I can't blame him, holding 20% of any company makes no sense. It isn't a big enough holding to be 100% influential in decisions, but it is a big enough holding to get hurt should something bad happen. Founders or top employees should always keep their holdings in the 5-10% range, makes the stock more liquid and gives them a chance to diversify their wealth, while keeping them as a key shareholder that gets the approvals and all that goes with it.
Hahahahah yea good one Bill,
insider selling is one of the few predictive statistics involving equities
but lets ignore that and figure somehow this is a good thing for sporting bet and Mark.
This industry will never move forward as long as it has morons for consultants.
ROTFLMAO good one, guy is absolutely bailing after this latest little run up. To portray it as anything other than negative is misleading.
insider selling is one of the few predictive statistics involving equities
but lets ignore that and figure somehow this is a good thing for sporting bet and Mark.
This industry will never move forward as long as it has morons for consultants.
ROTFLMAO good one, guy is absolutely bailing after this latest little run up. To portray it as anything other than negative is misleading.
SP,
You are kidding right? When should he sell his shares? To keep shareholders happy should he just sit on them forever? Come on now, anyone with half a brain knows that if an insider is going to sell his shares he should sell them into a rally. That is best for all concerned. And the stats clearly show that insiders sell shares when the stock is near a high and buy them when a stock is near a low. Irrefutable evidence that insiders almost invariably take the opportunity to sell shares when it is near a high. After all, would you find it better for him to sell after the stock tanks?
Unless you think all insiders have a duty to hold onto their shares forever, you must be kidding with this line of thinking. And his financial advisor would say the same exact thing as me. Whenever you have a high-level job at a company and you own a significant level of shares, you are undiversified. The ideal level of shareholding is either 50.1% of the voting shares, or it is 5% or whatever the locally required level of "key shareholder" status is. Anything else is inefficient and risky. Now if the guy is Bill Gates and has no other place to park his billions, you have a case there that holding shares isn't the worst thing he could do. Short of that sort of situation the only reason to hold 20% of a company's shares is because you are either making a move in taking them over, or you are just an investor with a whole lot of money and you find it to be a stellar investment in a diversified portfolio.
And if you are still laughing, go back and relearn the basics of portfolio management and risk management...
You are kidding right? When should he sell his shares? To keep shareholders happy should he just sit on them forever? Come on now, anyone with half a brain knows that if an insider is going to sell his shares he should sell them into a rally. That is best for all concerned. And the stats clearly show that insiders sell shares when the stock is near a high and buy them when a stock is near a low. Irrefutable evidence that insiders almost invariably take the opportunity to sell shares when it is near a high. After all, would you find it better for him to sell after the stock tanks?
Unless you think all insiders have a duty to hold onto their shares forever, you must be kidding with this line of thinking. And his financial advisor would say the same exact thing as me. Whenever you have a high-level job at a company and you own a significant level of shares, you are undiversified. The ideal level of shareholding is either 50.1% of the voting shares, or it is 5% or whatever the locally required level of "key shareholder" status is. Anything else is inefficient and risky. Now if the guy is Bill Gates and has no other place to park his billions, you have a case there that holding shares isn't the worst thing he could do. Short of that sort of situation the only reason to hold 20% of a company's shares is because you are either making a move in taking them over, or you are just an investor with a whole lot of money and you find it to be a stellar investment in a diversified portfolio.
And if you are still laughing, go back and relearn the basics of portfolio management and risk management...
SP,
You are kidding right? When should he sell his shares? To keep shareholders happy should he just sit on them forever? Come on now, anyone with half a brain knows that if an insider is going to sell his shares he should sell them into a rally. That is best for all concerned. And the stats clearly show that insiders sell shares when the stock is near a high and buy them when a stock is near a low. Irrefuta
You are kidding right? When should he sell his shares? To keep shareholders happy should he just sit on them forever? Come on now, anyone with half a brain knows that if an insider is going to sell his shares he should sell them into a rally. That is best for all concerned. And the stats clearly show that insiders sell shares when the stock is near a high and buy them when a stock is near a low. Irrefuta
it's a smart move with all the uncertainties around internet betting right now. however, the soundness of the business has improved big time in the past 12 to 18 months.
The bears have been squeezed as the company has put its balance sheet in order. Barring a massive DOS attack or a general offshore attack by Bush and the White House crazy gang this book is pretty solid now.
The bears have been squeezed as the company has put its balance sheet in order. Barring a massive DOS attack or a general offshore attack by Bush and the White House crazy gang this book is pretty solid now.
General will you at least spread paper before shitting all over the site.
Listen to the man?
You mean that posted that this was good for Sportingbet.
Then posted that insiders sell at highs?
So it is good for sportingbet that their stock is likely to get hammered now?
Interesting, try reading the posts next time nitwit.
Listen to the man?
You mean that posted that this was good for Sportingbet.
Then posted that insiders sell at highs?
So it is good for sportingbet that their stock is likely to get hammered now?
Interesting, try reading the posts next time nitwit.
Blanfords reasons for selling have little to do with the value of the stock.
also, I believe this to be incorrect:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I can't blame him, holding 20% of any company makes no sense. It isn't a big enough holding to be 100% influential in decisions, but it is a big enough holding to get hurt should something bad happen. Founders or top employees should always keep their holdings in the 5-10% range, makes the stock more liquid and gives them a chance to diversify their wealth, while keeping them as a key shareholder that gets the approvals and all that goes with it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Liquidity at sbt? How do investors react to owners betting on themselves?
[This message was edited by megladon on March 24, 2004 at 08:00 PM.]
also, I believe this to be incorrect:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I can't blame him, holding 20% of any company makes no sense. It isn't a big enough holding to be 100% influential in decisions, but it is a big enough holding to get hurt should something bad happen. Founders or top employees should always keep their holdings in the 5-10% range, makes the stock more liquid and gives them a chance to diversify their wealth, while keeping them as a key shareholder that gets the approvals and all that goes with it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Liquidity at sbt? How do investors react to owners betting on themselves?
[This message was edited by megladon on March 24, 2004 at 08:00 PM.]
we need to draw a line here between what is good for stock holders and customers.
If I was a stock holder I would sell at least 50% of my holding now. The shares have had a good run and no-one is in a better position to assess their prospects than the founder. I NEVER believe bunkum about paying school fees, spending time with family etc and it rarely costs me to sell my stock in these situations.
But as a punter it makes no real difference to me who holds the stock, providing a dodgy book does not gain control. The balance sheet is much stronger than it was 2 years ago when the bear raiders led by Evil Kineavel made huge profits by shorting spbet.
If I was a stock holder I would sell at least 50% of my holding now. The shares have had a good run and no-one is in a better position to assess their prospects than the founder. I NEVER believe bunkum about paying school fees, spending time with family etc and it rarely costs me to sell my stock in these situations.
But as a punter it makes no real difference to me who holds the stock, providing a dodgy book does not gain control. The balance sheet is much stronger than it was 2 years ago when the bear raiders led by Evil Kineavel made huge profits by shorting spbet.
Jay-
Always interested in your take on things, would you repost?
Why was your post deleted?
Supporting anything I said could be a reason.
Always interested in your take on things, would you repost?
Why was your post deleted?
Supporting anything I said could be a reason.
Your right Jay.
I really don't want to contribute any info to this bettor's trap, if you'd like to carry this on across or down the street let me know.
I really don't want to contribute any info to this bettor's trap, if you'd like to carry this on across or down the street let me know.
Fact of the matter is anything related to the US market is likely to continue to vascillate in the grey area because beauracracy is a very slow moving beast.
I would not trade in this toilet paper if they were passing out rolls for free in piccadilly square,
but you can make a much stronger case for being bullish then bearish and it primarily centers around the US market really not getting any less accessable.
What is likely to happen is that more ecoomerce companies will sprout up and books will find bigger and bigger loopholes in current US resistance. Plus, they have operated in a low rate enviroment, if the guy above has a clue and their balance sheet really is better, than the expected rise in rates will put them in a favorable position.
Plus the prudent assumption about current management is that expansion means other than in north america.
This post was approved by SPV.
I would not trade in this toilet paper if they were passing out rolls for free in piccadilly square,
but you can make a much stronger case for being bullish then bearish and it primarily centers around the US market really not getting any less accessable.
What is likely to happen is that more ecoomerce companies will sprout up and books will find bigger and bigger loopholes in current US resistance. Plus, they have operated in a low rate enviroment, if the guy above has a clue and their balance sheet really is better, than the expected rise in rates will put them in a favorable position.
Plus the prudent assumption about current management is that expansion means other than in north america.
This post was approved by SPV.
