PC PHARMA Introductory offer

Let's look at the PCP numbers.

FY11 EPS = Rs1
1H-FY12 EPS = 80 cents

Anualised FY12 EPS = Rs1.6

Book value per share at 30/Sept/2011 = Rs2.2

But share is trading at Rs72 now - perhaps its better not to look at the numbers

very same people are the buyers and sellers. may be this group want to recover the directors loss on other shares (OGL etc) by promoting at this level.

we should not get caught to this trap..be careful guys...

This is an introduction and not IPO. They are the people who start buying at 60-89, and when it comes down they expect people like you and me will keep the support level at 30 atleast. still they will be off with a good gain.

Lets see where they get caught up. Timing was good but the revers happening

Have u guys noticed that there was a crossing of 10mn shares at a price of Rs50/=.
It's reference price is just Rs10/=.
Yesterday there was another selling of AAF by directors.
What is the ethics behind this malpractices and What is the role of SEC ?
Do we really need the SEC ? Is it watchdog or fu**** bi*** ?

SEC are doing nothing to catch those HNWI manipulators. these HNWI guys including directors have earned billions of rupees doing unethical things.

Top will get 10% commission or more and shut up.
Typical Sri Lankan politics.
We voted now we are cheated.

Nothing to surprise about the seller but who is the buyer ?
http://www.cse.lk/cmt/upload_cse_announcements/3131326970777_.pdf

May be a sister company? Just to keep the price up and encourage others to buy at that price or higher.I think SEC should investigate in to this type of transactions to ascertain buyers intention.

Rajaraam wrote:May be a sister company? Just to keep the price up and encourage others to buy at that price or higher.I think SEC should investigate in to this type of transactions to ascertain buyers intention.

maybe, maybe not.

main reason for introduction is to sell part of ownership to public without raising new money.
this was done first thing in the morning which means it was already arranged.

If someone with large interest had sold to public afterwards it would have been disclosed, or will be done soon

npp wrote:

Rajaraam wrote:May be a sister company? Just to keep the price up and encourage others to buy at that price or higher.I think SEC should investigate in to this type of transactions to ascertain buyers intention.

maybe, maybe not.

main reason for introduction is to sell part of ownership to public without raising new money.
this was done first thing in the morning which means it was already arranged.

If someone with large interest had sold to public afterwards it would have been disclosed, or will be done soon

Reference price is 10/=.Crossings happen at a premium but this primium is utter ridiculous.No one with a brain will buy this at 50 unless he wants to dump it after manipulation.

rijayasooriya wrote:

npp wrote:

Rajaraam wrote:May be a sister company? Just to keep the price up and encourage others to buy at that price or higher.I think SEC should investigate in to this type of transactions to ascertain buyers intention.

maybe, maybe not.

main reason for introduction is to sell part of ownership to public without raising new money.
this was done first thing in the morning which means it was already arranged.

If someone with large interest had sold to public afterwards it would have been disclosed, or will be done soon

Reference price is 10/=.Crossings happen at a premium but this primium is utter ridiculous.No one with a brain will buy this at 50 unless he wants to dump it after manipulation.

One point is that even so called reference prices are of no use. Take the past few introductions for example. You think 5x the ref price is ridiculous? Then what's your take on NIFL?
Of course I agree SEC should investigate the transactions. If it was inside the family then it would be of malicious intentions. People are made to think that this is going to trade at the price when they see such a trade but I don't think making people 'think like that' is a crime, although unethical.

npp wrote:

rijayasooriya wrote:

npp wrote:

Rajaraam wrote:May be a sister company? Just to keep the price up and encourage others to buy at that price or higher.I think SEC should investigate in to this type of transactions to ascertain buyers intention.

maybe, maybe not.

main reason for introduction is to sell part of ownership to public without raising new money.
this was done first thing in the morning which means it was already arranged.

If someone with large interest had sold to public afterwards it would have been disclosed, or will be done soon

Reference price is 10/=.Crossings happen at a premium but this primium is utter ridiculous.No one with a brain will buy this at 50 unless he wants to dump it after manipulation.

One point is that even so called reference prices are of no use. Take the past few introductions for example. You think 5x the ref price is ridiculous? Then what's your take on NIFL?
Of course I agree SEC should investigate the transactions. If it was inside the family then it would be of malicious intentions. People are made to think that this is going to trade at the price when they see such a trade but I don't think making people 'think like that' is a crime, although unethical.

Wrong thing does not become a right thing just because it has happened in several time.It just shows the incompetency of so called watchdog The SEC.

rijayasooriya wrote:

npp wrote:

rijayasooriya wrote:

npp wrote:

Rajaraam wrote:May be a sister company? Just to keep the price up and encourage others to buy at that price or higher.I think SEC should investigate in to this type of transactions to ascertain buyers intention.

maybe, maybe not.

main reason for introduction is to sell part of ownership to public without raising new money.
this was done first thing in the morning which means it was already arranged.

If someone with large interest had sold to public afterwards it would have been disclosed, or will be done soon

Reference price is 10/=.Crossings happen at a premium but this primium is utter ridiculous.No one with a brain will buy this at 50 unless he wants to dump it after manipulation.

One point is that even so called reference prices are of no use. Take the past few introductions for example. You think 5x the ref price is ridiculous? Then what's your take on NIFL?
Of course I agree SEC should investigate the transactions. If it was inside the family then it would be of malicious intentions. People are made to think that this is going to trade at the price when they see such a trade but I don't think making people 'think like that' is a crime, although unethical.

Wrong thing does not become a right thing just because it has happened in several time.It just shows the incompetency of so called watchdog The SEC.

I had agreed on that. It is the reason that anyone call say for things happening at the CSE. But as retailers who transact with our own money, who do you think has the final responsibility?

We can think twice before buying at ridiculous prices. Afterall, customer is the king. No buyers -> can't sell high.

We too can think right? why do we have to be taken over by someone who wants us to buy his stuff at high price?

npp wrote:

rijayasooriya wrote:

npp wrote:

rijayasooriya wrote:

npp wrote:

Rajaraam wrote:May be a sister company? Just to keep the price up and encourage others to buy at that price or higher.I think SEC should investigate in to this type of transactions to ascertain buyers intention.

maybe, maybe not.

main reason for introduction is to sell part of ownership to public without raising new money.
this was done first thing in the morning which means it was already arranged.

If someone with large interest had sold to public afterwards it would have been disclosed, or will be done soon

Reference price is 10/=.Crossings happen at a premium but this primium is utter ridiculous.No one with a brain will buy this at 50 unless he wants to dump it after manipulation.

One point is that even so called reference prices are of no use. Take the past few introductions for example. You think 5x the ref price is ridiculous? Then what's your take on NIFL?
Of course I agree SEC should investigate the transactions. If it was inside the family then it would be of malicious intentions. People are made to think that this is going to trade at the price when they see such a trade but I don't think making people 'think like that' is a crime, although unethical.

Wrong thing does not become a right thing just because it has happened in several time.It just shows the incompetency of so called watchdog The SEC.

I had agreed on that. It is the reason that anyone call say for things happening at the CSE. But as retailers who transact with our own money, who do you think has the final responsibility?

We can think twice before buying at ridiculous prices. Afterall, customer is the king. No buyers -> can't sell high.

We too can think right? why do we have to be taken over by someone who wants us to buy his stuff at high price?

I never say retailors who has gone after this rally is right and I do not want to justify them.Most of the retailors are not full time investers and I am sure most of retailors lack sound knowledge about these matters.It is the duty of the SEC to maintain a fair ground to all.

rijayasooriya wrote:Nothing to surprise about the seller but who is the buyer ?
http://www.cse.lk/cmt/upload_cse_announcements/3131326970777_.pdf

any idea about the buyer... Ten million shares for 50Rs per share????

rijayasooriya wrote:

npp wrote:

rijayasooriya wrote:

npp wrote:

rijayasooriya wrote:

npp wrote:

Rajaraam wrote:May be a sister company? Just to keep the price up and encourage others to buy at that price or higher.I think SEC should investigate in to this type of transactions to ascertain buyers intention.

maybe, maybe not.

main reason for introduction is to sell part of ownership to public without raising new money.
this was done first thing in the morning which means it was already arranged.

If someone with large interest had sold to public afterwards it would have been disclosed, or will be done soon

Reference price is 10/=.Crossings happen at a premium but this primium is utter ridiculous.No one with a brain will buy this at 50 unless he wants to dump it after manipulation.

One point is that even so called reference prices are of no use. Take the past few introductions for example. You think 5x the ref price is ridiculous? Then what's your take on NIFL?
Of course I agree SEC should investigate the transactions. If it was inside the family then it would be of malicious intentions. People are made to think that this is going to trade at the price when they see such a trade but I don't think making people 'think like that' is a crime, although unethical.

Wrong thing does not become a right thing just because it has happened in several time.It just shows the incompetency of so called watchdog The SEC.

I had agreed on that. It is the reason that anyone call say for things happening at the CSE. But as retailers who transact with our own money, who do you think has the final responsibility?

We can think twice before buying at ridiculous prices. Afterall, customer is the king. No buyers -> can't sell high.

We too can think right? why do we have to be taken over by someone who wants us to buy his stuff at high price?

I never say retailors who has gone after this rally is right and I do not want to justify them.Most of the retailors are not full time investers and I am sure most of retailors lack sound knowledge about these matters.It is the duty of the SEC to maintain a fair ground to all.

appreciate precise arguments like this.
Talking about fair ground, it is not the duty of SEC to provide education on this matter. It should of course provide reasonable awareness to the investing community, which it has been doing to a certain extent. (SEC or CSE)

What's happening now is more to do with greed than lack of knowledge

Mainly I think we have to find out SEC or CSE duties.... Then we can understand which direction they are moving

npp wrote:

rijayasooriya wrote:

npp wrote:

rijayasooriya wrote:

npp wrote:

rijayasooriya wrote:

npp wrote:

Rajaraam wrote:May be a sister company? Just to keep the price up and encourage others to buy at that price or higher.I think SEC should investigate in to this type of transactions to ascertain buyers intention.

maybe, maybe not.

main reason for introduction is to sell part of ownership to public without raising new money.
this was done first thing in the morning which means it was already arranged.

If someone with large interest had sold to public afterwards it would have been disclosed, or will be done soon

Reference price is 10/=.Crossings happen at a premium but this primium is utter ridiculous.No one with a brain will buy this at 50 unless he wants to dump it after manipulation.

One point is that even so called reference prices are of no use. Take the past few introductions for example. You think 5x the ref price is ridiculous? Then what's your take on NIFL?
Of course I agree SEC should investigate the transactions. If it was inside the family then it would be of malicious intentions. People are made to think that this is going to trade at the price when they see such a trade but I don't think making people 'think like that' is a crime, although unethical.

Wrong thing does not become a right thing just because it has happened in several time.It just shows the incompetency of so called watchdog The SEC.

I had agreed on that. It is the reason that anyone call say for things happening at the CSE. But as retailers who transact with our own money, who do you think has the final responsibility?

We can think twice before buying at ridiculous prices. Afterall, customer is the king. No buyers -> can't sell high.

We too can think right? why do we have to be taken over by someone who wants us to buy his stuff at high price?

I never say retailors who has gone after this rally is right and I do not want to justify them.Most of the retailors are not full time investers and I am sure most of retailors lack sound knowledge about these matters.It is the duty of the SEC to maintain a fair ground to all.

appreciate precise arguments like this.
Talking about fair ground, it is not the duty of SEC to provide education on this matter. It should of course provide reasonable awareness to the investing community, which it has been doing to a certain extent. (SEC or CSE)

What's happening now is more to do with greed than lack of knowledge

Lack of knowledge will precipitate the greediness.If u have knowledge it will control the greediness atleast to a some extend.Anyway I believe SEC should interefere more actively in this type of malpractices.

manula wrote:

rijayasooriya wrote:Nothing to surprise about the seller but who is the buyer ?
http://www.cse.lk/cmt/upload_cse_announcements/3131326970777_.pdf

any idea about the buyer... Ten million shares for 50Rs per share????

Nothing to think, this is like just changing the parcel between right and left hand. Who is going to buy 10 Mn shares @ 50 where as its NAV just merely Rs.1.

rijayasooriya wrote:
Do we really need the SEC ? Is it watchdog or fu**** bi*** ?

No.... It is Sleeping DOG... The Officers and Commissioners are day dreamers during the mkt time.

Suddenly they wake up... during Commissioners meeting (once / twice) in month and setting up the formula for credit ruling ( there is no rational behind in setting up formula... No one ( SEC officers) gave correct explantion that why 50% of value of fixed assets is deducted from the adjusted net capital.. they merely said this is global practice) and sending some letters to brokers and investors who bought 5,000 qty of SEMB to show that SEC resume investigation on certain trades, that was executed before one year..

And then they will be sending some letters next year to some investors and brokers on certain trades, which was executed this year since SEC now carrying out comprehensive investigation on such trades... ( SEC need long tome, no?)

This is our regulator role and duties now... We are proud of them...

Did you all note one thing about this share, during the market crash this didnt trade much.

Does that means retailers didnt get caught to this. If its so the buyers and sellers on the opening day should be the same party