Happy to play devil's advocate here. And these threads are pretty boring and quiet at the moment so why not.
In fairness, that data is 18 months old, and yes at that time there was no problem with the share price appreciating while Shaw was selling heavily. But I think in hindsight we've recognised there was a significant amount of FOMO, YOLO and other hype going on at that point which generated high volume and allowed that selling to be easily absorbed. Today's trading is a totally different beast, maybe polar opposite in fact - retail selling (possible capitulation has occurred), pessimism surrounding the company/sector/market, extremely low volume, and the FOMO/YOLO/hype has moved elsewhere (BNPL anyone?). Overall I think (hope) this is a positive as it sets RAC up on a solid foundation for future appreciation, at some point, whenever that may be.
But back to the discussion... just because the share price more than doubled under heavy Shaw selling at some point in the past (and under totally different trading conditions), that does not mean that the selling by Shaw now is not having a negative impact on the share price. Well to me at least that seems a pretty long bridge to cross. Is that the argument you are making? Of course, I cannot prove that Shaw selling is negatively impacting the share price, but it seems intuitive to me that if you removed that almost $700k of selling pressure in July (eclipsing the next biggest seller by over 6x) that it would result in some differences, likely positive to the SP, in the outcome.
And on to the second part, as I understand it, the UBS churn you are speculating (or know) that is caused by MOF trading around their position, and that is the primary culprit for negative pressure (as opposed to Shaw) on the share price. Is that correct? I can accept that pip trading may be negatively impacting share price - I certainly cannot prove it or disprove it. However, if that is MOF trading, what is their incentive for trying to push down the share price? If anything, surely they would be incentivised to see the share price increase as it would correspondingly increase the value of their holding and improve the performance of their fund. If they were trying to accumulate more shares that may be some incentive to keep the price down, but from what I've seen of the T20 holdings, they do not appear to be accumulating. Do you have some other information which would indicate otherwise?
Again, intuitively to me it would seem a more likely outcome that whoever is doing that pip trading is trying to generate some income/return on their investment while holding, but not overall impacting the share price negatively. Looking at their trading seems to line up with this... in July for example it looks like they effectively accumulated 20000 shares for approximately $10000 ($0.50 each) over all that trading volume. This represents a return of about $30000 for the month at the current share price. If that is MOF it's a monthly return of $30k on a $9M holding which annualised would equate to about a 4% return. Not bad, but not enough to convince me that it's worth pushing the share price down (which has dropped much more than 4%). And given that overall they actually accumulated shares (this month at least), I don't see how you can be convinced it is this rather than the Shaw selling that is primarily responsible for negatively impacting the share price.
In the end, I think the only conclusive proof we will have as to what impact Shaw is having is when the Shaw selling finally stops - even then, depending on trading conditions, which may be totally different again, it still may not be clear.
Expand
(20min delay)