Tesco who is buying and who is crying

Thrugelmir

bowlhead99 wrote: »

I see the MPs are weighing in on Tesco's 'stratospheric' accounting

Not sure what contribution that's going to make.

Many companies are forced to restate their accounts.

After all the restatement only represents 0.4% of turnover.

alanq

I doubt that it will be the only supermarket affected but Tesco could have done without this news:

"Tesco in fresh embarrassment as it admits its pork sausages were contaminated with chicken and its venison burgers contained lamb"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2771264/Tesco-fresh-embarrassment-admits-pork-sausages-contaminated-chicken-venison-burgers-contained-lamb.html

Glen_Clark

Its become clear that insiders must have known that accounts were being manipulated to make profits look bigger than they were, and that this information could have been used to short Tesco shares. Which shows how the odds are stacked against traders who don't have inside information.
So I don't trade because I have no inside information. My policy has been to buy a range of shares and hold them through thick and thin, which has slightly beaten the FTSE 100 average, although I am currently 42% down on Tesco excluding dividends.

bowlhead99

alanq wrote: »

I doubt that it will be the only supermarket affected but Tesco could have done without this news:

"Tesco in fresh embarrassment as it admits its pork sausages were contaminated with chicken and its venison burgers contained lamb"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2771264/Tesco-fresh-embarrassment-admits-pork-sausages-contaminated-chicken-venison-burgers-contained-lamb.html

Yes they could have done without that on top of everything else.

Sounds like they are ahead of the game compared to others in the market by publishing what they're testing online every quarter.

To be honest, if I bought Feldues Billy Bear turkey and pork slices
I am pretty sure I'd care not one iota that there was 1-5% chicken mixed up in the turkey. And the same product is sold for the same £1 per pack in Sainsbury and Morrisons.

Doesn't help Tesco's reputation that they are first to report it though, with others probably quietly removing it from their shelves as a 'precautionary measure' and sounding like the good guys. Makes Tesco, who are proactively doing their testing and publishing exactly what they're up to, sound like the bad guys - when really the problem is way down the supply chain with Feldues not thinking to DNA test the turkey that they buy.

Glen_Clark

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Yes they could have done without that on top of everything else.

Sounds like they are ahead of the game compared to others in the market by publishing what they're testing online every quarter.

To be honest, if I bought Feldues Billy Bear turkey and pork slices
I am pretty sure I'd care not one iota that there was 1-5% chicken mixed up in the turkey. And the same product is sold for the same £1 per pack in Sainsbury and Morrisons.

Doesn't help Tesco's reputation that they are first to report it though, with others probably quietly removing it from their shelves as a 'precautionary measure' and sounding like the good guys. Makes Tesco, who are proactively doing their testing and publishing exactly what they're up to, sound like the bad guys - when really the problem is way down the supply chain with Feldues not thinking to DNA test the turkey that they buy.

You are right of course. But the Daily Mail has got to make a story out of it somehow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

SailorSam

I was reading on Motley Fool last night, they think £1.50 is a good time to buy, possibly even wait until £1.34

http://www.fool.co.uk/investing/2014/09/26/tesco-plc-could-now-fall-below-150p/?source=uhpsithla0000001

bowlhead99

SailorSam wrote: »

I was reading on Motley Fool last night, they think £1.50 is a good time to buy, possibly even wait until £1.34

http://www.fool.co.uk/investing/2014/09/26/tesco-plc-could-now-fall-below-150p/?source=uhpsithla0000001

The quality of the Fool's articles gets lower and lower every time I take a look in. It is always just a few paragraphs of obviousness, taking one side of the viewpoint with a slight nod to the other in case they're wrong, followed by advertorial for their 'free' market reports / tipsheets.

So at the bottom of the article you linked, they say:

Happily, you don't have to buy a falling share at the very bottom to be able to multiply your wealth many times over!

The Motley Fool's BRAND NEW report -- "How You Could Retire Seriously Rich" -- explains seven key steps to building a £1 million nest egg.

This report is completely free and comes with no obligation -- simply click here for your copy.

Then on another linked Tesco article (Tesco: buy, sell or hold) they change up the language a bit for:

Perhaps you disagree and see attraction in Tesco now? Ultimately, we all need to make our own investing decisions, but an informed decision often pays best, which implies doing our own research.

That's why I'm pleased to have a new exclusive wealth report from the Motley Fool, which sets out seven steps to serious riches on the stock market and signposts to some top-notch investment opportunities available on the London market right now, ripe for your own analysis.

"How You Could Retire Seriously Rich" is 100% free and without obligation, although availability is limited.

There is a chance to get a copy today by clicking here.

And of course there are always 3 or 4 more articles about the company with different authors and either the exact same view or a counterpoint, sitting over on the right side of the screen. All of them will devote a few paragraphs to getting you to sign up for the tipsheet.

Generally I have more time for the Fool than the Daily Mail in matters of money, there are some useful overviews for newbies and there are some smart people on some of the forums. But ultimately, all journalists have their own agenda and if they are appearing to give you some insight for free while drawing a salary, you can take it with a pinch of salt.

Glen_Clark

bowlhead99 wrote: »

The quality of the Fool's articles gets lower and lower every time I take a look in. It is always just a few paragraphs of obviousness, taking one side of the viewpoint with a slight nod to the other in case they're wrong, followed by advertorial for their 'free' market reports / tipsheets.

So at the bottom of the article you linked, they say:

Then on another linked Tesco article (Tesco: buy, sell or hold) they change up the language a bit for:

And of course there are always 3 or 4 more articles about the company with different authors and either the exact same view or a counterpoint, sitting over on the right side of the screen. All of them will devote a few paragraphs to getting you to sign up for the tipsheet.

Generally I have more time for the Fool than the Daily Mail in matters of money, there are some useful overviews for newbies and there are some smart people on some of the forums. But ultimately, all journalists have their own agenda and if they are appearing to give you some insight for free while drawing a salary, you can take it with a pinch of salt.

So even if they give out share tips willy nilly by the law of averages some of them will be right, and encourage those punters who followed them to pay for the tip sheet.
I always think if they really can pick winners why are they 'journalists' and not Warren Buffet

melbury

I am quite shocked by all of this:eek:

I bought Tesco shares in the mid-1990's at £1.61 per share.

At one point I really thought they were going to pass the £4.00 per share mark.

Do hope they recover:(

Minrich

melbury wrote: »

I am quite shocked by all of this:eek:

I bought Tesco shares in the mid-1990's at £1.61 per share.

At one point I really thought they were going to pass the £4.00 per share mark.

Do hope they recover:(

They were about £4.80 ish in October 2010 ish was going to sell the 8000 we had then and didn't ! Now the 20000 we have are worth the same !