Happy trading!
thank you!
Encyclopedia of Latest news, reviews, discussions and analysis of stock market and investment opportunities in Sri Lanka
Go to page : 1, 2
Rajaraam wrote:May be a sister company? Just to keep the price up and encourage others to buy at that price or higher.I think SEC should investigate in to this type of transactions to ascertain buyers intention.
Reference price is 10/=.Crossings happen at a premium but this primium is utter ridiculous.No one with a brain will buy this at 50 unless he wants to dump it after manipulation.npp wrote:Rajaraam wrote:May be a sister company? Just to keep the price up and encourage others to buy at that price or higher.I think SEC should investigate in to this type of transactions to ascertain buyers intention.
maybe, maybe not.
main reason for introduction is to sell part of ownership to public without raising new money.
this was done first thing in the morning which means it was already arranged.
If someone with large interest had sold to public afterwards it would have been disclosed, or will be done soon
rijayasooriya wrote:Reference price is 10/=.Crossings happen at a premium but this primium is utter ridiculous.No one with a brain will buy this at 50 unless he wants to dump it after manipulation.npp wrote:Rajaraam wrote:May be a sister company? Just to keep the price up and encourage others to buy at that price or higher.I think SEC should investigate in to this type of transactions to ascertain buyers intention.
maybe, maybe not.
main reason for introduction is to sell part of ownership to public without raising new money.
this was done first thing in the morning which means it was already arranged.
If someone with large interest had sold to public afterwards it would have been disclosed, or will be done soon
Wrong thing does not become a right thing just because it has happened in several time.It just shows the incompetency of so called watchdog The SEC.npp wrote:rijayasooriya wrote:Reference price is 10/=.Crossings happen at a premium but this primium is utter ridiculous.No one with a brain will buy this at 50 unless he wants to dump it after manipulation.npp wrote:Rajaraam wrote:May be a sister company? Just to keep the price up and encourage others to buy at that price or higher.I think SEC should investigate in to this type of transactions to ascertain buyers intention.
maybe, maybe not.
main reason for introduction is to sell part of ownership to public without raising new money.
this was done first thing in the morning which means it was already arranged.
If someone with large interest had sold to public afterwards it would have been disclosed, or will be done soon
One point is that even so called reference prices are of no use. Take the past few introductions for example. You think 5x the ref price is ridiculous? Then what's your take on NIFL?
Of course I agree SEC should investigate the transactions. If it was inside the family then it would be of malicious intentions. People are made to think that this is going to trade at the price when they see such a trade but I don't think making people 'think like that' is a crime, although unethical.
rijayasooriya wrote:Wrong thing does not become a right thing just because it has happened in several time.It just shows the incompetency of so called watchdog The SEC.npp wrote:rijayasooriya wrote:Reference price is 10/=.Crossings happen at a premium but this primium is utter ridiculous.No one with a brain will buy this at 50 unless he wants to dump it after manipulation.npp wrote:Rajaraam wrote:May be a sister company? Just to keep the price up and encourage others to buy at that price or higher.I think SEC should investigate in to this type of transactions to ascertain buyers intention.
maybe, maybe not.
main reason for introduction is to sell part of ownership to public without raising new money.
this was done first thing in the morning which means it was already arranged.
If someone with large interest had sold to public afterwards it would have been disclosed, or will be done soon
One point is that even so called reference prices are of no use. Take the past few introductions for example. You think 5x the ref price is ridiculous? Then what's your take on NIFL?
Of course I agree SEC should investigate the transactions. If it was inside the family then it would be of malicious intentions. People are made to think that this is going to trade at the price when they see such a trade but I don't think making people 'think like that' is a crime, although unethical.
I never say retailors who has gone after this rally is right and I do not want to justify them.Most of the retailors are not full time investers and I am sure most of retailors lack sound knowledge about these matters.It is the duty of the SEC to maintain a fair ground to all.npp wrote:rijayasooriya wrote:Wrong thing does not become a right thing just because it has happened in several time.It just shows the incompetency of so called watchdog The SEC.npp wrote:rijayasooriya wrote:Reference price is 10/=.Crossings happen at a premium but this primium is utter ridiculous.No one with a brain will buy this at 50 unless he wants to dump it after manipulation.npp wrote:Rajaraam wrote:May be a sister company? Just to keep the price up and encourage others to buy at that price or higher.I think SEC should investigate in to this type of transactions to ascertain buyers intention.
maybe, maybe not.
main reason for introduction is to sell part of ownership to public without raising new money.
this was done first thing in the morning which means it was already arranged.
If someone with large interest had sold to public afterwards it would have been disclosed, or will be done soon
One point is that even so called reference prices are of no use. Take the past few introductions for example. You think 5x the ref price is ridiculous? Then what's your take on NIFL?
Of course I agree SEC should investigate the transactions. If it was inside the family then it would be of malicious intentions. People are made to think that this is going to trade at the price when they see such a trade but I don't think making people 'think like that' is a crime, although unethical.
I had agreed on that. It is the reason that anyone call say for things happening at the CSE. But as retailers who transact with our own money, who do you think has the final responsibility?
We can think twice before buying at ridiculous prices. Afterall, customer is the king. No buyers -> can't sell high.
We too can think right? why do we have to be taken over by someone who wants us to buy his stuff at high price?
rijayasooriya wrote:Nothing to surprise about the seller but who is the buyer ?
http://www.cse.lk/cmt/upload_cse_announcements/3131326970777_.pdf
rijayasooriya wrote:I never say retailors who has gone after this rally is right and I do not want to justify them.Most of the retailors are not full time investers and I am sure most of retailors lack sound knowledge about these matters.It is the duty of the SEC to maintain a fair ground to all.npp wrote:rijayasooriya wrote:Wrong thing does not become a right thing just because it has happened in several time.It just shows the incompetency of so called watchdog The SEC.npp wrote:rijayasooriya wrote:Reference price is 10/=.Crossings happen at a premium but this primium is utter ridiculous.No one with a brain will buy this at 50 unless he wants to dump it after manipulation.npp wrote:Rajaraam wrote:May be a sister company? Just to keep the price up and encourage others to buy at that price or higher.I think SEC should investigate in to this type of transactions to ascertain buyers intention.
maybe, maybe not.
main reason for introduction is to sell part of ownership to public without raising new money.
this was done first thing in the morning which means it was already arranged.
If someone with large interest had sold to public afterwards it would have been disclosed, or will be done soon
One point is that even so called reference prices are of no use. Take the past few introductions for example. You think 5x the ref price is ridiculous? Then what's your take on NIFL?
Of course I agree SEC should investigate the transactions. If it was inside the family then it would be of malicious intentions. People are made to think that this is going to trade at the price when they see such a trade but I don't think making people 'think like that' is a crime, although unethical.
I had agreed on that. It is the reason that anyone call say for things happening at the CSE. But as retailers who transact with our own money, who do you think has the final responsibility?
We can think twice before buying at ridiculous prices. Afterall, customer is the king. No buyers -> can't sell high.
We too can think right? why do we have to be taken over by someone who wants us to buy his stuff at high price?
Lack of knowledge will precipitate the greediness.If u have knowledge it will control the greediness atleast to a some extend.Anyway I believe SEC should interefere more actively in this type of malpractices.npp wrote:rijayasooriya wrote:I never say retailors who has gone after this rally is right and I do not want to justify them.Most of the retailors are not full time investers and I am sure most of retailors lack sound knowledge about these matters.It is the duty of the SEC to maintain a fair ground to all.npp wrote:rijayasooriya wrote:Wrong thing does not become a right thing just because it has happened in several time.It just shows the incompetency of so called watchdog The SEC.npp wrote:rijayasooriya wrote:Reference price is 10/=.Crossings happen at a premium but this primium is utter ridiculous.No one with a brain will buy this at 50 unless he wants to dump it after manipulation.npp wrote:Rajaraam wrote:May be a sister company? Just to keep the price up and encourage others to buy at that price or higher.I think SEC should investigate in to this type of transactions to ascertain buyers intention.
maybe, maybe not.
main reason for introduction is to sell part of ownership to public without raising new money.
this was done first thing in the morning which means it was already arranged.
If someone with large interest had sold to public afterwards it would have been disclosed, or will be done soon
One point is that even so called reference prices are of no use. Take the past few introductions for example. You think 5x the ref price is ridiculous? Then what's your take on NIFL?
Of course I agree SEC should investigate the transactions. If it was inside the family then it would be of malicious intentions. People are made to think that this is going to trade at the price when they see such a trade but I don't think making people 'think like that' is a crime, although unethical.
I had agreed on that. It is the reason that anyone call say for things happening at the CSE. But as retailers who transact with our own money, who do you think has the final responsibility?
We can think twice before buying at ridiculous prices. Afterall, customer is the king. No buyers -> can't sell high.
We too can think right? why do we have to be taken over by someone who wants us to buy his stuff at high price?
appreciate precise arguments like this.
Talking about fair ground, it is not the duty of SEC to provide education on this matter. It should of course provide reasonable awareness to the investing community, which it has been doing to a certain extent. (SEC or CSE)
What's happening now is more to do with greed than lack of knowledge
manula wrote:rijayasooriya wrote:Nothing to surprise about the seller but who is the buyer ?
http://www.cse.lk/cmt/upload_cse_announcements/3131326970777_.pdf
any idea about the buyer... Ten million shares for 50Rs per share????
rijayasooriya wrote:
Do we really need the SEC ? Is it watchdog or fu**** bi*** ?
Go to page : 1, 2
Similar topics
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum