The main interesting thing to me is from Oct 2023 until June 30 2024, is that there has been a significant concentration of stock through HSBC nominees.
HSBC holdings have increased from 209 million shares to 360 million shares and from 8.26% of the total to 12.61% (remembering the TPD shares were converted to STX). You'd think State Street and Vanguard have their holdings spread across the top custodial accounts, which in turn hold shares on behalf of beneficial owners. So, the obfuscation is at least three layers deep.
You can't read too much from this data as it is so opaque (intentionally so). However, the change in HSBC's share of total shares means it could be holding a 3-4% stake for an acquirer like Gina or Min Resources (with other holdings distributed across the other nominees). Also, why would HSBC increase so much relative to the other nominees? If buying and selling across different nominees by hundreds of beneficial owners (who we can't see) was random, you wouldn't expect this.
Second, this data reveals the scale of the so-called short-selling. The top 5 nominee accounts hold approximately 708 million shares. These large institutions are the main source of shares for (so-called) short-selling. Most of the large holders in the Top 20 and the vast majority of retail shareholders would not offer their shares for short-selling. Currently, around 258 million shares are reported as short-sold. This equates to around 36% of total shares held in the Top 5 nominee accounts. That's a large chunk of beneficial owners agreeing to offer their share for short-selling. An alternative explanation is that it's one or two beneficial owners are "short selling" between nominee accounts and controlled entities and, in doing so, keeping their holdings spread across various nominees. Put and call options can also be used to allow other entities to acquire on an acquirer's behalf (although this is a legally grey, see Ambassador Oil takeover by DLS)
This is all speculation, of course. But it is very frustrating that in a supposedly "transparent" market, large players can easily conceal their holdings (and manipulate the day-to-day trading activity) until they are ready to strike. I very much suspect that after an
actual beneficial owner declares a 5% interest, the reported shorts will suddenly collapse. Undoubtedly, this will be written off as "short-covering" (as the share price will undoubtedly spike), and no action will be taken by ASIC or any other regulatory body.
(20min delay)