Christmas Greetings (and more)
Friday, December 24th 2010, 8:38AM 
6 Comments
| « Predicting research houses | A bit of reality about perceptions » |
Special Offers
Comments from our readers
On 24 December 2010 at 9:30 am ELongman said:
What hotchins not a crook realy? On 24 December 2010 at 10:02 am Philip said:
I don't know. We haven't seen the evidence and I always understood a foundation of our legal system was innocent until proven guilty.
The actions of the Securities Commission and media lynch mobs (notably the Herald and Hickey) hardly give the guy justice.
Let making it clear I am not making any judgment on Hotchin or whateverh happened at Hanover. That's a job for the justice system.
Remember no charges have (yet) been laid against Hotchin.
And it's fascinating to put this into some broader perspective including MED's case against the Feltex directors.
On 26 December 2010 at 11:52 am David Whyte said:
Now, now Philip - perhaps a bit liverish after Christmas?
Hickey's article majored on suggesting that sectors of the media had caught the mood of the public in attacking Hotchin and concluded that the courts are the best place to deliver the appropriate justice. What astounds me is that after sitting in Countrywide Bank's Investment Services offices in 1988 listening to similar stories refered to in Hickey's article, here we are 22 years later reading the same tales from different unfortunate souls who have suffered dreadfully from exposure to the NZ financial services industry.
Knee-jerk response to regulate advisers ignores a systemic weakness in the Organisation & Management of New Zealand Ltd. At government level, our employees in Wellington are just too feeble-minded to be able to prevent financial calamities recurring. As long as the systemic non-disclosure at product provider level is allowed to continue, I suspect we'll be reading more stories about more poor souls rorted by yet another scam blithely ignored by politicians and regulators alike.
And "innocent until proven guilty"? Tell that to Vance Arkinstall!!
Happy holidays!
On 6 January 2011 at 12:41 pm James Nesbitt said:
I cnat understand why Watson is not in the same boat - of course what they did after the business got into trouble may well have been to get the best back for their investors - as long as it dod not cost them the hard earned money they stole - er payed themselves from the funds. why is anyone trying to defend the indifensible - these guys paid themselves 10's of millions of dollars in fees from a shrinking fund! its outrageous that they can. And this is the problem with the NZ financial sector - people can do whatever they want. The whole sector from the banks down needs to be much more heavily regulated than it currently is - this would actually give investors something other than housing to look at for investments. On 6 January 2011 at 6:06 pm jacob wolt said:
What about transparency? I have been in this industry since 1986 and the overarching theme has and continues to be lack of transparency. Why don't we all just tell the truth? If an adviser takes commissions, soft dollars/has a vested interest and/or has quotas they need to be be upfront about it....no obfuscation. There's no point in waiting for regulation....it's far smarter to be proactive....even put the client first...scary thought for some....that should be the focus of all advisers in 2011...perhaps then the industry will begin to gain some credibility in the eyes of the public. It's time to raise the bar beyond what regulation expects if we are ever to get credibility...and, based on my observations, that maybe some years away On 7 January 2011 at 10:01 am David Whyte said:
Well said Jacob! For transparency, I used the term non-disclosure - amounts to the same point, but it's not just at adviser level that the transparency needs to exist. The institutions which are freely allowed to develop products and operate without adequate supervision need to be more accountable. No apologies if this stands on the toes of the Freedmanite free-marketers. Acts of deception and deliberate obfuscation (good word!) endorsed and institutionalised by ineffective regulations should be consistently, quickly, and severely dealt with BEFORE they impact the consumer. Like you, I remain sceptical over the appetite in Wellington to see effective governance mandated in the financial services sector. Whatever complaints emanate from Australia, their industry is considerably better for the imposition of their regulatory regime - across all stakeholders, not just advisers. Commenting is closed
|
|
Printable version |
|
Email to a friend |
