you wanted to be invested in

in my view Redde provides an excellent service that the insurance industry fails to offer its customers

it does it very well, and it does it profitably

therefore 'I am in'

and I am more than happy for you to be out (if you are at this minute)

[nicky name] 10/5/2016 17:23

paulypilot

what happened to your little chum rackers1 and hvs1?

seen Juicin Drumroll recently?

maybe headed south on hols?

[my5harebox] 10/5/2016 16:23

Seems fewer claims will be thrown out due to "small print" contraventions so likely more business coming REDD way. Overall a positive move here.

[liquidkid] 10/5/2016 10:53

"ought to know" Another soon to be an unworkable law. Probably see even more litigation as a result of this law.

kind of like the known knowns, the known unkowns and the unknown unknowns

"Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know.
And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing
There is no proof of ignorance more common than conceit of knowledge." - God.

Ends with Alanis Morissette singing "You, you, you oughta know"

[bc4] 10/5/2016 09:47

FTT read it then! I have so my head is way above the sand I am confident that it will not effect REDDE it is giving policyholders more rights which may affect insurers though

[sailing john] 10/5/2016 09:45

Exactly bc4
SJ

[bc4] 10/5/2016 09:44

It looks like there will be less claims refused which could mean more business for REDDE
The law as it presently stands allow insurers to refuse claims on the basis of a policyholder's breach of warranty or other condition in the contract, even where that term is not related to prevention of the loss suffered. Clause 11 of the new Bill will allow policyholders to challenge an insurer's refusal to pay out if they can show that the breach could not have increased the risk of the loss that actually occurred in the circumstances in which it occurred.

[fft] 10/5/2016 09:43

bc4,

I am not sure a head in the sand approach is the most successful method of investing. Perhaps as a REDD "let me know WHEN it happens that will be a fact" investor you should check ? 12 August 2016 is when it happens.

[bc4] 10/5/2016 09:33

FTT exactly you have no idea just like Paul Scott then LOL

[fft] 10/5/2016 08:45

The above link gives full details. I have no idea what impact this might have on REDDE, but it is not a trivial piece of legislation.

I assume that all the people above who have no idea that it is happening have allowed for it...


It is described as "the most significant change to insurance contract law for over a century". Briefly below.


The duty of disclosure imposed on brokers will not apply anymore. A policyholder will have to disclose every matter which it knows, or ought to know, that would influence the judgement of a prudent insurer in deciding whether to insure the risk and on what terms, or provide sufficient information to put a prudent insurer on notice that it needs to make further enquiries of material circumstances. The new bill prescribes in detail the matters which will be regarded as "known" or "ought to be known" by insurers and those who are insured. This includes matters known by employees of insurers and senior management of those who are insured.

The bill will also introduce significant new rules on warranties, as well as abolishing 'basis of the contract' clauses which effectively convert every statement made by a policyholder before the contract is signed into a warranty.

One of the changes to the remedies available to insurers for breaches of warranties originally proposed by the law reform bodies in their report of July 2014, and included as clause 11, was subsequently omitted from the original draft of the bill following concerns about clarity. An alternative version of this 'clause 11' was produced by the commissions at the end of last year, and has now been included in the final bill.

The law as it presently stands allow insurers to refuse claims on the basis of a policyholder's breach of warranty or other condition in the contract, even where that term is not related to prevention of the loss suffered. Clause 11 of the new Bill will allow policyholders to challenge an insurer's refusal to pay out if they can show that the breach could not have increased the risk of the loss that actually occurred in the circumstances in which it occurred. However, breaches by policyholders of terms "defining the risk as a whole" will still end an insurer's liability.

[pistonbroke1] 10/5/2016 08:41

bc4 - exactly its so vague the only purpose I can see to post it is to cause doubt. I could post that someone mentioned to me, although I can't say who, that another company who shall remain nameless is potentially looking to make a bid for REDDE at a significant premium to todays Share Price.

[bc4] 10/5/2016 07:41

Paul what has that do with REDDE? there will always be a risk of a change of law in any industry it happens all the time the problem I have is
Someone told me, who? I do not know ANY details, why mention it then?. You could have said that about every company on the London market.
So what you are saying is it may never happen?

PS let me know WHEN it happens that will be a fact cheers BC4

[paulypilot] 10/5/2016 00:54

Nicky Name,

What gives me the right to talk about this industry?

How about the fact that I correctly called the Quindell fraud consistently, all the way until it collapsed.

Paul.