I can't find KLL in any lists here @Goldfish like the one below from the home page, or the Strawman Index and Strawman Pro Index, however I reckon I know the root cause of the problem.

If you take #10 there, MPW, they were known as "K-TIG Limited" (KTG.asx) up until yesterday, and they are also held by just one member: https://strawman.com/afrowest

Thing is, KTG (now MPW) had a 1 for 13 share consolidation this month (Feb 2025) - see here: KTG-Consolidation-of-Capital.PDF and here: KTG-to-MPW-Change-of-Company-Name.PDF and that hasn't been applied here on Strawman.com, so that position is currently worth 13 times as much as it should be worth here.

@afrowest's position in MPW (formerly KTG) is currently showing as $471,250.00. After the 1:13 consolidation, that should now be $36,250.

So that got me thinking whether Kalium Lakes (KLL) had also had a share consolidation, and wouldn't you know it, yep, they did, except their consolidation was MUCH worse, being 1 share for every 291 shares held, in June last year, see here: KLL-Consolidation-of-shares-June-2024.PDF

One Strawman member holds KLL: https://strawman.com/Muddled and that position is showing as being worth $26,451.90 when it should be showing as $90.90. The actual value is zero as the company is in Administration and shareholders will get zero, but until they're officially removed from the ASX list, I guess we have to use their last traded price and apply the share consolidation adjustments to that.

The big issue with both KLL and KTG (now known as MPW) is that both companies did share consolidations while suspended from trading, and even if S&P do provide share consolidation data to Strawman, they are unlikely to provide that data or any data at all for companies that are suspended. And in Administration.

@Strawman - can we please get those two share consolidations fixed here - details above? Thanks.

If anybody else notices weird stuff like that where a company has changed it's share structure and that has not been reflected here, please let Strawman know either through a forum like this or directly via [email protected] (or via a DM) - S&P aren't too reliable with passing all of that stuff through, and Andrew (Strawman) can't be reading every ASX announcement every day for every listed company. If these share count adjustments are not made here, we end up with one person holding almost half a million dollars worth of shares in one company here instead of $36 K worth, and that company shows up as a top 10 position held by all Strawman members, when it's clearly not.

I've actually already been in contact with the S&P over this @Bear77, and they have been as helpful as ever. *sigh*

The problem with these stocks is that they are "suspended", which means they live in this weird limbo state until the delist or get reinstated. Usually that's a few days, but sometimes it can be over a year! And until then all we have is a last traded price -- even though we can sensibly determine what the real price may be.

In this instance, the best I can do is sell out these positions from the two people that hold them -- that way it at least removes them from the rankings. And, to make sure no one is unfairly penalised, I'll update again if and when we get a proper price read. (shoot me a direct message or email @Muddled @afrowest when the dust settles)

You can still do the share consolidations @Strawman - because in real life they would not be holding the same amount of shares now, they would be holding 1 share for every 13 they previously held in MPW and they would be holding 1 share for every 291 shares they previously held in KLL. And they would be receiving updated paperwork in the mail to show that. The same share count reductions should also apply here.

The trading system doesn't have that admin functionality, sadly. We could hard code it, but for now ive just changed within the current rule set and the rankings issue should resolve.

You can't do share consolidations? What about share splits? Like CSL has done in the past? Years ago, when companies were splitting out other companies, like when Iluka (ILU) spun out Deterra (DRR), you were able to initiate new positions in these spun out companies where shareholders in the parent were issued shares for free in the spun out entity. Isn't it the same thing? Instead of placing a buy trade at $0 as was done then, just put through a sell trade at $0/share to reduce the share counts to what they should now be.

You don't have to make any adjustments to the share price, just the amount of shares that the member holds.

Oh man.. I know it sounds nuts, but we can do splits/consolidations *if* S&P have recognised that and actioned it at their end.

Wait a sec, I hear you say, CommSwelc uses them and I can see the change there! Which is true, but S&P maintain multiple data sets for different uses (and most of these are packaged up from wholesale data providers).

So we could pay $100k per year, plus an additional license fee to the ASX, and get the latest and greatest data. But we can't afford that..

Like I've ranted before, it's a very cosy oligopoly in which the large incumbents have a huge advantage.

Now, I know you can get some data sets at much better rates (believe me, I've looked) but these usually only do price data. We need dividends, corporate actions etc which is where things get more complicated.

Also, data providers distinguish between private data consumption vs that intended for public broadcast -- we fall under the latter definition, and so the fees are far more outrageous.

We could try and be sneaky with things (I've been tempted..) but the last thing I want is a legal battle with multibillion dollar behemoths..

And even when some options look interesting, it also means a huge overhaul of the system. In fact, way back at the start we used Morningstar, who were also rubbish, which is why we switched to S&P.. out of the fire, into the frying pan..

This is all rather long winded, I know. And it may come across as an excuse for the fact we sometimes present bad data.. but hopefully it helps explain why things are the way they are. It really should be that hard or expensive for this stuff, but this is how it is sadly.

If we were dealing with real money, it'd be a different story. But this is all just to help us run some play money portfolios so given the challenges I've resigned myself to the fact that every now and then we'll see some weird thing in the rankings or portfolios. Most of the time they eventually resolve themselves when the correct data eventually bubbles through.

(And when that happens, any hard coded change them needs to be again undone..).

Anyway, the rankings are fixed now. And if ever people spot something weird I'll do my best to fix.