See you guys at 65, page-519

It's funny how some people here make claims without actually providing suitable evidence.

Where exactly is the evidence that CS "paid a premium" for voting rights to be attached to the GXY shares it borrowed...?

We do know from the holder notices that in SOME instances the borrower of stock (CS) has become the holder of voting rights, but where does it say they have paid a premium for this?
Look at other notices - unrestricted voting rights is common afaict.

Why not actually look at the detail, instead of assuming/guessing..?


FOR EXAMPLE:, let's look at the holdings of CS Equities (Australia)....

Dec 2019, CS holding notice; Holder of relevant interest: CS Equities (Australia) :



We can see they held 320,111 borrowed shares.
Details from the related lending agreements shows that the voting rights for all of these shares are to be exercised in accordance with the LENDER's instructions:











Then, the holder notice from Jan 2020; after they had acquired another circa 2.7 million units, holding 3,029,111 units:



What do the related lending agreements show?
Well, in 3 of the 4 cases, again, the voting rights must be exercised in accordance with the LENDER's instructions.













Then, the holder notice from March 2020, now holding 3,679,111 units:



They borrowed another 650,000 units, but the voting rights again must be exercised in accordance with the LENDER's instruction;









Of course, this analysis is not complete, as there are other CS affiliates/subs that have also borrowed shares, as can be seen in the holder notices (see "change in substantial holder" notices via GXY announcements). BUT it does provide an example of the process to actually look a bit deeper into the holdings and conditions etc, rather than just simply making assumptions and guesses and unfounded (or poorly-founded) claims like some are doing.




So, from this information in the holding notices....

What do we KNOW?

We know that CS do not have freedom to vote however they wish on ALL shares they have borrowed.

We know that in some cases, there are no restrictions on the voting rights attached to borrowed shares.

We know that in other cases, CS must vote in accordance with the lender's instructions.

...and various other things that people can DTOR to discover


What don't we know?

We don't know how many shares were borrowed from each lender, and therefore how many votes are to be directed by each lender.

We don't know the finer details of each lending agreement, and certainly cannot confirm that any "premium" was paid to have unrestricted voting rights.

Also, We don't know how many of the shares that CS has borrowed have been actually sold short, how many actually have restrictions on voting rights, how many they will cover to exercise those voting rights where available, how many shares the lenders will recall to vote with, how many lent shares the lenders will instruct voting on, etc.... and therefore we don't really have much idea at all about how many votes CS themselves will actually hold come voting time.

...and various other things that people can DTOR to discover


Also, AFAIK (DYOR):

For any shares that CS have actually sold short, the voting rights transfer to the new owner of those shares... So it follows that CS must cover (i.e. buy back) any shares that it wishes to use for any votes, as long as those shares do not have any restrictions on voting rights imposed by the lender.
Also, if a lender wishes to exercise votes attached to shares it has lent, they must provide instruction to CS (where applicable) or else recall those shares first - which means CS must either:
- return or vote as per lender's instructions with shares it has borrowed (where those shares have not yet been sold short)
- cover then return or vote as per lender's instructions with borrowed shares (where CS have already sold short those shares)
(Happy to be corrected)


Those claiming that they "KNOW" what's going on exactly with these borrowed shares, votes etc might also have a bridge to sell you, or a star, or even a magic potion to cure Covid-19...?


Facts and data and evidence... seems to be missing around here, mostly. Easier just to hype and fear-monger and accuse and assume!



DYOR!

...and before the lizard pipes up again with unfounded claims and accusations, I have no affiliation with CS, or the company, other than my GXY shareholding. ..and I like facts and sound evidence as opposed to guesses and assumptions.


GLTALTH