Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

crawfordm's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. crawfordm


    Interesting US$ vs Copper story Flower, it would be interseting to see that graph with a longer timeframe and hear peoples thoughts on it. And would also be interesting to hear how any Copper producers in the US deal with this, although I guess the point is moot, as every producer from Australia to Zaire is tied up with US$ commodity prices. At least with no banks lending there is less production tied up in hedging & forward selling positions! Will be intruiging to see how people who go short in copper will be in a week from now....
  2. crawfordm


    What do people think about this? ________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________ <H1 class=section-heading>China hits copper price</H1>June 20, 2009 Article from: The Australian CHINA'S State Reserve Bureau will probably stop buying copper, pushing down prices after a 63 per cent rally this year, according to a trader at Zhejiang Honglei Copper Co. China's demand will fall in the next quarter and imports will decline, futures trading manager Zhao Mingwang says. Zhejiang Honglei produced about 100,000 tonnes of wires and rods a year and bought material from Jiangxi Copper Co, the country's largest producer, Mr Zhao said yesterday. Copper has surged in the industrial metals rally this year, driven by investments and stockpiling by China's reserve bureau, known as SRB, hiking costs for manufacturers and profits for producers such as BHP Billiton. Hedge fund managers and other speculators increased their short positions in New York copper almost two weeks ago. "What's the significance of further SRB purchases in a market that's fundamentally weak?" said Wang Jun, an analyst at Beijing Antaike Information Development Co. "Demand will be weaker next quarter, and what we heard from some producers of copper wire, tube and strip was that orders for future months are not as good as previous months." Futures in London dropped 0.2 per cent to $US4960 a tonne yesterday. Prices fell 0.03 per cent to 39,220 yuan ($US5737) a tonne in Shanghai trading. "Demand is not as good as people had expected," Mr Zhao said. "In the second half, the SRB is unlikely to buy more, so copper price fluctuations will rely on real demand. The third quarter will be a slow season, so we expect copper to fall." Copper might drop next week on speculation of fewer Chinese imports, investors and traders said. Bloomberg
  3. "OZ Minerals was pretty surprised then when one unnamed bank came back on Thursday evening seeking, at the death, to increase its individual level of security. The company refuses to confirm which bank is involved here" Anyone care to guess which bank is involved here? My guesses are - Macquarie, Citigroup or Bankwest.....
  4. crawfordm


    See my post made back on 11th March last year. QUOTE I wouldn't be too excited or concerned about the uranium story, the company (and MMN as well) is likely to find more tin, tungsten, gold, copper & silver than it can poke a stick at.
  5. So if what Hugh McLernon is saying is correct, that Opes may not have had beneficial ownership of shares. Then is it possible that ANZ could not obtain ownersip either? And if the courts find that the Opes financial services guide did not comply with the Corporations Act, or indeed if the the ANZ Loan documentation to Opes did not comply with the Corporations Act then either way, who is responsible for these breaches of the Corporations Act? The parties involved? Opes, ANZ or the regulator? This will be really interesting for the lawyers, as I said before, my sympathies and best wishes go out to people whom have been affected by this tragedy.
  6. Coutesy of The Australian 18 April 2007 LITIGATION funder IMF became part of the Opes saga yesterday when it announced it had 30 clients willing to take on the ANZ bank. IMF director Hugh McLernon said the clients' exposure ranged from $200,000 to $20 million. Two Perth law firms, Lavan Legal and Williams and Hughes, have been engaged to run the case and proceedings are expected to begin in the Federal Court within two weeks. Mr McLernon said the claim would focus on the difference between margin loans and securities lending and borrowing arrangements, and the nature of the payments being made. "We think the question as to whether the clients can get their value back does not necessarily depend upon the terms of the standard contract." He said three issues were involved: * The content of the contract between Opes and the investors. * The representations made about what the investors were signing. * Whether the Opes financial services guide complied with the Corporations Act. "The one result is that Opes did not get beneficial title to the shares," he said. "If they didn't get beneficial title, the issue then becomes whether the bank, which for three or four years dealt with Opes on an almost daily basis, said they could keep the beneficial interest. "If the bank knew that was the case, they would have to pay." Mr McLernon said Opes had two products -- equity financing, or margin loans, and securities lending. With a margin loan the investor was a debtor who paid interest while putting shares up as security. In securities lending, the client did not become a debtor of Opes, he said. That money was put up as collateral. "You don't pay interest on collateral, you pay a fee," Mr McLernon said. "If both parties call them a loan, they clearly were in a margin lending arrangement. That's precisely the terminology used in every case by Opes to its clients on its website and in its promotional material. "In each case they are making a loan, expecting to be paid interest while holding he shares as security." Earlier this week, Slater & Gordon said more than 100 investors had expressed interest in joining a class action. However, Mr McLernon said running such a claim might be difficult. "When a really close look is had at this, every claim is individual and depends on the facts and documents related to each claim," he said. IMF had started with six clients and had attracted another 24 since advertising last week, he said. It had chosen to take on the ANZ bank rather than Opes and its insurers. "The bank sold the shares and holds the money."
  7. Coutesy of The Age "The New South Wales Supreme Court has refused a continuation of an injunction to Opes Prime client Melewar Steel Ventures Ltd, which would have stopped ANZ Banking Group Ltd from selling shares in junior miner Gindalbie Metals Ltd." Full article: http://news.theage.com.au/melewar-injuncti...80416-26gt.html
  8. In reply to: mosaic1996 on Sunday 06/04/08 12:54pm Now I will go off to do my homework and research on CFD's, not in them at the moment but there are some other people whom I know who are. Cheers.
  9. Sorry if not strictly relevant to Opes, but some may be interested in how other markets have attempted to deal with some of the issues. http://www.hkgem.com/tradinfo/regshortsell/regshortsell.htm
  10. http://www.hkgem.com/tradinfo/regshortsell/regshortsell.htm
  11. I don't know how many people want to make short selling illegal, maybe some but not me. I think the question and discussion here, will end up being about the "orderliness" and whether the market was "properly informed". There were some interesting rules changes about delivery of short selling shares and stock lending practices at the Hong Kong stock exchange a few years ago, can't find it now, but if someone else does it makes for very interesting reading.
  12. Hi all, I think we can all agree with mosaic1996's assesment about the origin of the problem: "... the problem lies with OPES PRIME managements abuse of clients assets by failing to make margin calls on the 6 (or so) priviledge clients. It appears that some if not all of these special clients are companies related to OPES directors/management, e.g., Hawkswood" But does anyone have any ideas as to whether only the Opes Prime clients may have a legal course of action, or could the scope be wider?
  13. In reply to: PJ83 on Friday 04/04/08 03:22pm Hey PJ83, I just couldn't reseist this one, but pehaps you may want to take out a margin loan to short ANZ? Maybe even get ANZ to write the loan out for you? How did this all start again?
  14. As I read it from the SMH on the Slater & Gordon website: http://news.smh.com.au/opes-client-wins-in...80402-2349.html Then how is it possible that the NSW Supreme Court injunction was successful, yet the Vic Federal Court injuction failed? Slater & Gordon seem to imply that its the exact same legal question that was tested but two contradictory answers. This seems to be the punch-line at the moment: Clients have told Slater & Gordon they were unaware that Opes Prime could use shares, pledged as collateral, to secure loans with third parties. Slater & Gordon director Ken Fowlie said the NSW Supreme Court had injuncted ANZ from dealing with Melewar's shares for a week. "It is a significant development in circumstances where that was not the point that was reached in Melbourne Tuesday in a similar application," Mr Fowlie said. Tuesday, a group of Opes clients linked to CMG Group went to the Federal Court in Melbourne in a bid to stop ANZ and the receiver from selling shares. However, they failed to obtain a court injunction preventing the sale. The clients linked to CMG Group said they had entered into agreements with Opes Prime under the belief that they retained beneficial and economic ownership of the stock. I guess what Ken Fowlie is saying is "watch this space".
  15. In reply to: mosaic1996 on Friday 04/04/08 01:17pm Not my mortgage example, it was someone else. But saying "that is the terms of the deal" may be partly correct, it all hinges which pert of the terms you saw, on the actual legality of ownership, of which I am not an expert by the way. But to take your adatped "if the whole street signed up to the deal, then that is the terms of the deal." - is interesting. From what I have heard, the front page or glossy information documentation said one thing, but the fine print said another. ANZ are using the fine print to exercize their legal ownership, but what if the fine print contradicts the product information at the start of the documentation? Has this ever happened before? Anyone know what happened?
  • Create New...