HopalongPetrovski
I'm Spartacus!
Thanks again for your calm clarification of this matter Moonshot.
Nice to get some information from someone in the know rather than having to rely on pure speculation.
Again the 1000 eyes proves it's worth.
BRN Discussion Ongoing
- Thread starter TechGirl
- Start date
Nice to get some information from someone in the know rather than having to rely on pure speculation.
Again the 1000 eyes proves it's worth.
On second thoughts, has Robert sold his 120 million shares in the last 2 months????
Just saw this. No worries Tech. ThanksI'm not privy to anymore information Slade....cheers.....Brainchip will deliver
HopalongPetrovski
I'm Spartacus!
Wow, really interesting stuff FMF. Thanks for your input.Just for some fun here is an article discussing custodians etc in particular to our Big 4.
Who Really Owns Australia's Big Four Banks?
Often consumers who choose to bank with smaller, more independent banks may, in fact, be banking with one of the 'Big Four'. But have you ever questioned who owns Asutralia's big four banks?finty.com
Who really owns Australia's Big Four banks?
By Andrew Boyd | Updated 4th August 2020
In response to concerns over how our financial institutions operate, we commissioned a piece of research on the issue of bank ownership in Australia.
Often consumers who choose to bank with smaller, more independent banks may, in fact, be banking with one of the 'Big Four'. The following examination of who owns the big four (ANZ, Commonwealth Bank, NAB and Westpac) is the logical follow-on from that initial investigation.
Correct as at May 2014.
Their combined assets in 2013 stood at $2.86 trillion—or roughly twice the size of Australia’s national income.
They are four of the five largest Australian companies by market capitalisation, together representing more than a quarter of the market. According to a 2012 report by the International Monetary Fund, the big four controlled 88% of residential mortgages and 80% of deposits. By contrast, the biggest six American banks held 30% of total deposits in 2013.
It’s not just banking: the big four own 53% of life insurance premiums, and account for 57.3% of retail investment funds through bank-owned platforms. It begs the question: if they own so much of Australia’s economy, who owns the big four?
Connections
According to a 2012 report by the International Monetary fund, 'major banks are highly interconnected, as they are among each other’s largest counterparties.’ However, that connection is far from direct. Part of it has to do with banks borrowing from each other, rather than owning large parts of each other.
A study of the Australian bank network by the Reserve Bank of Australia found that more than half of outstanding authorised deposit-taking institutions 'exposure’ in this sense is to the big four. Because they have so much of the money of the entire system already, when they need to temporarily borrow, there’s few other banks they can go to, so they have to go to each other. That’s a very cosy relationship.
Custodians
It is in fact the same four names as the top four shareholders in each of the four banks—but it’s not each other. According to the big four’s annual reports for 2013, here’s who owns ordinary shares:
'Custodians’, by definition, hold customers’ securities for safekeeping, in addition to offering other services such as account administration and collection of dividends and interest payments, for a fee. They are not active participants in decision-making. It would be wrong to imply that by having a 17% stake in Westpac, for example, HSBC also has 17% of the vote: as a custodian, HSBC only processes the proxy votes of the customers for whom it holds the shares—and these customers could be large sovereign wealth funds, or a board member of Westpac, or a family-owned business in Sydney. Discrepancies in proxy voting do occur, and many uneducated investors aren’t even aware they can cast votes. But in principle, HSBC, in a custodian role, acts only as the messenger, not the decision-maker.
- HSBC Custody Nominees (Australia) Limited: 16.91% of Westpac; 16.83% of NAB; 18.48% of ANZ; 14.80% of CBA
- JP Morgan Nominees Australia Ltd: 12.75% of Westpac; 12.03% of NAB; 14.40% of ANZ; 11.57% of CBA
- National Nominees Limited: 9.93% of Westpac, 10.14% of NAB; 11.76% of ANZ; 8.5% of CBA
- Citicorp Nominees Pty Limited: 4.94% of Westpac; 4% of NAB; 4.15% of ANZ; 4.47% of CBA
As a wholly owned subsidiary of HSBC Bank Australia Limited, the custody nominees business held more than $700 billion in assets. It is not only in the big four. The sheer size of its investment capital means that it frequently shows up among the top 5 shareholders for a large number of Australian companies. In fact, HSBC, JP Morgan, National Nominees and Citicorp all frequently show up together among the top 5 or top 10 shareholders. They simply represent a very large pile of money, all of which has to be parked somewhere.
Unknown owners?
On a different note, however, that 17% stake HSBC’s custodian arm has in Westpac could, in theory, represent just one person—or four big investors—buying through a variety of mutual funds, each of which has HSBC as their custodian. It’s a stretch, and it would have to be a very rich group of individuals, but it is possible. Unfortunately, it is practically impossible to track down the identities of those underlying shareholders through the various financial structures that hold shares for each other and on behalf of each other.
Can these hidden shareholders control what Westpac does?
The company points out that as of October 3, 2013, there were no shareholders who had a 'substantial holding’, i.e., in which “they or their associates” have control of 5% or more of the vote. NAB states the same. Westpac explains that shareholders such as HSBC Custody Nominees (Australia) Limited (16.91% of total shares) 'may hold shares for the benefit of third parties’—the definition of their role as custodians. Furthermore, Westpac states it is 'not directly or indirectly owned or controlled by any other corporation(s) or by any foreign government.’
But the top 20 registered shareholders held 52.42% of Westpac’s ordinary shares—and that’s a controlling stake. The word 'nominee’ or 'custodian’ pops up in 11 of them. There’s an independent wealth management group, a closed-end fund, an investment management firm, and so on. Who is behind the actual shares would be, again, practically impossible to determine.
The same names show up among the top 20 for each of the big four banks, with some variation.
The interconnection between the four banks may be even more pervasive, if even less direct. ANZ’s CEO from 2007-2016 was Mr. M R P Smith—who had been with HSBC for most of his 30-year career prior to joining ANZ. Since 1978, Mr Smith had held 'a wide variety of roles in Commercial, Institutional and Investment Banking, Planning and Strategy, Operations and General Management’, according to ANZ’s annual report, including as director of HSBC Australia Limited from 2004-2007, immediately before he became CEO of ANZ. In 2008 ANZ also hired its group managing director of human resources and chief risk officer from HSBC, and in 2011 plucked its new global natural resources head from HSBC.
Too big to fail?
Whoever it is that owns the big four banks, one thing is clear: if the same four custodian companies own similar chunks of each of the big four, there’s indication that the shareholders behind them do not want one bank to succeed at the expense of another. The optimal scenario is if all of them win together. And maintain their dominant position, of course.
This post was originally published in May 2014 and has been updated for freshness, accuracy, and comprehensiveness.
D
Deleted member 118
Guest
Holy crap 6 pages to catch up on and I’ve only been away a few hours, so glad I’m cooking an easy meal tonight
D
Deleted member 118
Guest
Maybe they can release the 4C before the next one in a few week
VictorG
Member
Just one questions Rocket 577,
Are you allowed to drive after eating your dinner or would you be over the limit?
Bon Appetit
D
Deleted member 118
Guest
Fullmoonfever
Top 20
@gex
You are looking to a right pattern so you do know something about TA haha
I posted this chart prev a couple times as updated over the past couple of weeks as was watching the poss double bottom.
Same one now and can see the test of support now 3 times and a clear range formed but will still need break through that mid 90's and then low $1's I commented on for confirmation.
For a quick reference:
What Is a Triple Bottom Chart in Technical Analysis?
A triple bottom is a bullish chart pattern used in technical analysis that is characterized by three equal lows followed by a breakout above resistance.
What is a Triple Bottom?
A triple bottom is a bullish chart pattern used in technical analysis that's characterized by three equal lows followed by a breakout above the resistance level.KEY TAKEAWAYS
- A triple bottom is a visual pattern that shows the buyers (bulls) taking control of the price action from the sellers (bears).
- A triple bottom is generally seen as three roughly equal lows bouncing off support followed by the price action breaching resistance.
- The formation of triple bottom is seen as an opportunity to enter a bullish position.
What Does a Triple Bottom Tell You?
The triple bottom chart pattern typically follows a prolonged downtrend where bears are in control of the market. While the first bottom could simply be normal price movement, the second bottom is indicative of the bulls gaining momentum and preparing for a possible reversal. The third bottom indicates that there's strong support in place and bears may capitulate when the price breaks through resistance levels.There are a few rules that are commonly used to qualify triple bottoms:
- There should be an existing downtrend in place before the pattern occurs.
- The three lows should be roughly equal in price and spaced out from each other. While the price doesn't have to be exactly equal, it should be reasonably close to the same price, such that a trendline is horizontal.
- The volume should drop throughout the pattern in a sign that bears are losing strength, while bullish volume should increase as the price breaks through the final resistance.
wilzy123
Founding Member
D
Deleted member 118
Guest
20 - 4,416,795
30 - 3,200,000
40 - 2,317,156
50 - 2,081,731
100 - 1,134,424
150 - 920,000
200 - 687,000
250 - 555,000
300 - 477,708
350 - 402,000
400 - 363,315
450 - 315,000
500 - 299,176
550 - 275,000
600 - 250,000
650 - 234,116
700 - 210,674
750 - 200,000
800 - 200,000
900 - 173,798
1000 - 150,000
Last place poor old me 25,000 but increasing weekly
D
Deleted member 118
Guest
You should stop smoking it right down to the end then.
alwaysgreen
Top 20
25k is a good start and it's currently a good time to accumulate some more. The market doesn't know if its Arthur or Martha at the moment so if the S&P drops further over the coming weeks, you might be able to pick up some more at even cheaper prices!
Bravo
If ARM was an arm, BRN would be its biceps💪!
D
Deleted member 118
Guest
Thank you Shadow.
So it seems we have two opposing theories.
1. Citicorp is taking a substantial stake, perhaps as a cornerstone investor, which is good news for us retail, as it shows confidence and should lead to an increasing share price.
or
2. Citicorp is quietly building a large stake, perhaps in cahoots with other as yet unknown players, in a bid to mount a possibly hostile takeover, which may lead to a bidding war, potentially pushing up our share price in the short term, but perhaps denying us of the opportunity to be long term holders going forward.
Either way, it appears Citicorp is possibly in contravention of corporation law and ASX listing rules because it has not notified the ASX of its increased holding status.
Would not this fact be prejudicial against Citicorp in any potential litigation going forward?
DingoBorat
Slim
Hey Yak52, we have to expect large institutions, from around the World, to be starting to accumulate BRN shares.
At the moment, how few, are allowing the current games to be played.
Mercedes, is a definite possibility and they have a history of such investments.
A takeover, or attempt, could occur at anytime, in the Company’s future.
One of LDN's initial employment criteria (at that time) was to make the Company an attractive TO proposition (if I recall correctly).
I think the Company’s goals have since changed, but if they didn't want to be hostilely taken oven, senior management, have the votes to block it.
Any arranged takeover, would also benefit the same large holders and therefore us.
So I don't think we should be alarmed at this stage.
Not happy to be proven wrong.
No worries. Here is an article discussing Citi picking up etf engagements
Citi wins another custody and fund administration mandate in the Australian market from $21bn ETF specialist
Following a client transfer agreement with RBC in 2020, the bank’s Australian business continues to flourish.
D
Deleted member 118
Guest
D
Deleted member 118
Guest
I’ve nearly caught up and I’m on my 3rd beer so should be ok lol
Perhaps
Regular
No idea who's responsible for that and what's the target behind it, but for sure there is a big short campaign running. It all started at June 17th, when the reported shorts jumped up 50% and since that day remain on a high level. July 12th total volume 10,1 M shares, traded shorts 2,6 M. In case of daily shorts we're climbing to new highs.
Similar threads
