BCS - BrisConnections Unit Trusts

rocket12 · 2 January 2009

Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin

sails said:
Mazza, I think this is a good suggestion. Has anyone contacted them to see if the shares could be forfeited?

Yes many of us have tried this, and we are reminded of our obligations. The ASA have had a few meetings with them trying to find a solution including this as an option. Most of us would be very happy gifting them our shares.

Julia · 2 January 2009

Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin

I've just sent this email.

Dear Brisconnections,

Could you please advise if shareholders who bought BCSCA shares when they were unaware of the further liability to pay the additional installments have the option of forfeiting their shares?

With thanks.
Yours sincerely,

mazzatelli1000 · 2 January 2009

Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin

rocket12 said:
Yes many of us have tried this, and we are reminded of our obligations. The ASA have had a few meetings with them trying to find a solution including this as an option. Most of us would be very happy gifting them our shares.

How about instead of trying to completely forfeit your shares (if that option is not viable), offer $X and say that is all you can offer as you cannot meet the obligation?

E.g offer them $10k or something

rocket12 · 2 January 2009

Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin

Julia said:
I've just sent this email.

Dear Julia

Thankyou for your email, yes we would gladly accept a transfer of shares from anyone who bought shares in our company who were unaware that this is a contributing share. If you do know of any holders in this position, ask them to give me a call.

Kind regards Trevor Rowe

Hmmmmmmmm, I just woke up from a lovely dream!!! This was the response.

Dear Julia

No.

Kind regards Trevor Rowe

Ps thanks for the support and sending the email, if they get enough of these it would definately help...

lesm · 2 January 2009

Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin

steve999 said:
That's all great, but if the share holders don't have the $Xmillion they owe it won't make much difference to the outcome.

NO, but if they had undertaken a minimum level of research they wouldn't owe $X million of dollars.

You are missing the point of what was being responded to.

If it is claimed that the information was not available, as part of the defence to any legal action, but it actually was, then of the course there won't be much difference to the outcome. The original post was making a statement related to the possible grounds related to 'material non-disclosure', as the shareholders are attempting achieve an outcome in their favour.

Somewhere along the line people have to take some level of responsibility for there actions.

Maybe they should argue the case on the grounds of 'diminished responsibilty' or 'temporary insanity'.

steve999 · 2 January 2009

Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin

lesm said:
NO, but if they had undertaken a minimum level of research they wouldn't owe $X million of dollars.

You are missing the point of what was being responded to.

If it is claimed that the information was not available, as part of the defence to any legal action, but it actually was, then of the course there won't be much difference to the outcome. The original post was making a statement related to the possible grounds related to 'material non-disclosure', as the shareholders are attempting achieve an outcome in their favour.

Somewhere along the line people have to take some level of responsibility for there actions.

Maybe they should argue the case on the grounds of 'diminished responsibilty' or 'temporary insanity'.

No I understand what was being responded to... My unclear point was that in a capitalist world, maybe the purchasers should have known they had further obligations, but maybe Macquarie et al should have known that these shares were going to be purchased by people who wouldn't do the research and couldn't afford to pay.

Either Macquarie are stupid and didn't realise how badly the float would go, or they are immoral and knew what would happen.

rocket12 · 2 January 2009

Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin

steve999 said:
No I understand what was being responded to... My unclear point was that in a capitalist world, maybe the purchasers should have known they had further obligations, but maybe Macquarie et al should have known that these shares were going to be purchased by people who wouldn't do the research and couldn't afford to pay.

Either Macquarie are stupid and didn't realise how badly the float would go, or they are immoral and knew what would happen.

I made that comment very early on, that however stupid I am for buying these shares, the authorities that allow retail investors to so easily buy these with the most bare minimum of warning makes my mistake pale in comparison.

James Austin · 2 January 2009

Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin

lesm said:
If it is claimed that the information was not available, as part of the defence to any legal action, but it actually was,

Clearly, a buyer of stock deserves to be fully informed regarding their investment costs. And the company has a duty to take all "reasonable" steps to inform prospective buyers.

what does/does not constitute "reasonable" seems to be central to the argument here.

if it is "common knowledge" that i may lose the money i invest in shares or CFDs (for example), then ignorance is no excuse, [brokers have you sign forms when you open a share/CFD trading account; this effectively states you understand the rules], and therefore it is "reasonable" that a flashing neon sign does not appear across your computer monitor prior to executing such a trade.

but . . . if it is "not common knowledge" that there may be installments attached to your initial investment, then i would suggest the company in question is obligated to take "reasonable" steps to inform investors; where "reasonable" equates to something such as: a clear and obvious notice prior to the point of sale and at the point of sale.

james

rocket12 · 2 January 2009

Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin

lesm said:
NO, but if they had undertaken a minimum level of research they wouldn't owe $X million of dollars.

You are missing the point of what was being responded to.

If it is claimed that the information was not available, as part of the defence to any legal action, but it actually was, then of the course there won't be much difference to the outcome. The original post was making a statement related to the possible grounds related to 'material non-disclosure', as the shareholders are attempting achieve an outcome in their favour.

Somewhere along the line people have to take some level of responsibility for there actions.

Maybe they should argue the case on the grounds of 'diminished responsibilty' or 'temporary insanity'.

I did more than the minimum research. There are 12 main research pages on commsec and I looked at each one of them including the announcements page. I went to the brisconnections investor page, where there is no mention unless you click on the PDS.

Maybe I'm not as bloody minded as some but if I were in charge of this, I would actually mention this on the investor page, not in a sublink. Lesm what would you do if you were in charge?? What would you do if you were in charge of commsec? would you mention this is a contributing share in the most obvious places on the research pages? or keep it as it is, in a couple of sublinks in amoungst 50 other links on one of the research pages.

It took you 5 minutes to go and have to find this info, knowing exactly what you were looking for. Sorry but that is just bloody minded and unfair.

rocket12 · 2 January 2009

Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin

James Austin said:
Clearly, a buyer of stock deserves to be fully informed regarding their investment costs. And the company has a duty to take all "reasonable" steps to inform prospective buyers.

what does/does not constitute "reasonable" seems to be central to the argument here.

if it is "common knowledge" that i may lose the money i invest in shares or CFDs (for example), then ignorance is no excuse, [brokers have you sign forms when you open a share/CFD trading account; this effectively states you understand the rules], and therefore it is "reasonable" that a flashing neon sign does not appear across your computer monitor prior to executing such a trade.

but . . . if it is "not common knowledge" that there may be installments attached to your initial investment, then i would suggest the company in question is obligated to take "reasonable" steps to inform investors; where "reasonable" equates to something such as: a clear and obvious notice prior to the point of sale and at the point of sale.

james

Thats what this whole thread, and possible legal proceedings come down to. What people feel is fair and reasonable.

Some people feel its reasonable to not inform in the most obvious places, that it is reasonable to place this information in the most obscure places possible.

And yes being placed in a 189 page PDS to me and any reasonable persons idea of obscure. And yes being placed in amongst 50 announcements and not on any of the main 12 research pages is my and any reasonable persons idea of obscure.

cuttlefish · 2 January 2009

Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin

I just had another idea for BCSCA shareholders.

Call your local federal member and offer to donate him/her your BCSCA shares as a political donation.

If every federal polly in Australia is the proud owner of wads of BCSCA debt the situation might garner some proper political attention.

Queenslanders could donate half their holding to their federal member and the other half to their local state govt member.

thermalmonster · 2 January 2009

Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin

Its obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense that this situation should & could have been avoided.
I will use the construction site analogy once again.
I have a an 18 storey block or a 50m deep excavation. I put up flashing neon signs that say Danger Deep excavation. Danger Risk of Falling.
Someone falls off and dies or injured. I am dam sure I will be in court facing corperate manslaughter charges. Put adequate protection measures in place and I am out of jail

sinner · 2 January 2009

Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin

Why didn't anyone look at the debt equity ratio? This is clearly displayed on the research page on my commsec account.

220%.

In short, if you examined this value and did no further research as to who the creditor was (YOU), or you did not even examine this value at all, then you are neither an investor nor a trader!

I am sure this is a rule even the people at BHP followed, login to their commsec (lol), type RIO, click research, scroll down, debt/equity 189%! NO THANKS.

Calliope · 2 January 2009

Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin

lesm said:
NO, but if they had undertaken a minimum level of research they wouldn't owe $X million of dollars.

You are missing the point of what was being responded to.

If it is claimed that the information was not available, as part of the defence to any legal action, but it actually was, then of the course there won't be much difference to the outcome. The original post was making a statement related to the possible grounds related to 'material non-disclosure', as the shareholders are attempting achieve an outcome in their favour.

Somewhere along the line people have to take some level of responsibility for there actions.

Maybe they should argue the case on the grounds of 'diminished responsibilty' or 'temporary insanity'.

These people are not interested in the voice of reason. Rocket has no conception of a person being responsible for his or her actions. Still the same old lame excuses for failure to make a simple check.

There may be some excuse for novices at the game but Rocket tells us he is an experienced player. Yet as far as he was concerned BCSCA was just another penny dreadful, and as such warranted no research whatsoever. So he obviously researched none of them. He only researched BCSCA in hindsight.
I don't think he knows what research means.

I think he will get away with it. The innocent victim pose melts the heart of public opinion. I can't see it coming to trial. Brisconnections will get their money, but the shareholders of the underwriters will end up with the tab. They will be the real victims.

rocket12 · 2 January 2009

Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin

sinner said:
Why didn't anyone look at the debt equity ratio? This is clearly displayed on the research page on my commsec account.

220%.

In short, if you examined this value and did no further research as to who the creditor was (YOU), or you did not even examine this value at all, then you are neither an investor nor a trader!

I am sure this is a rule the people at BHP followed, login to their commsec (lol), type RIO, click research, scroll down, debt/equity 189%! NO THANKS.

Centro's cant be much better, and I made a killing on that today. (for some reason their debt/equity ratio isn't listed but it cant be too flash)

steve999 · 2 January 2009

Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin

Calliope said:
Brisconnections will get their money, but the shareholders of the underwriters will end up with the tab. They will be the real victims.

As I mentioned earlier, why should we feel sorry for the underwriters? Do you honestly believe they were so stupid that they didn't know what was going to happen?

Some regulation can be a good thing... Perhaps not allowing partially paid shares to be purchased over the internet without some warning?

sinner · 2 January 2009

Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin

Maybe you should use your strategy of trading high debt companies for a "killing" and instead of seeking redemption from your debt, use the "killings" to pay your liability

sails · 2 January 2009

Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin

FWIW here is a couple of snapshots from my WebIress a couple of days ago. I think WI can very a bit between brokers.

The short description in the quote box shows $1 pd $2 unpd instead of BrisConnections. Also below is the buy window which shows this information under the code.

It might not be clear to someone new to the stockmarket, but IMO it's a step in the right direction.

thermalmonster · 2 January 2009

Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin

well that would have stopped me from pressing the proceed button !!

cuttlefish · 2 January 2009

Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin

Calliope said:
Brisconnections will get their money, but the shareholders of the underwriters will end up with the tab. They will be the real victims.

Thats hilarious, you can't be serious - the underwriters chose to underwrite this dud - they were always going to have to foot the bill - nobody who actually knew what they were getting themselves into would have gone near it with a barge pole - and the main underwriter - Macquarie - has offloaded wads of stock to naive purchasers during the year that they very likely would have been stuck holding if the purchasers were better informed of the risks.

They chose to underwrite it - they knew the risks - and they created the convoluted 'too clever by halves' product in the first place.

They were fully aware of the risks of underwriting and they also got a nice fat fee for putting this land mine together in the first place.

Unlike the retail investors that got caught up holding this debt, Macquarie as an investment banking organisation staffed by financial professionals is well informed of the risks and pitfalls of operating in the marketplace.

BCS - BrisConnections Unit Trusts

rocket12

Julia

In Memoriam

mazzatelli1000

rocket12

lesm

steve999

rocket12

James Austin

rocket12

rocket12

cuttlefish

thermalmonster

sinner

Calliope

rocket12

steve999

sinner

sails

Attachments

thermalmonster

cuttlefish

Similar threads

BCS - BrisConnections Unit Trusts

In Memoriam

Attachments

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency