News

Advisers in the gun over Ross investments

Thursday 6th of December 2012

The Financial Markets Authority has confirmed it is investigating an unspecified number of advisers in relation to the company, which was run by Authorised Financial Adviser David Ross.

“FMA is aware that a small number of clients invested with Ross Asset Management on the basis of a recommendation by another financial adviser,” an FMA spokesman said.

“We are actively engaging with those advisers and will take appropriate action where, after investigation, any breaches are discovered.”
Investor spokesman Bruce Tichbon said he had been contacted by investors who said they were recommended to David Ross by “high-profile financial advisers around the country”.

Tichbon declined to name any of the advisers but said he’d heard “large names to small names” in conversations with investors.

“The people who’ve been particularly motivated to ring me have been those that were recommended by a financial adviser or those who put a large amount of money in at the end.”

Corporate lawyer and fund manager Brian Henry, who represented Carey Church in the Armitage v Church case, said the situation was “looking very ugly” for financial advisers.

He predicted lawsuits similar to those that followed the finance company collapse, but he said advisers who recommended Ross would have an even harder time defending themselves.

“The obligation of the investment adviser is quite clear in case law: they must become familiar with and understand the investment they are advising on.   They look at published accounts, audited reports, trustee action, reaction or non-action, the prospectus and investment statement.

“These are the base documents when they start looking; they still have to use their brains, smarts and common sense on top of this statutory base.  With this guy they have no statutory base to start from.”

And Henry said affected advisers might not even be covered by their professional indemnity policies.

“They will not cover those advisers if the loss has been caused by diminution of value of the asset and not by negligence.  If they can say the asset was absolutely stolen and was total theft they might be able to get a pay-out.”

Comments (6)
Alison Gilbert
AFAs who recommended David Ross did exactly that: recommended a person. They did not recommend a "financial product" (Ross was not managing a fund, rather indiviudal accounts). So it is no different from someone recommending a lawyer, accountant or builder. It is up to that person to do their own checks on the service to be offered. So the FMA is unlikely to get anywhere with their witch hunt.
0 0
12 years ago

John Milner
Ally, it would be the responsibility of the adviser to ensure they were satisfied that David Ross was an appropriate person to recommend. It would be assumed by the client that the adviser, who at a minimum is an AFA, would not recommend someone unless they had completed some DD themselves. This should go for any person who promotes themselves as a professional. But yes the client must accept some responsibility.
0 0
12 years ago

John Berry
Old Timer, I like your point that the "my operation is safer than yours" argument doesn't help things. The debate over whether Ross was a fund manager or a financial adviser is in the same boat. The reality is that this disaster hurts the entire wider industry. It's not only financial advisers who don't have an independent custodian. It hurts ALL financial advisers and all fund managers. Every participant needs to critically look at their risk management and investor protections. Confidence has been eroded (again).
0 0
12 years ago

patrick diack
I signed up Kiwisaver by giving people $10.00 outside Winz, if this Ross character can become an AFA maybe I could become one as well?
0 0
12 years ago

Clayton Coplestone
Whilst I'm aware the the bulk of investments into Ross were direct (ie: without any external advice), I'm also aware of a number of AFAs who placed significant exposures into Ross without any independent research or opinions. The sooner that the industry rids itself of these folks (you know the ones - who reckon that they're above any research or appraisals before placing investments) the sooner the industry can regain the confidence of the investors. Until then (as pointed out by John), we're all tarred with the same brush
0 0
12 years ago

Mark Ogden
As amusing as your comment is Stan, the irony is brilliant. Do you think the FMA will get it? Off to the proctologist for you Stan!
0 0
12 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.