...In a radio link Julia posted some time ago http://www.abc.net.au/rn/nationalinterest/stories/2009/2503496.htm it stated that only 12% was allocated for retail investors. Is this so?
Sunder, in the name of ethics, how did such a large percentage (estimates suggest nearly 80%) end up in unsuspecting retail hands?
...2. If that were true, would he have needed to acquire more shares than absolutely necessary to call an EGM? Would he have even needed enough to call an EGM? Couldn't this "most share holders" have just called one and wound up the trust without him?
Just been skimming through this thread.
I know its been mentioned before, but I find it amazing how this share is easily open for purchase on a regular brokerage account, which from a perspective of an ordinary share investment, has something like a 100000% loss (pay $1 for each 0.01c share purchase).
I've been trying to upgrade my trading level to level 4, to be enabled access to sell naked put options, which I don't intent to do, but instead sell naked puts against purchased puts for a credit (credit spread).
OK now a bit of math...
If I sold a $100 strike put option worth say $3000, on a $100 share, and the next day the share price went down to $0, I would be liable for $97000 ($1000 per each $1 loss on the stock = $100000, minus the $3000 you made selling the put).
That would mean an ROI of something like -3233% (I hope I got the math right)
Conclusion:
So access denied to a trading level, because I didn't meet a criteria, and because I could make a 'potential' loss of 3233%... compared to freely being allowed to buy a share with 'instant' liability
of 100000% initial share purchase...
When I get home at the end of the day I like to go through with my kids what they've done that day. What they did at school and how they got on with this or that. Sometimes they ask me about my day. I might talk a little about my day and as I do web sites sometimes we'll sit at the PC and go to a site I've done and I can show them.Why aren't lawyer jokes any good?
Lawyers don't think they are funny and nobody else thinks they are jokes.
The more this goes on the more one realises that partly paid shares (with a future financial obligation) will need to be traded in a more restrictive environment than fully paid shares, perhaps along the lines of options or futures contracts.Conclusion:
So access denied to a trading level, because I didn't meet a criteria, and because I could make a 'potential' loss of 3233%... compared to freely being allowed to buy a share with 'instant' liability
of 100000% initial share purchase...
The more this goes on the more one realises that partly paid shares (with a future financial obligation) will need to be traded in a more restrictive environment than fully paid shares, perhaps along the lines of options or futures contracts.
That could be a positive (and perhaps the only positive) legacy of Brisconnections.
Bit off topic but what’s the upshot, why were you knocked back on level 4?
I aced the questionnaire
But my assets was the problem, I opened the account as a trust, and my assets was all just cash (quite a fair amount), I guess I needed illiquid assets, eg, bricks and mortar, as collateral for a worst case scenario.
yeah yeah, but the message is getting there....LOL :iagree: :iagree: and have suggested it a few times in this thread. Although it's been a bit like this...:horse:
yeah yeah, but the message is getting there....
...I see your point regarding doing the exam and filling out the appropriate paperwork for level 4 trading but I think that has more to do with broker protection against rouge clients, as far as brisconnections goes the broker is just a facilitator and does not have any other obligations (after the trade & settlement) unlike option accounts. Saying all that i do think it's wrong for that type of instrument to be trading like a share(Brisconnections that is)...?
Perhaps some of these "most" shareholders are very frightened people and preferred to give their shares to someone else who was willing to take them.
Honestly Sunder, I can never understand why you refer to them as if they have knowledge and experience on par with institutional investors. Many of these hapless people appear to be very frightened, and possibly financially uneducated mums and dads who are at risk of their lives and their families lives being ruined.
Should Macquarie shareholders wear the pain because ignorant mums and dads failed to do due dilligence? Doesn't this just create moral hazard? Let's just gamble on penny dreadfuls with outstanding contributions... If we win, we win big. If we lose, the underwriter will wear the bill.
Is this your idea of fairness?
Yet the guy still has his fat cat salary a .... but doesnt seem to want to collect his shares yet...??? why is that Trev???
Yes, I've also had this thought many times when reading this thread.But what it highlights to me is the fact there are so many people out there who are willing to bet on a stock for no good reason besides it is 0.001c. Is it any wonder scam artist continue to search the net for new victims.
They definitely don’t need bricks and mortar, just enough cash to meet the margins. Strangely enough they let traders carry out buy/write on level 2.
I thought you being ex optionsexpress they would have given priority treatment.
Where else other than BCSCA can you sign up for a $2 million liability by spending just $500 and one click of a mouse.
Yes, I've also had this thought many times when reading this thread.
Just can't get that anyone would not take a quick look at the chart and see how the price has fallen through the floor so quickly and then start asking some more questions before buying.
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?