Blogs
KISS principle still rules
Friday 15th of February 2008
You may think Blue Chip and the financial advisory industry have little in common.
Think again.
One of the things that struck me is the similarities to what has been happening in the finance company sector. Obviously people were investing in these things to save for their retirement and they thought they were safe (as houses).
Another thing is that Blue Chip and the likes (I'm not sure what you call them - managed property investments maybe?) are quite a big sector.
Reports are that Blue Chip alone had 3-4000 investors. There seem to be plenty of these schemes, big and small, so the total number of investors is substantial.
Then I pondered how do you pick a good one? Here, my guidelines for choosing finance companies come into play.
You need to be able to understand how the investment works, the backgrounds of the people involved and the structures. It seems when you get either complicated investment structures, or complex corporate structures, there is a higher probability of trouble.
Also these complicated structures often provide a great way for the provider of the investment to clip the ticket multiple times.
That is fine, as long as the investor knows.
Often they don't know and by the end of the line, the ticket has been clipped so often there is little left for investors. This seems to be the case with Blue Chip as it has been with other types of investments, including some from big financial planning firms.
All this leads me to a growing belief that the simpler the investment product, the safer it is.
Comments (5)
Mike King
Bryers didn't just shaft the innocent Blue Chip investors - he has also systematically gutted his Franchisees of their businesses & livelihoods.
I believe he has gone about this consciously and deliberately, and is probably right now, celebrating the "success" of his venture, which has certainly enriched him and his offsider, Bangerter - sole shareholder in Blue Skies Holdings Ltd (now in liquidation! go figure!)
BSH Ltd was the real money-trap in their elaborate system and these two thieves have pillaged and plundered as fast as they could get away with it.
It was always going to end this way...the only constraint on them was just how long the property boom would go on, and then how long they could get away with their sleazy activities being exposed to sunlight? (Anyone else ever tried to get HOLD of anyone one BC , prior to the receivership, who would actually tell the TRUTH about anything?)
0
0
16 years ago
Mike King
Bluechip's "valuations" were always suspect, especially as they were based on expectd value on completion - which means they were based on a fanciful trust in future growth.
The release of deposits to the Vendor (an associated company called Blue Skies, owned by Bangerter & Bryers, which would sell a huge mark-up to the developers' prices) was another source of major concern.
The cashflow projections also relied on an extremely dodgy tax structure, that was always doomed to failure.
Bribanc & associated management & body corporate entities have left investors with hundreds of thousands of debt on unpaid accounts, though these charges had been deducted against the rental offered.
Crooks? Can any other conclusion be arrived at?
0
0
16 years ago
Tom Watson
When we analysed the cashflow projections provided to clients considering a purchase we identified:
1. Extra money had to be borrowed to provide working capital to fund rental shortfalls each year.
2. Profit came from linear capital growth @ 6% pa - not likely in an overpriced market.
3. Blue Chip buy back after 4 (or 8) years at estimated value depended on their solvency.
4. A very large maintainence/ refurbishment fee was to be deducted from the sale proceeds.
The public were being told that these were good investments by SALESMEN not qualified to determine what is or isn't a good investment with no consideration of any risks i.e. interest rate increase, rent decrease, etc.
0
0
16 years ago
Nigel Tate
Just another reason for the government to act with greater haste in enacting regulations that curb the spread of these types of "Investments?" along with the salesmen or saleswomen that push them onto ill-informed members of the public. It seams to me that companies that promote these highly leveraged and complex schemes seem to be able to survive due to the less well informed members of our own industry agreeing to promote them, if the numbers of ill-informed advisers reduced so to would the spread of these promotions.
It's an old one but seems to be more and more appropriate - Don't promote what you don't understand. Education is the key, both public and advisers.
0
0
16 years ago
Alison Renfrew
Several years ago we talked with people inviting us to work with them to recommend Blue Chip Property to our clients. My initial reaction was that the focus was on marketing small (very small) apartments in Auckland. I have never liked small apartments and speculate that they will be tomorrows ghettos. I asked for more detail on how the scheme operated because it seemed complex to me and the person said to me "You don't need to understand. Clients don't ask. Trust me it works". This sort of response didn't fit comfortably with us and we had no more to do with that firm. I heard later that feed back from that person to his colleague was "The Renfrews are more trouble than they are worth". Seems to me that they were approaching advisors who chose not to think and who didn't wish to understand. Today we assist clients, many of them, into property investments that we and our clients understand. Buy the land (in the right growth area), build a house, rent it. Very simple.
0
0
16 years ago
2 min read