A dump was always on the cards after the run up although the timing is disappointing, i'd have preferred to see the dump after new shares were issued.
A lot of posters are jumping to conclusions that Patersons are behind the pump and dump as if it's a fact - it's not. Could have been a number of things, it's just speculation.
According to the prospectus Patersons were the underwriters but had fully sub underwritten their allocation. The sub underwriters could be anyone, directors, overseas investors who were ineligible etc etc
These unknown sub underwriters could have pumped it, Bergen could have pumped it, professional traders could have pumped it, you get the idea.
Patersons have many client advisors who don't work as a block, at least that's what i've been told directly by two different Patersons advisors directly. I suppose if one advisor has a number of high net worth clients, shares could be pumped out of a nominee account, just speculating.
Is it possible that the sub underwriters have received their allocation earlier than the rest of us?
None of the above makes a blind bit of difference in the long run if the product is good enough although it will be interesting to see a new top 20 and how many shares the directors have purchased and whether or not the Bergen facility starts up again in a couple of months.
good luck
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?