Re: Brisconnections shareholders - financial ruin
At least Macquarie sold them with full disclosure on an open market, while they still had value. (Meaning the buyers were not buying into massive debt)
Two points here:
1. yes Macquarie or BCSCA did go to the market with full disclosure. That people failed to access that disclosure cannot be blamed on Macquarie.
2. Actually, Sunder, your statement in brackets is essentially the crux of this whole subject, in that the buyers WERE buying into massive debt.
Point 1. above made this clear in that there were two further installments making up the stapled security.
But to fool someone intentionally into taking them, or to use loopholes in the law to quasi-legally offload your obligation, is not comparable with a company that performed an IPO meeting every legal and moral obligation. It just doesn't compare.
Agree absolutely.
I think your missing the point some what sunder
No, I don't think Sunder is missing the point at all. You are choosing not to see the point he is making.
I clearly said that all people would need to be properly informed. And if so, what else do you want?
Shaun, have you read through this whole thread?
We have already had this debate ad infinitum.
Clearly there is no market for sale of these shares.
Therefore the only likely buyer will be someone who does not in fact fully appreciate the repercussions of either buying the shares or accepting them as a gift.
There have been suggestions of donating the shares to eg a homeless person.
I have previously objected to this as I don't believe any person who is homeless is in charge of his/her life and therefore can't reasonably be expected to make objective decisions.
If you wave $1000 in front of an addict all they will see is their next fix.
They won't even hear you tell them about the details of the present you are so kindly offering them.
Simply trading is in effect suckering someone else more legal. Have you ever bought heap of shares, for them to go down, so after a while you sell them and they continue to go down? Then you just suckered someone mate. With a click of a mouse in your ivory tower someone somewhere lost money from your transaction.
To call legitimate ordinary market transactions 'suckering' is simply silly.
You will never know what reasons any buyer or seller has for transacting that trade. Your profit taking can perfectly reasonably be someone else's bargain hunting.
No one I have spoken to regarding the sale/ purchase of shares would be prepared to sell, donate, inflict, gift, leave in a will or estate,trade or Auction these bloody things without first disclosing the full impact of their actions and its consequence.
Something most of us retail investors have not had the privilage of.
Yes, you did have that privilege, as you describe it. We've been over and over this. The information was out there. You simply didn't access it.
FACT!
There is always in western capitalism someone prepared to make a living out of someone elses miss-fortune or situation.
That is sadly entirely true.
This may be a bank offering to lend a person with a poor credit history a very high interest Home Loan
Well, if a bank makes a habit of lending to people with poor credit histories then they won't be in business for very long so you can hardly say they are making a viable living out of so doing.
or A Pawn broker buying the Family air loom for a song.
I don't know much about pawnbrokers but don't they hold the dreaded family heirloom for a given period before selling it, giving the person who pawned such a treasure a chance to get it back? Whatever, I don't see that there is any deception involved. Both parties are clear about what is being offered and sought. Hardly furthers the argument imo.
Dont come on here spouting morals, wrongs and rights. Desperate people will do desperate things. Check out the people or companies that put them in that situation.
Again, you are suggesting Macquarie, Brisconnections or whomever acted without full disclosure. That is simply not right. Apart from Comsec apparently failing to denote on their final Buy screen that the share was partly paid, no one has come up with any genuine lack of disclosure.
If I've missed it, then I'm more than happy to be corrected.
Do not sit and judge on pure speculation
On the contrary, Sunder is, as far as I can see, making his comments not on speculation but on the facts as far as they are known at this stage.
ShaunQ
I think our Mr Sunder just Trolls around for debate.
take no Notice
If that were the case I expect we'd be seeing Sunder agitating on all sorts of other threads. I haven't seen this.
But for sure, Sunder has made himself unpopular with BCSCA investors because he has failed to offer sugar coated sympathy but has rather taken an objective view of what has happened.
That said, I'm immensely sorry for anyone who has been caught up in this.
To have a punt of a few hundred dollars and find oneself owing tens of thousands or more should not have been possible, regardless of whether the punter carried out full investigations.
Hopefully the regulators will in future ensure that a signed document of understanding of further payments to be made will have to precede any share purchase of this nature.