The above post I made has me bamboozled, In short the Answer I was give to this post was because the 2 Directors are family members Mother and Son, that even though it show that they have an odd 193 million share each or 12.01% this is not the case.
I don't understand why a company would list the same amount shares and percentage held for two people, instead of saying they hold 12.01% in total between them rather than making it look like 24.02%. The post below talks about family member thats why it's reported like that, seems a odd way of doing it considering the third director is the Nephew of the the mother and yet those shares are reported differently.
Anyway just trying to get me head around this weird style of reporting holdings
"Not trying to have a go.. but just bluntly saying this is how all public company director interests (not direct holdings) are provided. It's not like QBL/CGB are making up their own format to present this data. It reads to me as though you're saying they're reporting in some special format to circumvent ASX disclosure rulings.They are also required to update the public whenever directors interests change too - can't just drop off shareholding without people knowing, nor can related family members/business colleagues buy/sell without a disclosure.To put it in layman's - if you are the CGB director and your parents own a company (that you are not directly named on) that holds 50% of CGB shares, you must report 50% ownership interest via the parental owned company because of the familial link. Doesn't mean the direct $$ benefits may go to you - but because of the relationship, you may have bearing on whether or not they choose to buy, sell or hold.If you have a brother for example, and he joins the BOD, he would also declare interest in the same shares. Not because he derives benefit from them directly, but because of the relationship.It's not then that you both have double the shares collectively, or XX much each. You need to read it as though the directors are independent and unrelated to one-another on the directors interest report. This is because the interest they quote includes one-anothers cross interests due to both being in the Feldman family.Hope this clears it up a bit."
