Information on substantial shareholders

[winstonsmith]

Hi all,

I am new to the ASX system and very much like to get started.

The new market for me seems full of opportunities.

Is there any way for us to know who the substantial shareholder of a company at any time?

In Hong Kong we could use the CCASS system. For example, to know that Li Ka-shing owns 001, we just go here http://sdinotice.hkex.com.hk/di/NSS.../2016&sced=18/08/2017&sc=001&src=MAIN&lang=EN ??

Is there any equivalent in ASX? Or alternatively, can we input the name of a person to know what companies she holds?

Or is the annual reports the only way to get this kind of information? In other words, we can just have a yearly update?

THANKS!

 

[pixel]

Hi all,

I am new to the ASX system and very much like to get started.

The new market for me seems full of opportunities.

Is there any way for us to know who the substantial shareholder of a company at any time?

In Hong Kong we could use the CCASS system. For example, to know that Li Ka-shing owns 001, we just go here http://sdinotice.hkex.com.hk/di/NSS.../2016&sced=18/08/2017&sc=001&src=MAIN&lang=EN ??

Is there any equivalent in ASX? Or alternatively, can we input the name of a person to know what companies she holds?

Or is the annual reports the only way to get this kind of information? In other words, we can just have a yearly update?

THANKS!

AFAIK the information is comprehensively published only in certain Company Reports, but some external data providers offer subscription services. Morningstar used to be one of those, but as I no longer subscribe to their updates, I can't tell you how accurate they are.

Making matters even more complicated, most sizeable holdings are simply listed under the Broker's name, without divulging the actual beneficiaries by name. That is also often the case when you see announcements regarding new or changed "Substantial Holdings", which in Australia means combined holdings of 5% and more of issued shares. Whenever I see such an announcement of a company I'm interested in, I try to take notice and update records I may keep for myself on such a company. It is, however, a tedious, manual process - and IMHO in general of limited value.

 

[winstonsmith]

Thanks, Pixel, so much for your detailed explanation.

So Morningstar, based on your experience, could provide information on the shareholding information of a company on any given date? or is it just reproducing what one can easily find on the ASX announcement page?

As to holding through brokers, do you mean it is possible for Mr ABC to hold more than 5% of shares but he holds it through different brokers, so there needs not be any filing to ASX?

 

[pixel]

Thanks, Pixel, so much for your detailed explanation.

So Morningstar, based on your experience, could provide information on the shareholding information of a company on any given date? or is it just reproducing what one can easily find on the ASX announcement page?

As to holding through brokers, do you mean it is possible for Mr ABC to hold more than 5% of shares but he holds it through different brokers, so there needs not be any filing to ASX?

Regarding Morningstar, I didn't particularly check that kind of information; it's quite possible, likely even, that they update the tables only once or twice a year. That's also what they usually do with fundamental info such as EBIT, P/E, etc.

If Mr ABC holds a substantial interest through more than one account, he still has to publish the total sum with the requisite "Substantial Holding" note. Only rarely are people caught out for neglecting that duty, but sometimes it does happen.
My comment about those "anonymous" positions on the Top 20 lists didn't refer to 5%ers, but to the names - or rather lack of names - on many of those lists. Look for terms, such as "Custody" or "Nominees"; also, if a company is listed as the owner, who is behind that?

 

[winstonsmith]

Regarding Morningstar, I didn't particularly check that kind of information; it's quite possible, likely even, that they update the tables only once or twice a year. That's also what they usually do with fundamental info such as EBIT, P/E, etc.

If Mr ABC holds a substantial interest through more than one account, he still has to publish the total sum with the requisite "Substantial Holding" note. Only rarely are people caught out for neglecting that duty, but sometimes it does happen.
My comment about those "anonymous" positions on the Top 20 lists didn't refer to 5%ers, but to the names - or rather lack of names - on many of those lists. Look for terms, such as "Custody" or "Nominees"; also, if a company is listed as the owner, who is behind that?

Thanks for your detailed reply. It seems these data providers are just collecting public data and to aggregate them in an easy-to-read way.

That's exactly my question. Is there any way to know who is behind those brokers? I can well imagine a situation in which mother, father, son and daughter each hold 4.99% of share behind a broker. They collectively hold 20% of the shares, and yet don't have to reveal that. Is my scenario possible?

 

[pixel]

Thanks for your detailed reply. It seems these data providers are just collecting public data and to aggregate them in an easy-to-read way.

That's exactly my question. Is there any way to know who is behind those brokers? I can well imagine a situation in which mother, father, son and daughter each hold 4.99% of share behind a broker. They collectively hold 20% of the shares, and yet don't have to reveal that. Is my scenario possible?

welcome to "Cynics Anonymous"
The scenario you outline is indeed conceivable, although one would have to ask what those four might hope to gain from a ruse like that.
If they're closely related to the BoD, i.e. if one of them were a Director or closely related to one, the total number would have to be disclosed in a Director's Holding statement. In any case, they'd have to be aware that a nosy journalist or - if applicable - a Tax Office snoop would draw some uncomfortable conclusions. I'm sure you know that it's much easier for "some" to obtain the names behind Nominee or Trust accounts than it is for poor little you and I

 

[winstonsmith]

welcome to "Cynics Anonymous"
The scenario you outline is indeed conceivable, although one would have to ask what those four might hope to gain from a ruse like that.
If they're closely related to the BoD, i.e. if one of them were a Director or closely related to one, the total number would have to be disclosed in a Director's Holding statement. In any case, they'd have to be aware that a nosy journalist or - if applicable - a Tax Office snoop would draw some uncomfortable conclusions. I'm sure you know that it's much easier for "some" to obtain the names behind Nominee or Trust accounts than it is for poor little you and I

poor us, the small players!

thanks for confirming my not so likely scenario.

so do you mean it's easier to be standing behind nominee or trust accounts, even when they hold more than 5% of shares? if the authorities do not investigate, they actually can own more than 5% without anyone knowing?

 

[McLovin]

That's exactly my question. Is there any way to know who is behind those brokers? I can well imagine a situation in which mother, father, son and daughter each hold 4.99% of share behind a broker. They collectively hold 20% of the shares, and yet don't have to reveal that. Is my scenario possible?

The "relevant interest" concept under the Corps Act would require that position to be declared. Like Pixel, I don't really see what benefit is gained by not declaring the position.

 

[pixel]

poor us, the small players!

thanks for confirming my not so likely scenario.

so do you mean it's easier to be standing behind nominee or trust accounts, even when they hold more than 5% of shares? if the authorities do not investigate, they actually can own more than 5% without anyone knowing?

Possible, but not very likely. If anyone is found out not to have disclosed a holding of more than 5%, ASIC will hit them like a ton of bricks. And they can read Registry records and link holdings of any associates in on their lists. That aside, I can't imagine Computershare, for example, risking their license for abetting non-disclosure.

 

[winstonsmith]

Well understood. Thank you both

what about the other way round?

I can see from the annual reports of a company that Mr ABC was a 15% shareholder in 2013 but no longer on the list in 2014 (the smallest one holds only 0.5%). But I ran through all the announcements, but could not see that he declared himself to be no longer a substantial shareholder.

Does the same concept apply here?

Thanks!~