![](/cdn/assets/images/search/clock.png)
We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Versarien Plc | LSE:VRS | London | Ordinary Share | GB00B8YZTJ80 | ORD 0.01P |
Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.00425 | 4.09% | 0.10825 | 0.10 | 0.116 | 0.14 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 87,092,095 | 16:35:20 |
Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chemicals & Chem Preps, Nec | 5.45M | -13.53M | -0.0091 | -0.11 | 1.55M |
Date | Subject | Author | Discuss |
---|---|---|---|
10/7/2018 12:48 | I was trying to learn about level 2, and 'iceberg' orders were mentioned. Apparently,these are large buy or sell orders that never show fully on level 2 order book. Instead, a fraction of the order is shown, and when that gets filled another bit of the order is shown (with a new timestamp). This is done to stop the large order having an undue influence on the share price. I remember many years ago there used to be an order type 'M' - marketmaker to marketmaker. Looks like it's no longer shown. Anybody know if there's a way of telling if a trade has been marketmakers? | ![]() turbocharge | |
10/7/2018 12:37 | lovat - many thanks for that. Certainly well beyond my brain cell capacity. Anyway - what ever it was - it's now done and dusted, and out of the way. Cheers - Mike | ![]() spike_1 | |
10/7/2018 12:31 | I’m told 250k passed between Singers and Citigroup. Unfortunately there are a myriad of possibilities as to who has done what! Looking at the prints it could be Miton selling 75k and 175k from two separate funds to a Citigroup client or a Citi client selling to Singers who has 2 buyers and has split the trade between them! There are other possibilities of course. Cantor have done a fair amount of trade and are II CFD counterparts, as are Citi, so same buyer could be spreading his CFD business around. Poirot would have his work cut out here! AIMHO DYOR etc | lovat scout | |
10/7/2018 12:13 | That could never happen.... | chumbo | |
10/7/2018 12:05 | Meaty, sells or buys just come through. Can’t be NR as his in a closed period. | ![]() diversification | |
10/7/2018 12:00 | And the bit most of you guys didn't know is that there seems to be some largish orders on the bid yesterday just below the bid price, not visible to us mortals at the time. | ![]() superg1 | |
10/7/2018 11:57 | A bit more which tends to fit with those small drip feed trades I go on about. If reporting a single protected transaction. A protected transaction occurs when a large order is going through the market. The buyer (or seller) may wish to keep the order anonymous from the rest of the market as the size of the order could greatly alter the price of the stock. With a protected transaction the dealer will put the trade through in small quantities rather than knock the whole order out in one hit. The entire transaction is reported once the deal is completed. The LSE is notified at the start and at the end of the transaction, however, the market as a whole isn't told until the end, thus the order is protected. | ![]() superg1 | |
10/7/2018 11:53 | so if he doesn't know when the herding and co-ordination will happen then he *doesn't* know ;-) | club sandwich | |
10/7/2018 11:52 | The 500k would explain the change in level 2 behaviour this week. The trades on LSA are listed as "non protected portfolio, single protected transaction" I've not seen one of those before. An explanation reads Non protected portfolio 'The transaction was reported as a non-protected portfolio transaction or a fully disclosed portfolio transaction.' Single protected transaction "The trade was reported as a result of a single protected transaction." Lovat, where are you. :-) | ![]() superg1 | |
10/7/2018 11:40 | I am sure he does CLUB as the VRS representitive is involved in writing the rules. The big problem is co-ordinating all the personalities - herding them in to a room and getting on with the job.......its a bind but "very very soon" and "imminent" were made nearly 4 months ago and when I went to hear Prof F that was November 2017. | ![]() anley | |
10/7/2018 11:38 | CS - Correct and thanks. I "extrapolated" with ARM word by word. | ![]() fuji99 | |
10/7/2018 11:35 | Well we did ask NR back on Mar 28th, and he said 'very very soon' and 'imminent'. Not suggesting he was lying, but it's clear he simply doesn't know... | club sandwich | |
10/7/2018 11:30 | CLUB S......re your post on IOS. My understanding is that the DTI would like to see this in place sooner rather than later so as to avoid such events like the Inovate trainer episode I banged on about yesterday..........t In April I attended the Berlin show to hear a speech in which the VRS representitive state that by the end of this summer.......no one at that speech questioned him. I will be asking at the AGM as will others as we see it as a very important bull point for the company and the share price. Other shareholders should do the same. | ![]() anley | |
10/7/2018 11:28 | ""Is history repeating itself with Graphene invading every material used in every application ?" I think the word you're looking for is '*enhancing* every material...' ;-) | club sandwich | |
10/7/2018 11:27 | Interesting 500k changed hands at some point recently (not today I'm guessing). | ![]() spike_1 | |
10/7/2018 11:22 | "Is history repeating itself with Graphene invading every material used in every application ?" Yes. IMHO, obviously ;-) | club sandwich | |
10/7/2018 11:12 | I wonder the magnitude of just royalties revenues from IP licensing if it'll be for a £200 billion demand over 5 years ? Then add other multiple revenues from Graphene itself. This reminds me of ARM Holdings IP royalties for each microchip sold. At that time I remember Saxby saying that their only "problem" was how to manage the exponential growth which was caused by ARM microprocessors invading every corner of technology. Is history repeating itself with Graphene invading every material used in every application ? | ![]() fuji99 | |
10/7/2018 11:11 | Well our buyer seems to have given up hoping to buy lower, 7 or 8 10k buys so far today. I guess gap filled (yet again - seems to almost always happen), so I guess we bumble north awaiting more RNS's and results in just over a week's time. What's not to like ;0) | ![]() spike_1 | |
10/7/2018 11:09 | Lovat - yes, I've always wondered about that too. Why a monetary amount rather than a volume (1000T, 100,000T, whatever)?Anyway, whichever way you look at it it's mind-boggling. Even if they put an extra zero on by mistake it's still a gargantuan opportunity - if true... | club sandwich | |
10/7/2018 11:09 | Unusually strong buying on the sheets. A leak of results? Anything going on? | ![]() wrecktangle | |
10/7/2018 11:03 | Off topic, but I've just seen a few pics in and around the GEIC. It looks an impressive installation. Having said that what else would you expect from a £100m plus catapult! | potsol | |
10/7/2018 11:02 | £200bn surely a speculative number as no one knows the bulk pricing? | lovat scout | |
10/7/2018 11:01 | Would be a fair observation to say we have a larger buyer back | ![]() diversification | |
10/7/2018 11:00 | Just starting to change on level 2 now, just singer left on 132p and the price to buy had been going up within the spread prior to that. It was hard to call who had what yesterday so keep an eye on singer time. | ![]() superg1 |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
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