Tungsten Share Discussion Threads

[dollarzpounds] 21/11/2017 17:33

'Twas ever thus ??

[bs76] 21/11/2017 13:20

Somebody really trying hard to keep it down?

[edwardt] 13/11/2017 10:18

nice find. we could do with a dozen more of those!

[zinzanno8] 12/11/2017 12:12

Not sure how new this is....Looks like the BBC is on board?
hxxps://www.tungsten-network.com/customer-campaigns/bbc_home/

[andrewdbl] 09/11/2017 16:43

You are right i was thinking of the FCA short report

JPMorgan Asset Management (UK) Ltd Tungsten Corp PLC GB00B7Z0Q502 0.69 2016-03-15

March 15 - Looks like it fell down the back of a sofa.

[bs76] 09/11/2017 11:59

stock lending has gone up in oct 2017 by half million shares. So must be shorts from "< 0.5%" as not reported in fca short report

Jan-17 4,700,961 3.81
Feb-17 3,401,654 2.75
Mar-17 4,100,801 3.32
Apr-17 4,055,134 3.28
May-17 3,098,772 2.50
Jun-17 2,725,495 2.20
Jul-17 2,358,186 1.91
Aug-17 1,942,445 1.57
Sep-17 2,105,666 1.70
Oct-17 2,693,981 2.18

share price is not impacted much by half million short in Oct
30th Sept Share price - 65.50
31st Oct Share price - 64

And odey also sold 2% (2.5m shares)in Oct

who bought 3m shares in Oct ??

[andrewdbl] 07/11/2017 17:58

4 trades today.
0.69% (iirc) on loan

Almost like the market is waiting for something

Likely to be a trading update

14 December 2017 2017-2018 Interim results

Is the snark a boojum?

[dollarzpounds] 26/10/2017 09:40

Is it worth an email to investor relations to find out what method they will use? It is our company after all ?

[manics] 24/10/2017 20:53

Something about Mickey Rourke, Kim Basinger, 9 1/2 Weeks, +EBITDA...

..not that TUNG's obliged to RNS the milestone. Interims last year were published 14th December '16 which took us to end OCT16.

TUNG has to essentially be +EBITDA already; for us to find out in DEC. If they're (targeting on) putting it back to NOV/DEC '17, then we might not find out whether the goal/target/plan was indeed reached this CY2017 until the full year is published in late JUL18 -unless TUNG decide to RNS the milestone separately.

[andrewdbl] 15/10/2017 12:42

Is it me or is there something rather peculiar going on with the share price?

good question

all other things being equal,
in the absence of news (RNS)
in the absence of other events (that only impact that business sector)

the share price should approximately mirror a relevant index with some random variation

one of the things I am trying to look into is

When does variation stop being random?

What got me thinking about this is the SMS price chart from jan 17 to date.
I was in at 580 in jan and saw it drop to ~470 in june and then (happily) bounce back over 700 - this was supposed to be a boring stock and the highs/ lows do not match the news dates.

[bs76] 06/10/2017 09:54

and stock lending has come down as well

Jan-17 4,700,961 3.81
Feb-17 3,401,654 2.75
Mar-17 4,100,801 3.32
Apr-17 4,055,134 3.28
May-17 3,098,772 2.50
Jun-17 2,725,495 2.20
Jul-17 2,358,186 1.91
Aug-17 1,942,445 1.57
Sep-17 2,105,666 1.70

[bs76] 06/10/2017 09:53

Andrew, last 4 rns from odey about reduction

12th Aug 2016 18.84
10th Jan 2017 17.96
6th Sept 2017 16.93
4th Oct 2017 14.96

so it's not in one transaction- about 2% sold in last one month

[chemistdude] 05/10/2017 16:05

3 months to breakeven....come on Tungsten!

[andrewdbl] 05/10/2017 14:16

BS

has that 4.5m sale been reported through the volumes we see in the bar charts at the top of this web page?

[bs76] 05/10/2017 14:11

Bad news :(
as per tungsten website - hxxp://www.tungsten-network.com/uk/about/investor-relations/significant-shareholders/
odey had 19.45% as of 1st Jan 2017
and now as per latest RNS: 15.85%
-3.6% => 4.5m shares sold

Good news :) somebody bought those as share price on 1st Jan was 53. I mean share priced hasn't crashed

[edwardt] 04/10/2017 16:31

correct. if you think about it that is more than likely a reflection of the really disastrous performance of his fund - if clients redeem which they are no doubt doing, he has to sell across the board. I maybe wrong but suspect this is part of the reasoning.

[dollarzpounds] 04/10/2017 14:48

It would appear Odey have ditched 1% of their holding if I have read the news release properly ?

[dollarzpounds] 02/10/2017 13:55

Sounds like a $64,000 question that one ?? Surely when Mr Edi T infamously pronounced Tungsten would be dealing in the Trillions, Billions and Millions he can't have thought that would be achievable only by financing Tungsten invoices ?? I remember he openly scoffed at the previous OB10 management and their inability to monitise their invoicing procedures when he bought them out from my view point nothing much seems to have changed in that regard ? This was supposed to be a game changing disruptor the only thing Tungsten has disrupted so far is the contents of my bank account ! Its time they came clean with us and told us what their ambitions are , are we going "all in" or are we staying as the equivalent of a financial cottage industry ? Prabhat and the boys need to pull their finger out or concede this is a slow boat to nowhere in particular!

[ejcj] 02/10/2017 10:44

@edwardt yes they can look at the history and with some analytics I'd imagine they can make some good assessments. The problem is they are still limiting themselves to invoices sent across Tungsten. Most suppliers will want to finance their entire book and they can't do this through Tungsten because they only finance invoices they process. If they can change this policy then game on. But, they are trying to cost save and this has been a costly journey already. So they question is will they change tack again and really make a dent in the finance market or stick to the tried and trusted invoicing and just be a slow growth, profitable business.

[edwardt] 02/10/2017 09:11

ejcj - all true but my understanding was they are abele to mitigate this 'problem' by looking at the invoice history so even if the buyer doesn't tick the right boxes as it were, tungsten will know via the history of the supplier enough information to offer terms. we shall see but for me that change in tack gave the financing arm a chance of at least being in it to win it as it were.

[dollarzpounds] 29/9/2017 14:04

So why doesn't Tungsten become a 'true financer' then ??

[ejcj] 28/9/2017 16:09

@edwardt yes I remember the change of tack and whike it will help, will it be enough. Remember, there are generally 3 types of process flows for an invoice; paper, electronic where the buyer receives it; electronic where the buyer receives it and informs Tungsten of the status. Tungsten has no visibility over the first one. Financing was only over the latter. What I think they meant by "not authenticated" is to offer finance on the 2nd one. Still electronic across the network but with no confirmed payment date and thus a greater risk.
This widens the scope of invoices but it doesn't tackle the paper and doest address the competition from a true financer.

[manics] 28/9/2017 15:51

I noticed in the last update the EBITDA element was again positioned as a goal. That was the wording. "It remains our goal".

That is a little weaker than "we are on track" or "we will go +EBITDA later this year". I have a goal, to win Friday's €millions.

Might not translate to anything meaningful, though my investor 101 was "read between the lines". Anyway, the goal/task/dream has been repeated (in wording) several times over an extended period of time so I'd be 'somewhat miffed' if they missed.