It is unlikely that there is anything untoward going on imo. The...

It is unlikely that there is anything untoward going on imo. The annual top 20 has always been something that is not quite correct (without being technically incorrect) and has never painted the exact picture. For example, the annual shows MT with a large holding that doesn't show up in the Register. The register shows Pacific Custodians with the second largest holding, yet it doesn't get a mention in the annual top 20. Private name holdings shown in the top 20 don't exist in the Register: there, it is in a Co name. But I presume it is legal to fudge such things and in the scheme of things, probably doesn't matter.
I'm more concerned about where we go from here. Deals don't take this long to conclude: except when you're a minnow perhaps and big daddy is trying to screw you. My real concern is that we can't remain solvent: that those regulars that have been propping up this Co for years simply can't afford to keep doing it. It's all too quiet and I'm tempted to run. FG, you must have balls of steel.
Some pertinant holdings over the last few years have read as follows:

Some Holdings in Top 30 (numbers are approx.)
MT 10.5M 9/2008 Notsag 3.8M
MT 10.5 12/2008 Notsag 3.8M
MT 12.5 1/2009 Notsag 3.8M
MT 12.5 7/2009 Notsag 4.6M
MT 13.26 7/2010 Notsag 5.4M
MT 13.2 2/2011 Notsag 5.4M
MT 13.26 9/2011 Notsag not in 30
MT 17.2 7/2012 Notsag 6.6M
MT Nil 6/2013 but Pac Custodians were with 75.2M
MT Nil 2/2014 but Pac Custodians were with 75.2M Notsag 8.6M
MT Nil 6/2014 but Pac Custodians were with 74.2M Notsag 7.2M
MT Nil 2/2015 but Pac Custodians were with 74.2M Notsag not in top 30

a look at the spelling of Notsag could give you a clue; otherwise lips are sealed

I trust that allays the conspiracy theories. jwt