An interesting post Zzedzz, and thoroughly deserving of 'thumbs...

An interesting post Zzedzz, and thoroughly deserving of 'thumbs ups' from all of the 'negative' non holder types who have inundated the threads in recent times.

Of course, your contribution does contain the usual inaccuracies in regard to noiprocs...ie me!.....lol

If you bothered to read my commentary closely, all I have done is attempt to raise 'peculiar' trading patterns and have looked for 'possible' explanations. Drawing associations with Xstrata has made a lot of sense and still makes a lot of sense considering:

their operational problems with Ernest Henry,

their need for new large projects to feed their smelters,

their regional proximity to Rocklands

the fact that Deutsche Bank and JP Morgan have advised them corporately on several occasions in the past, and

the fact that Deutsche Bank and JP Morgan and have a sizeable interest in Cudeco in both day to day trading and on the register itself.

As it happens Zedster, all of the above is true, and although you seem happy to ignore it, I like to keep a perspective on it, even if there is no conclusive proof.


How would you explain the share price collapse Zzedzz?

And spare me the 'dud resource' argument as has been alluded to by almost all of the non holders. The reality is that 1 million tons of copper signed off by independent consultants in compliance with the JORC code and with a high degree of confidence actually points toward a still valuable piece of copper real estate in a particularly copper hungry world at the current time.

I do agree though that the 'theoretical' resource hasn't met market expectations, but at current share prices, that issue has been well and truly addressed. And yet even the conservative resource for initial mining still points to share prices well above what we have at the moment. And dont rule out the possibility that the consultants have been ultra conservative with their assessments.

Any rational discussion without false assumptions like massive dilution, would actually be appreciated. But I am not holding my breath given the frenzied and desperate downramping by non holders that we have witnessed all of this month.

Of course if there was a corporate raider involved in the weird trading patterns we have become used to, do you really think that they would be leaving footprints that would lead directly to their head quarters at such a critical stage? Accumulating all of those cheap shares that you referred to Zedzz would stand out as manipulation and would serve to galvanize holders against acceptance of a cheap bid. No Zzedzz, that would be too obvious and wouldn't make any sense - sort of like your continuous negativity as a non holder all of these years.....LOL.

I suspect that churn would be the preferred course of action with a campaign to 'demonize' the MD and to try and remove him from the power base that has existed within the share holder group. Of course he may have even assisted matters by not being totally prepared for what has unfolded. I guess it is always much easier in retrospect eh!

Eventually though, the strategy might be directed at demoralizing share holders to ready them to capitulate to a cheap bid in a state of abject frustration and in so doing, deliver 50.1% of the company into hostile hands. In that case, persistent capping and churn in the market, and constant noise and disinformation in the media and on the forums does make a lot of sense in trying to weaken the resolve of remaining holders.

Don't forget that 1 million tonnes of copper is potentially up for grabs here.

---

Now Zzedzz, you mentioned, broker nominee accounts.

- Can you explain why you think they will all be back to zero by now?

- Or do you 'know' that they are back to zero in which case, how as a 'non holder' would you have access to that information and why would you even bother to access it?

- And if true could you please explain why the nominee accounts would have had a build up of shares in the first place?

Do you see corporate activity unfolding here with buying taking place in the shadows of the broker nominees, and then subsequently moved to other accounts, or dumped back onto the market at strategic times? Of course most holdings in nominees that have been subsequently unwound would have been loss making wouldn't they, as the share price has been falling? And why would they even buy a dud share in the first place in such size to be noticed on the register, only to dump it at a loss?

Zzedzz, addressing the above information would be very useful and might help to unravel the puzzle we have been handed.

I look forward to your clarifications.

Cheers
Nev