swap substantial holdings discrepency, page-2

We need to make a distinction between broker and shareholder. An organisation can be one or both of these.

A shareholder holds the physical shares and is required to inform the market if the become, change or cease being a substantial holder.

A broker merely executes trades on behalf of shareholders. Brokers are regulated by the ASX, well, in theory at least.

If an organisation is both, then it can execute trades for external clients and for itself. This may be to buy and sell for its own mutual or investment funds, or it could be to buy/sell on its own proprietary trading desk.

The information I post is at a broker level. i.e. I can show how many shares a broker has transacted on-market. Who the shareholders are is usually a mystery, although one can do some detective work if the amounts are large enough.

For example, the sheer size of the stake now held by Orbis allows me to go back to the broker report and see who has transacted this amount. There is always a chance a shareholder (like Orbis) could use multiple brokers, but there is such an obvious pattern with them that I can say for sure they use Deutsche Bank as their broker. As an example, we saw 20m CER shares cross a while back and an increase in sub holding notice from Orbis not long after. 3 days later (when I get the data) Deutsche Bank were the only broker who did anywhere near that amount.

Shareholders often use multiple brokers to disguise they are buying or selling. This often happens if they are trying to amass or offload a large stake. In addition, if a broker receives a large buy order, their traders may choose to execute this using both human and bot trading. Buying or selling a large chuck can spook a market but doing so slowly and carefully may not. Deutsche are using a combination of human traders and a bot. The human jumps in when he/she sees the opportunity but the bot chugs away all day just slowly buying.

For JP Morgan, they were and still may be a substantial holder of shares which they are holding for their own account. I'd have to go back through the sub holder notices to work this out. However, they also have numerous clients for whom they act as broker. What I suspect has happened in your example is that the stake held by JP Morgan (as a shareholder) remains unchanged, but they have sold 33m shares on behalf of their clients.

Hope this makes sense. Let me know.