Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Hedge Funds Cash in on Crisis: - “The collapse of travel operator Thomas Cook is set to result in a bumper pay day for a clutch of hedge funds who bet the company's share price would fall. ... As a result of its long-running troubles, hedge funds had increased the size of their collective 'short' bets against the company, with funds including TT International and Whitebox Advisors together short nearly 7% of the company's stock.” https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2019-09-23/cluster-of-hedge-funds-set-to-profit-from-thomas-cook-failure
@Ted, I scanned all of today’s posts by title before posting this. If you mentioned it under another title, than of course I would not have noticed. Are you saying ALL of every day’s investment news is off-limits for others to post? The Thomas Cook story has evolved throughout the day. The PBS link I provided is quite recent. I doubt your early morning rambling sourced PBS.
BTW - Can someone please inform me why there’s a space for “Discussion Title” when we initiate a new thread? If it has no significance, than Ted can just post one gigantic thread every morning at 5:00 labeled “Everything.” A title, on the other hand, allows readers selectivity in deciding which threads to open & which topics to explore. Newspapers use titles. Magazines use titles. I believe MFO’s discussion board should also use titles to differentiate various topics.
Now, to avoid stepping on Ted’s big toes, you’d have to avoid posting any new thread involving the United States, England, Europe, Asia, India or China. You’d also have to avoid new posts involving stocks, bonds, currencies, gold and oil. Than, you’d also have to avoid any story covered by these sources or publications: WSJ, Reuters, Bloomberg, CNBC & Investors Business Daily.
And, of course, if you decide to avoid this impossible quagmire and choose instead to post a question related to a personal financial issue, as @Catch22 did today, Ted will bump it over to Discussions + along with a condescending remark. Nice guy.
And there you have it folks. I was about to call him a total _______, but then realized that was crude and unnecessary, as you can easily form your own opinions of a person such as this.
@MFO Members: The best thing that could happen is for OJ & hank to find themselves another new board. They contribute little or nothing to MFO except bitch about the presentation administration and be cheerleaders for left-wing agenda.. Regards, Ted
@Ted: I have no idea what the "presentation administration" might be, unless that's a grand title that you have just awarded yourself. If you believe that either hank or I are regarded as some sort of problem by the real site administration, I suggest that you ask them directly about that. I have, and you might be surprised at the answer.
Unlike EVERY OTHER MFO CONTRIBUTOR, YOU are the ONLY one who consistently breaks the rules here, as evidenced by your repeated attempts to artificially elevate your routine stale news summaries into the "Discussions+" category by faking comments to your own posts. YOU are the ONLY MFO poster who has been repeatedly cautioned by the real management to stop that silliness, but you seem to believe that you are somehow entitled to ignore those requests.
The "best thing that could happen" is that you start honoring the same rules that everyone else does.
All I get out of that other thread is that Thomas Cook has fallen on hard times, as reflected in the price of its stock, and the opportunity this presents its competitors.
As Ted wrote above, the story in that other thread includes a graph (shown below). I just don't see any difference between that graph and a graph showing Thomas Cook's stock between June 19, 2007 (333p) and Nov 22, 2011 (10.20p), where the stock fell 96.9%, almost identical to the present 97.1% decline. (You can generate the 2007-2011 graph here.)
It would be nice to know what's different this time, whether Thomas Cook is gone for good. You don't suppose someone could link an article or two that went beyond stock prices to talk about Thomas Cook's business?
@hank- I'm sorry hank, but while your NPR article did provide quite thorough coverage on the background, present effects, and future probabilities of the Cook collapse, it didn't have Ted's great graph, with all of those cool colored lines.
- I'm sorry hank, but the MFO thread you cited only contains an article saying that Thomas Cook collapsed. That article doesn't say what "collapse" means ... All I get out of that other thread is that Thomas Cook has fallen on hard times, as reflected in the price of its stock, and the opportunity this presents its competitors.
- As Ted wrote above, the story in that other thread includes a graph ...
It looks like travelers who booked a package holiday (vacation) are automatically covered. So not only are arrangements being made to get stranded travelers back home, but those who haven't left yet may recover their money if not their vacation.
The law says your holiday must be protected if it is a package holiday. ATOL (which stands for Air Travel Organiser’s Licence) is a UK financial protection scheme and it protects most air package holidays sold by travel businesses that are based in the UK.
Thomas Cook reminds me of the Paris-Istanbul Orient Express, which finally gave up the ghost in 2009 (though a private company is now running the Venice-Simplon Orient Express using refurbished Compagnie International des Wagons-Lits carriages from the 1920s and 1930s on the same rail lines, per Wikipedia. Maybe put it on the list for the decadal birthday).
News tonight indicated Thomas Cook had 500+ retail storefronts. That seems like a lot of brick (or, being British, wattle and daub).
Comments
Regards,
Ted
BTW - Can someone please inform me why there’s a space for “Discussion Title” when we initiate a new thread? If it has no significance, than Ted can just post one gigantic thread every morning at 5:00 labeled “Everything.” A title, on the other hand, allows readers selectivity in deciding which threads to open & which topics to explore. Newspapers use titles. Magazines use titles. I believe MFO’s discussion board should also use titles to differentiate various topics.
Yes, he is.
First - Here’s @Ted’s (not so brief) “Morning Brief” https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/53027/the-breakfast-briefing-u-s-global-stocks-slip-as-trade-talks-falter
Now, to avoid stepping on Ted’s big toes, you’d have to avoid posting any new thread involving the United States, England, Europe, Asia, India or China. You’d also have to avoid new posts involving stocks, bonds, currencies, gold and oil. Than, you’d also have to avoid any story covered by these sources or publications: WSJ, Reuters, Bloomberg, CNBC & Investors Business Daily.
And, of course, if you decide to avoid this impossible quagmire and choose instead to post a question related to a personal financial issue, as @Catch22 did today, Ted will bump it over to Discussions + along with a condescending remark. Nice guy.
Regards,
Ted
Unlike EVERY OTHER MFO CONTRIBUTOR, YOU are the ONLY one who consistently breaks the rules here, as evidenced by your repeated attempts to artificially elevate your routine stale news summaries into the "Discussions+" category by faking comments to your own posts. YOU are the ONLY MFO poster who has been repeatedly cautioned by the real management to stop that silliness, but you seem to believe that you are somehow entitled to ignore those requests.
The "best thing that could happen" is that you start honoring the same rules that everyone else does.
http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/articles/38895/cook-share-price-collapse-not-the-full-story
All I get out of that other thread is that Thomas Cook has fallen on hard times, as reflected in the price of its stock, and the opportunity this presents its competitors.
As Ted wrote above, the story in that other thread includes a graph (shown below). I just don't see any difference between that graph and a graph showing Thomas Cook's stock between June 19, 2007 (333p) and Nov 22, 2011 (10.20p), where the stock fell 96.9%, almost identical to the present 97.1% decline. (You can generate the 2007-2011 graph here.)
It would be nice to know what's different this time, whether Thomas Cook is gone for good. You don't suppose someone could link an article or two that went beyond stock prices to talk about Thomas Cook's business?
I couldn't agree more. Quite representative of your conduct here.
Better luck next time.
(2) Want graphs? We got graphs: https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=graphs+thomas+cook&qpvt=graphs+thomas+cook&FORM=IGRE
https://thomascook.caa.co.uk/customers/if-you-have-a-future-booking-and-have-not-traveled-yet/
https://www.caa.co.uk/atol-protection/
https://www.caa.co.uk/ATOL-protection/Consumers/About-ATOL/
Among the reasons:
- Disastrous Merger
- Internet Revolution
- Huge Debt
- Cheap Start-up Airlines
- Climate Change
- Uncertainties about BREXIT
“Thomas Cook only narrowly survived a near-death experience in 2011. Its debt pile had already reached £1.1bn, and it stayed afloat only after an emergency additional cash injection - but it also meant even more debt to service.”. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/sep/23/thomas-cook-as-the-world-turned-the-sun-ceased-to-shine-on-venerable-tour-operator
News tonight indicated Thomas Cook had 500+ retail storefronts. That seems like a lot of brick (or, being British, wattle and daub).