I want to believe that there is a very good reason why we were not told of Citi becoming the number 1 shareholder at the AGM. Giving the team the benefit of the doubt until we get further information.
BRN Discussion Ongoing
- Thread starter TechGirl
- Start date
Fullmoonfever
Top 20
Was just checking into that side of things haha
A blog post found so far.
What is a Nominee Company and Why are They Used? | The Quinn Group
A corporate nominee is most frequently used to hold shares in trust on behalf of the beneficial owner. To ensure the beneficial owner retains control over the shares, an agreement between the nominee shareholder and the beneficial owner is executed.
www.quinns.com.au
Will be owner of shares I think, but they may be part of a fund, in which case a fund manager..
Is a closed mind really compatible with the Socratic dialogue to which we have become accustomed on this thread?
MDhere
Regular
ok.. i called my agent to call the buyers and they have 24hrs to take my offer of acceptance of there crazy reduction 15 day settlement no clauses. if they accept will take my 50k i have in my offset and buy brn. then put money back in my offset in 15 days. so for today and tomorrow stay at .80 c please lol
If i pull this off drinks on my at next agm (limit 1 house wine or beer each) lol
If i pull this off drinks on my at next agm (limit 1 house wine or beer each) lol
MT09..............exactly where do you get such an idea please? The truth could not be farther from that statement.
and the Company has a responsibility to keep us shareholders informed also. This CITICORP accumulation should have been brought up at the AGM at least.
Tony Dawes reply has not surprised me at all but it is TOTALLY unacceptable. The "sheep" here may be willing to sit back in dream land but I take
responsibility for my money & Investments and expect as a shareholder to be kept informed about the Company I have invested in.
I expect a moral & business code from Management that encompasses TRANSPARENCY, RESPONSIBILITY especially towards stakeholders/shareholders.
Tony Dawe just shrugged off any responsibility and TRANSPARENCY is a foreign concept apparently to Management when considering shareholders.
His reply is as offending as the quote "Stock price is what it is" made recently. unbelievable.
Seeing red flags wont make me SELL but it WILL encourage me to spread around what they are trying to HIDE.
For ALL of us , even those who just simply cannot help being fence sitters, .........I truly hope that knowledge of CITICORP NOMINEE growing holdings ENCOURAGES other entities to decide to take a stand and COUNTER this attempt at a controlling stake in Brainchip.
AND I hope we see some unexpected REVENUE of significance in the next 4C soon.
-------------------------------------
ps. 2.6 million NEW shorts taken out yesterday (Tuesday) which may explain that 8% drop in SP.
shame its been as low as 600k lately each day.
pps. T/O commonly have a 15%/30%-50% PREMIUM added to the CURRENT stock price at Offer date. Does THAT send a shiver down your back hmm?
Yak52
wilzy123
Founding Member
Again, there is nothing sinister going on here…its most likely a whole bunch of managed and super funds taking stakes since entering asx200..
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.
Nb. I’m a director at a big4 and work closely with leading funds tax practice that deals a lot with these custodians
Last edited:
Fullmoonfever
Top 20
Just found this as well which is worth keeping in mind.
IG platform holds the shares under Citicorp Nominees.
Seeing this I also wonder what other platforms are doing the same and if so, the added interest in BRN over the past few months could also see an increase in buyers via these platforms thus increasing the overall Citicorp Nom #'s being discussed.
So that would also indicate retail buyers out there using IG will all be lumped in that basket which would add up a portion as well.
IG platform holds the shares under Citicorp Nominees.
Seeing this I also wonder what other platforms are doing the same and if so, the added interest in BRN over the past few months could also see an increase in buyers via these platforms thus increasing the overall Citicorp Nom #'s being discussed.
So that would also indicate retail buyers out there using IG will all be lumped in that basket which would add up a portion as well.
Hi All,
I was made aware of an entity whom had accumulated around 72 million shares and building about 2 months ago, it's not a secret that Robert Mitro attended the AGM in Sydney, said nothing and left, my personal belief is that he has an axe to grind, with the company in general.
It is alleged that his holding of 120 million shares (as of 2 months or so ago) were given to him, as in, he never paid a cent, presumably for services rendered in the early years when Peter first went to the US (Silicon Valley) with his red FPGA card SNAP64 I think it was.
Allegedly Robert Mitro opened up doors through all his Corporate contacts, and appears to want everyone to know how important he was/is in the development of Brainchip Holdings Ltd....the word "genius" doesn't come to mind.
We all know the individual who carries that title proudly, and it's certainly not Robert Mitro, it's our real Founder, Mr Peter van der Made.
Yesterday I was advised by a source that 73.4% of BRN shares were still held by the top 1000 shareholders, and the only thing I can say is that, I believe everything that the company has said on the public record is still on track.
From a beautiful sunny day in Perth.....Tech x
(All of the above claims are a matter of opinion....mine).
I was made aware of an entity whom had accumulated around 72 million shares and building about 2 months ago, it's not a secret that Robert Mitro attended the AGM in Sydney, said nothing and left, my personal belief is that he has an axe to grind, with the company in general.
It is alleged that his holding of 120 million shares (as of 2 months or so ago) were given to him, as in, he never paid a cent, presumably for services rendered in the early years when Peter first went to the US (Silicon Valley) with his red FPGA card SNAP64 I think it was.
Allegedly Robert Mitro opened up doors through all his Corporate contacts, and appears to want everyone to know how important he was/is in the development of Brainchip Holdings Ltd....the word "genius" doesn't come to mind.
We all know the individual who carries that title proudly, and it's certainly not Robert Mitro, it's our real Founder, Mr Peter van der Made.
Yesterday I was advised by a source that 73.4% of BRN shares were still held by the top 1000 shareholders, and the only thing I can say is that, I believe everything that the company has said on the public record is still on track.
From a beautiful sunny day in Perth.....Tech x
(All of the above claims are a matter of opinion....mine).
Last edited:
HopalongPetrovski
I'm Spartacus!
Yes, think this was raised in regard to who held voting rights when we had shares in our individual industry super funds, (Not SMSF's), where the handling of those rights were dependent on the individual funds charter.
So, in some circumstances, I, as an individual could instruct my fund, who holds and owns those shares on my behalf, to vote on a particular matter in a particular way. But it just depends on the way each fund is set up. In some circumstances, the fund can just ignore my instructions and theoretically vote my indirectly owned shares directly against my wishes. Even though in most cases the voting rights are not actually exercised in which case those shares are voted by and for in the Company's interest.
Fullmoonfever
Top 20
Just for some fun here is an article discussing custodians etc in particular to our Big 4.
finty.com
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
This post was originally published in May 2014 and has been updated for freshness, accuracy, and comprehensiveness.
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 2020In 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.
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:- 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.
Lex555
Regular
I like it a lot, The force is strong in youJust noticed that Audi's Q6 e-tron 2023 Sportback model has been spied. Article says it will use an electric platform jointly developed with Porche. Am trying to find out more about the "Hey, Audi" diologue system in the Q6 to see whether it is the same as the Audi Q4 e-tron in which they teamed up with Cerence.
See below the Audi Q4 e-tron has "A hybrid system with both cloud-based and integrated elements means drivers are never left without key capabilities, even in areas of low or no connectivity." I feel like the "integrated elements" referred to could include Akida.
In which case, you would think the system used in the Q4 would likely be used in the Q6...
Typing time: half an hour
View attachment 11205
2023 Audi Q6 e-tron Sportback spied - Automotive Daily
The new Audi Q6 e-tron will join the brand's all-electric line-up this year as a rival for both the Tesla Model Y and the larger Tesla Model X. Our spies havewww.autodaily.com.au
wilzy123
Founding Member
Hi All,
I was made aware of an entity whom had accumulated around 72 million shares and building about 2 months ago, it's not a secret that Robert Mitro attended the AGM in Sydney, said nothing and left, my personal belief is that he has an axe to grind, with the company in general.
It is alleged that his holding of 120 million shares (as of 2 months or so ago) were given to him, as in, he never paid a cent, presumably for services rendered in the early years when Peter first went to the US (Silicon Valley) with his red FPGA card SNAP64 I think it was.
Allegedly Robert Mitro opened up doors through all his Corporate contacts, and appears to want everyone to know how important is was/is in the development of Brainchip Holdings Ltd....the word "genius" doesn't come to mind.
We all know the individual who carries that title proudly, and it's certainly not Robert Mitro, it's our real Founder, Mr Peter van der Made.
Yesterday I was advised by a source that 73.4% of BRN shares were still held by the top 1000 shareholders, and the only thing I can say is that, I believe everything that the company has said on the public record is still on track.
From a beautiful sunny day in Perth.....Tech x
(All of the above claims are a matter of opinion....mine).
Hi Tech, good to hear from you. In that top 1000 shareholders we have Citicorp and Robert Mitro. Are there any others that might not want to vote the way we want them to?Hi All,
I was made aware of an entity whom had accumulated around 72 million shares and building about 2 months ago, it's not a secret that Robert Mitro attended the AGM in Sydney, said nothing and left, my personal belief is that he has an axe to grind, with the company in general.
It is alleged that his holding of 120 million shares (as of 2 months or so ago) were given to him, as in, he never paid a cent, presumably for services rendered in the early years when Peter first went to the US (Silicon Valley) with his red FPGA card SNAP64 I think it was.
Allegedly Robert Mitro opened up doors through all his Corporate contacts, and appears to want everyone to know how important is was/is in the development of Brainchip Holdings Ltd....the word "genius" doesn't come to mind.
We all know the individual who carries that title proudly, and it's certainly not Robert Mitro, it's our real Founder, Mr Peter van der Made.
Yesterday I was advised by a source that 73.4% of BRN shares were still held by the top 1000 shareholders, and the only thing I can say is that, I believe everything that the company has said on the public record is still on track.
From a beautiful sunny day in Perth.....Tech x
(All of the above claims are a matter of opinion....mine).
@BaconLover good to see your getting into the right thinking mode. THESE are the RIGHT questions!
@Slade yes you are 100% right and I have covered that also in a post today somewhere.
Alwaysgreen.............correct with your post BUT highly unlikely thats what its about.
I used to get Black Rocks PDFs about 300-500 pages long with ALL the trades done and trawl through them learning how they buy/sell & accumulated with trading. You can learn methods by doing this.
One major standout was how when they {Black Rock) get an Analyst recommendation and decide to accumulate a companies stock ...............
it is NOT just the local (in country) Branch Office that does the trades but EVERY BRANCH OFFICE around the world seems to take part in it.
This means if you consider it that multiple holdings under multiple accounts in multiple COUNTRIES are accumulating the companies stock and none of this would be accounted for by the ASX as a single holding account or ENTITY.
Essentially no one except Black Rock would have an idea how much had been traded or accumulated until it was necessary to be used in a controlling move. Big Business has many ways to hide their plans/work.
Yak52
Mt09
Regular
The company is not legally bound, responsibility lies with the purchaser.. I know you’re upset but that doesn’t make you correct.. maybe time for a bex and a lie down?
Similar threads
