Ann: Change of Director's Interest Notice, page-83

"The drop in sp happened when m&g started the large sell off"
Yes - but they sold because of the delays. Delays => M&G sold => share drop. Cause => action => effect.

"and shorting with the 4 funds at the same time.
That is a fact."

No it isn't, that's conjecture based on a dubious report. What four funds? Short interest went from a low of about 4m shares to a high of about 9m - that's 5m shares. By comparison, M&G sold their holding of over 34m shares - shorting simply isn't a factor.

"The reason for the selloff is open to interpretation."

No it isn't, they sold because of poor performance from Cudeco. LOTTERY WIN!

"M&g could have sold the shares for more to an investor.Probably one organised by the company."

Who? Who is the magical mystery buyer? They knocked out their stake at an average of about 2.50 (from memory). They sold their last 12m shares in a bought deal to MS - that was the only buyer around.

"That is not the end result they wanted.
So like all bullies that want to show everyone they can do what they want they made up an excuse, blamed someone else and did what they wanted to do."

M&G had no need to make up reasons to sell Cudeco when there were so many staring them in the face - like delays, broken commitments etc

"If you think they couldn't hide the last 12 million shares and use them to keep the pressure on then you don't have much react for the power these funds hold.
I'm sure you do though so keep pretending I'm not right."

They can't hide them because the registrar is an independent 3rd party - and there hasn't been a significant change in any of the top 20. I'm not pretending you aren't right, it's just that you are *so* wrong - and your inability to deal with that is bordering on delusional.

"Anyway we will see when they run out of those shares."


There have been 167m shares traded since M&G ceased to be substantial. Even if we were to humour your delusion, 12m shares just isn't that significant a number in that context.

"Hopefully the shorts will have to cover (one day).
If they don't ever cover does that prove more manipulation or is it the companies fault also."

Shorts won't have to cover so long as there is borrow, and aren't a significant factor in daily trading. Shorting is not manipulation, just as buying on margin isn't manipulation by itself.

"I don't think there is anywhere near enough brokers shares left to cover the shorts.
So we wait."
At last something on which we agree - there aren't enough 'brokers shares' to cover the shorts. Because there aren't any 'brokers shares', they're a figment of your imagination!