Aussie Banks - Major Shareholders

C

CriticalSilver

New Member
Silver Stacker
Here is an interesting bit of information I found yesterday, although it is from 2010. Apparently the top 4 sharholders for the "Four Pillars" of the Australian banking cartel ... er, industry are exactly the same.

1) HSBC CUSTODY NOMINEES (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED
2) J P MORGAN NOMINEES AUSTRALIA LIMITED
3) NATIONAL NOMINEES LIMITED
4) CITICORP NOMINEES PTY LIMITED
http://www.spankyourbank.com.au/who-are-the-bank-shareholders

Makes you think those pillars are actually a trunk, doesn't it. And I don't mean a pirate's trunk full of gold and silver, but a tree trunk sucking life out of the ground and passing it up to those same banks responsible for the large short positions in the Gold and Silver futures markets.

I wonder what a collapse of JPM or HSBC would do to ANZ, Westpac, CBA or NAB?

Is taking possession of physical Gold and Silver a bet not only against JPM and HSBC, but also directly against the Aussie banking system?
 
The government deposit guarantee or whatever it's called. Does that give you any peace of mind at all or do you reckon they will just renege? I know banks are a risk but just trying to work out how risky it is to have money with them on deposit
 
did they renew the deposit backing last year? I cant remember now. Or did they lower it below 1 million or something.
 
Imagine a mass sell off of Aussie bank shares to cover the losses in derivatives these investment banks hold. Glad I don't own any banking stocks
 
Fykus said:
did they renew the deposit backing last year? I cant remember now. Or did they lower it below 1 million or something.
Click to expand...

Its now set at $250k per customer per institution.
 
You guys need to look up what a "nominee" company is. The banks themselves are not the owners. If any conspiracy is about, it's who actually owns the shares held by the "Nominee". They are often used to hide the actual owners of the shares.
 
Cracka said:
You guys need to look up what a "nominee" company is. The banks themselves are not the owners. If any conspiracy is about, it's who actually owns the shares held by the "Nominee". They are often used to hide the actual owners of the shares.
Click to expand...
So what would it look like if the actual investment banks were the actual investors? Would it look any different?
 
Most of the big super funds buy our shares under the name J.P Morgan. A criminal enterprise of the highest order.
 
Nominee still gets to vote, right?

And if a nominees goes bankrupt, shares get liquidated?

If yes to both, whats the difference, nominee or not?
 
Nominee is just that - someone has nominated that person (in this case a bank) to be the face of their shareholdings. It doesn't mean that they have any financial stake in the shares. If the nominee went broke - it would just mean that I would need to find someone else to "front" my share parcel. The nominee at no stage owns any part of the shares. The nominee votes in the direction the owner tells them to. If the owner says "vote whichever way you want" then sure - they have a say but other than that - the vote goes whichever way the financial owner wants it to go.

If I happen to hold more than 5% of a company - even if it is spread through 100 different nominee accounts - then I still must go on the public register and notify the ASX/ASIC that I have a significant holding in that company.

I can nominate (have a nominee) someone to front my shareholdings, represent me at an annual general meeting or at a parent teacher interview. It means nothing more than just that - a holding name.


malachii
 
malachii said:
Nominee is just that - someone has nominated that person (in this case a bank) to be the face of their shareholdings. It doesn't mean that they have any financial stake in the shares. If the nominee went broke - it would just mean that I would need to find someone else to "front" my share parcel. The nominee at no stage owns any part of the shares. The nominee votes in the direction the owner tells them to. If the owner says "vote whichever way you want" then sure - they have a say but other than that - the vote goes whichever way the financial owner wants it to go.

If I happen to hold more than 5% of a company - even if it is spread through 100 different nominee accounts - then I still must go on the public register and notify the ASX/ASIC that I have a significant holding in that company.

I can nominate (have a nominee) someone to front my shareholdings, represent me at an annual general meeting or at a parent teacher interview. It means nothing more than just that - a holding name.


malachii
Click to expand...
Counter party risk much! I would certainly not let the fox look after my chickens
 
fishball said:
thatguy said:
Counter party risk much! I would certainly not let the fox look after my chickens
Click to expand...

??????????????

Did you read what malachii wrote.
Click to expand...
Did you read what happened to MFglobal, segregation of Client funds and firm funds? lol! These guys are crooked as, as if giving them some cash they are going to hold it separate from thier own holdings in anyway. Wake up! What theirs is theirs and what yours is theirs if you foolish enough to entrust them with it.
 
fishball said:
Nominees don't own your shares.
Click to expand...
Can the sell the shares without your permission and move the funds from the transaction to another location without your permission? Illegal yes, possible yes would anyone go to jail? Yes, maybe the postal clerk recently promoted.

Have you looked into MFGlobal? Someone now has a lot of $$ that they did not own
 
thatguy said:
Can the sell the shares without your permission and move the funds from the transaction to another location without your permission?
Click to expand...

They can't do this in Australia. The shares are registered under your name (the beneficiary) and the nominee shareholder is the owner in name only and has no power to transfer ownership.

The beneficiary has the effective ownership and control of the shares.

Have you looked into MFGlobal? Someone now has a lot of $$ that they did not own
Click to expand...

MFGlobal is a mess and nobody really knows what's going on yet.

What is known is that they definitely used client funds to cover their losses but I don't see any reports of people getting their shares sold off by MFGlobal, only that their funds in their trading accounts are gone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top