Thanks for the warm welcome BP! 44 sounds like a good title!
Absolutely, with its current SP, it maybe more appealing for investors who can tolerance higher risk.
Printable View
Thanks for the warm welcome BP! 44 sounds like a good title!
Absolutely, with its current SP, it maybe more appealing for investors who can tolerance higher risk.
$8.97 is a good long term investment, but it's too high to be trading super short term with, with a Trump tax potentially around the corner. A good bet if you have spare cash and are happy to put it in the bottom drawer if it goes south.
If Trump (AKA Quick Draw McGraw the shoot-from-the-hip make policies now, ask questions later cowboy president of the USA) opens his face hole and noise about import tax starts coming out before the results are published from FPH, then it'd have been a bad investment. However, I think the price could go up after the next FPH announcement, especially if some time passes after that and still no tax talk from Quick Draw.
Personally, I haven't concreted my plans on my personal house situation, so I don't have cash to gamble on this stuff. If I did, I'd take a parcel at that price.
I figure these are tracking upwards a bit as it seems people feel like Trump's ability to action tax change could be just hot AIR.
I listened to Mr Trump's first speech to Congress today. Although it was a claim speech, I decided to walked away with some profits from my current FPH holding, and stand on the sideline to monitor its movement.
Pretty strong breakout on big vol.Am liking the look of this.
Milford's portfolio manager, Mark Warminger has been convicted of violating securities law for trades in FPH on 27 May 2014.
As an investor in both FPH and a Milford KiwiSaver fund at the time I am horrified at the facts of the case.
Well done to the FMA and shame on Milford who I trusted to upheld higher ethics than this. Instead they have continually downplayed this issue and refused to state that this behavior is unacceptable or even fire the guy (he was placed on leave) despite paying a large settlement to the FMA.Quote:
Having told a broker on the day in question he was a seller at $4.35 a share, he then entered the market to buy small volumes at prices from $4.32 to $4.34.
“His subsequent DMA purchases resulted in an average profit per share of a modest fraction of one cent on the volume purchased for a total profit of $656. He would have lost money on the last purchase of 5,000 shares at $4.34 after brokerage was taken into account. By contrast, if his DMA activity led to the increased sale price of $4.35 it improved his crossing price by 3c resulting in a benefit of around $16,350.”
Read more: https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/warmin...inds-th-198012
I expect the fund managers of my super fund to spend their time researching shares and industries not monkeying about with share prices to artificially inflate a fund's price for a very short period of time for their own selfish gain. This has real costs for the fund's long term investors in trading fees and potentially increased performance fees. It also damages individual investors trust in the NZ markets which hurts everyone.
NBR and an older Stuff article, report on his motivation, Milford's profit target and Warminger's own bonus were at risk:
Quote:
It was clear from Milford’s employment records that Mr Warminger’s funds were underperforming their benchmark, said the judge.
“He undoubtedly would have felt pressure as a consequence.”
Read more: https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/warmin...inds-th-198012
Quote:
Furthermore, performance measures at the company were reviewed every six months, and Warminger's remuneration included a share of the company's total profit for the year.
"There will be evidence the bonus for Mr Warminger was very, very substantial indeed, by comparison to his base salary," Smith said.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/8464...-pressure--fma
JAA's post should be cross-posted to ATM as well. Surely will be some very upset shareholders who were caught up in Mr Manipulations shenanigans!
Could be more buy opportunities ahead as Trump focuses back on the tax again. Interesting his approach has changed. He's now ordering an investigation instead of making policy first.