Blogs

Regulation won't save companies (or investors)

Friday 7th of September 2007

Talk of rushing legislation into action to avert finance company collapses is meaningless.

The reality is legislation won’t stop finance companies collapsing, nor will it stop investors losing money. Finance companies are falling over for a number of different reasons. The most common are a lack of money coming in the door, from whatever source a company uses, and the point we are at in the market cycle.

Coupled with these are the lending and management practices of the companies involved. In some cases, such as Provincial Finance, the two issues are management lending in a market they didn’t understand and possibly some fraud. With Bridgecorp there appears to be questionable lending and a reasonably sudden fall in support from advisers. Many of the most recent collapses are small companies who can’t in this environment get enough money in.

I would not be surprised if this rate of collapse runs at one little company a week for the next month or so.

The reality is legislation and regulation won’t stop failures. Likewise, mandatory credit ratings are no panacea either.

Credit rating don’t always get it right and they very rarely expose fraud and mismanagement.

The most important thing investors and advisers can do is understand what each finance company does, before committing money.

One thing which will help is the proposals yesterday for finance company trustees to have greater power. This is something which will help.

My question is will trustees use these powers and will they be able to publicly express their views? An issue they may have is that a company will seek to stop them publicly exposing issues when they are discovered.

This is a little like the issue where the Securities Commission banned Bridgecorp’s prospectus and investment statement, but couldn’t say anything until the company had a chance to respond.

Comments (1)
Philip Macalister
Fortunately I have never felt inclined to recommend investment in any individual finance company to any of our clients in the past. The true risk profile of investing in any one of these companies (and yes I personally think that they are all potentially vulnerable) has been misinterpreted by many financial advisers and consumers over the years. What I fail to understand is exactly why the powers that be, have on the face of it, taken years too long to look in to tightening regulation in this area. If there is a case to be answered as to why this whole situation has been allowed to develop over many years, then it is the Commerce Commission itself that needs to be shaken to the core and individuals within it held accountable for allowing this mess to manifest itself in the heart of the New Zealand financial services industry. There is undoubtedly need for reform and a total investment risk reclassification of finance company investments would be a positive step forward towards ensuring that investors appreciate that investment in this arena sits typically right at the top end of the risk spectrum. It’s also clear to me that the potential reward available has never been proportionate to the level of investment risk present. I can assure you that there is no self righteous intent here. I’ve been lucky enough as an adviser to have spent my formative years in the UK environment, where finance company investment is really is not on the agenda for most advisers and investors. The main perceived reason for this is that the loose advertising and representation witnessed here in New Zealand would simply not be tolerated in the UK. To sum this up, I strongly believe that finance companies have for years been allowed to paint a picture of security through the use of terminology such as ‘first ranking’, ‘income’ and ‘secured’. All future adverts should be restricted and regulated to ensure that investors are made aware of the risks they are entering in to. As to where the adviser sits with regard to this, the jury’s obviously out although I’ll certainly be building an increase to PI premiums in to next year’s budget forecast! To touch briefly on commission disclosure, if the UK’s experience is anything to go by it will not make a blind bit of difference to the quality of advice being offered here in New Zealand nor do I believe that it would in any way have reduced the scale of the problem that currently exists in this sector.
0 0
17 years ago

Comments to GoodReturns.co.nz go through an approval process. Comments which are defamatory, abusive or in some way deemed inappropriate will not be approved.