Blogs
Bridgecorp and advisers
Sunday 29th of July 2007
While talking to advisers at the IFA Conference last week it started to dawn on me one of the reasons why Bridgecorp fell over.
The picture that began forming after the first day is that it was the advisers themselves which triggered the collapse.
Why? Well it appears that in the months prior to the collapse, many advisers started to stop putting money into the firm.
This funds flow drought, combined with borrowers not paying the company, led to the inevitable liquidity crunch. No money in, no money out to make interest payments. (This in itself raises questions about how the company was being run).
While this picture was one which formed quite quickly, it was brought home to me when a gentleman, who shall remain nameless but used finance companies extensively, said, "we brought the company down" (or words to the effect). On enquiry this was the royal we (advisers, not his company).
So in the end, it seems, advisers where the catalyst for the collapse.
That brings me to a point which needs clarification.
A news item in one of the weekend papers quoted the IFA ceo David Hutton as saying not much of the money in the company came from advisers.
This is patent rubbish. Sources inside Bridgecorp say 60-70% of the money raised came through advisers.
Some of the biggest supporters are high profile and senior members of the association. One report (unconfirmed) is that a large firm had up to $50 million in the company; many others had amounts of around the $5 million mark.
Comments (2)
Mike King
Phil
Your criticism of structuring the rolling maturities of finance company debentures is a little specious – it makes sound sense to split a holding between a variety of debt issuers and maturities: over say 6, 12 & 18 months.
It’s not to maximize brokerage but to minimize the exposure while still securing a reasonable average income return for the investor. As each holding matures, the vehicle is reassessed, and if any concerns have arisen, the maturing holding can be shifted elsewhere, thus reducing exposure to a company that may be experiencing difficulties.
The Bridgecorp demise as certainly, at least in part, victim to this strategy – not only was no new money being offered, but the staggered maturities were not being re-invested. It was a slow bleed, at first, but then…
Bang.
0
0
17 years ago
Mike King
None ther than Chris Lee himself, the self-proclaimed pseudo-guru of fixed interest investments, says, on his website:
"A-rated companies can be used for longer terms. Currently most B-graded companies are best used for 12-18 months."
Is Mr Lee therefore also guilty of this cardinal sin - "Sorry, but if you can’t find a finance company that you’re confident will still be around just 24 months later, why are you putting your client money there in the first place?"
?
0
0
16 years ago
2 min read