Interesting broker data. So thank you for serving it up to us.
On the surface it appears that it's the usual ' Day trading ' Culprits - ie Commsec et al ....who are largely ' Net Positive ' to the BUY side at 3.8 cents BUY' verses 3.8 cents selling. Same as some of the others. So nothing untoward's there I would think. Because it's exactly on the TERP ( Theoretical Ex Rights Pricing ) estimated share price.
It is also interesting when you look at Macquarie Insto who represent 2.55% of the total 6 day trading period volumes and who are actually spot on ' Exactly ' Net Neutral on their Buys verses Sells volumes and total of 61 trades at the 3.7 - 3.8 cent trading range.
In other words they are clearly taking advantage of netting anyone who wishes to sell against their own clients who wish to Buy. And it is additionally interesting because Macquarie Insto's are NOT one of the mainstay Top 20 on Sayona's register. Same with Morgan Stanley who are NOT a SYA Top 20 Insto and who were net positive for 2 trades totally only 16, 204 in volume over the 6 session at 3.8 cents ( also the TERP pricing )
Same goes for J.P Morgan who actually IS one of Sayona's Top 20 Insto nominee companies, and who is net marginally ' Neutral ' with their Buy verses Sell volumes with only 1 single trade for 11,627 on the Sell Side AT 3.7 cents. As was Merrill Lynch who was marginally ' Negative ' across their 216 trades for 193,379 in net sell volumes where the 216 trades were heavily weighted towards the 192 Buys verses 24 Sells.
Whats even more interesting is that there is absolutely ZERO trading activity from any one of the remaining 4 Insto Nominee companies who DO APPEAR in Sayona's Top 20 holders as represented by BNP ( DRP ) , BNP ( Retail DRP ) , Citicorp Nominees , or HSBC Custody Nominees.
So why aren't these ' Traditional ' Insto Nominee companies on the Sayona register engaged in trading not ONE SINGLE share........
Another point worth a look into for shareholders would be in relation to the section of the Prospectus in regards the ' International Offer Restrictions ' , and in particular those relating to the Province of Quebec as per this snippet paragraph from the Prospectus :-
Canada (British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec Provinces)
This document constitutes an offering of New Shares only in the Provinces of British Columbia,Ontario and Quebec (the "Provinces"), only to persons to whom New Shares may be lawfullydistributed in the Provinces, and only by persons permitted to sell such securities. This document isnot a prospectus, an advertisement or a public offering of securities in the Provinces. This documentmay only be distributed in the Provinces to persons who are "accredited investors" within the meaningof National Instrument 45-106 – Prospectus Exemptions, of the Canadian Securities Administrators.
And definitely worth a quick glance through the above mentioned National Instrument 45-106if you get a chance.
After reading through it myself , they ( Sayona ) may very well be paving the way and setting the register up for inclusion of someone or some ' Entity ' in so far as the take up of any shortfall set aside from ' Other ' Top 20 or a culmination of ' Other ' Top Holders. And this ' Entity ' could very well and likely be residing in Quebec if I'm any judge.
So like I said yesterday , it's going to be very very interesting on how the Shortfall ends up playing out come Thursday next week and the following Monday on the 26th ......
(20min delay)