|
Post by zuolun on Jan 21, 2014 8:33:15 GMT 7
|
|
|
Post by zuolun on Mar 18, 2015 17:33:49 GMT 7
Dyna-Mac ~ Classic MOD chart pattern critical support @ S$0.295Dyna-Mac closed with a doji unchanged @ S$0.30 with 1.05m shares done on 18 Mar 2015. During a market downturn, it is important to be able to distinguish between a falling knife and a possible multi-bagger stock. Given the fall in oil and commodity prices, I am inclined to classify all related stocks as potential falling knives. As I am equally as bearish on Singapore properties, I too will stay away from such stocks. But there are stocks that have been beaten badly and are not in any of these related industries. At the end of the day, the stock market is about supply and demand and if lots more investors want to sell, it is likely that the prices will drift southwards. Investors may have to sell these non related stocks to cover for their losses in the related sectors. There may also be forced selling for those who have bought shares with margin and are currently under margin calls. To bottom fish, one has to read the supply and demand of the stock correctly. I will certainly not be buying any stocks where a major shareholder is liquidating his positions. Yes, it is not easy to read market volume but I feel that all investors (fundamental investors included) must learn this art of deciphering market volume and then making a decision whether the selling volume is temporary or more permanent. Even more important than that, investors must believe in their own analysis and be willing to risk part of their wealth in what they believe in. To me, there is no point just taking a small position in any stock as this will not increase your net worth. It will be more like an ego trip. I invest to increase my net worth and not just to feel good. To be successful as an investor, you must learn to overcome this fear of putting sufficient meat into your investments... otherwise, your game of investing will always remain, just a game. Most of the smaller oil & gas and related company share prices had already collapsed beyond recognition due to oil price decline; chartwise, I totally agree with oldman that "Given the fall in oil and commodity prices, I am inclined to classify all related stocks as potential falling knives." "Given the fall in oil and commodity prices, I am inclined to classify all related stocks as potential falling knives." Hmmm, ... i wonder. During the 2008/09 crisis, oil price was falling off the cliff too. As would be expected during those periods of "falling knives", analysts were keen to join the herd and forecasting lower and lower prices of oil. As oil price were dipping towards $50/bbl, then $40/bbl, analysts and soothsayers were trying their utmost to outdo one another by being the more bearish. CNOOC, 883 HK, understandably crashed thru the roof, hurdling towards sub-HK$5 during the trough. Yet, if one had dilligently accumulated during those times, one would have done very well. Not too long ago when oil price was still at about $100/bbl, CNOOC was trading well above $20. And yes, you guessed it, the same herd of analysts were calling for big buys with target prices gunning towards $25-30/sh! With oil price having seen a sharp correction in the past two months, CNOOC is now barely holding at $10. I am no expert on oil price. Of course, the dynamics of the oil industry also appear to have changed with the advent and success of the shale evolution in recent times. Still, there must be an intrinsic value for oil. The question is finding out what that breakeven cost is, whether between the different exploration companies or between the traditional oil and shale. my point is, classifying all oil-related stocks as falling knives seem rather harsh. Just as spot oil could go up, come down, ... who could say it would not go up again? OPEC could decide to cut supply drastically, demand could pick up, a large number of the shale operators could be out of business. While it would be a tad optimistic to believe oil price could return to $100/bbl anytime soon, surely a price of $70/bbl isn't as out of reach as we think? Recall that when oil was $70/bbl, many of the oil majors would still be very profitable.
|
|
|
Post by zuolun on Mar 19, 2015 13:54:49 GMT 7
|
|
|
Post by zuolun on Feb 22, 2016 7:10:54 GMT 7
Dyna-Mac: Profit warning for 4Q15 and FY15 ~ Dyna-Mac is expected to report a net loss for 4Q15 and cumulative loss for FY15, mainly due to the impairment of long outstanding receivables. As of 3Q15, Dyna-Mac’s trade and receivables stood at S$145.5m vs. FY14’s revenue of S$318.6m. This is likely to weigh on the stock price and as the group will be announcing its FY15 results on or before 26 Feb 2016, OCBC Research rated 'Hold' and fair value estimate of S$0.18 under review. ~ 18 Feb 2016 Temasek's Fullerton pared down its stake in Dyna-Mac from 25.1% to 24.96% ~ 30 Jun 2014
|
|
|
Post by zuolun on Feb 23, 2016 15:06:05 GMT 7
The curious case of Dyna-Mac's "error'' trades - part II
SGX has replied
By R Sivanithy Feb 23, 2016 3:50 PM
Earlier today I wrote about the odd trading in Dyna-Mac's shares at the start of this month and again on Monday. SGX's Grace Mok, Head of Member Supervision, has since replied. Here is her reply:-
"SGX is aware that certain orders in the shares of Dyna-Mac Holdings Ltd were today priced at levels significantly above the best market prices for the stock. This follows error trades in the same stock on Monday, 22 February 2016, which SGX has cancelled. SGX has reminded Member firms that in the interest of an orderly market, their Trading Representatives and clients should withdraw orders where the prices are clearly not in line with market prices. Market participants should also not take advantage of any pricing error in share counters as SGX is closely monitoring the market and will cancel transactions which we deem to be error trades. There is therefore no commercial benefit for a participant putting in orders at these erroneous prices.”
The curious case of Dyna-Mac's "error'' trades
By R Sivanithy Feb 23, 2016 11:25 AM
Earlier this month, shares of Dyna-Mac were traded early in the morning at $19 when they were last done the day before at around 13 cents. The trades were quickly busted as errors and the incident forgotten. However at the time, market feedback was that the incident was very odd because after the initial trades were executed, more "sell'' orders were entered in the GL system at $19 and above. In other words, even though traders would have surely known the trades were erroneous and would therefore have been cancelled, more orders were entered at the wrong prices. Was this a case of people simply trying their luck? Were participants in the local market that naive to hope that a stock that normally sells for around 13 cents could be offloaded at $19?
Incredibly, three weeks later on Monday the incident was repeated, though this time the trades were not done early in the morning but in the final seconds. Dyna-mac's rise yesterday was 15,000% and its gain pushed the Small Cap Index up 40%, prompting a private investor to ring me - half in hope - and ask me if this was for real, The short answer I gave him was "of course not'' and that the trades would most definitely be scrubbed, which in due course was the case. Again, it appears that the incident might be quickly forgotten. Hopefully it won't be the case this time.
I find it very strange that traders would have waited until the very last seconds of the session to enter orders at wrong prices. From the timing of these trades, my feeling is that there must have been collusion between buyers and sellers and there was intent to close the stock at $20, though for what purpose is beyond me. When funds want to dress the index up, they usually wait until the final seconds but prices done during those times are usually only a bit higher or lower, not 15,000% away from latest prices. So I'd have to wonder again, could anyone reasonably have expected SGX not to intervene and wipe out such glaringly wrong trades?
Even more odd is that this morning before the market opened, "sell'' orders were entered at $19 and above, then $15. So knowing that SGX had yesterday cancelled the trades that closed the stock at $20, and knowing that the same occured three weeks ago, people still tried to execute trades at absurdly inflated prices. Even given that our market is far from efficient, I find this ridiculous and near-impossible to swallow. Once maybe is an error, twice is stretching things to the limit but a third time smacks clearly of intent. Was the goal to poke fun at SGX by demonstrating weaknesses in the GL system? Comments on market chat groups were withering, with some saying that it makes a mockery of our market that prices can be manipulated so easily. Imagine for example, if index stocks were to be closed 15,000% higher or lower. What might the consequences be for the local market even if the trades are later cancelled?
I think the exchange should get to the bottom of this by investigating where the trades originated, questioning who did them and revealing its findings to a puzzled public. If it doesn't, I have a feeling it might happen again.
|
|