South Canterbury Finance Limited

[GTM 3442]

This is the sharetrader forum isn't it?


The point is that no-one is selling for 30c

Um, there's also nobody buying for 51c. . .

[Alan3285]

Um, there's also nobody buying for 51c. . .

Okay - perhaps I am wrong.

What does it mean that the last trade was at 51c then?

I understood that to mean that someone bought, and someone sold at that price, but clearly if no-one is buying at 51c it must mean something different?

Thanks,

Alan.

[minimoke]

Okay - perhaps I am wrong.

No, you're not wrong. It just means that the last time there was a willing buyer and a willing seller they could come to a deal at .51

Now that buyer has gone the next couple of people on the list reckons the value is .30. - perhaps they know something that the .51 buyer didn't know. But they aren't big spenders they only want 15,000 between them. The bigger spenders (3 of them) want 118,000 at .25 so perhaps that might be a better number to focus on.

As for sellers, there are a few there at .51 so perhaps they are right with their valuation and comfortable that whetever news is out there, or about to come out, gives them comfort to hold their position.

[minimoke]

..
Now that buyer has gone the next couple of people on the list reckons the value is .30.

And it looks like they were right - a couple of trades now through at this level.

[GTM 3442]

And the SCF010's have been re-rated from 19% to 35%. Mr Market really didn't like the recent news, did he.

[Alan3285]

Okay thanks - I thought for a while there that I was totally misunderstanding how the market worked!

Alan.

[Alan3285]

And the SCF010's have been re-rated from 19% to 35%. Mr Market really didn't like the recent news, did he.

I'm struggling with this though.

The last trade on the SCF010's that I can see, was at 19.5%.

It looks like there is a speculative buyer on there at 30%, but that's not the same as saying that they have been re-rated at 30% surely?

The most recent buyer and seller both agreed on 19.5% didn't they?

Alan.

[GTM 3442]

Hi Alan.

Yes they did. But that was before , and now there's nobody prepared to pay 19%.

[Alan3285]

Hi GTM,

Hi Alan.

Yes they did. But that was before , and now there's nobody prepared to pay 19%.

Forgive me if I am being a pain and am confused, but it *appears* that you are being very unbalanced in your analysis.

Each time you have chosen to quote the lower price that is posted as a buy price, but totally ignored the price that existing owners of the securities are offering them for sale.

Each time you say that the price is at the 'buy', but it is equally accurate, and just as unbalanced, to say that the price is at the 'sell' level.

Surely the only price that actually represents what two people have been willing to trade at is the 'last' price.


There are securities on the boards that have NO buy orders on at all.

Do you believe that those securities are truly worthless, just because there is no buy order on the board?


Just trying to understand the relavence of what you are posting.

Thanks again,

Alan.

[minimoke]

There are securities on the boards that have NO buy orders on at all.

Do you believe that those securities are truly worthless, just because there is no buy order on the board?

At that point in time they are. To have value there needs to be liquidity and if there are no buyers or sellers the owners are sitting on something that has no value.

Take for example FTX - the last sale price is still shown as 0.03 - but no buyers or sellers. By your reckoning existing shareholders still have 0.03 value in their shares. That I suspect would be wishful thinking.

Or take for example, in property, the christchurch Horror House. The RV would have shown a value, there were keen sellers but no-one wanted to buy. As it turned out there is no value in that property as it burnt to the ground - in fact it may even have negative "value" since debts are now owed for demolition costs.

Value will,of course, return when buyers and sellers come back together at an agreed price.