prawn_86
Mod: Call me Dendrobranchiata
- Joined
- 23 May 2007
- Posts
- 6,637
- Reactions
- 7
Hey Bushie - there will always be differing opinions on a forum like this - that's what it's all about. But there are some of us who sincerely hope for a good outcome for those trapped in this extraordinary situation.
I have been sharing this thread with my family in absolute horror about how easily people have become enmeshed in this. And sometimes I think that there but for the grace of god go I!. Not that he/she delivers me any favours, it is just the meaning of the saying. My fervent wish for all of you who are trapped at the moment is that come the New Year, there will be a good solution for you. I think there will be, but I really do feel for you while things get themselves sorted. Ignore those who are not offering you support, I am a great believer in Karma. All the best!
Does anyone have any Idea of the Number of shareholders that are affected by this.?
Rocket, would it be a better option to check with, e.g. Slater and Gordon, or one of the other legal firms who are known for this sort of action, see if they're up for it, and get them to do the publicity? What do the ASA advise?
It still astounds me that this land mine is sitting there on the market, not suspended, waiting for an unassuming victim to buy another $500 of stock and assume $1 miillion dollars worth of nightmare.
Why this stock hasn't been suspended is beyond me.
Probably because of one or more of the following:
1. Suspending the stock solely for that reason is a tacit admission that regulations were inadequate. Either they're not willing to admit that, or they don't think so.
2. Suspending it means that the sellers are even more stuck, and may sue ASIC for suspending trade on a "viable" stock.
3. ASIC does not have the legislated authority to suspend trading on a stock for this particular reason.
4. ASIC believe this is a small, uneductaed investor problem, and does not believe affecting the whole market for this share is an effective method of dealing with the problem.
The ASX is within its rights to suspend a stock if the believe they need to do so in order to prevent a disorderly market. With 100 million shares on the offer, and zero shares on the bid, and the stock sitting at the lowest possible price increment of .001, and with $2 still owing on the stock, I would have thought there is a strong argument that proper price discovery is not possible at the moment in this stock at this price point and thus there is not an orderly market.
They would really need to allow the stock to trade at a negative price in order to create an environment that would allow true price discovery in my opinion.
My understanding is that suspension of a stock is within the ASX's regulatory domain (i.e. they don't need ASIC involvement).
It is also possible for a company to request that their stock be suspended, so there is also no reason why BCS can't request a suspension as well.
Not sure why your talking about emails. When you buy the shares online there is a buy page (take a look at the screencaps on page 2 of this thread) that tells you how much the trade is going to cost you. All they have to do is tell you that instead of the trade costing you $2k it's going to cost you $4 million. I think that might of influenced to not click the buy now button.
I bought them through Comsec.
As soon as I found out about the 2 further installments I of course Listed them for sale, with the other investors.
I agree with Sail on this.
If there was a market for them we would all sell them
Surley any judge in his right mind will serve the correct justice in this matter.
Obviously if so many people have fell foul of this then proper documentation was not in place.
I also cant understand how you can enter a financial binding arrangement in excess of $1million dollas without signing a single document or having a credit check to see if you are worthy. Talk about Risky Lending!!!!! Isnt this why the Global Financial crisis is upon us??
I wouldnt be able to borrow 10 bucks from commonwealth bank witout at least signing somthing
The whole thing Stinks and its about time someone in the Government stepped up to this and sorted it out.
I was surprised to read this so have just done a Buy order (without of course taking the last step) and there wasn't any indication that the usual online order wasn't OK.Hi All
The true reality hit when I discovered these are speciality shares that etrade is not allowing to be traded online but only over the phone via manual order.
Hi All
I have read through a lot of this stuff and I'm a bit confused as to what is being done to resolve the issue. Are we all just talking around in circles responding to each other or is someone taking control and going forth with ideas. I am one of those fools that got trapped. I have very little knowledge of the market but got put on to etrade a few yrs ago by a friend. I thought buying shares for 0.001 at a minimum trade of $500 posed little risk and maybe I could double my money to help pay off my credit card. There were plenty of shares being bought and sold at the time. I have only just discovered what I got myself into once a letter arrived thanking me for becoming apart of Brisconnections and then it outlined my next obligations. Now the nightmare has begun. The true reality hit when I discovered these are speciality shares that etrade is not allowing to be traded online but only over the phone via manual order. I have busted my balls for years trying to keep my head above water with my home loan. I can't stand the thought of losing my home that I have worked so hard for. what can we do... I need help! I wouldn't have thought chasing petty people like me would be worth Macs efforts. I also can't believe I can get my self into something so legally binding without signing and agreeing to terms and conditions. There aren't many things you can do without signing for, so how can one get themselves into a situation of owing millions of dollars without signing for it.
Hey Julia, you were braver than me - I didnt trust my touchpad not to ping off a trade.
We are trying to get our minds around the liability that people are now under. For someone who purchased $500 worth of shares, exactly what is the debt you are now looking at?
I cant believe there is no warning; NAB online warns you that shares you are about to purchase are ex-dividend, how can they possibly not warn people that buying these shares creates a liability?
Once again, I am hoping for an excellent outcome for you all; it beggars belief that someone is not doing something about this situation. I cannot imagine that this could possibly be enforced. All the best.
As Bushie mentioned it's actually surreal to hear Trevor Rowe stating categorically that they are going to pursue this all the way...
Think outside your own shoes for a moment and ask what options he has?
1. He doesn't pursue the debt. Macquarie is then excused from their liabilities, and the government sues Brisconnections because no road was built. Likely shareholders who were intending to come good on their portion will also sue him for wiping out their company.
2. He only selectively pursues the debt for people likely to have more money than the costs it to recover it. It only costs a couple hundred dollars to send a debt collector, and I was told around $10k to take it "to the end". (All the way through the courts) Do you seriously think most people who trade shares have less than $10,001 of recoverable assets? If Macquarie can assert that "all avenues" were not exhausted in attempting to recover the money, they refuse to pay out that part of the claim, and we have a smaller version of scenario 1.
3. He does everything by the book, recovers money from those who have it, damages the credit rating of those that don't (possibly to the point of requiring bankruptcy protection), and Macquarie pays the rest. His company goes through smooth sailing, he gets his multi-million dollar bonuses for getting the road get built on time, and he can, in clear conscience say that it's not his fault that people made mistakes on his company's issues.
This is ugly. Very ugly. But if you were him, which would you take?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?