Thanks ZzedzzIt is interesting to hear your somewhat 'bland'...

Thanks Zzedzz

It is interesting to hear your somewhat 'bland' description of how market forces operate. However I remain unconvinced and prefer to keep an open mind. From my perspective, what you have offered is simplistic and overly naive.

My recollections are along the following lines

In amongst the initial confusion about what the resource numbers actually represented, extremely powerful selling ensued that was probably designed to trigger margin loan liquidation, whereby many retail holders were taken to the cleaners.

It is a fact that information about a low ball jorc was actually leaked prior to the announcement. I caught snippets from market sources and we certainly saw a lot of it on HC by various posters some of whom have been suspended. The rumours about low jorc numbers was why I posted on what I believed would be conservative jorc numbers, to try and build an understanding of what was reasonable and likely to be achieved - At least from my perspective. Little did I know how conservative the numbers would actually turn out to be.

Certainly many did have unrealistic explanations. I suspect, that strategies were cemented into place by major players operating through nominee accounts, and the arrival of a damning broker report in double quick time also suggests to me that a sting operation was prepared in advance. Then again, who really knows?

It is a fact that strong believers who had leveraged up their holdings were sold out by programs that drilled down through orders until the leveraged positions were back in balance. After all, that is the way it works with no time for account holders to respond.

Zzedzz, by all means get in touch with some of the holders who were effected in this way and offer up your sanguine explanations, and see what reaction you get. You will soon realize how far off the mark you are in regard to share holders making rational decisions and selling down their holdings because they were unhappy with the jorc numbers. They might have been confused/disappointed but the selling decisions were mostly made for them and completely out of their hands.

The term 'share market carnage' falls short in describing what actually happened.

The panic selling was exacerbated by:

1. Two broker reports arriving without time for proper Due Diligence, and based on shamefully wrong premises which were used to justify STRONG SELL recommendations. Of course they may have been deliberate in their intent or just prepared incompetently. Who knows?

2. Stop loss orders were also activated in the confusion and despair, which added to the selling pressure. Protection of capital becomes an over riding concern at such times.

3. There was widespread targeted selling and massive churning of shares by entities with holdings sitting in nominee accounts. I know this because of have checked through the Cudeco register and summarized what went on.

I'll give you an example. National Nominees consistently show up in the Top 30 of the register in a Top 3 position with a holding of around 5 million shares, yet in the month of August (and mostly after the resource upgrade announcement) they were extremely active in moving 7,765,820 shares OFF the register and 8,684,113 shares back ONTO the register. Their remarkable trading pattern would fit well on Ripley's Believe It or Not!

They weren't alone with their massive churn operations either. About 25 Nominee companies were up to their eyeballs in churn.

There were 5 other Nominee Holdings who regularly appear in the Top 30 who churned heavily as well, yet all of the remaining private holders virtually didn't sell a single share.

Zzedzz, if your simple explanation is correct, why is all of the churn restricted to the nominee companies where it is exceedingly difficult to ascertain beneficial ownership of the accounts? Apart from the Top 30 Nominee Holders, I am talking about nominee accounts that start the month with a small holding and end the month with a small holding and buy and sell large amounts of shares in between.

And why have most of the larger private holders free of margin sat patiently (albeit, nervously at times too) with their holdings basically still in tact?

Sorry Zedzz, simplistic, benign explanations for what IMHO has been a ruthless operation designed to destabilize the company and to separate share holders from their shares just doesn't cut it from my perspective.

I am glad that you raised the question of Nominee Holdings as the account owners buried behind the anonymity afforded by these accounts, are playing the company for all they are worth. Yes, yet another fact that needs rational explanation that probably wont see the light of day in the commentary offered on here!

Cheers
Nev