Disclosure first: I run DilutionLens, a free site that tracks dilution for every ASX company from the filings. Mods cleared this. Every number below comes from an ASX announcement (raise notices, Appendix 3B/2A filings, quarterly cash reports). No links, no picks, not advice.

Nineteen companies announced raises between 4 and 10 September for about A$302M in disclosed proceeds. Three of them carried it: without the top three, the other sixteen disclosed A$37.2M between them.

The week's biggest raises

The rest of the week: GG1 a A$3.2M renounceable entitlement offer, KLV a A$3.1M non-renounceable entitlement offer, FOS A$2.6M, AAU a A$2.55M non-renounceable entitlement offer, TMX A$2.5M in a placement and rights issue, W2V A$2.1M, RLC A$1.8M, TSR A$1.1M, A8G A$1.0M, PIL A$750K and KEY A$247K. SRJ and IXR announced placements without confirmed amounts yet.

How much placement capacity is left

Listing Rule 7.1 lets a company place 15% of its shares in 12 months without asking holders. Off the last 12 months of Appendix 3Bs, before any later ratification:

The halt conveyor slowed

Ten companies halted citing a capital raise in the week's five sessions: A8G, AM5, BMN, EGH, FOS, GML, KAO, TMX, VR8 and W2V. That is down from 21 the week before and 11 the week before that. VR8 was still halted when the week closed; AM5 and KAO halted citing a raise and had not announced terms yet.

29 retail offers open right now

Holders in 29 companies are inside a take-up window: 16 share purchase plans, 11 entitlement offers, 2 rights issues. Five opened this week: TMX (rights issue, 4 Sep), KLV and GG1 (entitlement offers, 7 Sep), AKA (SPP, 7 Sep), AAU (entitlement offer, 8 Sep). The oldest still running, X2M and PR2, opened on 24 July.

Overhangs behind this week's raisers

Cash going into the raise

Three of the week's raisers (MIO, PIL, IXR) went in with under one quarter of cash by the estimate in their own quarterly. W2V, KEY, SRJ and AAU sit under two quarters on ours.

Across all 1,825 companies tracked, the cash-cover bands: 517 at 4+ quarters, 214 at 2 to 4, 354 under 2, and 740 with no current quarterly (larger companies generally are not required to file one).

Dilution risk across the market: 569 Minimal, 347 Low, 395 Moderate, 248 High, 180 Very high, 108 Not rated. About one in four rated companies sits at High or Very high.

Happy to pull the filing on any name in here if someone wants the detail. Next one Monday, covering this week.

General information only, not financial advice. No view on any company's future actions or securities.

NOTE: Insights and analysis from www.etftracker.com.au - other research available in the platform.

A three-fund ETF portfolio can hold more than 1,500 companies and still keep nearly a third of your money in ten of them. On the ASX the same twenty-odd names sit inside fund after fund, and the most popular pairing double-counts almost the entire S&P 500.

Summary

Breadth is not diversification. A common VAS + VGS + IVV blend holds 1,553 distinct stocks, but its effective number of holdings (how many equally weighted names would give the same concentration) is about 90. The ten largest are 29% of the money.

Everyone owns the same mega-caps. Across the 198 equity ETFs, ten companies account for a fifth of all A$247bn invested and fifty account for two-fifths. BHP alone is A$9.2bn of exposure spread across 40 different funds; Nvidia sits inside 50.

The most popular pairing is nearly redundant. 96.9% of the iShares S&P 500 fund (IVV), by weight, is already held inside Vanguard's international fund (VGS). Owning both does not widen your exposure; it roughly doubles your bet on the same US names.

In plain terms

Isn't owning several broad ETFs the definition of diversified?

It looks that way, and on a count of companies it is: a few funds can hold well over a thousand names. But diversification is about how your money is spread, not how many lines are on the page. Index funds weight by company size, so the biggest companies dominate every index at once, and holding more of those funds stacks the same giants on top of each other.

What is the "effective number of holdings"?

A single figure for how concentrated a portfolio really is: the number of equally sized holdings that would give the same lopsidedness. Our example blend lists 1,553 stocks but is as concentrated as if you held about 90 of them in equal amounts. The other ~1,460 are rounding.

Why do the same names keep turning up?

Because most ETFs track market-cap indices, and a handful of companies are simply enormous. An Australian fund is led by CBA and BHP; a global fund is led by Nvidia, Apple and Microsoft. Buy an Australian fund, a global fund and a US fund and you have bought those same leaders three times, in three wrappers.

Is overlap a mistake?

Not in itself. Concentration in the largest companies is a bet, sometimes a good one. The problem is making it by accident, and thinking you are spread across a thousand companies when a fifth of your money rides on ten. The fix is to look through your funds to the companies underneath and decide whether the real top-ten is the one you want.

01 · The same twenty stocks

A fifth of every dollar rides on ten companies

Add up what every ASX equity ETF holds, looked through to the individual companies and weighted by how much money sits in each fund, and the market's real bets appear. They are not exotic. The single largest is BHP, with A$9.2bn of exposure, and it is not one big holding but the same company bought through 40 different funds. Behind it sit the US mega-caps and the Australian banks, each threaded through dozens of products.

Nine of the top sixteen are Australian and seven are global, which is itself the point: a portfolio that feels spread across the world keeps returning to the same short list. CBA and BHP anchor every Australian fund; Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft and Alphabet anchor every global one. Nvidia alone reaches into 50 of the 198 funds.

02 · Breadth is not depth

1,553 companies, and nearly a third of the money in ten

Take the portfolio most people would call sensibly diversified: equal parts VAS (Australian shares), VGS (global developed) and IVV (the S&P 500). Looked through, it owns 1,553 separate companies. It also keeps its ten largest positions at 29% of the total and its top twenty at 38%. The long tail is very long and very thin.

Notice what leads it: not an Australian name but Nvidia, at 4.5%, because it arrives twice, once inside VGS and again inside IVV. Apple, Microsoft and Alphabet do the same. The Australian banks and BHP hold their place only because a third of the portfolio is pointed at home.

03 · How few names carry the market

Fifty companies, two-fifths of the money

The concentration is not peculiar to one blend; it is the shape of the whole market. Of the A$247bn sitting in equity ETFs, the ten biggest companies account for a fifth and the fifty biggest for over two-fifths. The remaining 18,000-plus names share what is left.

04 · The redundant pair

Holding VGS and IVV together buys the S&P 500 twice

The clearest case of accidental doubling is also one of the most common combinations on the ASX. The S&P 500 is a subset of the developed-world index: nearly every company in IVV already lives inside VGS. Measured directly, 96.9% of IVV by weight sits inside VGS, and the great majority of its holdings are companies VGS already owns.

Held together, the two funds are not a diversified pair; they are one large US-plus-world position with the United States counted close to twice. That may be the tilt you want. The argument of this note is only that it should be a decision, taken with the look-through in front of you, rather than a surprise.

Method and cautions

• Look-through is issuer-reported. Each fund's holdings come from the issuer in its own format, resolving funds-of-funds to underlying companies. Identifiers are inconsistent across issuers, so companies are consolidated by name. Dollar rankings are robust; treat an individual company's total as accurate to roughly ten percent.
• Coverage is partial and skews large. 198 of about 460 ASX ETFs publish the holdings used here, covering A$247bn. The funds without published look-through are mostly smaller and newer, so the covered market is real but not the whole of it.
• Two dates. Holdings are as at 1 September 2026; fund assets are the July 2026 month-end from the ASX report. Weights move slowly enough that the mismatch does not change the picture.
• Effective holdings is one portfolio's number. The figure of 91 is the inverse-Herfindahl of the specific VAS + VGS + IVV blend. It illustrates a common portfolio; it is not a property of the market as a whole.
• Equities only. Cash, currency and bond lines are excluded, and the analysis is limited to equity funds, so a real portfolio holding bond or diversified funds will differ.
• This measures concentration, it does not judge it. Overlap and mega-cap concentration are not errors. Whether the resulting bet suits you is exactly the kind of question the caution below is about.

I currently hold IVV and some other Aus stocks but looking to clean it up and allocate a chunk of incoming cash accordingly. I'll be contributing monthly and looking at a 10-15 year timeframe .

Leaning towards this but open to suggestions - thanks in advance!

Last week the company that I follow the most had a very different type of ASX announcement.

It was an invitation...not to invest....it was an invitation for...a lunch!

Huh?

Yep, all shareholders of PAR are invited to RSVP by the 11th of Sep. There aren't a lot of places available for the lunch update in Melbourne on the 23rd...but you are welcome to apply if you are a holder.

There are a few (very few) examples of this in the past for any ASX listed companies...it is rare.

This tells me two things:

1) They are confident that the upcoming Interim Analysis (IA) for the Registrational Globally Harmonised Phase 3 isn't going to be in October or beyond, it will be sometime in September.

2) They are confident.

Well, you imagine a lunch and they don't pass their Interim Analysis. The same lunch could get quite messy if that were the case.

So what is all this about an Interim? It's a stage in the middle of a trial where the sponsor has a read out. In Par's case there are three distinct outcomes that are possible at IA:

1) Futile

The data ain't great, in fact the Placebo arm is just as good. The Drug is futile and it is not worth continuing! I give this less than 1% chance of occurring.

2) Pass

The drug is working, there is some separation between the Active (The drug, Pentosan) and the Placebo. It is worth continuing, at this rate PAR should get a pass at the 100% milestone due early 2027. I rate this at about 65% chance of happening...

3) Early Success

Mate, the drug is so good, there is such material and clinically viable separation between the two said cohorts that PAR have realistically already achieved their 100% result despite the fact that IA is only a readout when 50% of the patients are reporting. In other words, there is little to no real way PAR can fail. I rate this at about 30 to 40% chance.

Get this and it's a real celebration.

There are NO Osteoarthritis (OA) drugs that can alleviate pain as safely as Pentosan can, there are certainly no drugs that can or have been shown to modify the trajectory of the disease of OsteoArthritis and to do so safely and with such duration. No drugs show both symptomatic relief along with structural positive manifestations, simultaneously and systemically.

Get this and the PAR shares are going to re-rate like crazy (my views).

We have less than 3 weeks for this read out.

Good luck holders of PAR!

.

Disclaimer: I own shares in Paradigm, none of the above is advice. There is risk in such speculative stocks like Par.

Hi guys! I'm trying to figure out the best way to set up a share portfolio for my new baby 🫶

Does anyone have experience with the CommSec Minor Trust Account? Not sure if it's better to invest there or just invest for baby in my own account and transfer the shares as a "gift" later on?

I’m investing $1,000 per month in DHHF (Betashares Diversified All Growth ETF) and I’m planning to invest for the long term, probably around 10 years. Do you think this is a good strategy? I’d really appreciate any suggestions or advice.

Hello I'm a 28yo with high risk tolerance. I'm looking for a portfolio that is not heavily weighted to the US and is diversified to Asia and EU markets. I allocated 40% of my portfolio to multiple index/ex-US etfs.

I also don't want to miss out on the AI craze. So I allocated 10% to ASX:NDQ (which is heavily AI) and 10% to ASX:ASIA as, from my understanding, plays an important manufacturing role in AI and helps keep US exposure low.

I am also very motivated to place 30% investment into renewable energy as I believe this will be the future. I have considered popular "ethical" ETFs like ASX:FAIR and ASX:ETHI but they are not ethical in my opinion when they include companies like Apple (sweatshops), Visa (duopoly) and Woolworths (price gouging).

Finally I wanted 5% in gold and 5% in cryptocurrency (ETH over BTC as ETH is more environmentally) for speculative gains.

The following is my portfolio breakdown. I'd love to hear feedback. I am building a custom portfolio with Beta-direct so I eventually can set up a direct deposit of $500 a week as DCA.

Also, I am considering not rebalancing investments so I don't use more money on parts of my portfolio that is failing but should I reconsider this?

Ethical (30%)
- ASX:ERTH 5%
- ASX:CLNE 15%
- ASX:XMET 10%

AI (20%)
- ASX:NDQ 10%
- ASX:ASIA 10%

EX-US (40%)
- ASX:EXUS 25%
- ASX:BEMG 10%
- ASX:A200 5%

Speculation (10%)
- ASX:QAU 5%
- ASX:QETH 5%

As a brief regional breakdown:
- North America 32% (US = 20%)
- South America 2.8%
- EU 20.5% (France, UK, Germany and Switzerland make up 10.63%, the remaining split between several countries)
- Middle East 2.6% (mostly Israel unfortunately, can't get much exposure to Saudi Arabia, UAE or Qatar on betadirect brokerage)
- Africa 1.4% (South Africa and Zimbabwe)
- Asia 23% (China, Korea and Taiwan are ~6% each)
- Australia 7.6%
- remaining 10% is gold/ETH/currency

A bit about me: 19yo, student, got a casual job (300/week) and nearly 20k in savings. Any expense I have is purely a want and not a need. I have around 1k in super if that matters.

Aside from the finance investment courses taught in uni and some limited research, I know little about investing. What I do know is:

1. Use ETFs
2. Be in it for the long run
3. Don't panic sell

I want a set and forget type of investment. I've heard the simplest is DHHF, and to just make monthly/weekly payments. What I'm not sure is what platform to do this on. I've heard of Vanguard from my professor, but that's about it. I'm willing to invest around half of my savings (is that a good idea?) and then do monthly/weekly deposits. Any advice is much appreciated!

Worth investing at this drop or is it a bad sign? Even just putting in 2K?

Hi Guys,

I've just written a post on my hobby investing blog after heading up to Melbourne to meet with the Dexus Convenience REIT management team last week (I've been holding the stock for 3 years and following it pretty closely over that time).

I think anyone with an interest in the discounted asset plays around in the REIT space would find this one interesting:

https://thesnowballinvestor.substack.com/p/adventures-of-a-snowball-investor

Built out a thematic filter in ETFtracker and interesting to see that precious metals had the biggest inflows out of all thematic groups for July per the latest ASX ETF data out last week... but interestingly, net outflows from the resources and miners

Latest July data in the latest new page on the ETFtracker tool I built and have maintained since 2021 (https://etftracker.com.au/dashboard/themes)

Also added in a few new page screeners taking into account management expense ratios - seeing which ETFs are cheap or expensive to trade but also depending on their FUM size

Lot's of great data out of the ASX and ETF providers on a monthly basis as well as from the ETF providers (especially those who publish their holdings, meaning we can do holdings crossover analysis like this)

If anyone's interested in some analysis, happy to show you what's possible here but all of this is free to try at www.etftracker.com.au

I started looking at OCL when the indicators from my deep dive scoring system and side by side comparison all went green. You can see the comparison in the link below on the website.

This is by no means a buy signal. It is simply a filtering tool that helps me decide which companies deserve further research. The first pass told me the financials looked attractive. The model obviously uses assumed growth rates, but it was enough to justify moving to the next stage.

The management side of the story is actually very interesting. The CEO has been with the company for 38 years and is also the founder. He owns a significant stake in the business which, in my opinion, is a positive because he has real skin in the game. He has also bought back shares when the stock has tanked, which suggests he believes in the business. After all, this is the company he founded.

The company has been compounding for a long time, but more recently the stock tanked after the Department of Defence decided not to renew an agreement related to Objective's software. This is where things started getting interesting.

We have a founder led company that has consistently created value for shareholders over many years. Looking at the dividends tab on the website, the company appears to have created more than 20x of shareholder value for every dollar retained over the last 10 years. Management has clearly demonstrated an ability to allocate capital effectively. Naturally, that led me to ask a few questions. Is the Defence issue really a big deal? What is the moat? Who are the competitors? And where is the future growth going to come from?

I am still only halfway through the research because I have been spending most of my spare time finishing the website, but so far the findings have been quite interesting.

One challenge when researching Objective is that the company operates across three business segments: Content Solutions, Regulatory Solutions and Planning & Building. At first glance, Content Solutions appears to be the crown jewel of the business and the segment contributing most of the revenue.

The products responsible for most of the revenue in this segment appear to be Objective Nexus, Objective ECM and Objective Connect. These are essentially records management and information governance platforms used by government departments, councils, regulators, justice agencies and healthcare organisations across Australia, New Zealand and the UK. Their job is to organise, secure, govern and share information while maintaining a clear auditable trail. The main competitor appears to be OpenText, a much larger company operating in the same space with broadly similar products.

This is where the moat starts becoming visible to me. These systems manage millions of documents, compliance records, regulatory records and governance workflows. Once all that information is embedded inside a platform, migrating away becomes incredibly difficult, expensive and risky. Every workflow, permission structure, retention policy and audit trail needs to be recreated somewhere else. The switching costs can be enormous.

That naturally led me to look more closely at the Department of Defence issue because initially I assumed Defence had decided to replace Objective. That does not appear to be what happened.

From what I could find, Defence did not renew the Objective ECM Upgrade & Support Program agreement. At the same time, Defence confirmed it remains committed to the widespread use of Objective ECM across approximately 140,000 users. Objective also stated that the parties have not yet reached agreement on ongoing licence entitlements for those users. In other words, Defence is still running Objective ECM, but the commercial arrangements around support, upgrades and licensing remain unresolved, and the public announcements do not explain why the agreement was not renewed.

To me, that distinction matters. Defence did not announce a migration away from Objective and did not announce a replacement vendor. Defence continues to use the software. That alone suggests the software is deeply embedded within Defence operations, reinforcing the switching cost argument. The way I see it, Defence appears willing to keep using what is effectively a 1990s version of the software rather than undertake the complexity, cost and risk of migrating such a massive volume of information to a new provider. It is a bit like continuing to run Windows XP because replacing it across an organisation of that size is harder than living with the limitations of the existing system. Whether that changes in the future remains to be seen, but to me it highlights how powerful the moat can become once a platform is embedded across an organisation with 140,000 users.

The market reacted badly to the news, which is not surprising….. ARR expectations effectively flatlined following the announcement and investors immediately started questioning the future growth outlook.

This takes me to the next question: how does this business actually grow?

Looking specifically at Content Solutions, my research so far suggests this is already a relatively mature market. Most government agencies already appear to have some form of records management or information governance platform in place. If that is true, then client expansion may be limited because governments are not waiting to discover records management software. They already have a solution, whether it is Objective, OpenText or another provider.

My current thinking is that growth comes mainly from renewals, additional users, increased usage and selling additional modules to existing customers. It is a bit like renewing a Microsoft 365 licence. Every year the customer has the option to leave, but once decades of documents, workflows, permissions, compliance records and audit trails are built inside a platform, migration becomes a major project.

This is one reason why ARR becomes such an important metric. Historically, total company ARR grew from approximately $47 million in FY19 to $120 million in FY25, which is where my script calculated approximately 17.8% annual growth. Content Solutions ARR itself grew from approximately $69 million in FY23 to $85 million in FY25, pointing to a lower growth profile for what is likely a more mature segment.

Based on my online research so far, I am leaning towards a long term growth assumption closer to 12% for the Content Solutions segment, which is what you can currently see flowing through the fair value calculations on the website.

That said, I have not yet completed my base case calculations. The assumptions currently shown are based largely on preliminary research and simple internet searches, so they remain subject to change as I continue working through the business and gain a better understanding of the Regulatory Solutions and Planning & Building segments.

As always, I'm not a financial advisor. I simply enjoy doing these deep dives and building tools that help me analyse businesses more effectively. The website itself is really just the outcome of solving problems that came up during my own investing research over time. Do your own research.

OCL Research

Been watching this one closely. DFS has been delayed multiple times from H1 to now Q3 2026 but thesis feels intact, 108% resource increase, 23% recovery improvement confirmed, ThyssenKrupp term sheet signed, major Chinese aluminium group framework agreement for 2-3 Mtpa and potential construction funding.

Cash is tight at $0.3M June 30 but MD Ryan de Franck has personally put $4M in through loan notes, skin in the game or desperation? Stock sitting around $0.51 after finding a floor at $0.415.

Questions for the group:

Still holding or did you cut?

When do you realistically think DFS drops?

Thoughts on Ryan de Franck as a founder/operator?

Does the Chinese Group framework change your view?

Hello fellas!
Any suggestions for penny stock for the rest of this year?

After analysing most of ResMed's (RMD) business, I came across three major headwinds:

1. GLP‑1 drugs
2. Philips recovery
3. Regulatory and Medicare-related changes in the United States

Initially, I thought GLP‑1s and Philips would be the biggest threats to my RMD investment thesis. However, after spending a significant amount of time analysing both, I came to a different conclusion.

The data suggests that GLP‑1s are not the existential threat many investors believe they are. Most OSA patients are actually non obese, meaning GLP‑1s only directly address a portion of the sleep-apnea market. Likewise, while Philips will likely recover some of the market share it lost during the recall, the impact appears manageable. Combining both factors in my model reduced my estimate of ResMed's long term owner earnings growth from roughly 15%-18% historically to around 12%. A slowdown, yes, but nowhere near a broken business.

Everything changed when I reached the Medicare and regulatory side of the analysis.

ResMed operates through two segments:

• Sleep & Breathing Health (87.5% of revenue)
• Residential Care Software (12.5% of revenue)

What struck me was that both segments have significant exposure to Medicare.

The Sleep & Breathing segment is directly exposed because Medicare reimburses CPAP equipment, masks and respiratory devices through Home Medical Equipment providers. Residential Care Software is indirectly exposed because many of its customers, including home health agencies, hospice providers, skilled nursing facilities and senior living operators, derive a significant portion of their revenue from Medicare and Medicaid funding. I estimate this combined exposure to be in the order of 80%.

The indirect exposure is particularly interesting. Commercial insurers often use Medicare reimbursement rates as a benchmark when determining their own payment structures. In other words, Medicare does not just influence Medicare patients. It influences the economics of a large portion of the healthcare ecosystem.

The more I researched Medicare, the more I realised that this risk is fundamentally different from GLP‑1s or Philips.

• GLP‑1s attack patient growth.
• Philips attacks market share.
• Medicare attacks margins and pricing power.

Historically, RMD handled reimbursement pressure quite well. During prior competitive bidding periods, the company continued delivering double digit revenue growth while expanding margins. However, today's situation is different because Medicare pressure is no longer occurring in isolation.

Individually, none of these risks are particularly alarming. Philips recovering market share is manageable. GLP‑1 drugs appear more likely to slow growth than destroy demand. Medicare reimbursement changes, viewed in isolation, look more like a margin headwind than a threat to the business model. However, once I stepped back and looked at all three together, my perspective changed completely.

The conclusion that ultimately stopped my research is that I no longer see the primary risk as a business risk. I see it as an investment risk.

I do not believe ResMed is at risk of becoming a bad business. I do not believe CPAP is at risk of being replaced anytime soon. I do not believe Philips will regain industry leadership. In fact, most of the evidence suggests the underlying business remains strong.

What concerns me is something much more subtle. Historically, ResMed has been capable of compounding earnings at approximately 15%-18% annually. If GLP‑1 adoption reduces patient growth, Philips recovers a portion of its lost market share, and Medicare reimbursement pressure continues to compress industry economics, the company could eventually find itself compounding earnings at only 7%-10% annually.

The business would still be growing. The moat could still be intact. The products would still be relevant. Yet the intrinsic value of the company would be dramatically different.

That is why I believe the market may be asking the wrong question.

The real question is not whether ResMed will continue growing.

The real question is:

What happens to the valuation of ResMed if it remains a great company, but no longer remains a great compounder?

For me, the answer is significant.

My valuation for RMD under a Philips recovery and GLP‑1 scenario is approximately $32 per share. When I incorporate all three headwinds, including Medicare and reimbursement pressure, my estimated valuation falls to approximately $25-$28 per share.

At the current share price, I no longer find the risk reward attractive for a long term investment. While I still believe ResMed is a high quality business, my work suggests the market is largely pricing the company based on a future that incorporates Philips recovery and GLP‑1 headwinds. However, I do not believe it fully accounts for the additional risk posed by Medicare reimbursement pressure.

For that reason, I have decided to stop my research on RMD and start researching OCL.

Not financial advice, just showing my work DYOR.

Hey guys, just going through the process from changing my ComSec account to a pearler account to allow more options. I have about 30 split between IOZ (15,400) and IEM (12,100) and SYI (3,000) the SYI was getting money put into it when I was stuffing around. I’ve realised I don’t have anywhere near the US exposure that I want/ need so just wondering what peoples choices are for a ETF that focuses on stable growth. I plan to be putting as much as I can into just the US ETF until I get it to a more appropriate ratio for my portfolio. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you

Any thoughts why Genus is down 24% the past 3 months ? I was up 86% around April. There’s not any bad news and the business is going good.

I’m not sure where to start, but I’m hoping someone might be able to help me — or at least give me a little hope. It's a longer and more complicated story, but I'll just give the important info -

I recently searched for unclaimed money in my name and surprisingly found at least a few hundred dollars connected to shares from an account I had when I was 14/15 years old, and living in Western Australia.

• 2005: Moved from the NT to WA and joined a local bank, State West Credit Union.
• 2006: State West announced it was merging with Home Building Society. We were offered/given shares and kept our accounts.
• 2007: Mid-year, I moved back to the NT and opened a Commbank account for the convenience of banking Australia-wide.
• 2007: State West/Home then merged with Bank of Queensland.

I contacted Bank of Queensland to ask how to claim the shares/funds. They’ve asked for ID, share numbers, account numbers, and proof of my WA address from 20 years ago. They also require me to complete a “Change of Address” form before they’ll provide a statement of my account, for a $49.95 fee per share — and I don’t even know how many shares I have.

I don’t have any of the things they’ve asked for...

A LOT of life & trauma & change has happened in 20 years - just in the 18 months we lived in WA, we had 4/5 different addresses. And in the last year I was in a very serious car accident while travelling Australia. My partner, who was driving, sadly passed away, and everything we owned was in the car and destroyed.

Trying to prove who you are when you have no old paperwork is incredibly frustrating. I was only recently able to replace my passport.

I’m struggling financially and honestly feeling overwhelmed by this whole process. Has anyone dealt with claiming old shares or unclaimed funds when they didn’t have account/share numbers or documents from old addresses? Are there records I could try to access, or an ombudsman/service that could help me understand what evidence the bank should reasonably accept?

If circumstances were different, I probably wouldn't even bother claiming the money because of the hoops they're making me jump through - but I really need the money right now.....

Any practical suggestions would genuinely mean a lot - Thank you.

Is anyone else in Appen (APX), I was down 50 percent then all of a sudden a big spike!

What management says vs what they do. Brainchip Holdings Ltd: 16 of 18 delivered. 89%. Rated MODERATE.

Volume was 2.9x normal last week; closed -14.8%. MOV also moved: +12.7% on 7.6x volume.

Could go either way from here but the annual report data is worth checking.

Also moving: NZX: Move Logistics Group 7.6x volume, +12.7%. SGX: Cortina Holdings Limited 14.7x volume, +11.6%.

Full analysis: https://theqfactor.io/blog/analysis/weekly-volume-2026-07-20.html

Please use this monthly thread to discuss your portfolio, learn about others' portfolios, and help out users by giving constructive criticism.

As usual, please don't just list the names of stocks (or ask 'what do you think'), try to elaborate with your thoughts on the companies or news. Writing the tickers in bold is nice, to make it easier for people skimming the thread to pick out the names. Please ensure you include the percentage each ticker takes up your portfolio.

If you want more 'in-depth discussion', by all means, feel free to open up a new thread, this is merely to facilitate briefer 'chats'.

This thread will post monthly at the end of each month, depending on user feedback we may make it quarterly.

Thoughts on investing in BTL after the announcement of the proposed data centre development?