2025 Q4 -tulosraportti
Vain PDF
4 päivää sitten
Tarjoustasot
Oslo Børs
Määrä
Osto
-
Myynti
Määrä
-
Viimeisimmät kaupat
| Aika | Hinta | Määrä | Ostaja | Myyjä |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 492 | - | - | ||
| 1 600 | - | - | ||
| 4 500 | - | - | ||
| 7 408 | - | - | ||
| 5 000 | - | - |
Välittäjätilasto
Dataa ei löytynyt
Yhtiötapahtumat
Datan lähde: FactSet, Quartr| Seuraava tapahtuma | |
|---|---|
2026 Q2 -tulosraportti 31.8. |
| Menneet tapahtumat | ||
|---|---|---|
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti 15.4. | ||
2025 Q2 -tulosraportti 28.8.2025 | ||
2024 Q4 -tulosraportti 10.4.2025 | ||
2024 Q2 -tulosraportti 29.8.2024 | ||
2023 Q4 -tulosraportti 25.4.2024 |
Asiakkaat katsoivat myös
Shareville
Liity keskusteluun SharevillessäShareville on aktiivisten yksityissijoittajien yhteisö, jossa voit seurata muiden asiakkaiden kaupankäyntiä ja omistuksia.
Kirjaudu
·14 min sittenWhat is your stance4 ääntä 2 päivää 23 tuntia jäljelläLiity Sharevilleen osallistuaksesi kyselyyn
·3 t sittenYou articulate a classic conflict in biotech investments: the tension between hype and substance. What you describe regarding Circio is far from unique – it recurs in many early-stage companies, especially within advanced research. The biggest problem with one-sided hyping is not just that it creates noise, but that it can actually harm the case. When expectations are inflated around "imminent sale" or a single catalyst, attention shifts away from what actually drives value in biotech: gradual, uncertain, and often long-term research progression. When reality doesn't match expectations, one often gets sudden corrections and weakened trust – exactly as you suggest. At the same time, it's worth nuancing a bit: the market likes simple narratives. "Acquisition tomorrow" is easier to relate to than complex mechanisms in RNA technology or clinical trials. Therefore, this type of discourse will almost always exist, especially in open forums. That doesn't mean it's correct – just that it's effective at attracting attention. You also point out something important regarding the press. Biotech is challenging to cover because it requires both domain understanding and the ability to explain uncertainty. The result is often superficial coverage or a focus on stock price movements rather than scientific progress. It's not necessarily malicious intent, but a consequence of what actually gets clicks. The core of what you're saying is really about the investment basis. If the case rests on: * hope of acquisition * short-term stock price movements * forum sentiment …then it is weak. If it, on the other hand, rests on: * the technology's potential * the quality of the research * milestones and validation over time …then it is at least a rational foundation, even if the risk is still high. When you say you have a "qualified belief," that is precisely the distinction that is interesting. It implies that you have done work beyond the narratives. But it's also here that it's worth being a bit brutally honest: in biotech, even well-founded cases can fail. It's not enough to be right in principle – timing, financing, and clinical results decide. So perhaps the most constructive way to contribute to such a forum is precisely what you are asking for: to highlight concrete progress, explain what actually matters, and at the same time be clear about the uncertainties. This not only dampens noise – it also makes more people actually understand what they own. If you wish, we can go into more detail about what Circio actually does research-wise, and which milestones are realistically most important going forward.
·3 t sittenShould we all try reading the posts a bit before posting new ones? I think the whole forum is being spammed by the same thing. I think it's being bombarded with a lot of repetition!!
2 t sitten2 t sitten9,785 posts in this forum.. It is ridiculous 🙆🏻♂️
·4 t sitten
·3 t sittenMessed with?? They are running an emission åå 10.8 which was oversubscribed by 100%...minimum..i.e. there were 250 million who did not get shares at that orisen. They are being bought in the market now with demne turnover. Hold onto your hat
·4 t sitten · MuokattuThanks to posts from, among others, «bennyz», the focus is directed towards the research and who Circio is. The one-sided focus on hyping and stock price development stigmatizes Circio as an inflated lightweight and undermines the serious work taking place in the laboratory. Many shareholders who have commented are absolutely certain that the company will be sold "tomorrow" and are just waiting for "the one" big gain. For some, this is obviously the main reason they are shareholders. It signals quick money, which in turn contributes to short-term hyping of the stock price, a flood of new shareholders, and an overheating in the market as we saw last week. The noise it creates overshadows valuable facts about the history and what the company has achieved so far related to the research itself. Only a few of those on the forum here provide that type of factual update. The press doesn't impress either. How often do we read fact-based info about the company, its history, and the opportunities that may lie in the technology? Rarely here in Norway. Most analysts and journalists who cover Circio have a superficial approach and throw around big headlines that sell better than factual info. Yesterday's DN, which is reproduced further down in the thread, is however of a more informative nature. We also see it here on the forum, many don't read up and don't know what they are investing in. When things were at their most turbulent last week, knowledge and qualified belief in the company were absolutely essential not to lose one's head and sell out in panic, especially for those who had been holding for a while. For long-term shareholders, it is information about the progress in research that lays the foundation for qualified belief in the investment. And which matters for the potential value creation, both in a shorter and longer perspective. When there is a lot of speculation without fact-based information, it is difficult to have an interesting debate and an orderly discussion around individual viewpoints. As risky as it can be to invest in an early-stage company, it is equally foolish to fall into the confirmation bias trap that biotech is an unserious industry without substance and future prospects anyway. I am a shareholder because I have a qualified belief in Circio. And that they have more to offer than that.·3 t sittenYou articulate a classic conflict in biotech investments: the tension between hype and substance. What you describe regarding Circio is far from unique – it recurs in many early-stage companies, especially within advanced research. The biggest problem with one-sided hyping is not just that it creates noise, but that it can actually harm the case. When expectations are inflated around "imminent sale" or a single catalyst, attention shifts away from what actually drives value in biotech: gradual, uncertain, and often long-term research progression. When reality doesn't match expectations, one often gets sudden corrections and weakened trust – exactly as you suggest. At the same time, it's worth nuancing a bit: the market likes simple narratives. "Acquisition tomorrow" is easier to relate to than complex mechanisms in RNA technology or clinical trials. Therefore, this type of discourse will almost always exist, especially in open forums. That doesn't mean it's correct – just that it's effective at attracting attention. You also point out something important regarding the press. Biotech is challenging to cover because it requires both domain understanding and the ability to explain uncertainty. The result is often superficial coverage or a focus on stock price movements rather than scientific progress. It's not necessarily malicious intent, but a consequence of what actually gets clicks. The core of what you're saying is really about the investment basis. If the case rests on: * hope of acquisition * short-term stock price movements * forum sentiment …then it is weak. If it, on the other hand, rests on: * the technology's potential * the quality of the research * milestones and validation over time …then it is at least a rational foundation, even if the risk is still high. When you say you have a "qualified belief," that is precisely the distinction that is interesting. It implies that you have done work beyond the narratives. But it's also here that it's worth being a bit brutally honest: in biotech, even well-founded cases can fail. It's not enough to be right in principle – timing, financing, and clinical results decide. So perhaps the most constructive way to contribute to such a forum is precisely what you are asking for: to highlight concrete progress, explain what actually matters, and at the same time be clear about the uncertainties. This not only dampens noise – it also makes more people actually understand what they own. If you wish, we can go into more detail about what Circio actually does research-wise, and which milestones are realistically most important going forward.
·1 t sittenWell described, vidfar! The case is what determines if the fundamentals are in place, but at the same time we also know that stock investments are made to make money… I believe in the company and the research being done and the people behind it, so for me it's a no-brainer in the long term. I don't own much of this yet, but I will buy in a bit later.
Yllä olevat kommentit ovat peräisin Nordnetin sosiaalisen verkoston Sharevillen käyttäjiltä, eikä niitä ole muokattu eikä Nordnet ole tarkastanut niitä etukäteen. Ne eivät tarkoita, että Nordnet tarjoaisi sijoitusneuvoja tai sijoitussuosituksia. Nordnet ei ota vastuuta kommenteista.
Uutiset
Tämän sivun uutiset ja/tai sijoitussuositukset tai otteet niistä sekä niihin liittyvät linkit ovat mainitun tahon tuottamia ja toimittamia. Nordnet ei ole osallistunut materiaalin laatimiseen, eikä ole tarkistanut sen sisältöä tai tehnyt sisältöön muutoksia. Lue lisää sijoitussuosituksista.
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti
Vain PDF
4 päivää sitten
Uutiset
Tämän sivun uutiset ja/tai sijoitussuositukset tai otteet niistä sekä niihin liittyvät linkit ovat mainitun tahon tuottamia ja toimittamia. Nordnet ei ole osallistunut materiaalin laatimiseen, eikä ole tarkistanut sen sisältöä tai tehnyt sisältöön muutoksia. Lue lisää sijoitussuosituksista.
Shareville
Liity keskusteluun SharevillessäShareville on aktiivisten yksityissijoittajien yhteisö, jossa voit seurata muiden asiakkaiden kaupankäyntiä ja omistuksia.
Kirjaudu
- ·14 min sittenWhat is your stance4 ääntä 2 päivää 23 tuntia jäljelläLiity Sharevilleen osallistuaksesi kyselyyn
- ·3 t sittenYou articulate a classic conflict in biotech investments: the tension between hype and substance. What you describe regarding Circio is far from unique – it recurs in many early-stage companies, especially within advanced research. The biggest problem with one-sided hyping is not just that it creates noise, but that it can actually harm the case. When expectations are inflated around "imminent sale" or a single catalyst, attention shifts away from what actually drives value in biotech: gradual, uncertain, and often long-term research progression. When reality doesn't match expectations, one often gets sudden corrections and weakened trust – exactly as you suggest. At the same time, it's worth nuancing a bit: the market likes simple narratives. "Acquisition tomorrow" is easier to relate to than complex mechanisms in RNA technology or clinical trials. Therefore, this type of discourse will almost always exist, especially in open forums. That doesn't mean it's correct – just that it's effective at attracting attention. You also point out something important regarding the press. Biotech is challenging to cover because it requires both domain understanding and the ability to explain uncertainty. The result is often superficial coverage or a focus on stock price movements rather than scientific progress. It's not necessarily malicious intent, but a consequence of what actually gets clicks. The core of what you're saying is really about the investment basis. If the case rests on: * hope of acquisition * short-term stock price movements * forum sentiment …then it is weak. If it, on the other hand, rests on: * the technology's potential * the quality of the research * milestones and validation over time …then it is at least a rational foundation, even if the risk is still high. When you say you have a "qualified belief," that is precisely the distinction that is interesting. It implies that you have done work beyond the narratives. But it's also here that it's worth being a bit brutally honest: in biotech, even well-founded cases can fail. It's not enough to be right in principle – timing, financing, and clinical results decide. So perhaps the most constructive way to contribute to such a forum is precisely what you are asking for: to highlight concrete progress, explain what actually matters, and at the same time be clear about the uncertainties. This not only dampens noise – it also makes more people actually understand what they own. If you wish, we can go into more detail about what Circio actually does research-wise, and which milestones are realistically most important going forward.
- ·3 t sittenShould we all try reading the posts a bit before posting new ones? I think the whole forum is being spammed by the same thing. I think it's being bombarded with a lot of repetition!!2 t sitten2 t sitten9,785 posts in this forum.. It is ridiculous 🙆🏻♂️
- ·4 t sitten·3 t sittenMessed with?? They are running an emission åå 10.8 which was oversubscribed by 100%...minimum..i.e. there were 250 million who did not get shares at that orisen. They are being bought in the market now with demne turnover. Hold onto your hat
- ·4 t sitten · MuokattuThanks to posts from, among others, «bennyz», the focus is directed towards the research and who Circio is. The one-sided focus on hyping and stock price development stigmatizes Circio as an inflated lightweight and undermines the serious work taking place in the laboratory. Many shareholders who have commented are absolutely certain that the company will be sold "tomorrow" and are just waiting for "the one" big gain. For some, this is obviously the main reason they are shareholders. It signals quick money, which in turn contributes to short-term hyping of the stock price, a flood of new shareholders, and an overheating in the market as we saw last week. The noise it creates overshadows valuable facts about the history and what the company has achieved so far related to the research itself. Only a few of those on the forum here provide that type of factual update. The press doesn't impress either. How often do we read fact-based info about the company, its history, and the opportunities that may lie in the technology? Rarely here in Norway. Most analysts and journalists who cover Circio have a superficial approach and throw around big headlines that sell better than factual info. Yesterday's DN, which is reproduced further down in the thread, is however of a more informative nature. We also see it here on the forum, many don't read up and don't know what they are investing in. When things were at their most turbulent last week, knowledge and qualified belief in the company were absolutely essential not to lose one's head and sell out in panic, especially for those who had been holding for a while. For long-term shareholders, it is information about the progress in research that lays the foundation for qualified belief in the investment. And which matters for the potential value creation, both in a shorter and longer perspective. When there is a lot of speculation without fact-based information, it is difficult to have an interesting debate and an orderly discussion around individual viewpoints. As risky as it can be to invest in an early-stage company, it is equally foolish to fall into the confirmation bias trap that biotech is an unserious industry without substance and future prospects anyway. I am a shareholder because I have a qualified belief in Circio. And that they have more to offer than that.·3 t sittenYou articulate a classic conflict in biotech investments: the tension between hype and substance. What you describe regarding Circio is far from unique – it recurs in many early-stage companies, especially within advanced research. The biggest problem with one-sided hyping is not just that it creates noise, but that it can actually harm the case. When expectations are inflated around "imminent sale" or a single catalyst, attention shifts away from what actually drives value in biotech: gradual, uncertain, and often long-term research progression. When reality doesn't match expectations, one often gets sudden corrections and weakened trust – exactly as you suggest. At the same time, it's worth nuancing a bit: the market likes simple narratives. "Acquisition tomorrow" is easier to relate to than complex mechanisms in RNA technology or clinical trials. Therefore, this type of discourse will almost always exist, especially in open forums. That doesn't mean it's correct – just that it's effective at attracting attention. You also point out something important regarding the press. Biotech is challenging to cover because it requires both domain understanding and the ability to explain uncertainty. The result is often superficial coverage or a focus on stock price movements rather than scientific progress. It's not necessarily malicious intent, but a consequence of what actually gets clicks. The core of what you're saying is really about the investment basis. If the case rests on: * hope of acquisition * short-term stock price movements * forum sentiment …then it is weak. If it, on the other hand, rests on: * the technology's potential * the quality of the research * milestones and validation over time …then it is at least a rational foundation, even if the risk is still high. When you say you have a "qualified belief," that is precisely the distinction that is interesting. It implies that you have done work beyond the narratives. But it's also here that it's worth being a bit brutally honest: in biotech, even well-founded cases can fail. It's not enough to be right in principle – timing, financing, and clinical results decide. So perhaps the most constructive way to contribute to such a forum is precisely what you are asking for: to highlight concrete progress, explain what actually matters, and at the same time be clear about the uncertainties. This not only dampens noise – it also makes more people actually understand what they own. If you wish, we can go into more detail about what Circio actually does research-wise, and which milestones are realistically most important going forward.·1 t sittenWell described, vidfar! The case is what determines if the fundamentals are in place, but at the same time we also know that stock investments are made to make money… I believe in the company and the research being done and the people behind it, so for me it's a no-brainer in the long term. I don't own much of this yet, but I will buy in a bit later.
Yllä olevat kommentit ovat peräisin Nordnetin sosiaalisen verkoston Sharevillen käyttäjiltä, eikä niitä ole muokattu eikä Nordnet ole tarkastanut niitä etukäteen. Ne eivät tarkoita, että Nordnet tarjoaisi sijoitusneuvoja tai sijoitussuosituksia. Nordnet ei ota vastuuta kommenteista.
Tarjoustasot
Oslo Børs
Määrä
Osto
-
Myynti
Määrä
-
Viimeisimmät kaupat
| Aika | Hinta | Määrä | Ostaja | Myyjä |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 492 | - | - | ||
| 1 600 | - | - | ||
| 4 500 | - | - | ||
| 7 408 | - | - | ||
| 5 000 | - | - |
Välittäjätilasto
Dataa ei löytynyt
Asiakkaat katsoivat myös
Yhtiötapahtumat
Datan lähde: FactSet, Quartr| Seuraava tapahtuma | |
|---|---|
2026 Q2 -tulosraportti 31.8. |
| Menneet tapahtumat | ||
|---|---|---|
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti 15.4. | ||
2025 Q2 -tulosraportti 28.8.2025 | ||
2024 Q4 -tulosraportti 10.4.2025 | ||
2024 Q2 -tulosraportti 29.8.2024 | ||
2023 Q4 -tulosraportti 25.4.2024 |
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti
Vain PDF
4 päivää sitten
Uutiset
Tämän sivun uutiset ja/tai sijoitussuositukset tai otteet niistä sekä niihin liittyvät linkit ovat mainitun tahon tuottamia ja toimittamia. Nordnet ei ole osallistunut materiaalin laatimiseen, eikä ole tarkistanut sen sisältöä tai tehnyt sisältöön muutoksia. Lue lisää sijoitussuosituksista.
Yhtiötapahtumat
Datan lähde: FactSet, Quartr| Seuraava tapahtuma | |
|---|---|
2026 Q2 -tulosraportti 31.8. |
| Menneet tapahtumat | ||
|---|---|---|
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti 15.4. | ||
2025 Q2 -tulosraportti 28.8.2025 | ||
2024 Q4 -tulosraportti 10.4.2025 | ||
2024 Q2 -tulosraportti 29.8.2024 | ||
2023 Q4 -tulosraportti 25.4.2024 |
Shareville
Liity keskusteluun SharevillessäShareville on aktiivisten yksityissijoittajien yhteisö, jossa voit seurata muiden asiakkaiden kaupankäyntiä ja omistuksia.
Kirjaudu
- ·14 min sittenWhat is your stance4 ääntä 2 päivää 23 tuntia jäljelläLiity Sharevilleen osallistuaksesi kyselyyn
- ·3 t sittenYou articulate a classic conflict in biotech investments: the tension between hype and substance. What you describe regarding Circio is far from unique – it recurs in many early-stage companies, especially within advanced research. The biggest problem with one-sided hyping is not just that it creates noise, but that it can actually harm the case. When expectations are inflated around "imminent sale" or a single catalyst, attention shifts away from what actually drives value in biotech: gradual, uncertain, and often long-term research progression. When reality doesn't match expectations, one often gets sudden corrections and weakened trust – exactly as you suggest. At the same time, it's worth nuancing a bit: the market likes simple narratives. "Acquisition tomorrow" is easier to relate to than complex mechanisms in RNA technology or clinical trials. Therefore, this type of discourse will almost always exist, especially in open forums. That doesn't mean it's correct – just that it's effective at attracting attention. You also point out something important regarding the press. Biotech is challenging to cover because it requires both domain understanding and the ability to explain uncertainty. The result is often superficial coverage or a focus on stock price movements rather than scientific progress. It's not necessarily malicious intent, but a consequence of what actually gets clicks. The core of what you're saying is really about the investment basis. If the case rests on: * hope of acquisition * short-term stock price movements * forum sentiment …then it is weak. If it, on the other hand, rests on: * the technology's potential * the quality of the research * milestones and validation over time …then it is at least a rational foundation, even if the risk is still high. When you say you have a "qualified belief," that is precisely the distinction that is interesting. It implies that you have done work beyond the narratives. But it's also here that it's worth being a bit brutally honest: in biotech, even well-founded cases can fail. It's not enough to be right in principle – timing, financing, and clinical results decide. So perhaps the most constructive way to contribute to such a forum is precisely what you are asking for: to highlight concrete progress, explain what actually matters, and at the same time be clear about the uncertainties. This not only dampens noise – it also makes more people actually understand what they own. If you wish, we can go into more detail about what Circio actually does research-wise, and which milestones are realistically most important going forward.
- ·3 t sittenShould we all try reading the posts a bit before posting new ones? I think the whole forum is being spammed by the same thing. I think it's being bombarded with a lot of repetition!!2 t sitten2 t sitten9,785 posts in this forum.. It is ridiculous 🙆🏻♂️
- ·4 t sitten·3 t sittenMessed with?? They are running an emission åå 10.8 which was oversubscribed by 100%...minimum..i.e. there were 250 million who did not get shares at that orisen. They are being bought in the market now with demne turnover. Hold onto your hat
- ·4 t sitten · MuokattuThanks to posts from, among others, «bennyz», the focus is directed towards the research and who Circio is. The one-sided focus on hyping and stock price development stigmatizes Circio as an inflated lightweight and undermines the serious work taking place in the laboratory. Many shareholders who have commented are absolutely certain that the company will be sold "tomorrow" and are just waiting for "the one" big gain. For some, this is obviously the main reason they are shareholders. It signals quick money, which in turn contributes to short-term hyping of the stock price, a flood of new shareholders, and an overheating in the market as we saw last week. The noise it creates overshadows valuable facts about the history and what the company has achieved so far related to the research itself. Only a few of those on the forum here provide that type of factual update. The press doesn't impress either. How often do we read fact-based info about the company, its history, and the opportunities that may lie in the technology? Rarely here in Norway. Most analysts and journalists who cover Circio have a superficial approach and throw around big headlines that sell better than factual info. Yesterday's DN, which is reproduced further down in the thread, is however of a more informative nature. We also see it here on the forum, many don't read up and don't know what they are investing in. When things were at their most turbulent last week, knowledge and qualified belief in the company were absolutely essential not to lose one's head and sell out in panic, especially for those who had been holding for a while. For long-term shareholders, it is information about the progress in research that lays the foundation for qualified belief in the investment. And which matters for the potential value creation, both in a shorter and longer perspective. When there is a lot of speculation without fact-based information, it is difficult to have an interesting debate and an orderly discussion around individual viewpoints. As risky as it can be to invest in an early-stage company, it is equally foolish to fall into the confirmation bias trap that biotech is an unserious industry without substance and future prospects anyway. I am a shareholder because I have a qualified belief in Circio. And that they have more to offer than that.·3 t sittenYou articulate a classic conflict in biotech investments: the tension between hype and substance. What you describe regarding Circio is far from unique – it recurs in many early-stage companies, especially within advanced research. The biggest problem with one-sided hyping is not just that it creates noise, but that it can actually harm the case. When expectations are inflated around "imminent sale" or a single catalyst, attention shifts away from what actually drives value in biotech: gradual, uncertain, and often long-term research progression. When reality doesn't match expectations, one often gets sudden corrections and weakened trust – exactly as you suggest. At the same time, it's worth nuancing a bit: the market likes simple narratives. "Acquisition tomorrow" is easier to relate to than complex mechanisms in RNA technology or clinical trials. Therefore, this type of discourse will almost always exist, especially in open forums. That doesn't mean it's correct – just that it's effective at attracting attention. You also point out something important regarding the press. Biotech is challenging to cover because it requires both domain understanding and the ability to explain uncertainty. The result is often superficial coverage or a focus on stock price movements rather than scientific progress. It's not necessarily malicious intent, but a consequence of what actually gets clicks. The core of what you're saying is really about the investment basis. If the case rests on: * hope of acquisition * short-term stock price movements * forum sentiment …then it is weak. If it, on the other hand, rests on: * the technology's potential * the quality of the research * milestones and validation over time …then it is at least a rational foundation, even if the risk is still high. When you say you have a "qualified belief," that is precisely the distinction that is interesting. It implies that you have done work beyond the narratives. But it's also here that it's worth being a bit brutally honest: in biotech, even well-founded cases can fail. It's not enough to be right in principle – timing, financing, and clinical results decide. So perhaps the most constructive way to contribute to such a forum is precisely what you are asking for: to highlight concrete progress, explain what actually matters, and at the same time be clear about the uncertainties. This not only dampens noise – it also makes more people actually understand what they own. If you wish, we can go into more detail about what Circio actually does research-wise, and which milestones are realistically most important going forward.·1 t sittenWell described, vidfar! The case is what determines if the fundamentals are in place, but at the same time we also know that stock investments are made to make money… I believe in the company and the research being done and the people behind it, so for me it's a no-brainer in the long term. I don't own much of this yet, but I will buy in a bit later.
Yllä olevat kommentit ovat peräisin Nordnetin sosiaalisen verkoston Sharevillen käyttäjiltä, eikä niitä ole muokattu eikä Nordnet ole tarkastanut niitä etukäteen. Ne eivät tarkoita, että Nordnet tarjoaisi sijoitusneuvoja tai sijoitussuosituksia. Nordnet ei ota vastuuta kommenteista.
Tarjoustasot
Oslo Børs
Määrä
Osto
-
Myynti
Määrä
-
Viimeisimmät kaupat
| Aika | Hinta | Määrä | Ostaja | Myyjä |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 492 | - | - | ||
| 1 600 | - | - | ||
| 4 500 | - | - | ||
| 7 408 | - | - | ||
| 5 000 | - | - |
Välittäjätilasto
Dataa ei löytynyt