# Opes Prime Bankruptcy



## Garpal Gumnut (30 March 2008)

This brokerage to the "sophisticated investor" has gone bottoms up on Friday 28th March.

There may be a large sell down of susceptible shares held by these investors tomorrow Monday.

Apparently those who borrowed to leverage into shares other brokers would not offer, did so, at the expense of signing beneficial ownership to OPES Prime's bankers.  

Those bankers, ANZ and Merrill Lynch are now calling those loans in and on friday liquidated many portfolios.

Interesting times.

gg


----------



## rub92me (30 March 2008)

If they liquidated on Friday, wouldn't it mean that they already sold on Friday? For some stocks it looks like there was already quite a big (forced) sell off. Maybe more to come though...


----------



## Sprinter79 (30 March 2008)

Opes Prime used to be my favourite Transformer hahaha.


----------



## Markcoinoz (31 March 2008)

rub92me said:


> If they liquidated on Friday, wouldn't it mean that they already sold on Friday? For some stocks it looks like there was already quite a big (forced) sell off. Maybe more to come though...




I know there were some big ones that went through with ADY and BMN after the bell on Friday.

However, i think there is alot more to come tomorrow and throughout the week as they unleash them onto the market.

Glad to be a spectator.

It serves as a reminder to read the fine print especially when dealing with any form of Margin Lending or CFDs.


Cheers markcoinoz


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 March 2008)

heard someone referring to today as Opus Day 

PS Margin lending has gotta be playing with fire surely - specially in these uncertain times.


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 March 2008)

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2202228.htm


> Opes Prime suspended from ASX trading PRINT FRIENDLY EMAIL STORY
> PM - Friday, 28 March , 2008  18:56:00
> Reporter: Brigid Glanville
> LISA MILLAR: And now for our look at today's business and finance, here's Brigid Glanville.
> ...




meanwhile, "James Packer's personal wealth dropped 3.6 per cent to just over $5 billion"   poor buga!

Twiggy moves to uncontested first place .. 6.6 bill



> Andew Forrest, founder of Fortescue Metals Group has surpassed James Packer as Australia's richest man on Forbes' Asia's rich list.
> 
> Andrew "Twiggy" Forrest has a fortune estimated at $6.6 billion.
> 
> ...




http://business.theage.com.au/opes-money-trail-warms-up/20080331-22os.html



> While co-lender to Opes, Merrill Lynch is the culprit behind the stock dumping last Friday, things could turn tricky for ANZ.


----------



## metric (1 April 2008)

'Market genius' loses $140m in Opes Prime collapseBy Chris Merritt and John Lyons


April 01, 2008 02:59am


Market king's fortune wiped out by Opes collapse 
Highest profile victim of share market shake-out 
Lays blame on ANZ 

CHRIS Murphy, the lawyer who won big on the horses and was reputed to be a high-rolling gambling associate of the late Kerry Packer, has taken a massive tumble.

His $100 million-plus share portfolio has been wiped out in the collapse of Melbourne-based stockbroker Opes Prime, making him the highest-profile victim of the escalating sharemarket shake-out.

Mr Murphy has decided not to litigate. Instead, at the age of 60, he is pondering how to put the disaster behind him and rebuild a future for his wife and two young children.

It is a big come-down for Mr Murphy, who is widely connected 




http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,23463029-14334,00.html


----------



## Kauri (1 April 2008)

and I found it slightly worrying that the principal of Opes goes by the name Laurie *Emini*..   
Cheers
.........Kauri


----------



## Trembling Hand (1 April 2008)

Kauri said:


> and I found it slightly worrying that the principal of Opes goes by the name Laurie *Emini*..
> Cheers
> .........Kauri




Yes I love his name. Same name that the spruikers use to describe futures as they rip off the unaware punter!!


----------



## Bill M (1 April 2008)

"THE head of the collapsed stockbroking firm Opes Prime, Lirim "Laurie" Emini, told his staff to falsify the accounts of six rich clients, covering them for personal losses of up to $200 million as the value of their share portfolios plunged, a court has been told."

Full Story Here


----------



## grace (1 April 2008)

700 stocks held by Opes Prime.  Isn't there only 3000 listed on the ASX?  I note the report is dated 2/4/08 - April fool

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23468119-664,00.html

I own a few listed there.  Hard to escape it really.  Merryl have done all of their selling and ANZ only 27% thus far....


----------



## Wysiwyg (1 April 2008)

Bill M said:


> "THE head of the collapsed stockbroking firm Opes Prime, Lirim "Laurie" Emini, told his staff to falsify the accounts of six rich clients, covering them for personal losses of up to $200 million as the value of their share portfolios plunged, a court has been told."
> 
> Full Story Here





What of the innocent victims with less financial interest in comparison(but alot to them personally)?This stuff is what makes people lose faith in humanity and never trust again  along with many other acts of betrayal of trust in life.


----------



## bliimp (2 April 2008)

In today's Age newspaper, at last, a bit of information for Trader Dealer clients, who have had their trading accounts frustratingly  frozen since last Friday, with zero communication, while the main game with Opes and is margin lending saga continues to play out!!!

*..... a consortium was finalising a deal to salvage Opes Prime Group's online trading system, Trader Dealer.

Deloitte partner Chris Campbell, one of two receivers and managers to Opes Prime, said the administrators at Ferrier Hodgson were approached with an offer on Friday.

And in yesterday's 11-page circular to Opes Prime clients, Deloitte confirmed that ANZ did not have security over Trader Dealer. The consortium was expected to waste little time in getting Trader Dealer operating again.

The situation is less clear cut for Opes Prime clients, and companies affected by the group's collapse.*


----------



## dregen (3 April 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> What of the innocent victims with less financial interest in comparison(but alot to them personally)?





http://www.marcustoday.com.au/webpages/234_opes-letter.php


----------



## Bill M (3 April 2008)

dregen said:


> http://www.marcustoday.com.au/webpages/234_opes-letter.php




Some terrible, painful stories there and it needs to get sorted out by the regulators. People losing their life savings through no fault of their own, it is just so pathetic that we don't have laws and systems to protect these people. Where are the regulators and what are they doing about it?


----------



## Aussiejeff (3 April 2008)

Bill M said:


> Some terrible, painful stories there and it needs to get sorted out by the regulators. People losing their life savings through no fault of their own, it is just so pathetic that we don't have laws and systems to protect these people. Where are the regulators and what are they doing about it?




These days, governments can avoid having to pay for setting up any regulatory controls simply by offering the point "buyers/consumers beware" in relation to any transaction involving money. 

Maybe more effort should be made in schooling to hammer into peoples heads that ALL transactions involve SOME degree of risk. We in the forum are probably better aware of this than your average Joe Blow (oops - sorry Mr Moderator Joe, Sir - I didn't mean YOU - lol) but there would seem to be a lack of general public knowledge of how RISKY things can be in the finance/business world.

Still, the horse has now bolted and given the current fiascos, it obviously wouldn't hurt for some better basic regulatory guidelines or rules be set up by the Fed government to significantly punish purposeful mis-information or deception by company execs etc. Their family assets should be seized as for any criminal gang etc IMO. Jail terms should be increased markedly. That might just put the dampers on some of the cowboys out there currently rubbing their golden hands with glee....

AJ


----------



## Julia (3 April 2008)

AJ, you're right in suggesting that too few people are sufficiently cautious about risk.  But they can't be expected to allow for illegal manipulation and fraudulent record keeping etc.  (That's a general remark and not specifically directed towards the current Opes mess).

About ten years ago, following talking with satisfied clients of a solicitor's private mortgage scheme, I put some funds into a specific commercial project with that scheme.  The documentation was very detailed, with extensive valuation reports on the project (conversion of an existing commercial building) from a well known registered valuer, and an LVR of 60%.
All went well, the interest payments (above bank interest by about 3%) came in regularly and the capital was repaid on completion of the project.
So I re-placed the funds on a further project.  Hah, not so damn lucky this time.  It turned out the valuation was hugely inflated, and some of the investors' funds had been siphoned off and put into yet another failed project.
Eventually, after much screaming for many months from furious investors, ASIC deigned to do some desultory investigations.  This took more months.
They conceded there was a problem.  Liquidators were appointed.  The solicitor was barred from practising and his passport removed from him.
The upshot?   The liquidators managed to spin their investigations out for more than two years, and by the time they had extracted their fees (taken from the sale of the overvalued buildings), the investors received approximately 8 percent of their original capital.   Eventually a case was brought against the solicitor, but he didn't go to jail.

So, I have very little faith in the regulatory authorities.


----------



## cuttlefish (3 April 2008)

grace said:


> 700 stocks held by Opes Prime.  Isn't there only 3000 listed on the ASX?  I note the report is dated 2/4/08 - April fool
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23468119-664,00.html
> 
> I own a few listed there.  Hard to escape it really.  Merryl have done all of their selling and ANZ only 27% thus far....





So given that Opes prime is the broker to 'sophisticated' investors and company directors - should we be even more worried if we hold stocks that aren't on that list?  Is a stock a dud if not a single opes prime client held any?


----------



## marklar (3 April 2008)

Bill M said:


> Some terrible, painful stories there and it needs to get sorted out by the regulators. People losing their life savings through no fault of their own, it is just so pathetic that we don't have laws and systems to protect these people. Where are the regulators and what are they doing about it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If ever there was an abject lesson about diversification, that surely is it.

I feel sorry for these people that have invested such a significant chunk of their savings into an investment vehicle that they
a) really didn't understand
  or
b) got in to based on someone elses' advice

I've probably spent countless hours investigating investments that haven't panned out, but I can't possibly imagine plonking down $400k of my hard earned without understanding all the risks.

m.


----------



## sails (3 April 2008)

It almost seems that diversification might not only need to be spread across investments, but also brokers, margin lenders, etc.

I guess the other reminder in this is to carefully read the fine print - or pay for a legal eagle to point out where the risks are before signing on the dotted line.


----------



## Insan3 (3 April 2008)

sails said:


> It almost seems that diversification might not only need to be spread across investments, but also brokers, margin lenders, etc.




I'm currently doing my Dip.FP studies and their take on diversification is much different to what I read on several forums. Most people think of share diversification as picking shares from different industry groups, then maybe spread though companies in industry groups.

Their take (makes sense) is to basically diversify everything. Investment Vehicles (Property, Shares, MF's, Fixed Int, Cash), then diversify within these vehicles, then diversify the brokers/banks used. This is their view on what all FP's and Financial Experts should be advising.

Would have helped some of these people if they employed some Margin Lending provider diversification.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (3 April 2008)

cuttlefish said:


> So given that Opes prime is the broker to 'sophisticated' investors and company directors - should we be even more worried if we hold stocks that aren't on that list?  Is a stock a dud if not a single opes prime client held any?




Cuttlefish,  do not be thrown by the mistakes of the "sophisticated". 

Our regulators have defined what it means.

http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/403/HTML/docshell.asp?URL=Ch9.asp

From my reading of it a good definition would be someone who is capable of throwing $500,000 away without reading the fine print. 

The more the regulation , the more the chance for people to behave greedily in a bull market and to panic in a bear.

gg


----------



## nizar (3 April 2008)

dregen said:


> http://www.marcustoday.com.au/webpages/234_opes-letter.php




When I read the first line of this, "Last year we sold our family home....", i somehow knew it wasn't going to be a happy ending.

I feel sorry for the bloke, but to seriously have your house money leveraged into the stockmarket when its literally all you've got, Maaaate, whats going on there ??


----------



## grace (3 April 2008)

A battle of the legal eagles will be going on for months.  Here is some info given in court today by Lincoln Indicators and how both Opes (and ANZ listening) explained what would happen if Opes collapsed - not the same outcome that we have now......

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/ANZ-has-wonfor-now-DCDP8?OpenDocument


----------



## cuttlefish (3 April 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> From my reading of it a good definition would be someone who is capable of throwing $500,000 away without reading the fine print.





lol yeah was aware of the formal definition but thats a pretty good one as well.


----------



## cuttlefish (3 April 2008)

grace said:


> A battle of the legal eagles will be going on for months.  Here is some info given in court today by Lincoln Indicators and how both Opes (and ANZ listening) explained what would happen if Opes collapsed - not the same outcome that we have now......
> 
> http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/ANZ-has-wonfor-now-DCDP8?OpenDocument




There must also have been more than one client that would have questioned on the phone the risk clause that related to the secured creditor situation in Opes application form/FSG.  With brokers keeping phone records of conversations with clients you would think there would be at least one or two conversations about this clause on record.  Anecdotally it sounds like the reponse given when this clause was queried was misleading at best.

You have to question a fund making a decision to invest like this without getting some serious legal eagles involved though to ensure they are well protected.  To make the decision on the basis of a verbal assurance in a meeting is pretty ridiculous.

I still think both the ASX and ASIC have a lot to answer for allowing practices like this to go on, including allowing the whole stock lending market to continue for so long with so little regulation. Although not affected directly by it the whole situation has clearly resulted in a disorderly market in a lot of stocks lately and also puts the credibility of the ASX as a secure and efficient marketplace for stocks into question.

ANZ also should be made to answer some questions as they were clearly aware of this unfair lending situation existing, and the fact that Emini was a former ANZ exec is even more questionable.

Given the types of people affected by this I can't imagine Emini getting out of this situation too lightly.


----------



## grace (4 April 2008)

Some more info out...those 6 clients + Mr Emini should have all of their personal assets stripped.  Mr E was in very bad company......connections to drug dealers......perhaps Mr E thought his life was at risk......but then I think it still is.....!

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Opes-the-full-story-DCQKF?OpenDocument


----------



## Aussiejeff (4 April 2008)

And the whole sad, sorry, under-regulated mess continues to escalate....

_"4/4/2008 

Author Matthew Drummond, Ingrid Mansell 

Source The Australian Financial Review -- Page: 73 

ANZ Banking is still technically in breach of the Corporations Act in Australia, after failing to lodge significant shareholder notices. It is by its own admission the new owner of $A650m worth of scrip that debtor Opes Prime had held as collateral for margin loans to the failed stockbroker's clients. *Many of the latter are now also preparing to lodge class action suits against the bank*, claiming to have been misled about the ownership of their shares. One of the companies affected, CMG Equities, has been unsuccessful in court in trying to stop ANZ from offloading the shares. Another group, Bioprospect, has involved the Takeovers Panel due to the large stake ANZ suddenly has in it."_ 

Where is Wayne Swannie? Take control man!! Show us yer muscle!!!

Hmmm. He's about as much use as Superman after eating a bucket of green Kryptonite..

*sigh*

AJ


----------



## cuttlefish (4 April 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> Where is Wayne Swannie? Take control man!! Show us yer muscle!!!
> 
> Hmmm. He's about as much use as Superman after eating a bucket of green Kryptonite..
> 
> ...





Visibility of this to the 'general public' would be pretty minor I would say - it was a boutique brokerage and the impact on blue chips stocks is pretty small.  Thus care factor for public and politicians alike = zero. No headlines here except in the business pages for a few days.


----------



## Aussiejeff (4 April 2008)

cuttlefish said:


> Visibility of this to the 'general public' would be pretty minor I would say - it was a boutique brokerage and the impact on blue chips stocks is pretty small.  Thus care factor for public and politicians alike = zero. No headlines here except in the business pages for a few days.




Ahhh.. of course. But then I thought the Swannie, the New Boy On The Block - was going to be more in tune with the common man. More pro-active. More touchy-feely. More prone to calm the worrying battler and "sophisticated investor" alike? 

We can rest assured he is watching over the shoulder of the schoolyard bullies (banks) as they carve up the weak (us) in the continuing brawl ... and will step in when He thinks the time is right.

Oh well. Back to the dream....

*


----------



## Julia (4 April 2008)

cuttlefish said:


> I still think both the ASX and ASIC have a lot to answer for allowing practices like this to go on, including allowing the whole stock lending market to continue for so long with so little regulation. Although not affected directly by it the whole situation has clearly resulted in a disorderly market in a lot of stocks lately and also puts the credibility of the ASX as a secure and efficient marketplace for stocks into question.



Completely agree, but don't anticipate anything actually being done.


----------



## dregen (4 April 2008)

marklar said:


> If ever there was an abject lesson about diversification, that surely is it.
> 
> I feel sorry for these people that have invested such a significant chunk of their savings into an investment vehicle that they
> a) really didn't understand
> ...




marklar,
you misunderstand what has happened here. this was no "investment vehicle" offering massive returns or such. clients signed with opes to trade "their" shares using margin loans as you would with any other broker like commsec or etrade. the only difference was the fine print which basically gave ANZ "ownership" of the shares. no big deal as when you buy a house, the bank owns the house regardless of what equity you have in it. 

what wasn't disclosed to investors (in the fine print) was that the shares would be borrowed against by Opes to themsleves trade with. this is why the house of cards has collapsed with the bear market. the shares were effectively leveraged twice over in some cases.

anz now see fit to sell shares across all accounts even though a majority of these accounts were never in margin calls.

this wasn't a case of people "not reading the fine print" nor going into some dodgy investment vehicle. this was a case of some dodgy directors proping up some big clients accounts using equity associated with other client accounts. 

dr


----------



## noirua (4 April 2008)

Quite a lot of Aussie companies are now involved in trying to unwind positions in their company's shares. Merrill Lynch have denied a report in Australia Business ( http://www.theaustralian.com.au/story/0,25197,23480815-643,00.html ), of losses of $500 million on Opes Prime ( http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aivAh17q_tV0 ).


----------



## Buddy (4 April 2008)

Does anyone know if a list of companies affected by this fiasco is available, and the number (or %) of shares impacted, in a simple readable form?  This is very important information for the market (those who are not directly part of this mess), so that we can make an assessment of how ANZ's actions might impact the valuation of these companies.  After all, isnt the market supposed to be tranparent?  It is about time ASX and ASIC got off their fat arses, and released this information to the market.  After all, we are all potentially impacted by this, and WE need to know what is going on.  In fact WE should be demanding that this information be released by ASX, and ASIC should make sure it happens. PRONTO!

Seems to me that there might be a couple of crooks in Opes who would be well advised to watch their backs.  And if they have families, they should be very careful.  I suggest there may be some very angry people out there (note, I am not one of their clients...... er suckers) who have been sucked in by the questionable (to say the least) behaviour of Opes.


----------



## BIG BWACULL (4 April 2008)

Solagran are caught up  I mean solamind   Doh
If we all contribute one stock we could probably make a list quicker than ATSIC


----------



## cuttlefish (4 April 2008)

Buddy - see earlier post by Grace with link to herald sun article:


http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...19-664,00.html


I don't know the source or accuracy of this list (reproduced below from the article linked above).

The following is a shopping list of almost 700 stocks held by distressed finance house Opes Prime. The ANZ bank has instructed its adviser Goldman Sachs JBWere to sell the stocks. The list includes some of the big names on the ASX such as Toll Holdings and QBE but most of the companies listed inhabit the small end of the market.

AAE, AAH, AAQ, AAR, AAS, AAU, ABJ, ABQ, ABQO, ACB, ACG, ACK, ACR, ADA, ADEO, ADN, ADX, ADY, AEX, AFA, AFGHA, AFT, AGI, AGO, AGX, AGXO, AIE, AIM, AJL, ALB, ALE, ALK, ALL, ALT, ALU, ALY, AMA, AMB, AMM, AMMO, AMU, AND, ANH, ANQ, ANZIMJ, AOEGA, AOK, AOS, AOSOA, API, APM, APP, AQD, AQDOA, AQE, AQR, ARH, ARM, ARO, AROOB, ARR, ARV, ARXO, ASB, ASC, ASX, ATG, ATP, AUJ, AUN, AUT, AVA, AVB, AVX, AWG, AXA, AXC, AXCO, AXM, AXT, AZA, AZM, 

BAR, BBP, BBW, BCF, BCI, BCL, BDG, BDL, BDR, BEC, BEI, BFG, BIT, BKG, BKGO, BKM, BKY, BLG, BLK, BLKO, BLP, BLU, BML, BMM, BMU, BNBIME, BNL, BNO, BOE, BOEO, BOW, BOWD, BPG, BPO, BPOOB, BRM, BRO, BRT, BSN, BSR, BTA, BTV, BUG, BUR, BXP, BYI, BYL, BYR, BYRO, BZI, CAP, CAV, CAVO, CAZ, CBAPB, CCI, CCO, CCP, CCU, CDR, CDT, CDU, CDUO, CEO, CGF, CGG, CGGCA, CGT, CHM, CHN, CII, CIN, CIX, CLD, CMO, CMOOA, CNB, CNBR, CNF, CNN, CQE, COI, COS, COY, COZO, CPK, CPR, CQT, CQU, CRC, CSE, CSV, CTI, CTO, CTPOA, CTS, CTSO, CUL, CUR, CUS, CUV, CUX, CUY, CVGO, CVR, CWT, CXC, CXD, CXG, CXY, CXYO, CYL, CYT, CZA, DES, DGR, DIA, DIAO, DID, DLS, DMA, DMX, DRA, DRK, DSN, DVM, DVN, DXL, DYE, DYEO.

EBB, EBI, EBR, EBT, ECM, ECMCA, ECU, EDE, EDM, EDS, EKA, EKM, ELK, ELL, ELLO, ELY, EME, EMS, EMU, EOS, EPD, EQI, EQX, EQXO, ERG, ERH, ERHO, ERJ, ERN, ERNO, ESG, ESI, ESMCA, ESS, ETC, EUG, EWC, EXM, EXMOA, EZL.

FAS, FASO, FCN, FEA, FGE, FML, FND, FRE, FRI, FRS, FSA, FTD, FUL, FUN, FUT.

GBE, GBG, GCN, GDAOB, GDAOC, GDN, GDR, GFE, GGG, GGGO, GGY, GIR, GFL, GME, GMR, GMX, GNI, GNIO, GNL, GNLOB, GOP, GPNOA, GPR, GRKOA, GRP, GRY, GSF, GUN, GWR, GYN, HAO, HDG, HFC, HGO, HIG, HII, HLG, HSK, HTA, HTW, HTX, HXL, HYO.

IAGPA, IAU, IAW, IBG, ICV, IFE, IGC, IGG, IGR, III, IIN, IMA, IMD, IMI, IMU, INES, INL, INT, IPA, IPN, IPX, IRL, IRLO, IRN, ISS, ITC, ITS, IVK.

JAK, JAL, JAT, JET, JMB, JVG, JVGO.

KAL, KAM, KAR, KGL, KIK, KIKO, KMN, KOV, KSXOA, KTE, KTL.

LAT, LEF, LEFO, LEG, LEGO, LFE, LMG, LOM, LRL, LVL.

MAB, MAE, MAKO, MAL, MAR, MAU, MBI, MBP, MDG, MDL, MEE, MEI, MEO, MEP, MES, MFC, MFI, MFS, MFSG, MFT, MGU, MHL, MIN, MKY, MLI, MLM, MLS, MLSOA, MLX, MMB, MMN, MMNO, MMS, MMX, MMZ, MNC, MNCO, MNM, MNMO, MNY, MOL, MPD, MPJ, MPJO, MPY, MRB, MRBO, MRO, MRYO, MSAS, MSB, MSTG, MSTO, MTB, MTY, MUE, MUR, MVP, MVU, MWE, MWN, MXL, MXX.

NAL, NBL, NDO, NEC, NEO, NPL, NGE, NGM, NIP, NKP, NLG, NMS, NOD, NQM, NRT, NRU, NRUO, NSP, NST, NSX, NVT, NWK, NWS, NWSLV, NXS.

ODN, ODNO, ODY, OEC, OEL, OGC, OGCO, OMH, OMI, ONC, ONQ, ORD, ORE, ORI, OZG.

PAB, PBP, PCL, PDR, PDZ, PEA, PEN, PES, PESO, PFG, PGL, PGM, PGS, PHL, PIE, PIO, PLV, PMH, PNN, PNW, POS, PPP, PPS, PRE, PRO, PRR, PRU, PRW, PRWO, PSD, PST, PTN, PTO, PVE, PWR, PXL, PXS, PXUPA, PYC, PYM, PYMO.

QBE, QBEIMC, QMG, QOL, QOLOA, QSS, QSSO, QTK, QKQ.

RAUO, RBM, RBX, RBY, RBYO, RCO, RDR, RED, REO, REOOA, REX, REY, REYOA, RFE, RFEO, RFG, RFL, RMA, RMLOA, RNG, RNGO, ROY, ROYOA, RRL, RRS, RRSDA, RRTO, RSN, RSNCH, RSNGB, RUM, RVM, RWD.

SAE, SAR, SBL, SBR, SBS, SBSO, SDM, SEA, SEN, SEY, SFR, SGBPC, SGH, SHE, SHEO, SHX, SLA, SLACF, SML, SMLOC, SMZ, SNV, SPH, SPI, SPL, SRAO, SRK, SRKO, SRR, SRV, SRZ, SSI, STX, SWG, SWK, SXE, SYB, SYN, SYP, SYPO, SYR.

TAN, TAS, TAW, TAWO, TAWR, TBR, TDO, TEY, TEYO, TGS, TGX, THS, THRO, THX, TLM, TMX, TMXO, TNC, TNCOA, TNG, TOL, TOX, TRF, TRH, TRHO, TSH, TTR, TZL.

UBI, UEQ, UKL, ULT, UMC, UMS, UNI, UNIO, UNX, UOS.

VCN, VHL, VIL, VILO, VIP, VLA, VML, VMLO, VMS, VMT, VRE.

WBA, WCN, WCP, WCU, WDC, WDR, WEB, WEC, WEZ, WEZO, WHC, WIG, WLF, WME, WMT, WPG, WRK, WRR, WVL, WWH, WWI, WWM, WWW.

XCD, XRF, XST, XTE.

YRR, YRRO, YTC.

ZAUWBA, ZGL, ZMG, ZNC.


----------



## BIG BWACULL (4 April 2008)

Thanks, Buddy


----------



## grace (4 April 2008)

cuttlefish said:


> Buddy - see earlier post by Grace with link to herald sun article:
> 
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...19-664,00.html
> ...




I don't think this is the full list as TTY have an announcement out today that they are not one of the 980 companies affected by Opes Prime, and they refer to a list....


----------



## Buddy (4 April 2008)

Thanks Cuttlefish.  All we need to do know if figure out the exposure.


----------



## Trembling Hand (4 April 2008)

Grace nice way to fill space!!


----------



## rub92me (4 April 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> ANZ Banking is still technically in breach of the Corporations Act in Australia, after failing to lodge significant shareholder notices. It is by its own admission the new owner of $A650m worth of scrip that debtor Opes Prime had held as collateral for margin loans to the failed stockbroker's clients.



So who was the significant holder of all these shares before Opes collapsed?
Was it Opes or the individual investors or was it ANZ from the moment the shares came under the agreement with Opes (i.e. once the clients had opended their accounts with Opes)?


----------



## Buddy (4 April 2008)

rub92me said:


> So who was the significant holder of all these shares before Opes collapsed?
> Was it Opes or the individual investors or was it ANZ from the moment the shares came under the agreement with Opes (i.e. once the clients had opended their accounts with Opes)?




So, if it was ANZ, then I would suggest that their technical breach is very significant.  And, they can't have it both ways. Claim the shares when it suits them but not declare them in the beginning! ANZ could be in serious trouble here.  I go back to my point about the market being transparent. It looks to me like there might be a case for ASIC having a full on stoush with ANZ over this one.


----------



## Spaghetti (4 April 2008)

a little off topic

Can this same thing happen if you have a mortgage through a broker? Afterall you do not hold title so what is the security a mortage broker has with the bank that funds it?


----------



## grace (4 April 2008)

Trembling Hand said:


> Grace nice way to fill space!!




Oops, so sorry,  I'll not do it again.  Thanks for pointing that out......oh I hate getting into trouble!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (4 April 2008)

I think I would prefer to be ANZ than the sophisticated investors who had these shares geared via Opes Prime.

Possession is 9 tenths of the law.

ANZ will attempt to sell these shares down. If they succeed many of the people who thought they owned them will go bankrupt or close to it. 

ANZ will have deeper pockets to defend any cases brought against it,  plus the 600 or 700 mill from selling the shares.

gg


----------



## bliimp (4 April 2008)

dregen said:


> marklar,
> you misunderstand what has happened here. this was no "investment vehicle" offering massive returns or such. clients signed with opes to trade "their" shares using margin loans as you would with any other broker like commsec or etrade. the only difference was the fine print which basically gave ANZ "ownership" of the shares. no big deal as when you buy a house, the bank owns the house regardless of what equity you have in it.
> 
> what wasn't disclosed to investors (in the fine print) was that the shares would be borrowed against by Opes to themsleves trade with. this is why the house of cards has collapsed with the bear market. the shares were effectively leveraged twice over in some cases.
> ...




Well explained dregen.

People should check out the application form from the Trader Dealer website ... obtaining a Margin Loan is just one of the options to _tick_ ... with a bit of extra detail !!! ... not unlike you would probably do with Comsec and Etrade!

And refer to today's article on the resurrection of the Trader Dealer platform in http://www.investordaily.com.au/cps/rde/xchg/id/style/4153.htm?rdeCOQ=SID-3F579BCE-C1DA83D8

*Online stockbroker Trader Dealer has been saved from embattled parent company Opes Prime, which is in receivership. 

MDS Financial Group and Box Red will buy Trader Dealer's business assets, including operating systems and client base.

The deal was viable because most clients had accounts and stock held by Berndale Securities and cash management accounts held by Macquarie and Adelaide Bank.*

The "lucky" clients of Trader Dealer not having margin loans will be able to re-commence trading  early next week (from MDS correspondence).


----------



## Sean K (5 April 2008)

This story is Gekko esque.

A sign of the times, and might possibly make it into the next movie. 



> *Opes unravels*
> Leonie Wood
> April 5, 2008
> 
> ...



The rest of the article is worth reading.

My commiserations to those unwittingly caught up in this ordeal.


----------



## Aussiejeff (5 April 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> Ahhh.. of course. But then I thought the Swannie, the New Boy On The Block - was going to be more in tune with the common man. More pro-active. More touchy-feely. More prone to calm the worrying battler and "sophisticated investor" alike?
> 
> We can rest assured he is watching over the shoulder of the schoolyard bullies (banks) as they carve up the weak (us) in the continuing brawl ... and will step in when He thinks the time is right.
> 
> ...




Good heavens! Am I a prophet now? LOL...

--------------------------------------

_"*Market reforms on way, says Rudd*

Michelle Grattan, London 

April 5, 2008 

EXTENSIVE reforms to give greater protection for Australia's 7.3 million "mum and dad" shareholders and make Australia's financial market more attractive to international investors will be introduced, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has announced.

He said the measures, which would improve the transparency of Australia's financial markets, were part of the Government's push to make the country a "key global financial centre".

The Government will have Treasury review current disclosure requirements for equity derivatives and introduce laws to strengthen disclosure regulations covering short-selling of stocks.

Derivatives are traded securities such as futures and options that are priced according to the value of an underlying asset such as a company share.

Holders of equity derivatives have rights over shares owned by other people - which means a speculator or hedge fund can get control of a large portion of a company's stock without actually owning the stock.

When investors "short-sell", they are betting on the value of the stock falling. Small investors can be caught up in market moves set off by short-selling and suffer severe reductions in the value of their share portfolios.

Fulfilling an election promise, the Government would also halve the withholding tax on distributions from Australian managed funds to investors who are not residents, Mr Rudd said.

As well, there would be increased Australian participation in multilateral efforts to improve financial market stability.

Financial market transparency and protection have been a theme of Mr Rudd's talks abroad - against the background of the current international financial market crisis.

Mr Rudd said that with 46% of adults owning shares directly or through managed funds, Australia had one of the highest rates of share ownership in the world.

Mr Rudd, who gave a major economic speech immediately on arriving in London from Bucharest last night, said the Government would work with the world's principal financial regulators to identify reforms to make Australian markets more transparent.

"In a time of global financial market volatility, Australian shareholders expect their Government to act to provide more transparent financial markets to help protect their hard-earned investments," he said.

Withhold ing tax will be reduced from 30% to 15% on certain distributions that Australian managed funds make to non-resident investors.

Mr Rudd said that as markets became more global and assets were traded more quickly between nations, regulation and supervision had to become more internationally uniform.

*Treasurer Wayne Swan would be working with other countries at next week's International Monetary Fund meetings in Washington to consider measures to deal with the instability in global financial markets*._

---------------------------------

In a perverse way, I wonder whether disclosure of banks and financial insto's ACTUAL derivatives positions might have the inadvertent effect of spooking the markets even further, if those positions are seen to be "at real risk".

Hmmm.... interesting months ahead.


----------



## Aussiejeff (5 April 2008)

Roll up, roll up!! Who's gonna be the next "well known" casualty on the list?

-------------------------------

_"*Track legend faces $20m Opes loss*

By Kevin Andrusiak

April 05, 2008 02:58am

OLYMPIC hero Herb Elliott faces the loss of half of his $40 million fortune, becoming the highest-profile casualty of the Opes Prime collapse.

The Weekend Australian understands Mr Elliott has lost control of about half of his 5.5million shares in would-be iron ore producer Fortescue Metals Group, founded by Australia's richest man, Andrew Forrest. 

The shares, worth about $20 million, are now in the hands of the banks behind stockbroker Opes. The banks are liquidating a $1.3 billion portfolio of about 600 stocks to recover their loans to Opes. 

Mr Elliott, the former Olympian who is now chairman of Fortescue, could not be contacted for comment yesterday but it is believed he offered the shares to Opes as collateral for a loan he used to exercise options over Fortescue stock. 

Fellow Fortescue board member and chief operating officer Graeme Rowley has also been caught up in the Opes collapse. 

However, Mr Rowley faces the prospect of losing a much smaller portion of his stake in the company. He is understood to have used 720,000 Fortescue shares - worth $5million - as collateral for a loan with Opes. 

Opes went into receivership on Thursday last week amid allegations of financial irregularities, with ANZ and investment bank Merrill Lynch taking control of shares Opes clients had bought with margin loans offered by the firm. ANZ and Merrill are selling the stock to recoup their combined $1billion-plus loan to Opes, the first Australian broker to collapse in more than a decade. 

Mr Rowley and Mr Elliott have been left in the dark as to whether the shares have already been sold, but are believed to be prepared to use any avenue to get them back. 

The Weekend Australian also understands Mr Forrest has no exposure to Opes through his personal stake of 1billion shares in Fortescue, worth $7billion. 

Sydney lawyer-turned-investor Chris Murphy has reportedly lost most of his $140million share fortune in the Opes collapse. 

It is a cruel blow for Mr Rowley and Mr Elliott, who have been at the forefront of building Fortescue into a $20billion mining house, which is on the verge of breaking the iron ore duopoly in the West Australian Pilbara held by BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto. 

The company is weeks away from delivering its first iron ore shipment to Chinese customers. 

But their exposure also confirms that very few in the mining industry are not in some way connected to the Opes collapse. 

There are fears the sellers of the shares seized by ANZ have targeted rival mining companies to sell the stock. 

Melbourne-based Copper Strike said *attempts to contact ANZ and the receiver of Opes, Deloitte, to find out how many of its shares were potentially up for sale have been unsuccessful. "We have been advised to submit our request by email, which we have done several times, and this has bounced," company director David Ogg said."*_ 

-----------------------------------

So, ASIC - stand up and be counted you toothless bunch of wunderkinds. ANZ and Deloitte should be stomped on from a great height for consciously keeping information about these shares secret from those companies affected... obviously, they have something worthwhile (or very worrying) to hide. 


AJ


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 April 2008)

Bill M said:


> Some terrible, painful stories there and it needs to get sorted out by the regulators. People losing their life savings through no fault of their own, it is just so pathetic that we don't have laws and systems to protect these people. Where are the regulators and what are they doing about it?




Before I have to buy a new box of tissues please remember that the persons who lost out in Opes were by and large not "mum and dad" investors, rather they were high worth individuals who had become high wealth by investing in a bull market.

Just as their wealth went up, so it has come down. 

Are there any ASF posters who were clients of Opes, and if so were they "margined" or whatever Opes called their gearing model?

gg


----------



## Timmy (5 April 2008)

"All your share are belong to us" - ANZ spokesperson.


----------



## RichKid (5 April 2008)

Timmy said:


> "All your share are belong to us" - ANZ spokesperson.




lol!! an oldie but a goodie! all in good humour of course....no wonder people don't like banks.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 April 2008)

RichKid said:


> lol!! an oldie but a goodie! all in good humour of course....no wonder people don't like banks.




This poor bastard sounds as if he is just an ordinary punter/investor.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23486620-661,00.html

gg


----------



## Timmy (5 April 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> This poor bastard sounds as if he is just an ordinary punter/investor.
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23486620-661,00.html
> 
> gg




Awful story.  I really hope there is some restitution available for this man and others in his situation.


----------



## Mofra (5 April 2008)

Spaghetti said:


> a little off topic
> 
> Can this same thing happen if you have a mortgage through a broker? Afterall you do not hold title so what is the security a mortage broker has with the bank that funds it?




Mortgage brokers don't offer loans, the mortgage manager is providing the funding, brokers organise your application for you after consulting which loan isbest for you/pays them the best commission. Your name is still on the title, the manager has a mortgage stamped on _your_ certificate of title. In practice, if a lender defaults they will sell their loan book to a new lender so there will be little practical difference in you loan arrangement.

The Opes Prime arrangement was a little different in that what were "your" shares were no longer in your name once held as security, which basically meant the lender had first right to security in the event of default.


----------



## Mofra (5 April 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> This poor bastard sounds as if he is just an ordinary punter/investor.
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23486620-661,00.html
> 
> gg







> The ban is of little comfort to Mr Regenspurger, whose situation was revealed in a letter to stockbroker Marcus Padley.
> 
> "I had spent the last two hours rocking my crying wife to sleep," reads the letter.




Felt ill reading about it this morning. The poor guy has to start all over again through no fault of his own.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 April 2008)

It would appear that Opes was acting more as a pawnbroker, taking shares as security, then forwarding a loan, and bundling the assets out to Merrill and ANZ.

Then the bear market kicked in and some "creative" movement in the brokers books occurred.

This interview from businessspectator is interesting and indepth.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...is-Campbell-and-Sal-Algeri-DDE9J?OpenDocument

gg


----------



## robert toms (6 April 2008)

Brian Toohey in AFR posed the question....How can private investors claim for the interest on their margin loans thru their income tax.....when the shares are ,it seems,owned by the ANZ bank?


----------



## Trembling Hand (6 April 2008)

robert toms said:


> Brian Toohey in AFR posed the question....How can private investors claim for the interest on their margin loans thru their income tax.....when the shares are ,it seems,owned by the ANZ bank?




no diif than claiming interest cost on an investment property when mortgaged through ANZ.


----------



## Spaghetti (6 April 2008)

robert toms said:


> Brian Toohey in AFR posed the question....How can private investors claim for the interest on their margin loans thru their income tax.....when the shares are ,it seems,owned by the ANZ bank?




I see why a beneficial owner can claim interest paid on a mortgage against a property for eg. However the loan these clients had was not a secured loan against a security. So it would be more like someone claiming interest payments from a non margin loan for share purchases...personal loan or equity loan for eg. I guess if you can prove the loan was for this investment, even though not secured, then you can claim deductions. Who got the dividends? Whoever gets the income can claim related expenes. The CGT is the one I cannot understand...at all. Seems beneficial ownership can change by the day so would be logical for the legal owner to be liable for CGT. Doesn;t seem the case though.

Just do not understand why the ANZ bank lent money to a mob with no assets at all. ANZ bank owned the stock it seems but had no control over what was bought or sold or who by. I would think a legal owner would be expected to have some input in disposal or purchase of assets.? Would want to know exactly it's worth during such volatile times at least. I guess much we do not know or maybe do not want to know because the deal sounds shonky. If  Opes had gone broke in a less than spectactular fashion, just some bad luck or poor management then what did they have to lose? Nothing, totally nothing. They had nothing to lose. 

I also wonder with a mortgage from non-bank lender if they have borrowed money against something other than my home? If my lender went broke they still owe money to the finance supplier so how will they get back their money? I do not have title.

I guess I just simply assumed that when someone borrowed vast amounts of money they had to put up security against that loan. All Opes had was a plan to try and rope people in for a fee so that Opes could put the clients assets up as security for their loan.??

I mean will the bank let me do that?


----------



## Julia (6 April 2008)

Mofra said:


> Felt ill reading about it this morning. The poor guy has to start all over again through no fault of his own.



Yes, it's tough on him and the other clients.  But - and not at all getting at you or your comment here, Mofra - he still has a home and a job.

Do you also feel ill when you consider the hundreds of thousands of homeless people in our affluent society, many also through no fault of their own.
Our financial press doesn't bring their plight to the headlines


----------



## Sean K (6 April 2008)

Julia said:


> Yes, it's tough on him and the other clients.  But - and not at all getting at you or your comment here, Mofra - he still has a home and a job.
> 
> Do you also feel ill when you consider the hundreds of thousands of homeless people in our affluent society, many also through no fault of their own.
> Our financial press doesn't bring their plight to the headlines



I agree Julia, but I also feel that some people have several options and potential, while others don't. In this sense, I feel even sorrier for the person on the street, and less for the investor/broker who supposedly has the options and potential. In this sense, they deserve everything they get. Personally, I have had a privileged life, and I deserve everything that falls in my path, both good and bad, that's within my control. Obviously there's some judgements to be made in that regard, but the general principles may be sound. Maybe I'm agreeing with you here?


----------



## Julia (6 April 2008)

kennas said:


> I agree Julia, but I also feel that some people have several options and potential, while others don't. In this sense, I feel even sorrier for the person on the street, and less for the investor/broker who supposedly has the options and potential. In this sense, they deserve everything they get. Personally, I have had a privileged life, and I deserve everything that falls in my path, both good and bad, that's within my control. Obviously there's some judgements to be made in that regard, but the general principles may be sound. Maybe I'm agreeing with you here?




I guess we could have a whole thread devoted to this subject, Kennas.
But yes, what I was getting at is that the person under discussion here still has those options you speak of, the capacity to work (and his wife also if I remember correctly), so - awful though their predicament is - rebuilding is possible.   From what I know of the Opes mess, the situation re the shares was apparently laid out in the fine print.  Pretty hard to complain if the information was there and you've just chosen not to read it.

I could - as an opposite picture - lay out dozens of scenarios where the people concerned are in devastatingly awful circumstances through no fault of their own, but that would be beyond the scope of this thread.
It, sadly, probably would also engender little interest.


----------



## doctorj (6 April 2008)

The story is sad, but I don't think the fact that there are people in worse circumstances makes it any less sad.  Suffering is all relative and I'm sure the marginal anguish felt by these people is quite painful.


----------



## Sean K (6 April 2008)

Julia said:


> I guess we could have a whole thread devoted to this subject, Kennas.
> But yes, what I was getting at is that the person under discussion here still has those options you speak of, the capacity to work (and his wife also if I remember correctly), so - awful though their predicament is - rebuilding is possible.   From what I know of the Opes mess, the situation re the shares was apparently laid out in the fine print.  Pretty hard to complain if the information was there and you've just chosen not to read it.
> 
> I could - as an opposite picture - lay out dozens of scenarios where the people concerned are in devastatingly awful circumstances through no fault of their own, but that would be beyond the scope of this thread.
> It, sadly, probably would also engender little interest.



Yep, each situation would be different, but I believe quite a few people caught up in the Opes thingy have probably been trying to make short cuts to _wealth_. And, when you try to make short cuts (such as leverage beyond sound reason) and you get caught out, then take the pain!

I find it hard to believe that anyone in the market with a brain would have been extending margin loans over the past 1-2 years. I mean really! ASF has been predicting the end of the world for the past 18 months, at least! 

It's a bit like us feeling sorry for Alan Bond, or that dude in QLD who spent his final days in Majorca while the plebs suffered....


----------



## Captain_Chaza (6 April 2008)

Crikey!
Am I right in thinking that maybe the ANZ has been selling shares that  they DO NOT  LEGALLY OWN ?


What a Mess!

Salute and Gods' speed


----------



## skyliner (6 April 2008)

I think you may be right captain,

i could think of nothing better than for anz to have to buy up all the stock that they sold and give it back to the people they took it off!!


----------



## Mofra (6 April 2008)

Julia said:


> Yes, it's tough on him and the other clients.  But - and not at all getting at you or your comment here, Mofra - he still has a home and a job.
> 
> Do you also feel ill when you consider the hundreds of thousands of homeless people in our affluent society, many also through no fault of their own.
> Our financial press doesn't bring their plight to the headlines




a. Actually, he doesn't have a home - the money from the sale of his home is now lost according to the article
b.  Yes, and I do donate time & money towards these problems


----------



## Julia (6 April 2008)

Mofra said:


> a. Actually, he doesn't have a home - the money from the sale of his home is now lost according to the article
> b.  Yes, and I do donate time & money towards these problems



My apologies:  I've re-read the article and you are right, the proceeds from his house sale appear to constitute his investment with Opes.
Still, as an energy consultant, presumably his earning capacity is fairly good, and his wife can also work.  I was just trying to differentiate between someone like this who does have the capacity to generate income and start again, and someone who - also through no fault of their own - does not.
In retrospect, I should have shut up.


----------



## noirua (7 April 2008)

Look carefully!  There are a lot of shares badly affected by margin calls due to Opes Prime, an opportunity.


----------



## chimp (7 April 2008)

Has anyone read this article?

http://business.smh.com.au/if-an-un...h-more-is-out-there/20080401-22rs.html?page=1

The last sentence is bit alarming. 

Any thoughts from folks who are nore knowledgable in financial markets?


----------



## RichKid (7 April 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> This poor bastard sounds as if he is just an ordinary punter/investor.
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23486620-661,00.html
> 
> gg




That is a sad sorry, it goes to show that no matter how good things appear ('safe bluechips' anyone?), we must always follow strict risk management guidelines. Never underestimate the effect that poor financial management can have on your family and friends. At least he can recover from this as mentioned in the previous posts. It also pays to read the fine print in agreements and prepare for worst case scenarios. 

On a side note, there must have been some who were lucky and did indeed move from Opes just before it collapsed.


----------



## TheAbyss (7 April 2008)

Based on the attached list from ANZ of what they now hold through the Opes mess has anyone an opinion on what % holding will cause a large fall versus a small fall on sell off by ANZ to the respective entities concerned? Ie less than a 10% stake v > 40% holding in others?


----------



## sails (7 April 2008)

RichKid said:


> ...On a side note, there must have been some who were lucky and did indeed move from Opes just before it collapsed...




With most of my options trading in Trader Dealer,it was very fortunate that I had decided to quit trading Oz options a few weeks before the OP collapse.  

Although we had decided not to use the OP margin lending or short selling facilities when opening the account and certainly never signed those relevant documents, we are still unsure how we might have been affected with a reasonable quantity of open option positons with Trader Dealer.  

Obviously, it would have been difficult with all trading frozen for so long and without applying necessary adjustments, it could have easily created losses.

Also, should we have been unlucky enough to have short options assigned just prior to the collapse (leaving us long or short shares) is another question as to how close might have come to disaster.


----------



## bigdog (7 April 2008)

ANZ ANN today

 ANZ: Opes Prime Disclosure
http://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/showAnnouncementPDF.do?idsID=00829974

The attached schedule identifies those listed companies in which the ANZ Group held shares comprising 5% or more of the total issued voting shares, and the ANZ's shareholding in those companies, in each case as at end of trading on 4 April 2008 and as a result of transactions entered into pursuant to the Opes Prime AMSLAs. The details shown include On-sold Shares.

ANZ has commenced a disposal programme (Disposal Programme) with respect to shares in which it has an interest under the Opes Prime AMSLAs.

Company-----------------Code-ANZ Share-Tot Issued--% of Issued
ACRUX LIMITED-ORDINARY ACR	14,549,015	159,299,216 9.133%		
ADELAIDE RESOUR-ORD SHS ADN	4,320,259	83,156,035 5.195%		
ADMIRALTY RESOUORDINARY	ADY	222,220,756	984,299,202 22.577%	
AEQUS CAPITAL-ORD SHS AQE	4,021,272	36,115,976 11.134%		
AINSWORTH GAMEORDINARY	AGI	20,214,436	278,942,304 7.247%	
ALCHEMY RES LTD-ORD SHS ALY	1,239,757	21,680,000 5.718%		
ANSEARCH LTD - ORDINARY ANH	60,190,000	557,604,295 10.794%		
ASTRO DIAMOND NL-ORD ARO	40,531,049	297,230,538 13.636%		
AUSTEX OIL LTD - ORD SHS AOK	6,161,500	68,650,000 8.975%		
AUSTIN GROUP -ORD SHS ATG	28,145,653	62,182,019 45.263%		
AXG MINING LIMTORDINARY	AXC	6,528,000	99,750,000 6.544%	
AZUMAH RESOURCES LTD AZM	5,700,000	81,000,000 7.037%		
BANNERMAN RESOUORDINARY	BMN	13,960,591	144,925,036 9.633%	
BATAVIA MINING-ORDINARY BTV	7,678,676	121,284,574 6.331%		
BEYOND INTERNAT-ORD SHS BYI	5,988,653	59,711,968 10.029%		
BIOPROSPECT LTDORDINARY	BPO	124,484,003	487,040,944 25.559%	
BISAN LIMITED-ORD SHS BSN	6,878,309	38,400,000 17.912%		
BLUE CHIP FINANCIAL-ORD BCF	18,569,853	116,074,781 15.998%		
BOSS ENERGY LTD-ORD SHS BOE 25.973%	10,411,743 40,086,853			
BYTE POWER GRP LTD-ORD BPG	38,659,231	384,126,442 10.064%		
CARDIA TECHNOLO-ORD SHS CNN	20,660,375	276,172,149 7.481%		
CATALYST METALS-ORD SHS CYL	1,570,000	18,558,137 8.460%		
CITADEL RES GRP-ORD SHS CGG	63,317,988	378,552,085 16.726%		
CITADEL RES-PT PAID SHS CGGCA	12,230,552	57,084,957 21.425%		
COMTEL CORP LTD-ORD SHS CMO	10,725,876	132,587,276 8.090%		
CONQUEST MINING-ORD	SHS CQT	27,717,044	271,749,181 10.199%	
CONTACT RESOURCE -ORD CTS	5,242,593	95,749,856 5.475%		
DESTRA CORPORATORDINARY	DES	23,435,169	331,094,652 7.078%	
DVM INTERNATIONAL-ORDS DVM	19,270,977	191,361,058 10.070%		
EARLY LEARNING-ORD SHS ELY	2,685,800	34,000,000 7.899%		
EBET LIMITED-ORD SHS EBT	56,122,852	217,806,111 25.767%		
FAIRSTAR RESOURCES -ORD FAS	38,130,515	306,513,914 12.440%		
FSA GROUP LTD-ORDINARY FSA	13,591,051	115,437,513 11.774%		
FUTURE CORPORATORDINARY	FUT	162,000,000	1,168,944,186 13.859%	
GLOBAL NICKEL IN-ORD SHS GNI	2,050,000	18,735,001 10.942%		
GOLDEN WEST-ORD FULLY GWR	16,484,931	110,165,763 14.964%		
GOLDMINEX RES GMX 11.156%	4,361,265 39,094,223			
HAWK RESOURCES - ORD	SHS HFC	3,128,253	25,731,251 12.157%	
HODGES RESOURCES-ORDS HDG	2,892,903	46,440,002 6.229%		
HYRO LIMITED-ORDINARY HYO	49,472,965	531,078,797 9.316%		
IMAGE RESOURCESORDINARY	IMA	5,984,832	79,599,241 7.519%	
INCITIVE LIMITED-ORD SHS ICV	4,250,400	29,000,000 14.657%		
INTERMOCO LTD-ORDINARY INT	77,760,157	1,233,941,493 6.302%		
INTRAPOWER LTD-ORD SH IPX	1,809,809	31,057,400 5.827%		
JAMESON RES LTD-ORD SHS JAL	2,665,000	15,284,001 17.437%		
JUMBUCK -ORD FULLY PAID JMB	3,559,447	48,484,670 7.341%		
KAIRIKI ENERGY ORD SHS KIK	41,300,000	328,107,538 12.587%		
KINGS MINERALS-ORD SHS KMN	20,742,418	394,286,498 5.261%		
LATIN GOLD-ORD LAT	19,830,000	161,576,434 12.273%		
LIVING AND LEISURE-ORD LLA	12,868,462	181,011,251 7.109%		
MAGMA METALS-ORD SHS MMB	3,323,381	56,313,752 5.902%		
MAMBA MINERALS - ORD	SHS MAB	1,000,000	14,050,000 7.117%	
MANTLE MINING CORPORORD	MNM	2,830,714	45,498,214 6.222%	
MATRIXVIEW LIMIORDINARY	MVU	9,444,305	122,125,372 7.733%	
METEX RESOURCES-ORD	SHS MEE	36,500,000	276,785,383 13.187%	
MILLEPEDE INTL LTD-ORD MPD	27,459,167	170,183,965 16.135%		
MOBI LIMITED MBI	13,446,009	207,837,235 6.469%		
MOOTER MEDIA-ORDINARY MMZ 5.689%	3,165,000 55,633,031			
MOUNT BURGESS- ORD SHS MTB	14,092,604	280,257,000 5.028%		
MXL LIMITED-ORDINARY MXL	62,829,358	780,903,649 8.046%		
NEWERA URANIUM-ORD SHS NRU	9,350,183	42,155,674 22.180%		
NKWE PLATINUM L-10C US C NKP	11,555,808	121,760,981 9.491%		
NORTHERN -ORD FULLY PAID NEC	6,945,292	71,312,324 9.739%		
NORWOOD ABBEY -ORD SHS NAL	17,603,704	329,305,957 5.346%		
NSX LIMITED-ORDINARY NSX	4,982,174	74,460,003 6.691%		
ODIN ENERGY LTD-ORD SHS ODN	4,720,300	61,390,005 7.689%		
ORD RIVER RES.-ORDINARY ORD	12,500,000	168,045,411 7.438%		
PHOTO-ME AUST - ORD SHS PTO	1,635,000	31,490,252 5.192%		
PO VALLEY ENERGORDINARY	PVE	8,079,961	90,415,633 8.936%	
POWERLAN LIMITE-ORD SHS PWR	17,527,985	82,527,355 21.239%		
PRAEMIUM-ORDINARY PPS	5,216,835	98,186,996 5.313%		
PRIMA BIOMED LTD-ORD PRR	15,600,000	299,079,913 5.216%		
PROPHECY INTERN-ORD SHS PRO	4,000,000	45,116,955 8.866%		
Q LIMITED-ORD SHS QXQ	133,273,292	848,445,835 15.708%		
RED FORK-ORDINARY RFE	12,868,068	87,366,282 14.729%		
RENISON CONSOLID -ORD	SH RSNCH	21,725,000	152,499,900 14.246%	
RENISON CONSOLIDATEDORD	RSN	83,749,103	784,958,095 10.669%	
ROCKEBY BIOMED- RBY 5.714%	ORDINARY 39,285,583 687,499,329			
ROYALCO RESOURCES-ORD	SH RCO	7,227,899	47,172,444 15.322%	
SOLAGRAN LTD-ORDINARY SLA	56,129,515	131,816,545 42.582%		
SOLAGRAN-DEF DEL SLACF	10,132,865	48,174,108 21.034%		
SUNDANCE ENERGYORDINARY	SEA	21,974,282	172,772,259 12.719%	
SUNSET ENERGY LTD-ORD SEY	1,724,397	15,500,001 11.125%		
SYRAH RESOURCES - ORD	SH SYR	4,544,784	21,000,005 21.642%	
TANDOU LIMITED-ORD SHS TAN	10,128,445	88,100,707 11.496%		
TAWANA RESOURCES NLORD	TAW	5,306,841	98,667,935 5.378%	
TERRAIN MINERALS LTDORD	TMX	12,463,888	77,319,748 16.120%	
TNG LIMITED -ORDINARY TNG	16,587,937	192,683,314 8.609%		
VIRAX HOLDINGS-ORD SHS VHL	6,212,785	107,352,940 5.787%		
WATER WHEEL HOL -ORD	SHS WWH	7,087,000	16,366,868 43.301%


----------



## Aussie2Aussie (7 April 2008)

Where are all the big names - BHP, CBA, Westpac etc.

What a mediocre list, no wonder they lost their pants.


----------



## Spaghetti (7 April 2008)

Aussie2Aussie said:


> Where are all the big names - BHP, CBA, Westpac etc.
> 
> What a mediocre list, no wonder they lost their pants.




It had nothing to do with what they had bought except for Challenger shares of course.


----------



## TheAbyss (7 April 2008)

Spaghetti said:


> It had nothing to do with what they had bought except for Challenger shares of course.




How do you work that out? I must have misunderstood. I thought that due to Opes lending against such a mediocre lot that when the market correction eventuated and caused the small caps end of the market deteriorate to an extent that Opes realised they couldnt regain their value and that they would have to pay for the money borrowed which they could not do.

They decided to prop up their larger clients within their base by inventing trades and reassigning share ownership within their client base (without consent) to protect their top clients against margin calls which subsequently enacted an enquiry by ASIC and exacerbated the Opes losses. 

Thus admninistration here we come. The issue for the margin loan customers is documented elsewhere.


----------



## moneymajix (7 April 2008)

*Re: Dryblower*

*Dryblower on Opes Prime’s fatal flaws*

Monday, 7 April 2008 
MINING NEWS

WHAT did they do with the money, and why did they want it? Those are the two questions Dryblower would like answered as the Opes Prime margin call crisis rumbles through the Australian mining sector and threatens the careers of senior executives and stockbrokers alike.


So far, all interest has been on who’s caught, and what’s being sold. That’s understandable because Opes Prime is one of the best (or worst?) scandals to hit the small end of the mining industry.

Without getting too technical, what really happened is that a stockbroker had a bright idea about extending the coverage of margin loans to include small, and illiquid stocks – and then pooling them into a bigger bundle.

It was a fatally flawed plan from day one for two reasons. Small stocks are unsuited to margin lending. Pooling is no different to the way United States banks pooled sub-prime mortgages to hide the duds in the package. 

To explain: margin lending is nothing more than an exotic, short-term, debt facility. The way it works is that a client offers his shares to a bank in return for a loan. 

In the case of high-quality shares the loan might be up to 70% of the value of the underlying asset. The weaker the shares offered, the smaller the proportion of the loan.

In essence, margin lending is only as good as the quality of the underlying asset, and the relationship between the bank and the customers. That’s why big banks only lend to their best clients on premium quality stocks such as BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto, or other top 100 listed stocks.

The reason for being so fussy is that in a correction these are the stocks which can be sold quickly, and easily.

Opes Prime seems to have bent quite a few rules. It made loans on small and illiquid stocks, it pooled the shares offered as security, and someone in the brokerage appears to have made decisions to protect favoured customers from calls from the banks to put up more security when share prices fell. 

In the end it was the pooling that caused most of the trouble.

So far, so good; that’s Opes Prime from the banking side of the story.

What Dryblower is now asking is what did the customers do with the money loaned to them, and why did they want it in the first place?

Was a loan from Opes Prime used to buy more shares in the company against which the loan was made? 

For example, did investors borrow money from Merrill Lynch or the ANZ Bank via an Opes Prime facility to buy more shares in their own company?

Or, given that many of the victims of Opes Prime live in Perth did they use their loans to “keep up with the Jones’ ” – a polite way of saying the debt went on funding lifestyle.

This is a real possibility because when you’re a director or senior executive of a small company you cannot be seen to be selling shares in your own company.

But, if those shares represent your biggest single asset, and everyone else in town is driving a Porsche Cayenne, or a BMW X5 then you want one too.

The problem, as mentioned above, is that it would be unacceptable to sell some of your shares, and banks will not lend against your portfolio – making an Opes Prime margin loan a tempting way to raise money to fund a high lifestyle.

What now? Opes Prime has gone. The shares you once owned have been sold. You might get back a small dividend from the receiver – and you still have to service the debt on the Porsche and/or the Beemer.

And, sometime soon, you will be asked to explain how you lost your shares, and whether you really are sufficiently competent to continue managing other people’s money in a public listed company.


:knightrid


----------



## Aussie2Aussie (7 April 2008)

Spaghetti said:


> It had nothing to do with what they had bought except .........




Why would you say that?


----------



## Aussie2Aussie (7 April 2008)

Spaghetti, you clearly dont understand what went on here.

Having responded to your question I noticed the moneymajix post, suggest a good read of it.


----------



## chimp (7 April 2008)

Hi all,

Does anyone have the link to a list of all shares that are affected by Opes? I saw one a few days ago, but can't find it any more.

Many thanks.


----------



## YELNATS (7 April 2008)

chimp said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Does anyone have the link to a list of all shares that are affected by Opes? I saw one a few days ago, but can't find it any more.
> 
> Many thanks.




Isn't it at post # 36 on this thread?


----------



## chimp (7 April 2008)

great. tks mate


----------



## Spaghetti (7 April 2008)

TheAbyss said:


> How do you work that out? I must have misunderstood. I thought that due to Opes lending against such a mediocre lot that when the market correction eventuated and caused the small caps end of the market deteriorate to an extent that Opes realised they couldnt regain their value and that they would have to pay for the money borrowed which they could not do.
> 
> They decided to prop up their larger clients within their base by inventing trades and reassigning share ownership within their client base (without consent) to protect their top clients against margin calls which subsequently enacted an enquiry by ASIC and exacerbated the Opes losses.
> 
> Thus admninistration here we come. The issue for the margin loan customers is documented elsewhere.





Chris Murphy owned Challenger Shares that dropped signficantly in value. He had a very high margin loan (higher than their advertised lvr) but when the s/p dropped they did not give him a margin call. To make it look like he was in the blue they transferred money from another a/c that was well over. Apparently this went on over 6 of their major clients accounts. One though wanted to close his account. The money was not there because it was transferred to cover an account that had not been margin called....assume Chris Murphy. This had nothing to do with the type of shares purchased but due to Opes not wanting to lose their largest client they covered for him rather than sell down his  shares. But when it all came undone the people who probably owned the spec stocks, and that were not down in any way, had to finance the loss on the challenger shares as in ANZ eyes it was one margin loan to cover all Opes clients.

I imagine many spec stock holders had very low lvr's and opes probably averages lvr's across accounts to keep under ANZ terms. So because so many were well under they could afford to give their favourite client too high a loan. I believe at one stage 95% lvr.

But at the end of the day this mess has nothing to do with the type of stock purchased unless you ask why ANZ backed this venture...then a valid question. ANZ shareholders should be asking that one.

The problem is due to fraudulent accounting activities plus the fact that many opes clients did not understand their assets were security against all loans by all Opes clients, not just themselves. So ownership questions.

So Opes clients are footing the bill for the loss on Challenger shares and perhaps other big clients who never had margin calls. For all we know they had blue chips, no idea. 

However NOWHERE in any statement has it been declared that it was simply to spec stocks losing value, especially given blue chips have triggered plenty of margin calls lately. The only stock published to have caused a loss is Challenger and those who pretend to know better are simply doing that, pretending. No such information has been made public.


----------



## Spaghetti (7 April 2008)

Aussie2Aussie said:


> Spaghetti, you clearly dont understand what went on here.
> 
> Having responded to your question I noticed the moneymajix post, suggest a good read of it.





Well I can read. Some company directors took advantage as I am sure many big name clients did for game playing with stocks. But was legal apparently and did not cause the collapse.

But seeing you are self pronounced expert please provide a link to prove their action caused the downfall?

The directors may have found a way around the rules but ANZ maintains it is a good business model (I do not agree). One for the experts to sort out in the coming months.

The saga has raised a lot of questions and undermined the integrity of the credit risk management in Australia. However valid the questions are and they should be raised but they should not be confused with what actually happened.

So perhaps re-read yourself before you claim to have superior understanding.


----------



## Spaghetti (7 April 2008)

Here is some speculation that many knew Murphy was close to margin call on his $200mil worth of Challenger so maybe shorted knowing it would trigger the call.

Perhaps by borrowing his shares which adds to the irony.

partial paste only, but free to sign in and view without delay



> Alan Kohler described last week (Opes: the full story, April 4) that Murphy had bought in the vicinity of $250 million worth of Challenger Financial shares, at much higher prices, with $190 million of borrowed money – a loan to value ratio of 76 per cent.
> 
> After the bear raid Murphy's holding was worth just $80 million, but he still owed $190 million. Kohler says: "He was in the hole for $110 million but not had a single margin call from Opes."
> 
> The regulator's investigation will uncover exactly why the Opes CEO did not margin call Murphy – the decision that brought down the company. They may also uncover that the hedge funds knew about the Murphy loan and believed they could force the stock onto the market.




http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Sending-the-bears-packing-DFRLU?OpenDocument


----------



## lusk (7 April 2008)

Bear raid? Sounds like it happened over night. Challenger has been in a downtrend since Dec. 250 million is a big egg to put in one basket, surely he wouldn't be that stupid.


----------



## moneymajix (8 April 2008)

*Re: Mick Gatto*

ABC Online

Former Melbourne underworld figure Mick Gatto is flying to Singapore today to try to recover millions of dollars for investors of the failed Melbourne stock broker Opes Prime.

Mr Gatto says his industrial mediation business Arbitrations and Mediations is working with Statewide Securities to recoup losses for a group of anonymous clients.

Administrators will brief hundreds of Opes Prime investors, who are collectively owed more than $500 million, today.

Mr Gatto says he will be visiting many offices but Opes Prime will not be one of them because they are looking for the money, "not the company".


:rippergun



Mr Gatto, who escaped jail after pleading self-defence in the killing of an underworld hitman in 2004, says he will not be using violence in his negotiations.

"We never use violence. It's always done amicably and there's no evidence that I've ever used violence ever. I would've been charged in a heartbeat," he said.

He says he just wants to recover as much as possible for investors because history shows that the only winners in these cases are lawyers and the receivers.

"So we're trying to short circuit all that and hopefully get back for the investors as much as we can," he said.

"Obviously we're doing it for a fee for ourselves too. It's what I do for a living. and we're just trying to do the best we can for everyone."


.


----------



## pajm (9 April 2008)

Slater and Gordon on 7.30 report tonight stated that on behalf of their clients offered to pay ANZ outstanding margins loans and requested shares back in return. ANZ rejected. Poor effort.........glad I don't bank with them.


----------



## Trembling Hand (9 April 2008)

Funny seeing investors complaining about a listed company looking after their share holders. Bloody ANZ don't they know this is a socialist system.


----------



## Kauri (9 April 2008)

good to see the ATM hasn't shut down... I think I'll ask them for some equity to margin loan with..

  maybe they should call them foreclosure loans..  

Cheers
..........Kauri


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 April 2008)

Kauri said:


> good to see the ATM hasn't shut down... I think I'll ask them for some equity to margin loan with..
> 
> maybe they should call them foreclosure loans..
> 
> ...




Check first with this mortgage broker.

His name is Mick.

www.opescrimefund.com.au

gg


----------



## pajm (9 April 2008)

Markets reflect the behaviour of parties, which in turn impacts negatively on their shareholders in the long run. Good ethical practices make good sense for business bottom lines - spend a dollar to make a dollar.


----------



## Kauri (9 April 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Check first with this mortgage broker.
> 
> His name is Mick.
> 
> ...




 now I see where the mort in mortgage comes from..
Cheers
.........Kauri


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 April 2008)

Kauri said:


> now I see where the mort in mortgage comes from..
> Cheers
> .........Kauri




LOL +++


----------



## pajm (9 April 2008)

skyliner said:


> I think you may be right captain,
> 
> i could think of nothing better than for anz to have to buy up all the stock that they sold and give it back to the people they took it off!!




Poor ANZ Skyliner, they might find it hard to scrape the money together in our system of capital redistribution and leaving share holders poorer! LOL.


----------



## awg (10 April 2008)

I wonder if any of Opes customers closed their account just before their demise,
after fattening them up with profits from shorting?

I read a book not so long ago called the "wolf of wall street"

cant remember the authors name, but was a supposedly auto-bio
of a high profile trading firm principle.

from my recollection he mainly got rubbed out by the US regulators for shorting clients stock improperly.

I believe Rene Rivkin also had similar issues at one point

regards tony


----------



## trading_rookie (11 April 2008)

Anyone know much about the luxury cars they were importing from Singapore? Something about shipping a ferrari or maserati that's nearly 5 years old and only having to pay 20-30% of the depreciation value. Apparently there's a maserati sitting in a warehouse in Singapore about to be destroyed 'cause it's approaching 4 or 5 years without being registered!

ps - Chris Murphy was given a $250K maserati as a gift from Opes. Rumour from an AFR article is he posts on HC using the nick syringe....bit of goss there for ya


----------



## njc.corp (12 April 2008)

u live and learn-

Nick--


----------



## farout (21 April 2008)

*Opes Prime Fiasco*

Interested to hear people's view on this failed stock-broker - Opes Prime...

ANZ as the main creditor is selling off millions of dollars worth of shares, and after selling off a truck-load of them Justice Ray Finkelstein is now determining if the shares really do belong to ANZ or the original share holders.

The matter was in court again today but the verdict has once again been put off to a later date.

What do you think...
Will ANZ (with their $13,000 a day lawyer) beat the 1200 little guys and retain title of the shares.... 

OR

Will ANZ have to buy back the shares (at inflated prices) that they had no right to sell, and give them back to the original owners.

??? 
I'd like to see the second option!


----------



## CAFA1234 (22 April 2008)

*Re: Opes Prime Fiasco*



			
				farout; said:
			
		

> Interested to hear people's view on this failed stock-broker - Opes Prime...
> 
> ANZ as the main creditor is selling off millions of dollars worth of shares, and after selling off a truck-load of them Justice Ray Finkelstein is now determining if the shares really do belong to ANZ or the original share holders.
> 
> ...




I'd like to see the second option!

WHY - are you a Opes client? What a strange comment to make without backing it up with some rationale as to why you feel like this, or is it just to have ago at a large bank?


----------



## farout (22 April 2008)

Haha... I think you will find your comment was a little stranger.

Perhaps you are just naive, but this issue is going to affect many many people. Maybe you, maybe me... and no I am not an opes client.

If ANZ has to return sold stock to their owners this will help claw back the losses on some opes-related illiquid 'dead stocks' out there (ie BOE). 

For those stocks (ie. MEE) who have remained relatively stable during the sell-off, if ANZ is forced to buy these tightly held parcels, these stocks will likely produce very large rallies. Smart investors will be flocking to these shares.

The pending decision will affect the market in many ways, including the way future contracts are drawn up.


----------



## CAFA1234 (22 April 2008)

farout; said:
			
		

> Haha... I think you will find your comment was a little stranger.
> 
> Perhaps you are just naive, but this issue is going to affect many many people. Maybe you, maybe me... and no I am not an opes client.
> 
> ...




Understand your point, but the point is, (if ANZ are correct) is that the 'owners' are no longer such - they signed away their ownership.

If anything is to learnt from this mess is it's best to not deal with these small players who offer the magic sauce of extra returns via 'special' situations. How do you think they paid for the piss ups they put on for the elite of the stock brokers etc.

BTW I have myself been ripped for over $20,000 many years ago. But, if these sophisticated investors didn't read the details then its hardly the fault of ANZ - if ANZ loaned money backed by these securities then they have every right to sell the stock. You must agree with this - right?


----------



## farout (22 April 2008)

I thought this was a good read in that it talks about the different loaning arrangements.

http://news.smh.com.au/court-mulls-over-anz-beconwood-case/20080421-27hr.html

I think each side has a case to be heard, and that is why the decision keeps getting post-poned. I just wish Justice Ray would make his decision so people can get on with their lives.

I'm not anti-bank, but perhaps I just like to see the little guys win occasionally. That along with the fact I would be mighty pissed if someone took away my shares.


----------



## CAFA1234 (22 April 2008)

farout; said:
			
		

> I thought this was a good read in that it talks about the different loaning arrangements.
> 
> http://news.smh.com.au/court-mulls-over-anz-beconwood-case/-27hr.html
> 
> ...




Farout  - my sympathies are with you and the small guy (being one myself), however I fear that ANZ will have a good case.

And as for the wheels of justice turning slowly , not sure if you have followed the Sirtex SRX case, being sued by the University of WA. Action started in 2004 - court case started in March 2005 and complected in June 2005 and judgment result last week. Nearly a year for the judge to write the case up!!!


----------



## farout (22 April 2008)

Can't say I've followed that case, however this is what was said by the Opes judge.

"Justice Finkelstein has said that he wants this to be done as a one-day hearing and they want to, as much as they possibly can, within the confines of the Federal Court, get a decision today."

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2222403.htm


----------



## CAFA1234 (22 April 2008)

farout; said:
			
		

> Can't say I've followed that case, however this is what was said by the Opes judge.
> 
> "Justice Finkelstein has said that he wants this to be done as a one-day hearing and they want to, as much as they possibly can, within the confines of the Federal Court, get a decision today."
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s.htm




If it really is a one dayer then ANZ have it in the bag  - no contest. In fact ANZ will love this case as it will give then legitimacy for their actions.

Of course in the unlikely event... ANZ will appeal to the Supreme Court.

PS Siretx won and will now get their cost of >$4m back. 3 month update on 6th may - should be interesting.


----------



## farout (23 April 2008)

The news reports state there should be a verdict before the end of this month. Wishing Opes clients the very best


----------



## CAFA1234 (23 April 2008)

farout; said:
			
		

> The news reports state there should be a verdict before the end of this month. Wishing Opes clients the very best




Sounds as if the judge was a tad simplistic when he said it was a one day deal. There will be mountains of paperwork to go over and my guess is that there were individual contracts issued which may take some considerable time to resolve.

Interesting to see the CEO's comments (ANZ), about being 'somehwat pissed off' about the reputational aspects of this deal, and accepting that they should never have been involved with a 'bunch of day trader Opes clients'.

Tell me Farout,  do you think there are ANY users of this forum that had accounts with Opes. My money says very, very few if any. I bet more of them have investments with ANZ either directly or via managed funds. 

Be brave and stand up anyone who every had an Opes account.


----------



## farout (24 April 2008)

I think if there were opes clients in this forum, it would be very few. However, it's been said that the Opes fiasco has affected a quarter of all stocks traded in some way or another.

Interestingly, with the ANZ boss being pissed off they are now looking at a deed of company arrangement. Could mean no more 'years of litigation'.

http://business.smh.com.au/opes-deal-may-turn-out-to-be-a-good-deed-indeed/20080423-285o.html


----------



## CAFA1234 (24 April 2008)

farout; said:
			
		

> I think if there were opes clients in this forum, it would be very few. However, it's been said that the Opes fiasco has affected a quarter of all stocks traded in some way or another.
> 
> Interestingly, with the ANZ boss being pissed off they are now looking at a deed of company arrangement. Could mean no more 'years of litigation'.
> 
> http://business.smh.com.au/opes-deal-may-turn-out-to-be-a-good-deed-indeed/-285o.html




I hope you are right. 

The problem with this sort of situation is that if ANZ refuse to consider it then they are slaughtered in the press as being uncaring and stubborn. So they have to (for PR reasons if nothing else) have to consider all aspects - any good lawyer would advise their client to say this.

I really would not put too much value on public consumption 'speakees' from any public company. Cynical  - for sure


----------



## YELNATS (24 April 2008)

farout said:


> The news reports state there should be a verdict before the end of this month. Wishing Opes clients the very best




I don't know how many former Opes clients are/were members of this forum, but I would think there are numerous ANZ shareholders, like myself, who are members.

While I sympathasize with their plight, I certainly do not subscribe to offering Opes clients best wishes and sincerely trust that ANZ will perform its' duty to its' shareholders to the fullest, by recovering maximum value, as allowed by the law.


----------



## farout (25 April 2008)

Yes, I'm sure ANZ will do what they can, however new cracks in ANZ's case are emerging everyday! Say what you will, but ANZ aren't in that strong position as previously believed. Hence the reason they are now looking at doing deals.

Just today, it was uncovered that Opes changed the client contracts just weeks before it collapsed. 

Like many others, I believe Opes was trying to hide the fact they were using margin lending instead of security lending.

Another read for those following this debacle;
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23594650-16941,00.html


----------



## steven1234 (25 April 2008)

This may be interesting to some, from the CQT announcement released on 24/04/08, where CQT director outlines his case against ANZ - http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20080424/pdf/318rn90pq2jh2y.pdf


Without prejudice, Mr Terpu's view is that he retains an equitable interest in the shares. Facts which support that view include, inter alia :

● For the purposes of a Company General Meeting held on 19 March 2008 :
- ANZ Bank, through Opes Prime Stockbroking Ltd sought proxy voting instructions from Mr Terpu for the relevant parcels of shares which were referred to as "your holdings",
- Mr Terpu provided his voting directions on 10 March 2008, and
- a proxy form completed by ANZ Bank (via ANZ Custodian Services) with Mr Terpu's voting instructions was received by the Company on 14 March 2008.

● On 23 April 2008 the ANZ Bank lodged a Form 603 "Notice of Initial Substantial Holder" for a quantity of shares in Conquest which included the 15,209,000 shares the subject of the proceedings. The date the Bank became a substantial holder is noted as "Not Applicable". Failure by the ANZ Bank to make a disclosure with a date its interest was acquired casts doubt over the bank's claim of ownership.

● Had the Bank disclosed to the market in September 2007 that it purported to have acquired a substantial holding in the Company's issued shares by virtue of his shares being transferred into the ANZ Nominee account, Mr Terpu advises that he would have been alerted and would have acted immediately to close down the margin loan arrangement.


----------



## Aussiejeff (29 April 2008)

Yet another update..

---------------------------

_*ANZ broke law on Opes, Panel declares*

Date 29/4/2008 
Author Richard Gluyas 
Source The Australian --- Page: 21 

ANZ Banking has inadvertently contravened Australian corporations law in assuming stock parcels held by debtor Opes Prime. The collapsed stockbroker had acquired the scrip as collateral from its margin loan customers, and after the shares were transferred to ANZ, the latter suddenly found itself with controlling stakes in some listed companies or holdings above the 20% threshold that mandates an official takeover move. One entity, BioProspect, has appealed to the Takeovers Panel, which has ordered ANZ to divest its 26% stake and reduce it to under 5% by April 2009. The watchdog also found an exemption from the Corporations Act for ANZ by the Australian Securities & Investments Commission did not apply to the margin lending _

-----------------------------

Not that shareholders in BioProspect would gain any great solace by this announcement. I'd be surprised if ANZ's mega-paid corporate lawyers didn't add this one to their burgeoning "to be vigourously defended at-all-costs-for-as-long-as-it-takes" list. 

AJ


----------



## cuttlefish (29 April 2008)

The biggest questions here are: why was ANZ a party to the misleading situation whereby clients were under the belief that they still 'owned' the stock? Why were they exempt from declaring substantial shareholder notices?Why didn't the Opes FSG have any reference to the fact that securities pledged may then become involved in AMSLA's? Why did ASIC allow this complete farce to occur? Why hasn't the court system supported the injunctions to allow the whole mess to be unravelled before damage was done to holdings, families, companies, the ASX market reputation etc.?

ASIC is the biggest problem in this situation.  How can ASIC allow a situation to occur whereby a bank can take assets from somebody that owed nobody any money?

I'm _not _an Opes client and like to think I would have read the fine print had I ever considered becoming one, but I can completely understand why they feel ripped off, and I have plenty of sympathy for them. 

If I were an ANZ shareholder my response would be to sell ANZ stock because any bank that can have a situation like this happen under management's noses is not managing their risk properly.


----------



## farout (29 April 2008)

Well said cuttlefish... totally agree with what you said about the court injunctions! The judge is supposedly preparing his verdict at present.


----------



## Aussiejeff (29 April 2008)

cuttlefish said:


> ....*Why did ASIC allow this complete farce to occur?* ... ASIC is the biggest problem in this situation.  *How can ASIC allow a situation to occur whereby a bank can take assets from somebody that owed nobody any money?*...




Would I be correct in assuming there is no effective body providing accountability or oversight of ASIC's operations or performance? 

If there is, can anyone tell me who ASIC kow-tows to? Who regulates the regulator?


AJ


----------



## Julia (29 April 2008)

Good question, AJ.  I'd also like to know the answer.


----------



## peter2 (29 April 2008)

ASIC is an independant Commonwealth Government body.
The decisions of ASIC are subject to review by the Federal Court, Administrative Appeals Tribunal and in relation to takeovers, the Takeovers Panel.
The Minister responsible for ASIC is the Federal Treasurer. 
The Parliamentary Joint Committe on Corporations and Financial Services reviews the activities of ASIC through public and private hearings. 

[from: ASIC: a guide to how we work. ]

It would seem that the best person to send your criticism of ASIC would be the Federal Treasurer.


----------



## Buddy (30 April 2008)

Buddy said:


> So, if it was ANZ, then I would suggest that their technical breach is very significant.  And, they can't have it both ways. Claim the shares when it suits them but not declare them in the beginning! ANZ could be in serious trouble here.  I go back to my point about the market being transparent. It looks to me like there might be a case for ASIC having a full on stoush with ANZ over this one.





Looks like I was correct:-
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23619813-643,00.html

More water to go under the bridge yet.


----------



## CAFA1234 (30 April 2008)

Buddy; said:
			
		

> Looks like I was correct:-
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,,00.html
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Buddy View Post
> ...




Buddy, I'm no expert, but aren't technical breaches of the takeover panels rules a relatively common event particularly involving large institutions where there can be a number of subsidiary cross holdings, and special situations in regard to beneficial ownership?

The Australian quotes an unknown source as sating that if a sophisticated investor had know of the holding then they may have concluded a different structure to what they thought they had, in relation to ownership. The term 'sophisticated investor' has actual quantifiable meaning in relation to investments and the disclosure required, based on an assumption that these high net worth experienced investors should be getting the correct legal and financial advise, or that they forgo the advise based on any investment being a small fraction of overall assets.

The lawyer who had a $100m account with Opes should have known better, and frankly I have no sympathy with a lawyer who can punt $100m on the stock market without reading and understanding the legal contract. I certainly would not want him representing me on any case!

My view is that Opes clients are clutching at straws on this one.
With the passage of time I stand to be corrected, but it makes great newspaper stories in the meantime.

Buddy, do you know of anyone personally, who was a client of Opes. This question has been asked before and no one has put their hand up. I suspect that Opes clients were not the sort to use ASF or any other kind of BB.


----------



## farout (2 May 2008)

This could be the end of the drama... small story just released. No doubt there will be bigger stories coming shortly. ANZ has it in the bag.

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssFinancialServicesAndRealEstateNews/idUSSYU00430720080501


----------



## farout (2 May 2008)

The ruling is out!

Here is another story just released.

http://business.theage.com.au/opes-client-loses-court-bid/20080502-2a5g.html


----------



## CAFA1234 (2 May 2008)

farout said:


> This could be the end of the drama... small story just released. No doubt there will be bigger stories coming shortly. ANZ has it in the bag.
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssFinancialServicesAndRealEstateNews/idUSSYU00430720080501




Probably the end of this matter, but a few more lurking around..

Also looks as if ANZ will take a haircut on the deal as well as the punters. I recall reading in one of the papers about a $180 shortfall - I may have got the details wrong.


----------



## cuttlefish (2 May 2008)

Unlucky for Opes clients - does go to show that its important to read the fine print - but how any responsible regulator or bank or company directors could allow this bizarre situation to occur in the first place is beyond me. I would have thought there were a lot more angles and issues to come out of this but time will tell - I still don't understand why ANZ was waived of the requirement to lodge substantial shareholder notices for example.  As John Terpu from CQT pointed out - had this been enforced then it would have been obvious to him that he didn't have ownership of his stock. So in effect the fact that ANZ didn't issue substantial holder notices would have reinforced the view that he was the owner of his stock.  And as if anybody would risk a 5+% holding in a company for the sake of a small margin facility - or as was the case for a lot of people just the _option_ to take out margin. 


On a separate issue - does anyone understand the ANZ disclosure that gets released to the ASX each morning?  The percentages of stock in each company held never seems to change from one day to the next (maybe I haven't looked through enough of them).


----------



## farout (2 May 2008)

Yeah, that's correct cuttlefish. ANZ haven't been selling any shares for a while. They are trying to let the markets recover before they start another wave of selling.


----------



## CAFA1234 (2 May 2008)

cuttlefish said:


> Unlucky for Opes clients - does go to show that its important to read the fine print - b




People don't read the print, me included, and often take business on trust - let this be a lesson to all of us.

As an aside, but in a similar vein, there is an online superfund manager out there in Aus (one of the biggest) who insist that  the cash amount be held in a Cash Trust Fund - it sort of looks like a regular bank account, but is subject to a 1.1% management fee with no doubt a slice going back to the super manager. I bet people think this is a 100% safe investment - Its not. 

If one of these Cash Trusts breaks the buck (as several have done in the US) e.g. the capital value has gone down to under $1 there will be hell to play and then you watch the fireworks because this will be everyday Aussies getting stuffed.


----------



## cuttlefish (2 May 2008)

The other thing that there's no transparency about is how much stock the super companies are lending to unknown counterparties and what sort of risks they are taking on in doing this and how its being managed.

My view is that the whole stock pledging/lending issue needs to be brought out into the open with standardised agreements and mandated reporting requirements.  The whole purpose of the 5% subst shareholder disclosure laws  and the mandated change notices is thrown out of the window if stock of a greater amount than this can be lent out without disclosure.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 May 2008)

Where is all this up to at present, not much in the newspapers about it now.

gg


----------



## Julia (9 May 2008)

GG, there are quite a few 'feel good' motherhood type statements about the revamping of ASIC, re-evaluations of their effectiveness etc.  Ditto the ASX.
  All supposed to make us feel warm, fuzzy and reassured.
Will probably come to nothing.


----------



## TRUST_ME (20 May 2008)

ANZ about to take it up the a**e.

Administrator Ferrier hodgson neg behind the scenes to come the a 'scheme of company arrangement' to get 70% of the OP clients money by threatening ANZ with legal actions for bullying poor old OP directors.

Meanwhile out west IMF and Lavan legal have commenced legal proceedings and request everything including the kitchen sink from Op and ANZ as part the discovery process.

Then back at the ranch, Cmth/ Slater & Gordon are rallying the troops and about to start their legal proceedings for 100+ clients.

Just need Mick Gatto to come flying in again, to do the interviews with ANZ staff.


----------



## Aussiejeff (21 May 2008)

TRUST_ME said:


> ANZ about to take it up the a**e.
> 
> Administrator Ferrier hodgson neg behind the scenes to come the a 'scheme of company arrangement' to get 70% of the OP clients money by threatening ANZ with legal actions for bullying poor old OP directors.
> 
> ...





_Yee-haaaaar!_ Ah' feels a-lynchin' comin' on with them thar posses circlin' clooose-er!


----------



## Aussiejeff (16 October 2008)

_Yeee-haaar!_

We-ell pardners - here we is 6 months later'n tha lynchin' party is a'greasin' up them nooses.....

Mebbe in 5 years if'n them cowdy loyers 'ave some lurk, them ANZ rustlers'l be hawgtied an' roast'n on a spit! :horse:

Woo-hoo!

[size=-2]Then again, pigs might fly.... [/size]


----------



## aleckara (16 October 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> _Yeee-haaar!_
> 
> We-ell pardners - here we is 6 months later'n tha lynchin' party is a'greasin' up them nooses.....
> 
> ...




The saddest thing about all of this is that the people who need the money (small investors who went into the contract) will take years to probably receive their money and by then for a lot of them it will be too late. Then again I wouldn't be surprised if the legal system absorbs most of that money.


----------



## awg (16 October 2008)

Julia said:


> GG, there are quite a few 'feel good' motherhood type statements about the revamping of ASIC, re-evaluations of their effectiveness etc.  Ditto the ASX.
> All supposed to make us feel warm, fuzzy and reassured.
> Will probably come to nothing.




what many people may not realize is these are (my understanding) basically Commonwealth Public Service staff. As such, you would find that they are not overly well renumerated compared to what good accountants would earn in the private sector.

Most of the staff would be "admin service officers", ie not fully qualified finance or legal pros.

they would have been wound back over the last few years due to good times.

they would be severely under-resourced and stressed out.

organisations like this are used as "training grounds" by the big companies, who cherry pick the best staff, by doubling their salary


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (11 December 2008)

It would appear the liquidators are calling in all the loans of the opes prime investors next week.

Its not going to be pretty.

Many folk will lose their all and the banks will crystallise their losses.

gg


----------

