“Allusions to [your] identity” Is that so? I asked my HKTD and...

“Allusions to [your] identity”

Is that so?

I asked my HKTD and he said his Melbourne TD associate said “ownership matters”.

I’m still meditating on the meaning of this and so I typed in ownership matters + Melbourne because there is no greater ‘mind’ than the artificial intelligence Google

The first result was an unusual website devoted to analysing governance called “ownership matters” :

https://www.ownershipmatters.com.au

What do you think?

In any case your rhetoric is imbued or probative of being governance parlance reminiscent of a professional with an AFSL license like Ownership Matters

AFSL: 423168 something that ASIC regulates under RG162 https://asic.gov.au/media/1240901/rg162.pdf @ RG 162.23 @ RG 162.31 “advice”

@ RG 162.41

Informality of acting as a proxy for or based on a licensed advisor’s advice is a grey area, that’s why I use ‘probative’

https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/saturdayextra/executive-pay-and-proxy-advisers/3681600

Can AFSL holders directly or indirectly deliver financial advice on a Internet discussion site that does not hold an AFSL? The thing is Ownership Matters advises institutional clients but maybe in their spare time for friends and their associates they advise also.

The irony is in challenging AVZ, if the Chinese do get AVZ then it will vastly hasten the decline of lithium peers because I think everyone can tacitly agree only the China can quickly turn Manono into a 10+++mtpa behemoth by 2025.

So it’s probably less risk to peers if AVZ scale up slowly with cautious western money.

Despite my reservation about your reluctance to hypothesise in a true Socratic agora tradition, see Scarpa’s questions, I agree with you that performance rights are way too soft.

Can Australian diplomacy via Zimbabwe request Kinshasa to demand Dathomir lodge the substantial holder notice?

Or, perhaps when AVZ is ready to lay Dathomir for the first of 5% they can get Dathomir to lodge?

I don’t agree with you AVZ do not know Dathomir’s holding to within 3 days of a change. AVZ I know from other overseas holders have conducted several traces over the past year especially to nominee accounts to foreign held holdings. It is therefore more than likely AVZ can demonstrate diligence in tracing its erstwhile substantial holder.

I suspect you will only accept advice from ASIC on whether AVZ is compliant with listing rules. However from what I can see here you’ve been given fair indication without being ‘authoritative’ that the company has done all it can to track Dathomir, Dathomir just doesn’t respond as far as we can tell.

I urge you to test it, ask ASIC to query AVZ because your conspiracy theory desires authority.

I can see why you have doubts about AVZ’s governance due to weak performance rights milestones.

Perhaps Nigel needs to extend Green mining to governance and clean up the greed factor?

“Contracts for voting power” is the kind of topic Ownership Matters cares about.

The issue is, there is yet no “beneficial ownership registry” in Australia. Try Googling it. The LNP have no commitment. Why is that? Why aren’t you here lobbying us to lobby the LNP for increased transparency?

Also,

Why has Ownership Matters not done a trace of when CATL started due diligence and when two directors sold and converted options?

This is why questions remain about motivations.....✅