when bigdog5 says something is worth a look, then it is.
Bigdog. I'm not totally comfortable yet with my research into eo.
But so far it has thrown up a little titbit.
UBS. Looking at those 5 trades between May and now.
30/10/2006 - 6,032,476 16,337,639 7.97 -2.95 02/11/2006 28 25.2 29/11/2006 27.00
04/09/2006 - 200,000 22,370,115 10.92 -0.1 06/09/2006 26.37 23.733 12/09/2006 6.00
10/07/2006 + 544,766 22,570,115 11.02 0.27 14/07/2006 22.25 24.475 31/08/2006 48.00
15/06/2006 + 9,342,800 22,025,349 10.75 4.56 20/06/2006 20.25 22.275 05/07/2006 15.00
19/05/2006 + 1,195,817 12,682,549 6.19 0.58 24/05/2006 21.45 23.595 26/05/2006 2.00
I'll explain my columns.
Date of transaction
+ or -
number of shares
total holding
total holding %
increase or decrease in % holding
Date transaction was notified by rns
Price at the end of the day of rns
Price when increased by 10% or decreased to 90% (according to buy/sell)
Date at which price achieved 10% increase or decrease to 90%
Number of days (including weekends) to achieve 10% increase or decrease to 90%
So the logic goes.
If I had bought when informed that UBS had bought, or shorted when informed that UBS had sold, how many days would I have to wait until the price moved by 10% in the indicated direction.
Ok, so spread and costs are not included in the calc. But I have noticed that in each case that you could easily in each case have held one or two days more for the spread.
Translated into English it goes like this.
on 24th May when rns said ubs had increased by .58%, two days later price was up 10%
on 20th June when rns said ubs had increased by 4.56%, 15 days later price had risen 10%
on 14th July when rns said ubs had increased by .27%, 48 days later price had risen by 10%
on 6th September when rns said ubs had decreased by .1%, 6 days later price had decreased to 90%
on 2nd November when rns said ubs had decreased by 2.95%, 27 days later price had decreased to 90%
So, would I buy eo. Not until UBS had pointed the way. More research needed.
Someone give a comment. Thanks