Ann: Change in substantial holding, page-4

I think you're right able. I've been wary of GS since the GFC but the problem in this case is that I thought they were a shareholder of myr. Looking at the comsec top shareholders list they come up, but that shareholding is not a true shareholding but rather voting rights as a result of being massively short (which I didn't realise), and there was no notices saying such since August last year (I didn't go back that far through the substantial shareholder notices so didn't realise they were short) even though they have been increasing their short stake since then. I think if I had of known GS were massively short I wouldn't have bought the initial stake as I would have smelt a rat. I knew there was a huge short position but if I had known GS were half of that position it would have tipped me off there was something coming.

It looks like what you are saying is quite possibly right, that GS will take up the retail entitlement shares in order to close out their huge short position. I note that shorting continued post entitlement trading (around 1.5m - 2m short sold per day on average), were these shorts done with the purpose of driving the price below the 94c, which in turn would enable GS to take up the retail portion (as retail investors would then be unlikely to take up their shares) in order to close their short position without having to buy the shares on market?

Disappointing that myr management chose an underwriter that was massively short on the stock. Especially when a capital raising of that magnitude didn't appear necessary. I also find it hard to believe that GS were even allowed to act as underwriters, surely there is a conflict of interest when they have a huge short position?

Hopefully we're way off base with these thoughts.

All imo dyor