The Talga Bar
- Thread starter cosors
- Start date
WheresTheMonkey
Regular
That reminds me. Is the VW T Roc (ICE of course) a half decent car ?
Mrs Monkey and I are hiring one in October from La Spezia (after staying in Riomaggiore, Cinque Terre) to Pavia (just south of Milan) to visit some friends and staying with them for some culinary education and a few day trips. Last time they cooked us some horse with polenta........................did we like it ??????.................................Mmmmmmmmmm.................
.....................maybe next time they can do us pizza
Anyway the T Roc ?????.......... I can change the car if I want
Last edited:
cosors
👀
Yes the car is ok if maybe a bit boring but that's because of the VW brand. I do not really like them. The T Roc is a reasonable car and rarely breaks down even if that does not matter to you. October is already a bit late in the year otherwise I would choose a convertible/cabriolet.That reminds me. Is the VW T Roc (ICE of course) a half decent car ?
Mrs Monkey and I are hiring one in October from La Spezia (after staying in Riomaggiore, Cinque Terre) to Pavia (just south of Milan) to visit some friends and staying with them for some culinary education and a few day trips. Last time they cooked us some horse with polenta........................did we like it ??????.................................Mmmmmmmmmm.................
Anyway the T Roc ?????.......... I can change the car if I want
Horses are also sometimes eaten in my town what lies in the history and then occupation by Napoleon who used the churches as stables. The horses of the soldiers were eaten.
This is a very beautiful area where you go there! Especially the mountainous backcountry and the wine is good. Interesting is also the pizza which is slightly thicker in the north of Italy than in the south I like that. I wish you a lot of fun!
WheresTheMonkey
Regular
Yes I looked at going north back to Genoa for a convertible/cabriolet but then had a think about the weather and decided to stick to La Spezia over the hill from Riomaggiore (no convertibles available there)
cosors
👀
It is also more rainy. But this year everything will probably be different because of the global weather situation.
WheresTheMonkey
Regular
Well if it's a bit dry then you will be just like Australia as after having just had 2 years of rain deluges courtesy of a Triple La Nina weather system we are now entering the opposite El Nino weather system which means low rain/drought conditions will now prevail into at least early next year just as it has done for thousands of years.
But it also means we are going to have great beach and surf weather throughout our Spring and Summer
cosors
👀
That's what I mean. Today we commemorate the flood victims during the flood of the century and the incredible rain floods that went down here in my region and swept away entire villages or small towns. The next morning I drove along the Rhine and what I saw there I will never forget, brown, sluggish, full of trees and everything that was carried away by the floods. Everyone looked affected at this picture, spooky quiet and just creepy. Some bodies have found in the North Sea and others not at all.Well if it's a bit dry then you will be just like Australia as after having just had 2 years of rain deluges courtesy of a Triple La Nina weather system we are now entering the opposite El Nino weather system which means low rain/drought conditions will now prevail into at least early next year just as it has done for thousands of years.
But it also means we are going to have great beach and surf weather throughout our Spring and Summer
The picture was so impressive no one had the phone in their hand to make videos. Just silent consternation.
That was about 15Km away
Last edited:
cosors
👀
@WheresTheMonkey
Thank you for your initiative in the Finnish inde res forum! Little tip again: https://www.deepl.com/translator
They are much more confident in translation and especially in sentence structure. Sometimes it may sound a bit clunky or awkward and no one would write like that, but at least it's almost never wrong. Google, on the other hand, often makes mistakes that change the entire context. Google does not recognise the sentence structure.
Thank you for your initiative in the Finnish inde res forum! Little tip again: https://www.deepl.com/translator
They are much more confident in translation and especially in sentence structure. Sometimes it may sound a bit clunky or awkward and no one would write like that, but at least it's almost never wrong. Google, on the other hand, often makes mistakes that change the entire context. Google does not recognise the sentence structure.
@cosors and WTM, another really easy translation method ive been using in Microsoft Edge browser (specifically for the Finnish forum you shared) is adding the language (Finnish in this case) to the translate Language Options (see here for Microsoft‘s explanation https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/edge/features/translate and then right click the web page the Finnish forum page you want in English by selecting translate into English. Really quick and accurate
cosors
👀
Is my idea nonsense?
Dividends are meant for the loyalty of the investor and the trust he has in the company.
Voting rights are for expressing the investment and having a say.
Wouldn't it be conceivable to deprive the lender of shares to Shorter of both the right to dividends and the right to vote until a year has passed and the shares have not left his account?
Why should a company reward someone for their loyalty who is actually working against the company? And why should a company award voting rights to someone who is in fact working against the company?
I am only interested in a legal approach and the theoretical possibility of establishing a fair relationship with the good investors. I am aware that this will never happen. For me, every lender of shares is a hypocrite. Of course he can lend his shares, but then please don't have to be rewarded for it by the same company.
Dividends are meant for the loyalty of the investor and the trust he has in the company.
Voting rights are for expressing the investment and having a say.
Wouldn't it be conceivable to deprive the lender of shares to Shorter of both the right to dividends and the right to vote until a year has passed and the shares have not left his account?
Why should a company reward someone for their loyalty who is actually working against the company? And why should a company award voting rights to someone who is in fact working against the company?
I am only interested in a legal approach and the theoretical possibility of establishing a fair relationship with the good investors. I am aware that this will never happen. For me, every lender of shares is a hypocrite. Of course he can lend his shares, but then please don't have to be rewarded for it by the same company.
Semmel
Top 20
I dont think that is necessary. When a dividend is payed, any shareholder is receiving that dividend. And it has nothing to do with how long you hold stock. You can buy a stock today, get payed a dividend tomorrow and sell the stock the next day. That is why the stock price includes the dividend before the payout and it drops in value on the day of the payout to reflect the share value after the payout. So the scheme I layed out above doesnt net you any profit.
Now, this works for all shareholders. Lets put labels on it because its easier.
Investor A is a shareholder of some stock X, say n shares. A lends this stock to shortseller B, who then sells the shares to investor C. Now both A and C are shareholders, even though A lend the shares out, he is still owner of the shares, which makes him receive the dividend. That is because A might not even know he lend out these shares. For example A has a portfolio at some broker. the broker lends out the shares (without giving A any form of fee for it mind you). So A rightfully thinks he has shares of X. But C doesnt know he bought shares that previously went through some short seller either. C also thinks he has viable shares of company X and will receive his dividend. Now both A and C have n shares and need to receive dividind for them. Who is paying them as the company X only pays dividend to one of them? In this scenario, the short seller B will need to pay C the divident of company X. Making the short a HUGELY unprofitable business.
So what will happen if a dividend is payed out? The short sellers are forced to close their trade before or they need to cough up the dividend for the shares they shorted.
Now, this works for all shareholders. Lets put labels on it because its easier.
Investor A is a shareholder of some stock X, say n shares. A lends this stock to shortseller B, who then sells the shares to investor C. Now both A and C are shareholders, even though A lend the shares out, he is still owner of the shares, which makes him receive the dividend. That is because A might not even know he lend out these shares. For example A has a portfolio at some broker. the broker lends out the shares (without giving A any form of fee for it mind you). So A rightfully thinks he has shares of X. But C doesnt know he bought shares that previously went through some short seller either. C also thinks he has viable shares of company X and will receive his dividend. Now both A and C have n shares and need to receive dividind for them. Who is paying them as the company X only pays dividend to one of them? In this scenario, the short seller B will need to pay C the divident of company X. Making the short a HUGELY unprofitable business.
So what will happen if a dividend is payed out? The short sellers are forced to close their trade before or they need to cough up the dividend for the shares they shorted.
cosors
👀
The system is even shittier than I thought. So shares are sold that belong neither to the shorters nor to the lender/broker. That the broker is allowed to lend something that he does not own is sick.
Thanks for the explanation. Broken system broken people.
Why don't the stock exchanges introduce NFT shares so that it can be traced what happens with the own shares in the back
cosors
👀
That is sick. But you are right. Someone at BRN was exactly annoyed that his broker does something like that. I seem to remember that. Sick shit. Please NFT and private wallet.Your shares are probably lend out too
Slymeat
Move on, nothing to see.
The fact that brokers can lend out our shares without our permission sickens me. And the fact that they receive financial reward for doing so should be illegal, IMHO.
I consider this act as similar to a real estate agent renting out, and even selling, your house without your permission and without you knowing it. Then while you are away, say at work, or on holidays, other people come in and have full rights to use your house as they please and can even rent it out and on-sell it if they want.
Short sellers get away with this with shares as shares are perceived as intangible assets where as in fact they are as real as the company you hold shares in.
Then there’s naked short selling where the short seller sells something that doesn’t even exist.
In all other instances that is fraud and is illegal. It should be the same for shares!
Now consider the case of share owners who knowingly lend out their shares, and they receive a financial benefit for this. I am 100% with @cosors on this and believe these investors should have their rights to dividends and voting rescinded and these should transfer to the new share owner.
I accept the practice of short selling via put options—where you buy THE RIGHT to sell something that you may or may not own. I accept this as if the right is exercised you necessarily have to front up the real commodity to actually sell it. I vehemently disagree with actually selling something you don’t own.
I consider this act as similar to a real estate agent renting out, and even selling, your house without your permission and without you knowing it. Then while you are away, say at work, or on holidays, other people come in and have full rights to use your house as they please and can even rent it out and on-sell it if they want.
Short sellers get away with this with shares as shares are perceived as intangible assets where as in fact they are as real as the company you hold shares in.
Then there’s naked short selling where the short seller sells something that doesn’t even exist.
In all other instances that is fraud and is illegal. It should be the same for shares!
Now consider the case of share owners who knowingly lend out their shares, and they receive a financial benefit for this. I am 100% with @cosors on this and believe these investors should have their rights to dividends and voting rescinded and these should transfer to the new share owner.
I accept the practice of short selling via put options—where you buy THE RIGHT to sell something that you may or may not own. I accept this as if the right is exercised you necessarily have to front up the real commodity to actually sell it. I vehemently disagree with actually selling something you don’t own.
Semmel
Top 20
Generally agree with that position. Though a bit more nuanced. Naked short selling is in a sense necessary to have a market that settles trades on the spot rather than take 1-2 days. But if you are fine with a market where an order command would take 1 to 2 days to go through, without short selling, it's ok. Also you could add legislation to prevent shorts except for settling trades. Which would be the best of all.
Sigh, a financial world that wasn't abused would be sooo nice!
cosors
👀
"Major industry funds defend short-selling bonanza
BySally Rose
November 11, 2015Investment chiefs from five of Australia's largest industry superannuation funds have defended the practice of loaning out stocks to short sellers, who typically drive down share prices, and denied they are shirking the responsibility to exercise their shareholder voting rights.
The increasingly popular practice is in the spotlight this annual general meeting season amid worries that high levels of shorting in troubled retailers Woolworths, Myer, Metcash and Dick Smith means company boards are not facing as much scrutiny from long term shareholders as their lacklustre performance warrants.
So that's what a wanker looks like.
Executives from AustralianSuper, UniSuper, Cbus, REST Industry Super and Sunsuper defended securities lending on Wednesday arguing borrowed stock can be recalled ahead of any shareholder votes, meaning the practice doesn't hinder their ability to exert influence and improve corporate governance. They argued the fees earned from securities lending help plump up member returns and improve the efficiency of the broader market.
AustralianSuper head of investment operations Peter Curtis said lending securities helps maximise the retirement savings of members in the $92 billion fund.
"Shareholders aren't disadvantaged because lent securities can be called back within 24 hours in advance of impending AGMs in order that we may exercise our rights as owners," he said.
"It is very rare that all stock in a given company is ever lent by a beneficial owner".
Clime Investment Management boss John Abernethy was scathing of the increase in securities lending by super funds.
"Why a super fund charged with delivering long term returns would lend its stock out to short sellers to get the price knocked down is beyond comprehension," he said.
But Mr Curtis said a price dip can be advantageous.
"Apart from adding value to the portfolio, securities lending is an important source of liquidity in the market and adds to price discovery. We view the process as investors expressing differing views on a given stock."
'Construction industry also profits'
Cbus executive manager investment strategy Kristian Fok confirmed that the $27 billion construction industry fund also profits from lending to short sellers."Some borrowers will use it to short the stock and if this depresses prices below fundamental value, as long-term investors we would expect that this would present buying opportunities," he said.
"Cbus has a policy of recalling from loan all stock for contentious issues, which we actively consider through our internal proxy voting committee," Mr Fok said.
UniSuper chief investment officer John Pearce said the $49.2 billion fund for university employees lends stock to short sellers and has a policy of always recalling it in time for voting.
"We always reserve the right to stop stock lending if we believe it is going to exacerbate market volatility," Mr Pearce said.
"Securities lending is not a big revenue raiser but if we can make members a bit of money and add to the liquidity in the market then that's a good thing."
REST Industry Super chief executive Damian Hill said the benefits gleaned from lending stock are small, in the vicinity of less than 0.01 per cent to 0.09 per cent of total annual returns.
"It is a very small contributor to returns but we have a responsibility to members to consider all opportunities to add value."
Sunsuper acting chief investment officer Stuart Wilson said that fund also loans out stock to short sellers but recalls it all ahead of shareholder votes."
https://www.smh.com.au/money/super-and-retirement/major-industry-funds-defend-shortselling-bonanza-20151111-gkw7s3.html
0,01 - 0,09%
None of what he claims makes sense to me unless he is lending someone else's investment into his own pocket and shorting through a friendly shorter. As with the trades from one hand to the other and back and finally he uses the buying opportunity he mentions for himself. I have often seen these graphs on BRN where SP and institutional accumulation diverge like a scissors. They accumulate and the SP drops.
And am I right in assuming that guys like him are doing that with your pension than, for example, with the Talga shares you have so painstakingly collected? He lends your pension to his buddy who earns money by shorting. Then this investor accumulates for himself and then puts your shares back into your super. And he argues that it is only a matter of very little fees, actually disappearing little, but that brings volatility and creates buying opportunities for himself. And the small investor in his pension ends up looking stupid. Don't worry that your shares didn't perform so well this year. But it will definitely be better next year when I have accumulated mine with help of your investment.
It would not surprise me in the least if shorter and fond belonged to one and the same institution via a complicated, nontransparent system. They then phone internally in 'their' company, so to speak - I have this and that here and I expect that result for me. Whoever came up with that is a genius!
Can that be more or less realistic or am I missing something?
_____________________
I like this newspaper so far. Can you confirm that or are there better or more neutral ones? Politics interests me less. The good food part is interesting!
Last edited:
WheresTheMonkey
Regular
LOL...................the Good Food section of the SMH is in there every day to some degree. It is one of the few areas not yet Pay walled although they were considering it a few months ago just not yet implemented I believe.
Just on the Short Selling my understanding is that if you are a personal shareholder (including via your Self Managed Super Fund "SMSF" or your own Company or Trust) then they cannot be short sold as they are registered directly via the CHESS system here (that probably means little to you @Semmel and @cosors) but it's a central register updated by the ASX using information from brokers and the various share registry companies (for TLG it's Automic Group). If that is not true can someone correct me
I own TLG via my own SMSF so I get a CHESS statement every 30 June plus whenever I buy or sell. So I have a CHESS statement for each company I hold in my SMSF. CHESS = Clearing House Electronic Subregister System
The big Super Funds like those in the article you posted own the shares on behalf of millions of members so a member does not directly own the shares he or she just owns a percentage of the Super Fund's entire share portfolio of hundreds of billions of dollars. That is what the article is discussing
Anyway if I am wrong regarding not being able to short sell the CHESS system could someone correct me please as I have read this more than once in various articles
I guess you guys bought on one of the European exchanges so your holdings would be held by a Nominee company such as you would see in the TLG Top 20.
If so then Yes they are probably lending your shares out
Last edited:
cosors
👀
Thanks for your infos!
And I just read the confirmation from my bank Comdirect that they do not lend shares to short sellers.
Proga
Regular
That is my understanding. I'm not sure if super funds are doing it but the big fund managers in the top 20 are. Most if not all super funds use the top 20 to buy/sell and are the registered holder. Aus Super use JPMorgan who might loan the shares to shorters or short themselves.
You need to look for "Becoming a substantial holder" and "Ceasing to be a substantial holder" announcements and then go through them. If they have pages and pages of buy/sell transactions in them, they're shorters. UBS is shorting the crap out of SYR. However, most like to stay under the threshold so as not to break cover. SYR on the 23/06/2022 had an announcement of becoming a substantial holder from UBS then 2 days later had a ceasing. Check the becoming announcement on the 23/06 and you'll see what I mean. They often buy and sell on the same day. In UBS's case, they sell hard in the morning driving the SP down, then buy them back cheaper in the arvo if the plan worked.
Similar threads
- Article
