Fund managers spooked by Ross debacle

As the Ross Asset Management saga plays out in the public eye, fund managers are in damage control mode and doing their best to distance themselves from the failed company.

Monday, November 19th 2012, 6:00AM 5 Comments

by Niko Kloeten

The receivers of the company, owned by Wellington AFA David Ross, have raised the possibility of a Ponzi scheme after finding only $10.2 million out of a purported $450 million of client funds so far.

In a sign of the nervousness in the industry about negative publicity from the case, Devon Funds Management has sent a letter to advisers signed by chairman Paul Glass, outlining why Devon investors won’t see a repeat of the Ross collapse.

“With the well-publicised issues surrounding Ross Asset Management (Ross) you may have clients who are concerned about the security of their money in managed funds,” Glass said.

“The details on Ross are still sketchy but there are clear differences between their operation and that of a mainstream fund manager like Devon Funds Management.”

Glass said Devon’s retail funds operate under a prospectus and investment statement, which are lodged the Financial Markets Authority (FMA), while an external Trustee ensures compliance with a fund’s trust deed and offer documents.

He also said no client funds are ever held by Devon; all funds are held on behalf of clients by “highly regarded and secure” external custodians and the funds themselves are audited by PwC.

“As far as we are aware not one of the above client protections were in place at Ross.”

Murray Weatherston said the case had "spooked" other participants in the New Zealand finance industry including advisers and fund managers.

“It’s not good for the industry and not good for any of us that somebody in our industry has purportedly been carrying out such a deception," he said.

“It’s probably causing a lot of people who don’t have their investments in their own names to be questioning that decision.”

Niko Kloeten can be contacted at niko@goodreturns.co.nz

« [Weekly Wrap] Where's the money gone?

Fund managers call for level playing field »

Special Offers

Comments from our readers

On 19 November 2012 at 7:45 am Independent Observer said:

The Ross incident has cast dispersions around all participants in the industry, inclusive of the Regulator and other boutique fund managers.

A restoration in confidence needs to come from the industry itself, with the Regulator being in the best position to confirm the financial standing and ability of NZ boutiques to operate.

On 19 November 2012 at 10:29 am Anon said:

Ross Asset Management wasn't a boutique fund manager, it was a Discretionary Investment Management Service run by an AFA. Big difference.

On 19 November 2012 at 11:34 am Agreed Anon! said:

Totally agree Anon. I think that the regulator should choose their words carefully in regards to this case, plus also think about the holes that exist in the regulatory framework.

Ironically (Murray) my pick is that the clients thought they did have the assets in their own name. Each client could see the list of securities that they owned.

On 19 November 2012 at 12:09 pm Independent Observer said:

Anon: You're correct in your response - a discretionary investment management service is "different" - albeit I'm not sure that it's a "big difference" from how many of the boutiques are operating

On 19 November 2012 at 12:39 pm Anon said:

The big difference is that most boutique fund managers I know (Mint, Pie Funds, Pathfinder, Harbour, Brook) operate under a prospectus/investment statement and have independent trustees, custodians, registrars, auditors and accountants. None of which necessarily apply to DIMS, and none of which applied to Ross.

As far as I know most of RAM's clients thought their assets were held by Dagger Nominees. Sole Director of Dagger Nominees: David Ross.

Sign In to add your comment