Bellcurve and goldnova1, I largely agree with both your posts as I think we are all on the same page. goldnova1, I did say "Exclusively negative HotCoppper posters on stocks they don't hold". Exclusively is a key word here as a cursory glance at a poster's previous posts will reveal their degree of impartiality - I am referencing posters whose posts are predominantly negative and whose posts are on stocks that they don't hold. Your post and profile clearly demonstrates that you are not a solely negative poster (in addition to providing plausible rationale for your clearly negative posts). I have just seen too many negative posters that when I review their posting history, only see negative posts with sentiment none, disclosure not held. HC should insert a tick box for short position to remove the sheeps' clothing entirely from the wolves.
Bellcurve, I voted for Andy Schmulow in my electorate of Bradfield in the election just past (he stood for the senate under the Citizens Party) as for once there was a candidate not only well qualified to do the job but also worth voting for...an exceedingly rare occurrence! I can't say that I agree with you that Labor is the only party that could possibly do the job though. Recall that the parliamentary inquiry into ASIC was chaired by Senator Andrew Bragg and instigated by the Liberal Party. Their complete inability to contest the legislature due to the number of seats they currently hold validates your assertion that they cannot enact anything, even if they wanted to! I do however think that the desire for ASIC to be held to account is significantly stronger with the Liberal Party that with Labor. I would love nothing more than the Labor Party prove me wrong on this point. When I said "Joe Longo has enabled the biggest fraud in Australian history", I'm not overstating things. Every single Australian with a superannuation account has lost money every year since algorithmic trading overtook conventional trade instructions (circa 2008, happy to be corrected here?) This begs the question... who is reviewing the code behind the algorithmic trades to ensure that it complies with s1041 (and all other sections!) of the Corporations Act 2001? "We get the fund managers behind the algorithms to review their own code because it is a requirement under their AFSLs" was the ASX's response when I asked them that question. That worked so well as demonstrated by the banking royal commission where banks were found to be charging fees to clients that they knew were dead! Moral of the story... don't get between an institution and a bucket of money! It's also interesting to explore the legal course of action of preliminary discovery. Preliminary discovery is a legal process that allows a party (the defendant) to gain access to relevant documents or information from another party (the plaintiff) before formal legal proceedings commence. The crux is that if the plaintiff claims that market manipulation has occurred and has been enabled by the defendant (the ASX), the ASX can review the "illegal trades" and then ask the offending market participants to explain. They could explain, but the ordinary course of events is to ask the plaintiff to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) and pay them the sum they are asking. To give context, JP Morgan's gold desk was caught manipulating the gold price over a 10 year period and in addition to two traders being sent to jail, were fined USD $920 million....that was five days' profit for the JP Morgan gold desk! Paying a couple of hundred million is peanuts to the big boys if the gravy train rolls on - the NDA ensures that nothing will ever appear in the AFR or any Commonwealth Law Reports, and given the magnitude of the scam, perpetuity is paramount, not a blip that is recovered in days or weeks.
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)