therave said:on the Aer Lingus shares,i read recently that the minmum needed to invest will be 10k.. that put's a lot of small timers out straight away.
ronan_d_john said:Many of the better known stock market investing "gurus" have always had the proposition when it came to buying shares. Basically, if you know the company, or the product, or the managers and you like, then it's a good idea to buy the stock. Examples of these are below, as to whether to buy or not buy.
Take Telecom Eireann/Eircom for example. Go back 5 or 10 years and remember what the company was like. People would have had certain negative perceptions of the organisation, it's staff and how it was run. People should have based their investment decisions on this, rather than the blurb that was put out by the government.
Take Aer Lingus now. Do people like the company, the service/product it provides, and the manner in which it goes about its business and manages it's staff? Answers to those will dictate how people might treat that flotation.
Or finally, take Willie Walsh. He was hailed for his work at Aer Lingus, and was head hunted to join BA. Buying shares in BA on the day he joined would see a 50% increase in the value of your holding today.
junii said:Yes but assuming BA has 1million shares, wouldn't these be all snapped up by regular investors who get an allocation through the broker.
And also, what would have happened if all 1million shares had been already owned before willie walsh was announced.
ronan_d_john said:You're getting confused now (or are you just having a laugh? I'm not sure). BA would have gone public (shares sold to the public) years ago, so there's no allocations, just buying and selling BA shares on the stock market.
So, when Willie Walsh joined, all the shares were in the hands of shareholders already - either large institutions or individual investors, or whatever.
On that day, some people might have taken the view that with a "mick" taking over the company, that the company wasn't worth owning any more, and sold. Or others might have seen what he did with Aer Lingus and decided to buy.
You now have people buying and selling in the market, their requirements match off, or almost match off or whatever, and those that want to sell sell, and their shares are bought by those that want to buy.
junii said:Tbh honest im not having a laugh, I was just finding it difficult to think about this straight because of the many terms et cetera but its becoming more clear now.
I'm guessing you J, like many of us, are interested in these issues for future potential investment rather than immediate investment (similiar to RDJs suggestion of doing further investigations before jumping in). Just incase I will point out that given another thread relating to getting a loan (http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=33073) was made, you should (probably*) try and clear debt(s) before investing in (potential long term) stocks.ronan_d_john said:Then you really need to steer clear until you know more about it.
ronan_d_john said:Many of the better known stock market investing "gurus" have always had the proposition when it came to buying shares. Basically, if you know the company, or the product, or the managers and you like, then it's a good idea to buy the stock. Examples of these are below, as to whether to buy or not buy.
Take Telecom Eireann/Eircom for example. Go back 5 or 10 years and remember what the company was like. People would have had certain negative perceptions of the organisation, it's staff and how it was run. People should have based their investment decisions on this, rather than the blurb that was put out by the government.
Take Aer Lingus now. Do people like the company, the service/product it provides, and the manner in which it goes about its business and manages it's staff? Answers to those will dictate how people might treat that flotation.
Or finally, take Willie Walsh. He was hailed for his work at Aer Lingus, and was head hunted to join BA. Buying shares in BA on the day he joined would see a 50% increase in the value of your holding today.
Squonk said:That might work in the examples you quoted but what about companies like Enron, Worldcom etc whose shares went down and never got back up. Your strategy is based on the premise that the companies are sound and that they are just going through a 'bad phase'. That is not always the case.
tyler_durden said:it has worked all the time for me! i thoroughly research the company and stock price before i invest
tyler_durden said:i failed to see how ryanair were high risk when i bought them after the profit warning - they were, and still are, the most profitable airline in europe........a companies share price is largely based on profitability.......
tyler_durden said:i also failed to see how elan was not an absolute bargain when it crashed to circa e4 - in my opinion tysabri was always going to be relaunched as the cases of PML only occured in 0.1% of patients when taking it in combination with avonex (another MS drug produced by Biogen) - taken as a monotherapy, the drug produced NO cases of PML - and u had to bear in mind that this drug has the potential to reep >$2 billion in revenue if it returned to the market........which it recently has........a companies shareprice is largely based on profitability.......