Milford action should boost confidence: NZSA
Financial Markets Authority action against Milford Asset Management should give investors more confidence, says New Zealand Shareholders Association chairman John Hawkins.
Monday, June 22nd 2015, 6:00AM 
3 Comments
by Susan Edmunds
It was revealed on Thursday that the FMA had reached a settlement with Milford. The fund manager is to pay $1.5 million.
The FMA said trading by one of Milford’s staff had breached market manipulation provisions and the Milford board had insufficient monitoring of trading activity.
The FMA is still conducting enforcement activity with the person in question, who is on extended leave.
FMA chief executive Rob Everett said the FMA was looking to raise the bar on management oversight more generally. “The board and management needs to be on top of what’s in place and need to have checks in place to ensure visibility of the operation.”
He said the FMA would be vigilant in dealing with lapses in that area because it had the potential to affect investor behaviour, which could alter market liquidity and increase the cost of capital.
Hawkins said the FMA had sent a clear message to the industry that they needed to have sufficient systems set up to monitor trading activity.
"The company is paying a high price for insufficient oversight. It’s going to make the Milford directors’ eyes water and they should have done better. But the important thing is it says to the market that the FMA has teeth and will use them, you need to get your house in order.”
He said investors could not be protected from potential downturns in their investments but they deserved to know that fund managers had systems in place to stop unsatisfactory conduct occurring.
“That’s important and that’s what this is all about. I applaud the FMA.
Hawkins said the NZX also deserved credit for identifying the trades in question. “It’s like looking for a needle in a haystack.”
| « FMA keeps eye on RFAs | Sovereign finally confirms intention to sell Select » |
Special Offers
Comments from our readers
"Milford denies that it is liable for any alleged breaches. The FMA acknowledges that its conclusions have not been tested in court."
I actually think the industry can learn something from these recent cases - the lesson appears to be hire a team of very expensive QC's and threaten years of litigation, or cop to a 'no admission' level of fault
Sign In to add your comment
|
|
Printable version |
|
Email to a friend |
The other issue that doesn’t seem to have had any coverage is what about the NZX member and Member Firm who facilitated the crime? They haven’t been named let alone being threatened with prosecution. From the limited amount of info we have it would seem that it would have been pretty obvious to the NZX Member Firm employee that dodgy dealings were being facilitated.
Contrast the lack of information here with the strategy, expressed by the FCA recently in an interview with the FT, that they would give all the details required to understand their enforcements. The FMA’s remit includes fostering market confidence but suppressing details of bad behaviour from the public is taking this responsibility too far. All the relevant information should be released once any action against the Milford employee and the NZX Member Firm employee is concluded.
Brent Sheather