JimDiGritz Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 20 hours ago, crashmonitor said: Morrisons is the 3rd. Which I dont. Whats wrong with Morrisons? They dont carry debt. If I was to bet on any supermarket lasting it would be Morrisons - they horizoantally integrated so can survive the margins uts other SM are seeing. Morrisons have a £9bn property estate, perhaps the markets are predicting a property crash... hmmmm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCountOfNowhere Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 Just when you thought it couldnt get any worse.... 51.40GBX5.80 (10.14%) The man in charge stepped down after the first 40% drop...maybe his replacement needs to go too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longgone Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 will london houses prices trend in the same manner ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longgone Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, TheCountOfNowhere said: Just when you thought it couldnt get any worse.... 51.40GBX5.80 (10.14%) The man in charge stepped down after the first 40% drop...maybe his replacement needs to go too can it go negative ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crashmonitor Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) edit. Edited July 13, 2017 by crashmonitor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sancho Panza Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 On 12/07/2017 at 0:46 PM, spyguy said: Carillion was one (the?) most shorted stock. Which I can understand. Morrisons is the 3rd. Which I dont. Whats wrong with Morrisons? They dont carry debt. If I was to bet on any supermarket lasting it would be Morrisons - they horizoantally integrated so can survive the margins uts other SM are seeing. https://www.google.co.uk/finance?q=LON%3AMRW&ei=sJNnWcHPJIOMUv-Wk7AG Someone takes your view.Shorts getting burned Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sugarlips Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 And surprise surprise they just got the HS2 contract (top news on bbc business) haha no corruption, back handers or govt meddling here then Jesus wept Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCountOfNowhere Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 (edited) Carillion plc LON: CLLN - Aug 23, 4:27 PM GMT+1 42.91GBX5.13 (10.69%) Ouch. Down about 85% in 12 months. The economy is fine...nothing to see here... Edited August 23, 2017 by TheCountOfNowhere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebull Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 Quote Hedgies celebrate Some of the biggest names in the hedge fund world were counting their winnings today as Carillion’s share price collapsed. A host of major players including Sir Paul Marshall’s Marshall Wace, fund giant Blackrock and George Soros’s SFM UK had lined up big bets against Carillion, borrowing shares in the firm to sell in the market in the hope of buying them back more cheaply later and booking a profit. Wace has “shorted” 4.2% of the group’s shares. It is the UK’s most-shorted stock. [From ES article in the OP.] Question: If such a large proportion of shares have been "borrowed" by the hedgies and sold at high prices, what happens if the original owners of the borrowed shares want their shares back and all the current owners of shares have decided to hold [ie there are not enough shares in the market available to buy]? I'm guessing the answer is that the original owners of the borrowed shares usually only want their shares back if they are selling so the shares will be available for the hedgies to buy. But what if they are changing their broker to one who doesn't lend their shares out? Are there other circumstances when original owners of the borrowed shares could demand the shares back when the shares will simply not be available to buy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebull Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 6 minutes ago, ebull said: Question: If such a large proportion of shares have been "borrowed" by the hedgies and sold at high prices, what happens if the original owners of the borrowed shares want their shares back and all the current owners of shares have decided to hold [ie there are not enough shares in the market available to buy]? ... what if they are changing their broker to one who doesn't lend their shares out? Taking this line of thought a step further, if all original owners of the borrowed shares were to move their shares to a broker account where they cannot be lent out, would that not create an enormous rise in the price as the hedgies compete to buy any available shares? Guessing there may be laws against organising an action to rip off the hedgies in such a way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exiled Canadian Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 21 minutes ago, ebull said: Taking this line of thought a step further, if all original owners of the borrowed shares were to move their shares to a broker account where they cannot be lent out, would that not create an enormous rise in the price as the hedgies compete to buy any available shares? Guessing there may be laws against organising an action to rip off the hedgies in such a way? I don't think so....it's called a "short squeeze" effectively those who have bought short have to buy the shares to return to the institution that lent them to them at whatever price is prevailing. I seem to recall that this happened to BMW shares some time ago and the price spiked as a number of short sellers had to scrabble around in the market to buy shares to square off their positions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
honkydonkey Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 34 minutes ago, Exiled Canadian said: I don't think so....it's called a "short squeeze" effectively those who have bought short have to buy the shares to return to the institution that lent them to them at whatever price is prevailing. I seem to recall that this happened to BMW shares some time ago and the price spiked as a number of short sellers had to scrabble around in the market to buy shares to square off their positions. It was VW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgul Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 1 hour ago, ebull said: Taking this line of thought a step further, if all original owners of the borrowed shares were to move their shares to a broker account where they cannot be lent out, would that not create an enormous rise in the price as the hedgies compete to buy any available shares? Guessing there may be laws against organising an action to rip off the hedgies in such a way? Hedge funds tend to be clever enough not to short beyond the number of shares expected to be readily available for trading. The VW incident was moronic, as so many of the shares are held by a couple of strong shareholders who could (cleverly) muck about and force the short squeeze. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
honkydonkey Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 45 minutes ago, dgul said: Hedge funds tend to be clever enough not to short beyond the number of shares expected to be readily available for trading. The VW incident was moronic, as so many of the shares are held by a couple of strong shareholders who could (cleverly) muck about and force the short squeeze. Yes, Porsche increased its shares secretly to 74% and Saxony owned 20%, so essentially every short was scrabbling for the remaining 6% left. Prices set at the margins huh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will! Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 Telegraph: Carillion ... reveals loss of £1.15bn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tapori Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 Don't they have a big HS2 contract? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adarmo Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 5 hours ago, Tapori said: Don't they have a big HS2 contract? Accounting rules require that any loss estimated to be made of a long term contract (more than one year) is recognised in full in the financial year that the loss is identified. The value of the contracts is one thing, the cost of delivering on those contracts is another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spyguy Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 9 hours ago, adarmo said: Accounting rules require that any loss estimated to be made of a long term contract (more than one year) is recognised in full in the financial year that the loss is identified. The value of the contracts is one thing, the cost of delivering on those contracts is another. Once accounting moves from cash /close cash then the numbers quickly turned to junk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crashmonitor Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 (edited) 11 hours ago, adarmo said: Accounting rules require that any loss estimated to be made of a long term contract (more than one year) is recognised in full in the financial year that the loss is identified. The value of the contracts is one thing, the cost of delivering on those contracts is another. It's not so much the Company accounts that annoy me, but the adjustments that that the brokers then make to come out with incredibly low price to earnings. Kier ( in Carillion's sector) is a prime example. The only analysis I trust is the Telegraph who show the bald truth of after tax income. Kier has made 17 million in 2014, an 11 million loss in 2015 and made a loss of 6 million loss in 2016....so it has made precisely zero in the last three years. Preliminaries in 2017 show a before tax profit of only 26 million. This, for God's sakes, is a billion Market Cap highly indebted Corp. Even on the 2017 stats it has a price to earnings of sixty plus after tax. Yet go to any site, other than the Telegraph, and they will show a price to earnings of ten by pulling out all sorts of adjustments and the analysts will give it a strong buy. Same if you dig down to the actual unadjusted stats of many of the big blue chips; Imperial Brands is another one that appears to make very little going by the raw accounts and then the analysts pull a few rabbits out of the hat for currency movement etc and suddenly it is a p/e screaming buy of 10 and not the plus 50 it really is. http://shares.telegraph.co.uk/fundamentals/?epic=KIE Edited September 30, 2017 by crashmonitor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regprentice Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 11 hours ago, adarmo said: Accounting rules require that any loss estimated to be made of a long term contract (more than one year) is recognised in full in the financial year that the loss is identified. The value of the contracts is one thing, the cost of delivering on those contracts is another. Whats most worrying is that none of the writedowns arent driven by a big ticket item..it seems to be across several arms of the business in several regions. The largest single item quoted is only 25% of that figure. Not a good indicator. Wonder how long it will be til we taxpayers bail out their pension fund to allow the directors a second chance to run the company into the ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adarmo Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 8 hours ago, regprentice said: Whats most worrying is that none of the writedowns arent driven by a big ticket item..it seems to be across several arms of the business in several regions. The largest single item quoted is only 25% of that figure. Not a good indicator. Wonder how long it will be til we taxpayers bail out their pension fund to allow the directors a second chance to run the company into the ground. That's a meaningful observation. Were it one or two unfortunate contracts dragging down earnings then not so much of a worry. I wonder by how much they'll overshoot the HS2 project costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adarmo Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 13 hours ago, spyguy said: Once accounting moves from cash /close cash then the numbers quickly turned to junk. That's funny cos cash accounting make F all sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spyguy Posted October 1, 2017 Share Posted October 1, 2017 8 hours ago, adarmo said: That's funny cos cash accounting make F all sense. Assigning a value for a future contract makes no sense. Most of th reporting on Carillion has been about how big its pipeline is. If you have no faith in the company to big for profitable work and deliver it... All the outsourcers - Carillion, Balfour, Seroc etc look like they chase business for chasing business sake - or just to keep the contract management in jobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regprentice Posted October 1, 2017 Share Posted October 1, 2017 What i dont understand about this is wy they dont just jack up the prices. There have been no end of public contracts that have ended up insanely more expensive than the original quote yet councils/govt pay through the nose for them every time. - Scottish Parliament (initial estimate 40mn end cost 430 mn) - Edinburgh Trams (initial estimate 375mn end cost 750mn for a significantly cut back route) - Big ben refurb just this week doubling in price before they've even started Surely businesses like Carillion literally have a licence to print money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spyguy Posted October 1, 2017 Share Posted October 1, 2017 7 minutes ago, regprentice said: What i dont understand about this is wy they dont just jack up the prices. There have been no end of public contracts that have ended up insanely more expensive than the original quote yet councils/govt pay through the nose for them every time. - Scottish Parliament (initial estimate 40mn end cost 430 mn) - Edinburgh Trams (initial estimate 375mn end cost 750mn for a significantly cut back route) - Big ben refurb just this week doubling in price before they've even started Surely businesses like Carillion literally have a licence to print money? Contract. They bid too low to win the business then ... Basically Carillion and the org that gave them the contract have fcked up. If the org does not have a good understanding of the cost it might not be a good idea to issue fixed cost contracts as the risk of the contractor messing up is too high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.