Sorry Zzedzz, While that explanation may be true for the...

Sorry Zzedzz,

While that explanation may be true for the occasional slip up with getting money through for purchases in time, the numbers are just too 'humungous' to be associated with broker credit for clients on an ongoing basis.

But lets assume you are correct and that sophisticated clients have enormous credit from supportive brokers like UBS.

Scenario 1:

Sophisticated investors short Cudeco with stock supplied by their broker (say UBS) which is in fact borrowed from other UBS clients that hold Cudeco stock. Later in the month the transaction is reversed.

That strategy would have been a winner immediately after the jorc announcement eh! Judging by the heavy volumes in August by all and sundry, I get the impression that word had certainly got around that shorting the jorc announcement would be a monty. Let's not forget that at the BIG END of town, there is a inter-connectedness between the brokers who make available the Nominee Entities, so word would have got around very quickly. Certainly the volumes were huge and many of the Nominee accounts suddenly became extremely active. They probably didn't even need the dud Fosters Report in retrospect!

Scenario 2:

Maybe the anonymous client(s) buys shares and holds them courtesy of their friendly UBS broker who is happy to pick up the tab for their high net worth influential clients. And when later the stock is sold for a quick profit, everyone is happy. Again a winning strategy if cheap stock was picked up for a quick trade (courtesy of the friendly UBS broker) when the share price was trashed to $1.60 ish.

If either of the above scenarios is true, it is proof that we are dealing with seriously wealthy and seriously connected clients, who are facilitated by very generous brokers. Heavy hitting clients utilizing these accounts in size would no doubt effect the market to guarantee winning trades, all while basking in the anonymity of Nominee Accounts.

If the above scenarios are anywhere near close to what plays out, then we need to let Huston know that we have a very serious problem.

As it happens ordinary retail punters usually can't buy a single share unless their money is available up front. And if they do sign up to go long or short they are usually taken to the cleaners if they look like they are onto a winning trade.

---

On another matter, you are quite right about Pan Australian Nominees. They are very definitely connected to Deutsche Bank. In fact they are a subsidiary company of Deutsche Bank.

Anyone can check out Deutsche Bank's million odd subsidiaries from the following link. (Ok, ok, the number of subsidiaries isn't a million but it is quite substantial by any measure.)

DEUTSCHE BANK Subsidiaries

LINK: http://www.secinfo.com/dr66r.2Fq.h.htm

CLICK: Deutsche Bank Subsidaries

You will notice that Bainpro Nominees get a Guernsey too, and as it happens Bainpro Nominees like to have a dabble in Cudeco from time to time.

They really stepped up to the plate in August with 1,398,309 shares moved OFF the register and 1,416,362 shares moved ONTO the register.

It has really got me baffled as to why these sort of 'connected people' trade like fury in Nominee Entities while net accumulating a small amount of stock in a company with a 'so called' dud resource.

Maybe they don't think it is such a dud resource at all?

Cheers
Nev

[email protected]