- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Investors told funds 'as safe as a bank'


Investors told funds 'as safe as a bank'
Investors in ING funds paralysed by the credit crunch say they were told the products were "just like a term deposit". The Banking Ombudsman is alerting investors in the funds that they can complain to her office about the way the products were sold to them. Many investors in the ING Regular Income and Diversified Yield Funds bought in on the advice of their ANZ financial advisers. ING is 49 per cent owned by ANZ. Around 8000 investors with $521 million in the funds are now unable to access their money after investment manager ING indefinitely suspended withdrawals from the funds two weeks ago citing the effects of the international credit crisis. The funds, largely based on CDOs and CLOs - complex financial products which bundle various types of debt into a security - had lost significant value because of the severe lack of liquidity in the credit markets.

First of all, respects where respects are due, it was the NBR who broke this unbelievable story, and the Herald NEVER credits where a story is broken which is childish beyond belief – to the story, how outrageous is this? ING is half owned by ANZ and ANZ was promoting this highly questionable financial product to it’s customers as just like a bank account, except it was nothing like a bank account, it was in fact anchored to that albatross of the global financial world, sub-prime mortgages, how would you feel being told when you went to withdraw your money from what has been sold to you as a ‘bank account’ only to be told, oops, sorry, we invested it in all this questionable debt to security equation that very few people even understand, you can’t take out your money cause it ain’t there anymore. Oh and how about that toothless wonder Liz Brown, the so called Banking Ombudsman, who in reality is a mouthpiece for the banks and appointed by the industry to represent their interests, not the banking public, what’s her advice? “See your bank first and wait for three months”, great advice there Liz, did you break a sweat coming up with that honey? Where is the Serious Fraud Office when you need them, oh and the final irony, ING are still advertising on TV telling us how wonderful they are.

17 Comments:

At 26/3/08 8:38 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Where is the Serious Fraud Office when you need them"

Labour decided to get rid of them. Credit where is due.

 
At 26/3/08 8:48 am, Blogger Bomber said...

...
of the myriad of decisions that come out of that party where you are left scratching your head and saying, 'What The Hell' - I'm not sure you can balme this one on them. The Police have been pushing for this, not Labour, Labour simply rubber stamped it, and the reason why the Police want the SFO powers - I think - is because the Police above all lust for the power the SFO had re the right of silence. You didn't have the right of silence under the SFO and now the Police have swallowed the SFO it is only matter of time before they start to push to expand that power across the entire Police force.

 
At 26/3/08 9:53 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"f the myriad of decisions that come out of that party where you are left scratching your head and saying, 'What The Hell' - I'm not sure you can balme this one on them."

So, just to get this straight, you don't attribute the decision to close the SFO to the responsible minister, a decision which would be clearly within their authority but you are willing to blame youth suicides of the past 20 odd years on Roger Douglas, who has absolutely no control on hormones of NZ teenagers?

 
At 26/3/08 11:38 am, Blogger Bomber said...

...
I'm saying the push for this has come from the Police with their desire to appropriate the powers of the SFO in particular their powers over the right of silence which the SFO was able to over rule, but yes Labour rubber stamped it meaning any thrust by the Police to gain the ability to force you to answer them and denying you the right of silence will be completly on their head.

 
At 26/3/08 12:06 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm saying that minsters are responsible for decisions and actions of subordinates pertaining to their respective protfolios. Culpability therefore lies with that minister, not some faceless bureaucrat you want to blame because its politically inconvenient to place it on labour.

There is a parliamentry convention called individual ministerial responsibility which you may want to look into.

 
At 26/3/08 12:52 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please excuse my ....
but why does the government pay out thousands on leaky homes built by private builders, but doesn't do a damned thing to protect the savings of people investing for their retirement ?
The government encourage us to save for retirement,,, could someone please explain this to me ????

 
At 26/3/08 1:10 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The answer is moral hazard.

 
At 26/3/08 1:33 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Moral Hazard ???

 
At 26/3/08 1:36 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I understand what moral hazard is, but how does it apply to these cases ? housing vs investments, ?

 
At 26/3/08 1:54 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Govnt through councils, building act is responsible setting standards and inspections and is therefore arguably responsible should their advice go pearshaped. People are free to make their own choice when investing so there as well as bearing the reward they should also bear the risk

 
At 26/3/08 8:44 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

They closed the SFO?! Thats fuckn awesome! A team dedicated to catching high powered crims gets shut dowm, wonder who helped get that thought up!...

 
At 26/3/08 9:36 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Closing. It was pretty ineffective anyway having lost a couple of high profile cases.

My personal opinion the labour govnt just didn't see the point of pouring money into an enforcement area where there is no PR.

As for bomber assertion that the police pushed for control this doesn't hold hold. The police love to concentrate on crimes which are great little earners and give them good PR e.g. drink driving and busting P labs. A fraud case takes months maybe even years with hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on lawyers and forensic accountants. Police look more heroric busting down some doors in riot gear rather than arresting some fat hooker-crazed property fatcat.

A lot of the politics of policing are more to do with the impressions rather than results but we can't really blame the police as they just take their cues from the politicians.

 
At 27/3/08 2:37 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

do yous got any cases of them director crooks what sent to jail Bomber, do yous think we need warnings on Market intro Prospectus of a picture of lost family after Director crook
[names of directors witheld]
see their finance wife on magazine
no clothes on buy now not dudes
peterquixote

 
At 27/3/08 4:38 pm, Blogger Chris said...

ING is just another example of how government seems to have given up on regulating the financial world - it seems govt surrenderd just because these assorted investment vehicles are just too damned difficult to understand. And if any regulation is introduced, govt gets its head bitten off by the transnational financial class. If the risks weren't explained to the consumer - the seller should be prosecuted.

Has seven years of relatively uninterrupted growth worldwide convinced people financial markets are invincible or what?

 
At 28/3/08 7:56 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

'Honey' she should be at home cooking her husbands dinner eh banger.

Hope your cook isn't getting ideas above her station (not very likely I must say but keep a tight a tight grip just in case) clean his shoes bitch/honey.

 
At 30/3/08 6:10 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

...
Above poster: Gosh you have a chip on your shoulder about suggesting domestic violence don't you, and the constant snide posts is just so ill, I can understand why you post anonymously. Dirty, very dirty.

 
At 31/3/08 9:00 pm, Blogger peterquixote said...

ANZ BANK have given quite clear assurances,
"We are just managers" taking 1.4% of their money.
We have no obligation at all, we are fucking australians fuck yous NZ

 

Post a Comment

<< Home