for more information about stanelco click on the links.

driver's research page link
http://www.moneyam.com/InvestorsRoom/posts.php?tid=7681#lastread
website link
http://www.stanelco.co.uk/index.htm

It certainly doesn't sound like a business on its last legs.

http://www.packagingnews.co.uk/news/807562/Stanelco-licenses-bio-cushion/

http://www.packagingnews.co.uk/news/803565/Stanelco-Aisapack-launch-biodegradable-tube/

The above may be good news or not (IE no pricing mentioned) but this news was released April/May last. There does not appear to have been much positive sp effect.
Not knocking it, just stating a fact.

greekman

Hi greek
It is this April/May.
Same as this; http://stanelcoplc.com/pdf/news/etray_Modo.pdf

Hi Patisear,

Yes, I think so because other items on the same site refer to being displayed at EXPO 2008 that started on June 14th.
Although there are no dates evident re the article on the Modo tray piece.

http://stanelcoplc.com/latest_news.html

We said goodbye to greenseal a while ago.
Are we going to say goodbye to Stanelco golden share in Biotec regarding the MAP?

if you believe that the share has been attacked by a shorting campaign. This is not nice and I too have held/still hold shares that have been attacked.

The only concerted way for a pi to alleviate this problem, at least to some extent is to talk to your broker. On shares that are traded on SETTS, not sure if this is can someone confirm, all you need to do is the following to stop your own shares from being used in the shorting campaign.

In simple terms the way they can easily short a setts share is to place shares for sale on the bid, say 5p or 10p below the current bid. The setts programme will try and match this trade and thus lower the bid towards this level. As soon as it gets close they will either take the trade or pull it out and again place them a few pennies lower again thus keep on bringing the bid price down.

Now what can the average pi do to stop their own shares being shorted, as believe me your own broker, if approached, WILL sell your own shares that they hold on your behalf as a nominee account.

There is two things you can do, 1st is to certificate them but this is not obviously to everyones advantage but the 2nd option is simple. All you do is to phone your broker and put an order in saying that you wish to place your shares for sale at, for arguments sake, double the todays price. As they are 'on order' they cannot be lent out by your broker and in turn you are reducing the amount of 'free shares' out there that can be used for shorting purposes.

Although an individual pi will not normally have enough shares to halt a concerted shorting attack, if a large number of holders did this it would reduce the overall amount of shares that they could get their hands on.

In my opinion well worth doing if not only for the knowledge that your own shares cannot and will not be used in a short attack against the very share that you own.

Micky,

What you say makes good sense, but the trouble is as I see it very few PI's will bother as they will think like I do that it will be a complete waste of time due to the big institutions that lend out. A good article in The Daily Telegraph (Sat) was about shorting and the way it is distorting the markets. It also stated how as shorting has increased in popularity, especially regarding Banking Shares, the lending rates to shorters has increased. Until the practice of shorting is made illegal (as it is in some countries) this distorting of markets will continue. But as always if made illegal no doubt a way will be found round a system, either legally or illegally.
One Hedge Fund at the weekend actually published the amount, in percentage of shares they were shorting in a particular company. No doubt this was solely for the reason of knocking the sp down, a practice that is legal and becoming ever more regular. These institutions that hold massive amount of shares can just on the published intentions have the intended effect.

Greekman
sorry been out all day f**k the rest just do wt you fill is right , these c**ting institution have been getting away with this for far to long momentum will follow just put the article on every BB you visit PI will start to follow. maybe the price off some share may even start to go up.

If I thought it would do any good I would do so. I have never been one to only do so if others do. I just don't believe it would have any effect at all. Even if all the PI's did as you suggest there would still be so many institutional holdings, that all it would do is put up the borrowing cost of the intended shorted shares a bit. Probably not enough to stop or reduce the practice.
All IMHO obviously.

borrowing cost can,t go up more then it has all it would do is stop them from useing yr shares.at the end of the day PI will be doing wt they are. In simple terms the way they can easily short a setts share is to place shares for sale /Buy on the bid, say 5p or 10p below the current bid. The setts programme will try and match this trade and thus lower the bid/or up towards this level. As soon as it gets close they will either take the trade or pull it out and again place them a few pennies lower/up again thus keep on bringing the bid price down./up

There may be light at the end of the tunnel:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jul/10/research.waste

The USA regions could now lead the way for use of bio-plastics.

greekman...

cross posted from the OMH board. We are aim/sets aren't we?
===========================================================

This is from an article by Dominic Frisby in Money Morning.
It strikes me that this applies equally to Dragon Oil.
Good Trading
Beetz

How AIM market makers kill their own market

In Mondays Money Morning I had a go at AIM, in particular at AIMs market makers. I was very surprised the amount of emails I got all saying, Good for you, Somebody has to tell these people and the like. A lot of people are clearly deeply frustrated by this market.

We have two examples this week of how the practices of AIMs market makers kill AIM dead.

Last week I tipped Leyshon (AIM:LRL), a late-stage gold development play in China. Some huge buying came into the stock, the likes of which had not been seen since 2006.

As the volume arrived, the first thing the market makers did was to open up a much-larger-than-usual spread between the buy and sell prices. This was presumably to cover their shortfall in shares. But huge spreads discourage trading! Market makers are supposed to stimulate trading. On the rare occasions where volume does appear, they are acting to put a lid on the buying. Its madness. The market makers were looking after their own interests, rather than the interests of the company who want to see their company traded. Why not let the market rise to a level where more sellers come in?

Last Wednesday, we had well over two million shares bought with only about a two hundred thousand sold. The following days trading seemed to leave the market makers another quarter of a million shares short.

I was sent an email about this action. It read, Its possible that Leyshons market makers had two million shares on their books, but its extremely unlikely. Leyshon does not normally trade that level of volume. If they did have those shares on their books, you have to ask what were they doing with so many? If they didn't have those shares on their books, you have to ask: where have the shares come from? An institution might have had them to sell, but would they have suddenly made a decision like that? Unlikely. Institutions dont usually act that quickly.

The suggestion here is of naked shorting, the illegal practice of selling a stock which you don't own. That's a very serious allegation. Its possible. Its happened before. But a market maker would lose his licence if discovered. Would a market maker take that risk when he already gets his shares at a whopping discount to market? Hed be a fool if he did, but greed does strange things to people. A more innocent possibility is that some of the trades were matched orders or rollovers. But we will never know, because the market is not transparent.

I must say I was prompted to take this matter up with the LSE and see what they had to say. I was told it was nothing to do with them. It was a matter for the FSA. I was repeatedly told, We dont usually talk to small investors. I persisted, they remained perfectly friendly and suggested I should report the matter to the Market Abuse department. The chap then said confidentially that all that would happen if I reported it to Market Abuse is that it would get passed on to the FSA. Great.

The questions the LSE should think about

On Tuesday we had another example. Kryso Resources (AIM:KYS), who have some excellent gold and nickel properties in Tajikistan, announced some superb drill results. As youd hope and expect, some buying pressure came into the stock which Kryso desperately needed as the company has rather sold off recently.

The first thing that happened was the market makers stifled the buying. They opened up a huge spread and then placed limits for online traders: a maximum of 7,500 to buy yet 37,500 to sell. Why not let the price rise until you attract sellers instead of keeping a lid on the price and stopping buying?

To the LSE I say once again. Why use a system that gives rise to such market abuse, even if its only the suspicion of abuse? Why employ a system that makes trading so difficult in what is already a horrible market? Why use market makers at all when they kill liquidity rather than encourage it, as is supposed to be their prerogative? Why not use a system that is simple and transparent?

But I wont get a reply. No doubt this a matter for the FSA.

By the way, Leyshon remains a long-term buy below 25p. But dont pay those market maker spreads. Dont offer any more than the mid-price!

Micky,
That is a most interesting post.

Great article. Thanks Micky.

Only goes to show the total abuse within the Aim and small caps atm.
My own take is the MM's do not want any of these cy shares on their books at all so they sell to us at a high price then keep the bid low so you can't sell it back ie they want us to lose money. There is also a determination to slaughter the price of the shares ie it won't rise on good news but will drop like a stone on bad.

When you look at the market every day and study the prices of many companies it is also blatantly obvious that some of these Aim companies are trading at ridiculous prices and you can see that they want to go up but the MM's won't let them because people will start to make profit and sell the shares back which they don't want.

If the MM's could get all these company prices down to below 20p they would be delighted. Effectively in nearly all these companies the market is frozen which is why it is best, if you have to trade to deal with the some of the large caps only.

Of course it will all change in the next bull market when the total reverse will happen. Only thing we can do is wait and be patient!

Hi Micky,

Yes as already said, interesting post, although SEO are on the main market, what was said, still applies.
The only line I have some doubt in is....'But a market maker would lose his license if discovered', well would he/she. I have very little faith in the ability and powers of the LSE/FSA (they have them but appear too frightened to use them).
'But we will never know, because the market is not transparent'. DEAD RIGHT.

The next line possibly proves the point.....'I must say I was prompted to take this matter up with the LSE and see what they had to say. I was told it was nothing to do with them. It was a matter for the FSA'. See NOTE at end.

I seem to remember reading in a national newspaper a few month ago that the LSE and the FSA were going to get tougher on market abuse. It was mentioned that most punters thought that neither had any bite. Well they still appear to have about as much bite as a rottweiler with no teeth. Very frightening from a distance but when you get closer you realise all they can give you is a nasty suck.
Pathetic the lot of them. Now the USA have the right idea. Obviously market abuse is difficult to prove but if the fear of punishment is there that is often all that is required.

Note. As several punters of SEO shares will recall I had contact with both the LSE and the FSA over certain news released, AGM updates etc. I was passed from one to the other and back again, pushing responsibility around, neither wanted to know. After several weeks it appeared that the FSA was responsible for dealing with my complaint. On conclusion I was informed that if SEO received a public warning/admonishment that involved some direct monetary (or otherwise) punishment I would be informed. If the action was a warning only I would not be informed. So I still don't know if any action was taken or not. I was not even informed if the inquiry was concluded. And this was after many hours of input with the assistance of several other posters.
So much for transparency.

Excuse me if I appear naive ,but surely the quoted company has some say in which market makers deal in their shares and therefore if that company suspects their sp is being manipulated then they should take the matter up with LSE/FSA? Shareholders should consult the Company Secretary for their views.

If you agree, cut and paste this to your favourite threads and don't forget to sign.


http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/shortsellsecy/

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO SHORT SELL STOCK EXCHANGE SECURITIES