Financial Services

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/66833/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Life insurance has stood out as an industry without a code of practice when others such as general insurers have one.
The latest attempt by the Financial Services Council to remedy this may be a last chance for life insurers to reform, before the government forces them to.
The code from the Financial Services Council focuses on the relationship between the insurer and the customer and aims at high standards of consumer service; professional behaviour and industry consistency. It should complement the legislation announced in 2015 to deal the problems of excessive up front premiums, remuneration practices and commissions which were incentives for insurers to churn customers through policies. 
The code is also a result of the Trowbridge Report on retail life insurancewhich gave the life insurance industry a final opportunity to shape its future through a co-regulatory approach, rather than being reformed by the government alone. 
Hopefully this latest attempt at reform does not go the same way as the earlier 1995 code of practice for the industry, which lapsed in 2001. This covered similar territory to the Financial Services Council code, but made little difference to the way the industry behaved. A positive sign is this new code was developed in consultation with industry, while the last one wasn’t.
<h2>What’s in the code?</h2>
This latest code will again try to address problems with selling practices and the quality of advice, high lapse rates, increases in premiums and their affordability as individuals age, and the redesign and repricing of products. The CommInsure scandal revealed further problems with outdated definitions and problems with making claims. 
ASIC can approve these codes of practice for industry but rarely does so. This latest code is yet to be approved as well. 
Some sectors have agreed to codes to forestall unwanted legislative change. Other codes establish higher standards of behaviour than required by law. 
Codes are legally binding between an enterprise and a customer. This is because when an enterprise agrees to abide by a code it forms a kind of contract on the basis of this promise. 
The very first part of the latest code of practice states that the code is binding and commits the entity to the standards in the code. The framework of the code looks at types of business rather than types of product.
One big omission in the code, is that it does not cover superannuation fund trustees or financial advisers, unless they explicitly adopt the code. This means it doesn’t cover a group policy where it is the employer or the superannuation fund trustee who has taken out the policy. As a result many Australians with life insurance within their super funds do not benefit at all from the code. 
It does however apply to life products such as death, total and permanent disability, critical illness, disability, funeral, income protection, business expense and consumer credit insurance. But it does not cover products issued by a general insurer or a health insurer. This could create some confusion, for example it means that consumer credit insurance is covered by the code if provided by a life insurer, but not if provided by a general insurer. 
Compliance with the code will be monitored by a Life Code Compliance committee. This is similar to the banking codes. The Financial Services Council and the insurers both have obligations to make consumers aware of the code.
Consumers can make a complaint using the code to the insurer, the Financial Ombudsman Service or Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. But if a complainant goes to a court, tribunal or other external dispute resolution body, the code no longer applies. 
This code has an interesting take on the issue of designing life insurance products, as discussed in the 2014 Financial Systems Inquiry. It clearly states that when new policies are designed, “we will define suitable customers for the product”. This may stop the sale of products to those who don’t need them. 
This is good but it still falls short of an obligation to sell a product that is suitable for the particular person, rather than a product that is generic for a class of targeted people. For example tailoring a policy to suit a person’s particular set of circumstances. 
It’s a shame that the code has to set out that there will be rules to prevent sales to someone who is, “unlikely ever to be eligible to claim the benefits under a policy”. This really should be a part of the system already.
The obligation to review and update medical definitions is a good sign. But this applies only to policies that are currently being sold and won’t help those who are tied to policies with older definitions, that are no longer being sold.
The code also doesn’t have an obligation for insurers to disclose the exclusions in the policy, in plain language, to a customer before they sign a contract. This is something that really should be taken up by the industry. 
Funeral insurance is the only life insurance product that requires a pre contract key fact sheet for offers. This type of disclosure shortcut is mandatory for home building and contents general insurance. Although there are difficulties inherent in simplification for key fact sheets this should be reconsidered for other life insurance products.
There are provisions for pre-sale disclosure for consumer credit insurance. Insurers are required to offer an alternative form of payment, when there is an offer of an initial loan to pay for insurance. In addition to this, insurers have an obligation to disclose the cost of loan repayments without and with the premiums and the interest payable on them. It may prevent some of the practices revealed in the reports on the problems of add-on insurance.
The code is a step towards a better relationship between the industry and consumers, particularly through the provisions to assist the vulnerable and helping customers make claims. It is not perfect. 
The industry should continue to listen and take on board the virtues of the code. It can easily be changed to guide even better standards of conduct and meet newly identified problems.
Gail Pearson is professor, Business School, University of Sydney and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/gail-pearson-670" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

New life insurance code riddled with loopholes

<html><body>
<img src="/images/2015/11/4/Holdencapital_banner.jpg" alt="" width="622" height="131">
 SPONSORED POST
Most banks have long memories and it’s those past experiences, which in all probability resulted in the writing off of a bad debt, that tend to have a strong influence on the executives responsible for writing the banks lending policy.
One such area of contention is the issuing of second mortgages and in most cases the approach by banks is consistent, driven by those past bad experiences.
So while there are sound arguments as to why it might actually be in the banks interest to allow a second mortgage, most credit/risk manager default to a position that will not impact on their security position and it takes some very careful negotiations to convince them to do otherwise. So lets look at the reasons why they have those concerns.
The bank does not think the developer has enough money – as the saying goes “If you want it they won’t give it to you and if you don’t want it they throw it at you”. It is true in most regards, that when considering a project a bank wants to be working with a sponsor who has the ability to invest the full equity requirement, also referred to as ‘skin in the game’, and a capacity write a cheque in the event of any unforseen cost overruns.
However, many smart sponsors choose to use Other People’s Money (OPM), usually so that they can get the best return on their funds by investing across multiple opportunities. So it is very important that the financial strength and experience of the sponsor can be demonstrated to the bank even if it is not all to be committed to the project in question.
Utilising second mortgage funding in order to expand the number of projects they can undertake is a smart way for a sponsor to leverage their return on equity provided they can show an ability to meet any unforseen financial pressures along the way. It is critical to give the bank a clear understanding of why the second mortgage funding is being used but also provide statements of position, group cash flows and approved standby arrangements to support the sponsor’s ability to meet their ongoing commitments to the project in question.
The Bank does not want any potential impediments to it realising on its security – In the event that things go wrong during a development, the bank will in most instances look to recover its exposure by disposing of the security via a quick sale rather than undertaking a lengthy workout. Even in the case of a development project, banks do not want to ‘take control’ of a project unless absolutely necessary and will usually appoint a receiver or administrator to undertake the exercise of completing the development and sale as soon as practicable with the minimum of additional expenditure.
Their concern is that where there is a second mortgage in place (and dependant on the terms of any priority agreement in place), the potential exists for that mortgagee to frustrate the actions of the bank by arguing that those actions prejudice their security position. Alternatively, while there may be no default or cause for action on the banks part, the second mortgagee may decide to take action under its securities which forces the banks hand to either take its own action in priority to the second mortgage or pay out the second mortgagee in order to gain full control. Both of these scenarios played out during the GFC and previous market corrections, continuing to make all banks hesitant about transactions involving second mortgages.
One way to address these issues is to have a reputable second mortgage provider who the banks are comfortable with and trust not to take any extreme actions during the life of the project. Additionally, the banks will require the second mortgagee to sign a priority agreement which in effect cedes all of its rights to the first mortgagee while its debt exists, effectively preventing the second mortgagee taking any action that the first mortgagee does not want to occur.
Developers skin in the game – As previously mentioned, all financiers, be they first or second mortgage providers want to see that the developer has an appropriate amount of their own “risk” money in the project – the view being that the developer will be more likely to act in the right way if they have an appropriate amount of their own cash at risk in the project. The current view is that the developer must be providing at least 10% of the required capital stack in a project.
In the eyes of the banks, this is a different risk to having a capacity to meet your obligations as detailed previously. This is about ensuring that the customer is motivated to act quickly to deal with a problem that requires either financial or physical action when it occurs and their concern is that if the equity at risk is sourced via a second mortgage provider then:
There is less motivation for the sponsor to take the required action and they have no power to require the second mortgagee to act or input further equity.
In fact it is often the case that the second mortgagee is a passive syndicate of investors with limited ability to raise additional funds or make quick decisive decisions which leaves the bank having to deal with the problems associated with the projects but also having to be conscious of not acting in a way which is prejudicial to the interest of those investors which is a complication they do not relish.
In summary, banks tend to view all second mortgages as complicating transactions rather than adding value as their interests are not always aligned with those of the borrower and it is therefore a negotiating exercise that requires a complete understanding of the interests of both sides. At HoldenCAPITAL we are often required to obtain a senior banks consent to a second mortgagee position in order to get the best outcome for our client. We do this by clearly demonstrating the positives that the structure brings to the transaction and how the risks will be dealt with.
 
This article was written by Dan Holden of HoldenCAPITAL, who are a bespoke construction finance firm, they arrange construction finance and invest in projects through their equity fund, Queen Street INVEST. To discuss your project finance requirement please call (07) 3171 4200 or visit HoldenCAPITAL <a href="https://www.holdencapital.com.au" target="_blank">here</a>.
 
</body></html>

firstname-zEygzUaHDN

Why the bank won't let you have a second mortgage

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
A banknote has been sitting in my wallet for six months now. As time ticks on, it burns an ever greater hole in my pocket.
At first I felt uneasy spending it, following COVID-19 warnings to pay more attention to hand hygiene and the surfaces we all touch on a daily basis.
Now I have less and less opportunity to do so. While the World Health Organisation has <a href="https://www.marketwatch.com/story/who-we-did-not-say-that-cash-was-transmitting-coronavirus-2020-03-06">never advised</a> against using cash, <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-20/will-coronavirus-kill-off-cash-in-australia/12065860">more and more businesses</a> are displaying signs that read “We Only Accept Contactless Payment” next to their registers.
A recent <a href="https://newsroom.mastercard.com/asia-pacific/press-releases/mastercard-study-shows-consumers-moving-to-contactless-payments-for-everyday-purchases-as-they-seek-cleaner-touch-free-options/">global poll</a> conducted by MasterCard – a company with reason to favour card-based payments – found 82% of its users see contactless payments as cleaner than cash.
Online shopping is booming too. Amazon’s value alone has <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/sergeiklebnikov/2020/07/23/5-big-numbers-that-show-amazons-explosive-growth-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic/#5e58ab4a4137">risen by 570 billion US dollars</a> this year.
But while electronic payment may reduce our exposure to germs, it also shows banks, vendors and payment platforms what we do with our money. Social media is awash with <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://twitter.com/LeProfMoriarty/status/1301043738475720704">posts</a> condemning the forced use of contactless payment for fear of overseers eyeballing spending. Some people are even <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/732178480871805/">boycotting stores</a> that won’t accept cash.
The growth of digital transactions exposes yet another aspect of our personal life to, what the social psychologist Shoshana Zuboff has called, “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/20/shoshana-zuboff-age-of-surveillance-capitalism-google-facebook">surveillance capitalism</a>”. Financial data is now a valuable raw material that can be bought, sold and refined in the name of profit.
The decline of cash
When the pandemic began, cash had already been on the decline for years. In Australia, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/24/virtually-no-demand-for-coins-in-covid-19-era-as-australias-shift-from-cash-to-digital-hastens">demand for coins</a> fell by more than 50% between 2013 and 2019.
For many people, increasing digitisation is synonymous with progress. It can be seen as a way of leaving the cumbersome, historical artefacts of coins and banknotes behind.
COVID-19 has accelerated this move away from cash. Wariness of <a href="https://www.insider.com/does-money-carry-germs">microbe-ridden banknotes</a> has seen contactless payment become a spontaneous public health standard.
Because cash is a social material, it moves between us, connecting us both financially and physically. The US Federal Reserve even decided to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-fed-dollars/fed-quarantines-us-dollars-repatriated-from-asia-on-coronavirus-caution-idUSKBN20T1YT">quarantine dollars</a> returning from Asia earlier this year in an attempt to stop the coronavirus crossing its borders.
Dropping digital breadcrumbs
One perk of paper money is that it does not leave paper trails. Digital money, however, leaves traces in the databases of banks, vendors and platform owners, while governments look keenly over their shoulders.
Financial journalist Brett Scott calls this a “<a href="https://networkcultures.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/14-brettscott.pdf">prison of watchable payments</a>”.
Tax officials love digital transactions because they make it easier to monitor the nation’s economy. Banks and payment platforms are pleased as well: not only do they collect fees and gain the ability to allow or obstruct transactions, they can also profit from the troves of personal data piling up on their servers.
Internally, banks use this data to offer you <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/life/banks-keep-lots-of-information-about-you-this-is-how-it-is-used/10912378#:%7E:text=What%20do%20banks%20use%20the%20personal%20data%20for%3F&amp;text=The%20first%20type%20is%20personalised,whether%20to%20lend%20us%20money.">other bespoke services</a> such as loans and insurance. But information is also aggregated to better understand wider economic trends, and then <a href="https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/finance-news/2018/04/06/big-banks-sell-data-customer-spending-habits/">sold on to third parties</a>.
At the moment, these data metrics are anonymised but that doesn’t guard against retailers using <a href="https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/finance-news/2018/04/06/big-banks-sell-data-customer-spending-habits/">de-anonymising techniques</a> to attach transactions back to your identity.
<a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/90310803/here-are-the-data-brokers-quietly-buying-and-selling-your-personal-information">Data brokers</a> exist for this very reason: building digital profiles and creating a marketplace for them. This allows retailers to target you with tailored advertisements based on your spending. The devices at everyone’s fingertips become a feedback loop of information in which companies analyse what people have bought and then urge them to buy more.
Can surveillance work on your behalf?
Having records of every transaction can also be useful for individuals. Companies such as <a href="https://www.revolut.com/en-AU">Revolut</a> and <a href="https://monzo.com">Monzo</a> offer “spending analytics” services to help customers manage their money by tracking where it goes each month.
But information about a user’s own behaviour never truly belongs to them. And, as the digital economist Nick Srnicek explains, “<a href="https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Platform_Capitalism/2HdNDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&amp;gbpv=0#spf=1599549352476">suppression of privacy is at the heart of the business model</a>”.
Digital payment with (some) privacy
While filling virtual baskets or paying by tapping a card does open up transactions for inspection, there are still ways you can protect your health and your data at the same time.
“Virtual cards” like those provided by <a href="https://privacy.com/">privacy.com</a> are one useful tool. These services let users create multiple card numbers for different online purchases that conceal consumption patterns from banks and credit card details from merchants.
Cryptocurrencies might also find a new limelight in the pandemic. Hailed as cash for the internet, the inbuilt privacy mechanisms of Bitcoin, Zcash and Monero could work to mask transactions.
However, finding companies that accept them is challenging, and their <a href="https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Money_Code_Space/QZj5DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&amp;gbpv=0#spf=1599549442513">privacy capabilities are often overstated</a> for everyday users. This is particularly true when using exchanges and third-party wallet software such as <a href="https://www.coinbase.com/">Coinbase</a>.
In brick-and-mortar stores, staying under the radar can be more difficult. <a href="https://auspost.com.au/money-insurance/buy-gift-cards/auspost-gift-card">Prepaid cards</a> are one option – but you’ll need to buy the card itself with cash if you want to keep your anonymity fully intact. And that takes us back to square one.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/145179/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jack-parkin-1147810">Jack Parkin</a>, Digital Economist, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/western-sydney-university-1092">Western Sydney University</a>
This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/cashless-payment-is-booming-thanks-to-coronavirus-so-is-financial-surveillance-145179">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Cashless payment is booming and so is financial surveillance

<html><body>
ASIC has banned Mr Timothy Hornibrook formerly a director and responsible manager of Australian financial services licensee, Macquarie Agricultural Funds Management Ltd (MAFML), from providing financial services for a period of six years.
ASIC found he contravened financial services laws whilst he was a director and responsible manager.
In a statement ASIC said in early 2011, Mr Hornibrook, a former co-Head and Head of Macquarie Agricultural Funds Management (MAFM), along with some members of the MAFM sales team conceived the concept of a fake family office, named the Brook Family Office (BFO).
The sales team then used two email addresses for the BFO to extract confidential information from MAFML's competitors in the agricultural investment sector on the pretence that it was assessing potential investment opportunities for its funds under management, according to ASIC.
ASIC found that Mr Hornibrook had breached his duties as an officer of a responsible entity of a registered managed investment scheme by:
<ul>
<li>failing to act honestly;</li>
<li>misusing the information he acquired as a director of MAFML in order to gain an improper advantage for himself, MAFML and/or Macquarie Crop Partners LP (MCP); and</li>
<li>misusing his position as director of MAFML to gain an advantage for MAFML and/or MCP.</li>
</ul>
ASIC Commissioner Greg Tanzer said the deceptive conduct of Mr Hornibrook was not inadvertent nor was it the result of a momentary lapse.
"It was committed over a number of years and was intended to gain an advantage for himself and the Macquarie business for which he was responsible," he said.
Mr Hornibrook has the right to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of ASIC's decision.
ASIC's investigations are ongoing.
<h2> </h2>
</body></html>

po-LsXgBTHBmX

ASIC bans former director, manager of Macquarie Agricultural Funds Management

<html><body>
Barry Patrick, 73, of Sunbury, Victoria has pleaded guilty to six charges in the County Court of Victoria following an ASIC investigation. 
The charges relate to Patrick's conduct in carrying on a financial services business without a licence, and obtaining property and a financial advantage by deception.
Patrick nominated investors to be directors of a number of companies formed to purchase properties at Pakenham, Lilydale, Epping and Garfield for development. Those companies were Wrestway Property Development Pty Ltd, Exclusive Property Consultants Pty Ltd, Compendium Holdings Pty Ltd and Integrated Consolidated Holdings Pty Ltd
To obtain funds for the property development projects, he persuaded investors to refinance their homes and/or establish self-managed superannuation funds (SMSF) and then invest their SMSF in the developments.
Between 2007 and 2010, Patrick illegally obtained more than $600,000 from 14 investors to fund the property developments.
The funds raised by Patrick were not used to develop the properties but were instead used to pay interest payments to past and existing investors and to meet repayments on loans, as well as for personal use.  
In total, Mr Patrick pleaded guilty to:
<ul>
<li>three charges of obtaining property by deception,</li>
<li>two charges of obtaining a financial advantage by deception, and</li>
<li>one charge of carrying on a financial services business without a licence.   </li>
</ul>
Five additional charges were withdrawn by the prosecution as a result of the guilty plea.
Mr Patrick was conditionally bailed to appear before the County Court of Victoria for a plea hearing on 7 July 2016.
The matter is being prosecuted by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.
</body></html>

Sunbury man pleads guilty to six charges of fraud

<html><body>
Want to list your business online for free and get user reviews as well?
Log on to Wealthify.com.au. The site allows financial services providers to create a free listing for their business. Consumers can then search these listings for brokers and advisers as well as read or post reviews.
Darren Moffatt, founder of Seniors First mortgage brokerage and online marketing agency WebBuzz, is the site’s creator, reports Australian Broker. 
“The listings on the site are indexed by Google and because we use our digital marketing expertise to promote the site, it is becoming highly visible on the search engine. For example, if a consumer searches for a mortgage broker in the Blue Mountains they will find one of our listings,” he told Australian Broker.
“In addition to that, consumers can use the site to leave reviews – and reviews are really, really powerful in the online space. If a broker creates their own listing and sends an email out to their clients to leave a review on the site, what they will find is that the listings that have reviews will appear much higher in the Google results.”
Users can also upgrade to Wealthify premium options starting at $49 a month. 
In addition, the site has a marketing hub where brokers and advisers can purchase search engine optimisation packages and social media management packages through the online shop.  
Moffatt said the idea behind Wealthify was to help financial services providers with their online footprint. 
“The overriding thing was we wanted a place for brokers to promote their business and get marketing help online. Equally, we wanted an opportunity and a place for consumers to come and find brokers or financial service providers and be able to have a say about any good operators they might find.”
</body></html>

prateek24-ezbwHMbNAk

Wealthify.com.au allows brokers to list and market their business for free, mostly

<html><body>
Yellow Brick Road is poised to appoint former the Westpac Banking Corp executive Adam Youkhana as general manager of its wealth unit.
The Australian Financial Review's Street Talk column said Youkhana, former head of Westpac Private Bank's financial planning arm will join the Mark Bouris-led diversified financial services group next week.
He will replace Matt Lawler who resigned in July.
Youkhana joined Westpac in 2010 after a stint at National Australia Bank. 
The appointment comes after a sweeping restructure at YBR which included a shift to a franchise model.
Yellow Brick Road's annual loss rose to $9.5 million from $2.6 million despite annual revenue increasing 31 per cent.
</body></html>

Adam Youkhana set to join Yellow Brick Road

<html><body>
ASIC has banned Ron Cross, of Figtree, New South Wales, from providing financial services for a period of four years.
Mr Cross is the CEO and a director of Park Trent Properties Group Pty Ltd (Park Trent).
On 27 November 2015, further to proceedings issued by ASIC, the Supreme Court of New South Wales found that Park Trent had unlawfully carried on an unlicensed financial services business for over five years by advising clients to purchase investment properties through a self-managed super fund (SMSF).
The Court also permanently restrained Park Trent from providing unlicensed financial product advice to clients regarding SMSFs.
ASIC found that, as the key decision maker of Park Trent, Mr Cross:
<ul>
<li>was knowingly involved in Park Trent's contraventions, making all of its major strategic and business decisions and intended to influence clients to purchase properties through SMSFs; and</li>
<li>that Mr Cross was willing to ignore legal advice and warnings about Park Trent's practices, demonstrating that he is likely to contravene financial services laws.   </li>
</ul>
ASIC Deputy Chairman Peter Kell said, 'ASIC's action against Mr Cross shows that we will not hesitate to exclude property spruikers who provide unlicensed financial services from the industry.'
Mr Cross has the right to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of ASIC's decision.
ASIC launched legal proceedings in November 2014 against Park Trent who, by the time of the trial in June 2015, had advised over 860 members of the public to establish and switch funds into an SMSF.
On 15 October 2015, the Supreme Court of NSW found Park Trent had been unlawfully carrying on a financial services business for over five years by providing advice to clients to purchase investment properties through a SMSF (refer: 15-300MR).
On 27 November 2015, the Supreme Court of NSW handed down final orders further to the judgment delivered against Park Trent on 15 October 2015.
Park Trent has appealed the decision to the NSW Court of Appeal and the appeal is set down for a final hearing on 31 August 2016.
</body></html>

Park Trent's Ron Cross banned by ASIC after SMSF advice investigation

<html><body>
Financial services provider The Trust Co is against debenture company Angas ­Securities’ move to draw out repayments to investors and has called for receivers to oversee attempts to return the $135 million owed.
Angas will ask investors at a meeting in Adelaide to wait two years for returning their money, but Trust Co, owned by wealth manager Perpetual, has told investors it expected losses.
It may call on the Federal Court for a receiver to be called in depending on support for Angas, The Australian reported.
Trust Co wrote to its more than 2,000 investors that the corporate regulator and Trust had “carefully considered” the Angas plan and raised concerns about the adequacy of the document, which had not been “fully addressed”.
The trustee said there was a risk that debenture holders may not receive any “significant” payments from Angas until the end of June 2019. It said investors should brace for losses, writing that “Angas will not return a ­surplus and will in fact be unable to pay 100c in the dollar”.
Angas has paid back $15 million against the $145 million promised this time last year. The trustee said valuations relied upon by Angas were out of date, “in some cases by many years”.
Trust Co raised concerns about excessive spending, saying Angas had spent $16.2 million running its business in the last two years and had forecast spending $12.1 million over the next two years.
</body></html>

Financial Services

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Financial Services

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News