Cyprus-Forum.com

[Maximus]

Trading volume for XRP reached 1.8 billion dollars in 24 hours.

Why?

Who cares.......more importantly, what did it do to the price?

It seems like a huge amount of supply hit the market because the price is tanking.

[Maximus]

bit coin is going for it.

heading towards 3k with fury.

Its fast approaching the 4k mark, now at $4,088.

2k+ per coin (or 35%) has just been shaved off the price in about 5 trading days.

I knew I should have short sold it when it broke 6k.

Oh well, I will stick to fiat currencies.

[Paphitis]

I do not all that share ever trading at 60 euros.

Stats do recall

TomTom.png

One more thing, market cap is determined by the number of shares on issue multiplied by their value. They could be 60 Euros but with like 1 tenth of the volume of shares resulting in the same market cap. So you need to find out how many shares are on issue.

They were the same both before the 60 Euros boom and after

I use to work for Cobham and was issued with some shares that are worth 300 British pounds each.

Companies issue and buy back shares all the time.

Where does it say that?

Show me that the number of shares in 2006 were exactly the same as today.

Where is your evidence?

here is a hint for you. The amount of issued shares always vary. There is no way in hell that their were the same amount of shares issued in 2006 as 2018. Tom Tom issues and buys back shares continuously and it has a 50 million Euro share buy back under way right now.

https://corporate.tomtom.com/investors/ ... re-buyback

I didn't say they were the same from 2006 until today.
I said they were he same before the boom and after (meaning + or - 1 year) around the boom.
In fact if you do your own homework you will find the number of shares was then about 120 million.
Do you need to be a rocket scientist to realize that your statement that the traded value of a share "should translate to the approximate real value of the entire company" was utterly wrong?

I know about the buyback. The reason they did it is very well shadowed in their report, but nevertheless ii was only about 5 million shares out of the circulating 300 million.
In fact if you do your own homework you will find that from Dec 2013 to date the number of shares is about constant to 300 million.

Wrong!

There were only 26,785,714 shares on offer in 2005 at 0.20 Euros. This was never an indication of their net worth.

Then when they went to about 60 Euros - the market set their market value at about 1.6 Billion. The market always sets the value just like in property.

Therefore, the company was never really ever over priced at all.

Later, Tom Tom issued more shares.

Here, it is in their 2005 prospectus which they had to issue with their IPO in 2005.

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ ... o_2005.pdf

[Paphitis]

Now you have asked an intelligent question. You need to look at the market capitalisation back then.

And you will probably find it was only about 500 million to a Billion in 2006.

If you do your research you will find your answers.

Tom Tom had only just listed in 2005:

https://www.referenceforbusiness.com/hi ... m-N-V.html

In 2005 and 2006 there was only the initial offering of shares. There were NOT the same amount of shares back then as there are today. Tom Tom has made more share offerings after 2005 and 2006.

I was actually referring to the number of suckers who bought it at that price

They might not have been suckers at all.

I will tell you why. The company could have diluted their share price by issuing shareholders with more shares in order to achieve better liquidity from 26 million shares to over 100 million shares. In addition, let's presume that someone bought shares at either 0.20 or 60 Euros in 2005 and 2006. All share holders would have received their 4% in compound dividends if reinvested.

No one looks at data that is this old. In fact most traders will only look at the candle graphs for the proceeding few weeks or months. They will tell you that it is irrelevant as Tom Tom with 26 million shares is different to the Tom Tom of today.

You do not even know whether you are comparing apples with apples. You are comparing a mango with a banana.

You even insinuated that Tom Tom shares at 60 Euros in 2006 equated to an unrealistic market capitalization when in actual fact its market capitalization when its shares were at 60 Euros was less than it is today and equated to approximately 1.6 Billion Euros. Therefore, it was not overpriced back then. Today, Tom Tom are valued at just over 2 Billion.

What happened is that Tom Tom diluted their share price and when they do that, they either must buy back their shares and re-issue or issue shareholders with pro rata shares as per their holdings.

In addition, what about the suckers that bought in at 0.20 per share in 2005? If only hey....

Your understanding of the market is childish!

[Paphitis]

They normal valuation for each share should translate to the approximate real value of the entire company.

Surely, the value of any share in any company is the price that somebody is prepared to buy it for...? Or should I say sell it for...?

Assuming there are enough suckers around of course

You are the suckey that will be eating cat food in retirement.

As I proved to you before, the Pension schemes of some clever countries like Norway, Japan, Australia, Denmark and a few others rely on the market and this is why these countries will survive moving forward while Cyprus would most likely become bankrupt. Again!

The stock market has had an upward trajectory, and has outperformed all asset classes and you know that.

Nonsense. The likelihood is that it's you who will get bankrupt. The Stock markets are similar (but not the same) as pyramid schemes that thrive as long as the number of suckers increases.
The vast majority of stocks suck your money in a way you need about 20 years to break even, assuming that in the meantime they are doing alright.

No its not!

I have been in the stock market non stop since 1992 till this very day. I have seen it all. And I have seen my investments generally grow and outperform other sectors.

In 1992, the Australian Government introduced the Super Annuation Pension Scheme and every Australian has a Super Account. This pool of money rolls over continuously and even brings money into Australia through the profits of the big corporates.

It is a system that is heralded by many countries, including the ECB, IMF and many EU countries as well as the USA to be arguably the best in the world. There may be other countries that also do well, like Japan, Norway and Denmark perhaps, but the Aussie Super System is heralded to be the international benchmark.

It was bought in to ensure Australia's economy remains competitive and to free the Government from a crippling deficit from an unsustainable welfare system due to a rapidly ageing population.

In other words, this is what you will need to get use to, if your Government doesn't come up with something similar before there are more pensioners than taxpayers.

[Pyrpolizer]

Wrong!

There were only 26,785,714 shares on offer in 2005 at 0.20 Euros. This was never an indication of their net worth.

Then when they went to about 60 Euros - the market set their market value at about 1.6 Billion. The market always sets the value just like in property.

Therefore, the company was never really ever over priced at all.

Later, Tom Tom issued more shares.

Here, it is in their 2005 prospectus which they had to issue with their IPO in 2005.

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ ... o_2005.pdf

Wrong huh!
So in your opinion the number of shares at the initial invitation in 2005 should have been the same as those of 2 years later, right?!

When was the boom Paphitis, in 2005 right after the initial release, or in October 2007? How many shares were there in Oct 2007 when it almost reached 60 Euros per share?
Do your homework again and be more careful this time of not relying on IRRELEVANT information

Here's a hint: they were 119,172,932

[Paphitis]

Wrong!

There were only 26,785,714 shares on offer in 2005 at 0.20 Euros. This was never an indication of their net worth.

Then when they went to about 60 Euros - the market set their market value at about 1.6 Billion. The market always sets the value just like in property.

Therefore, the company was never really ever over priced at all.

Later, Tom Tom issued more shares.

Here, it is in their 2005 prospectus which they had to issue with their IPO in 2005.

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ ... o_2005.pdf

Wrong huh!
So in your opinion the number of shares at the initial invitation in 2005 should have been the same as those of 2 years later, right?!

When was the boom Paphitis, in 2005 right after the initial release, or in October 2007? How many shares were there in Oct 2007 when it almost reached 60 Euros per share?
Do your homework again and be more careful this time of not relying on IRRELEVANT information

Here's a hint: they were 119,172,932

Shares always go up and down. That is the reason why the market is great, because with a little research, and with quite a bit of conservatism, you can make a lot of money from it.

My approach to the ASX 300 and Dow Jones is extremely conservative. Others who want to go for high gain risky speculative stocks, know the risks, but a lot of these people have also become very rich too.

I invested one into an energy company that was making electricity from subterranean hot rocks. Then the mine shaft blew up and the stock was virtually wiped out. But I still have the shares, and whilst the business was set back by some 100 million, it is still trading and the stock is rising again.

Fact is, the market has always valued Tom Tom to be between 1.5 Billion to 2.5 Billon.

The market always corrects itself and knows where the stock should be valued at based on the following:
1) it's name in the market place - you can't beat brands like Apple or Google
2) it's profit,
3) it's dividend
4) whether its pre-dividend or x dividend.
5) cash on hand
6) it's debt levels
7) its Balance sheet and assets

Shares are like your house. The market always sets the value. And most of the money in the stock market is smart money from major managed funds institutions. These are the big fish on the stock exchange and they don't lose money.

Only foolish kolokasi growers who have no clue lose the money.

And no, there were only 26 million shares in 2005 and 2006. I posted the evidence for you as well. And the underwriters of the IPO were Lehman Brothers.

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ ... o_2005.pdf

Buying shares requires a lot of patience, study, and research. You are effectively buying into a business, and no one does that without looking into the company they are buying into. I only buy massive blue chip companies which have enormous profits and pay a decent dividend - things like Banks, Resource Companies, innovative Tech Companies, Defense, UTILITIES, ENERGY, OIL and so on. I know what I get myself into.

Those who speculate also know the risks and sometimes it pays off for them too big time.

[Pyrpolizer]

They might not have been suckers at all.

I will tell you why. The company could have diluted their share price by issuing shareholders with more shares in order to achieve better liquidity from 26 million shares to over 100 million shares. In addition, let's presume that someone bought shares at either 0.20 or 60 Euros in 2005 and 2006. All share holders would have received their 4% in compound dividends if reinvested.

No one looks at data that is this old. In fact most traders will only look at the candle graphs for the proceeding few weeks or months. They will tell you that it is irrelevant as Tom Tom with 26 million shares is different to the Tom Tom of today.

You do not even know whether you are comparing apples with apples. You are comparing a mango with a banana.

You even insinuated that Tom Tom shares at 60 Euros in 2006 equated to an unrealistic market capitalization when in actual fact its market capitalization when its shares were at 60 Euros was less than it is today and equated to approximately 1.6 Billion Euros. Therefore, it was not overpriced back then. Today, Tom Tom are valued at just over 2 Billion.

What happened is that Tom Tom diluted their share price and when they do that, they either must buy back their shares and re-issue or issue shareholders with pro rata shares as per their holdings.

In addition, what about the suckers that bought in at 0.20 per share in 2005? If only hey....

Your understanding of the market is childish!

What a load of crap.
All these are assumptions and hypothesis, do you seriously expect me to waste my time on that??
The issue here was your totally wrong statement that "the traded value of a share should translate to the approximate real value of the entire company". I already proved you this can't be right and I gave you as an example the 2007 when it almost reached 60 Euros/share at a time the outstanding shares were 120 million. Only to receive your nonsense that they were what 26 million as per initial offering of 2005
Nobody bought at the nominal value of € 0.20. No company sells shares at the nominal value. Get your facts right for a change. They bought at €17.50

You are confused !

[Paphitis]

They might not have been suckers at all.

I will tell you why. The company could have diluted their share price by issuing shareholders with more shares in order to achieve better liquidity from 26 million shares to over 100 million shares. In addition, let's presume that someone bought shares at either 0.20 or 60 Euros in 2005 and 2006. All share holders would have received their 4% in compound dividends if reinvested.

No one looks at data that is this old. In fact most traders will only look at the candle graphs for the proceeding few weeks or months. They will tell you that it is irrelevant as Tom Tom with 26 million shares is different to the Tom Tom of today.

You do not even know whether you are comparing apples with apples. You are comparing a mango with a banana.

You even insinuated that Tom Tom shares at 60 Euros in 2006 equated to an unrealistic market capitalization when in actual fact its market capitalization when its shares were at 60 Euros was less than it is today and equated to approximately 1.6 Billion Euros. Therefore, it was not overpriced back then. Today, Tom Tom are valued at just over 2 Billion.

What happened is that Tom Tom diluted their share price and when they do that, they either must buy back their shares and re-issue or issue shareholders with pro rata shares as per their holdings.

In addition, what about the suckers that bought in at 0.20 per share in 2005? If only hey....

Your understanding of the market is childish!

What a load of crap.
All these are assumptions and hypothesis, do you seriously expect me to waste my time on that??
The issue here was your totally wrong statement that "the traded value of a share should translate to the approximate real value of the entire company". I already proved you this can't be right and I gave you as an example the 2007 when it almost reached 60 Euros/share at a time the outstanding shares were 120 million. Only to receive your nonsense that they were what 20 million as per initial offering
And btw nobody bought at the nominal value of € 0.20. No company sells shares at the nominal value. Get your facts right for a change. They bought at €17.50

You are confused !

Right here.

You know nothing about the market whatsoever. You stick to your Kolokasi!

You need to do your research and not compare apples to oranges.

And yes, it is correct. The market capitalization of a business is approximately the actual value of a company. It is the institutions which drive the prices. Banks and Massive global fund managers, just like the public determines the value of your house and car.

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ ... o_2005.pdf

[Paphitis]

If they are not, then why do Banks offer marginal loans against my share portfolio? They lend up to 80% so that is recognition by the Bank of the value of the portfolio.

Banks like the Commonwealth Bank which is a top 200 company on the planet with a market cap of $350 billion.

Do you think our Banks are stupid? This isn't Cyprus here.

These banks are major institutions and they know the stock market. In fact, this Bank runs CommSec which is their Securities Branch. This is where I trade shares at a cost of $17 per trade. This is how much they charge.

They trade securities as well through their managed fund brokers.