Vagueness and the Aftermath - A sporadic diary

[tikay]

If you can nick a short-term profit on "bounce" Tom (pretend profit.....), cut & run.

The debt mountain says it all - their earnings will be severely diluted by the huge cost of that debt.

It blames "unrest" in several key destinations. "Unrest" ain't gonna go away, the world is unrestly.

On the wireless today, they were blaming "the recession". That's bollox.

The fundamental problem is that although MORE people are taking MORE holidays to MORE places, the dominant position that Travel & Holiday Agents once held in the market has been destroyed by the Internet - we can book our own holidays now. We don't NEED them any more.

Travellers Cheques - I think they sold their financial arm ("selling the family silver") some years ago, to help clear their debt mountain.

Think about, say, Radio Rentals, back in the 50's & 60's - a supremely well run & dominant Company in their field, nobody (Rediffusion apart) did it better - but their market disappeared, as Hire Purchase came along, & we all went & got our own TV's on tick.

The company also has a huge swathe of dissenting Shareholders, after a barney about exucitive pay & bonuses, so good luck them getting Shareholder Approval for any future plans, especially a Rights Issue.

They also have an extensive network of high street retail units. Who the hell wants/needs that cost?

Basically, they are dead in the water long term, though there will be some share price volatility short term. Sell on any bounce.

When Companies have that level of debt, then go looking for more, it's time to run for the hills.

Would Warren invest in such a Company? No way, he believes debt of that magnitude to be a huge no-no. Quite right too.

The clues are between the lines, here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cook

[RED-DOG]

If you can nick a short-term profit on "bounce" Tom (pretend profit.....), cut & run.

The debt mountain says it all - their earnings will be severely diluted by the huge cost of that debt.

It blames "unrest" in several key destinations. "Unrest" ain't gonna go away, the world is unrestly.

On the wireless today, they were blaming "the recession". That's bollox.

The fundamental problem is that although MORE people are taking MORE holidays to MORE places, the dominant position that Travel & Holiday Agents once held in the market has been destroyed by the Internet - we can book our own holidays now. We don't NEED them any more.

Travellers Cheques - I think they sold their financial arm ("selling the family silver") some years ago, to help clear their debt mountain.

Think about, say, Radio Rentals, back in the 50's & 60's - a supremely well run & dominant Company in their field, nobody (Rediffusion apart) did it better - but their market disappeared, as Hire Purchase came along, & we all went & got our own TV's on tick.

The company also has a huge swathe of dissenting Shareholders, after a barney about exucitive pay & bonuses, so good luck them getting Shareholder Approval for any future plans, especially a Rights Issue.

They also have an extensive network of high street retail units. Who the hell wants/needs that cost?

Basically, they are dead in the water long term, though there will be some share price volatility short term. Sell on any bounce.

When Companies have that level of debt, then go looking for more, it's time to run for the hills.

Would Warren invest in such a Company? No way, he believes debt of that magnitude to be a huge no-no. Quite right too.

The clues are between the lines, here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cook

What an excellent assessment cum investment lesson. How do you manage to write something that is both comprehensive and succinct so quickly?

[tikay]

If you can nick a short-term profit on "bounce" Tom (pretend profit.....), cut & run.

The debt mountain says it all - their earnings will be severely diluted by the huge cost of that debt.

It blames "unrest" in several key destinations. "Unrest" ain't gonna go away, the world is unrestly.

On the wireless today, they were blaming "the recession". That's bollox.

The fundamental problem is that although MORE people are taking MORE holidays to MORE places, the dominant position that Travel & Holiday Agents once held in the market has been destroyed by the Internet - we can book our own holidays now. We don't NEED them any more.

Travellers Cheques - I think they sold their financial arm ("selling the family silver") some years ago, to help clear their debt mountain.

Think about, say, Radio Rentals, back in the 50's & 60's - a supremely well run & dominant Company in their field, nobody (Rediffusion apart) did it better - but their market disappeared, as Hire Purchase came along, & we all went & got our own TV's on tick.

The company also has a huge swathe of dissenting Shareholders, after a barney about exucitive pay & bonuses, so good luck them getting Shareholder Approval for any future plans, especially a Rights Issue.

They also have an extensive network of high street retail units. Who the hell wants/needs that cost?

Basically, they are dead in the water long term, though there will be some share price volatility short term. Sell on any bounce.

When Companies have that level of debt, then go looking for more, it's time to run for the hills.

Would Warren invest in such a Company? No way, he believes debt of that magnitude to be a huge no-no. Quite right too.

The clues are between the lines, here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cook

What an excellent assessment cum investment lesson. How do you manage to write something that is both comprehensive and succinct so quickly?

It's probably total tosh, Tom, but I mask it well......

As a general rule, like bookies, "the Market" is rarely wrong, & when Shares get marked down that much, that fast, the writing is on the wall. Derivatives ("shorting", or "put options") are at work, too, making it hard to assess the real position, but the bears have it right here I think.

[RED-DOG]

If you can nick a short-term profit on "bounce" Tom (pretend profit.....), cut & run.

The debt mountain says it all - their earnings will be severely diluted by the huge cost of that debt.

It blames "unrest" in several key destinations. "Unrest" ain't gonna go away, the world is unrestly.

On the wireless today, they were blaming "the recession". That's bollox.

The fundamental problem is that although MORE people are taking MORE holidays to MORE places, the dominant position that Travel & Holiday Agents once held in the market has been destroyed by the Internet - we can book our own holidays now. We don't NEED them any more.

Travellers Cheques - I think they sold their financial arm ("selling the family silver") some years ago, to help clear their debt mountain.

Think about, say, Radio Rentals, back in the 50's & 60's - a supremely well run & dominant Company in their field, nobody (Rediffusion apart) did it better - but their market disappeared, as Hire Purchase came along, & we all went & got our own TV's on tick.

The company also has a huge swathe of dissenting Shareholders, after a barney about exucitive pay & bonuses, so good luck them getting Shareholder Approval for any future plans, especially a Rights Issue.

They also have an extensive network of high street retail units. Who the hell wants/needs that cost?

Basically, they are dead in the water long term, though there will be some share price volatility short term. Sell on any bounce.

When Companies have that level of debt, then go looking for more, it's time to run for the hills.

Would Warren invest in such a Company? No way, he believes debt of that magnitude to be a huge no-no. Quite right too.

The clues are between the lines, here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cook

What an excellent assessment cum investment lesson. How do you manage to write something that is both comprehensive and succinct so quickly?

It's probably total tosh, Tom, but I mask it well......

As a general rule, like bookies, "the Market" is rarely wrong, & when Shares get marked down that much, that fast, the writing is on the wall. Derivatives ("shorting", or "put options") are at work, too, making it hard to assess the real position, but the bears have it right here I think.

Your a modest man Tone...   Who wants to do the punchline?

[tikay]

This might interest you Tom, though they have made it sound very complicated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Put_option

Note, though......

The most obvious use of a put is as a type of insurance. In the protective put strategy, the investor buys enough puts to cover their holdings of the underlying so that if a drastic downward movement of the underlying's price occurs, they have the option to sell the holdings at the strike price

In Options, we have "long" & "short", buy & sell, long puts & short puts. There is also something called a naked put. Hence the book title - "The Long Short", about the subprime debacle. Different instruments, same principle.

Simon Galloway, or Tighty, will be along in due course & tell you the story properly - it was fundamental in their professions, whereas I was/am just an investor/dabbler.

[RED-DOG]

This might interest you Tom, though they have made it sound very complicated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Put_option

Note, though......

The most obvious use of a put is as a type of insurance. In the protective put strategy, the investor buys enough puts to cover their holdings of the underlying so that if a drastic downward movement of the underlying's price occurs, they have the option to sell the holdings at the strike price

In Options, we have "long" & "short", buy & sell, long puts & short puts. There is also something called a naked put. Hence the book title - "The Long Short", about the subprime debacle. Different instruments, same principle.

Simon Galloway, or Tighty, will be along in due course & tell you the story properly - it was fundamental in their professions, whereas I was/am just an investor/dabbler.

I'm trying to understand it, but it's in lawyer speak and I keep running out of brainpower.

I need someone to sit at a table and show me how it works using things like salt and pepper pots and fag packets.

[RED-DOG]

Is it: If you buy something from this bloke, he has to buy it back at market value on a certain day if you want to sell it, but if you don't want to sell it to him you don't have to?

[tikay]

This might interest you Tom, though they have made it sound very complicated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Put_option

Note, though......

The most obvious use of a put is as a type of insurance. In the protective put strategy, the investor buys enough puts to cover their holdings of the underlying so that if a drastic downward movement of the underlying's price occurs, they have the option to sell the holdings at the strike price

In Options, we have "long" & "short", buy & sell, long puts & short puts. There is also something called a naked put. Hence the book title - "The Long Short", about the subprime debacle. Different instruments, same principle.

Simon Galloway, or Tighty, will be along in due course & tell you the story properly - it was fundamental in their professions, whereas I was/am just an investor/dabbler.

I'm trying to understand it, but it's in lawyer speak and I keep running out of brainpower.

I need someone to sit at a table and show me how it works using things like salt and pepper pots and fag packets.

Simon G or Tighty will explain it better than I can. Essentially, they were designed as a "hedge", or "insurance" against a share price that moves against your holding. Later, more complex instruments came along, & enable us to, just as in betting, "buy or lay".

If you think the share price of a Company will fall within a set timeframe - 1 month, 3 months, 12 months - you can take a put option for a modest premium, without holding the underlying share. Leverage ftw.

[RED-DOG]

Anyone been watching the 'Sex Drugs & Rock and Roll' series?

On Channel 537 now.

[tikay]

Is it: If you buy something from this bloke, he has to buy it back at market value on a certain day if you want to sell it, but if you don't want to sell it to him you don't have to?

This explains it better......

http://www.theoptionclub.com/put-option.html

Summed up easiest here......

Consider an investor who holds XYZ Company stock, but is concerned that the stock price may fall from its current level of $30 per share. He might simply sell his stock, but for various reasons this may not be desirable. Instead, let us assume the investor pays $3.00 for a put option that allows him to sell his stock at the current price of $30 per share.

If the stock falls in price to $25 per share, the put option will be worth at least $5.00, the difference between the current market price and the strike price of the option. The put option can be exercised and the stock sold at the $30 strike price or, alternatively, the put option may be sold to capture that the profit while still

Note the effect of leverage - small cost, but potentially big swings, or as the boys call them now, swongs.

Leverage is a wonderful thing, physically, & financially. Dangerous though....

[RED-DOG]

have you seen the new google doodle?

[RED-DOG]

Is it: If you buy something from this bloke, he has to buy it back at market value on a certain day if you want to sell it, but if you don't want to sell it to him you don't have to?

This explains it better......

http://www.theoptionclub.com/put-option.html

Summed up easiest here......

Consider an investor who holds XYZ Company stock, but is concerned that the stock price may fall from its current level of $30 per share. He might simply sell his stock, but for various reasons this may not be desirable. Instead, let us assume the investor pays $3.00 for a put option that allows him to sell his stock at the current price of $30 per share.

If the stock falls in price to $25 per share, the put option will be worth at least $5.00, the difference between the current market price and the strike price of the option. The put option can be exercised and the stock sold at the $30 strike price or, alternatively, the put option may be sold to capture that the profit while still

Note the effect of leverage - small cost, but potentially big swings, or as the boys call them now, swongs.

Leverage is a wonderful thing, physically, & financially. Dangerous though....

[tikay]

have you seen the new google doodle?

No - but I have now, superb!

Google's home page, the most valuable virtual real estate on the planet, is so beautifully uncluttered by noise and tosh. Compare it with Yahoo's home page, the noisiest and most tacky thing imaginable. Another company who are in the mire - Yahoo! Incidentally, the exclamation Mark in "Yahoo!" is, I believe, their official trading name. As in Westward Ho!

More tosh and bollox available  on request.....

[RED-DOG]

I've been reading about maintaining anonymity on the web to avoid censorship.

Should we? So many pluses and minuses. I don't know which way to jump.

[RED-DOG]

OK, I've decided. Anonymity it is.

The world has to have an unfettered voice.