News

Massive shortfall of funds at Ross Asset Management

Thursday 15th of November 2012

A receivers report submitted to the High Court today revealed that the PriceWaterhouseCoopers team assigned to investigate the firm and its related entities had found only $10.2 million of the $449.6 million the company’s records show has been invested on behalf of 900 investors, with 1720 accounts.

PwC said: “There is a significant gap in the identified market value of the Group’s investments as against the amounts reported in investors’ portfolios.”

It said it was likely the historical returns advised to investors were exaggerated and possibly fictitious.

“The actual cash loss that may eventually be suffered by the remaining investors will differ from the amounts currently showing as the ‘value’ in individual investors’ portfolios.”

PwC recommended the Ross Group entities be placed in liquidation.

The team had been working to verify the Ross Group’s assets in New Zealand and overseas and analysing records to determine the position of investors’ portfolios.

The investigation started on October 25, after the Financial Markets Authority received complaints from investors who were unable to withdraw their funds.

A search warrant was executed on David Ross’s home and office and his assets were frozen on November 2.

FMA chief executive Sean Hughes said the receivers’ report would be difficult reading for investors with funds under Ross Asset Management’s control.

“The events of the past two weeks demonstrate that FMA will take swift action in response to investor complaints and we would encourage people to come forward if they have concerns about the security of their investment. They should be confident that we will listen and act where appropriate,” Hughes said.

He said it was understood that Ross had been in business for more than 10 years.

“Our end goal is the best possible outcome for the investor, although we realise that in this instance it would appear that the remaining assets are limited.”

Comments (12)
Simon Rule
PwC said: “There is a significant gap in the identified market value of the Group’s investments as against the amounts reported in investors’ portfolios.” That would have to be the understatement of the year....
0 0
12 years ago

Alison Gilbert
The FMA has got a nerve trying to take the high ground on this. A scam appears to have been going on right under their noses.........just the thing they were set up to prevent the first place !!
0 0
12 years ago

Aileen Cutting-Gardner
You advise Towers benefits, well I have/had been with Tower for 24 years to have a sharp kick in the knee caps with a property and having my insurance suspended because house has not sold. Then having to away equivalent to four days on the telephone to fine this out all the yrs of taking my money over 17 investment properties, no loyalty to the customer when is it needed. I feel for the people in Christchurch fighting for what is lawfully theirs.
0 0
12 years ago

Simon Rule
Hearing now that the company's tax returns to the Inland Revenue appear to be two years in arrears. This raises serious questions as to whether the IRD should have made the FMA aware all was potentially not well at Ross Asset Management ages ago. A red flag surely should have gone up you'd think? $400M+ under management and two years in arrears on your company tax returns.....
0 0
12 years ago

W K
@amused: wondered if its got to do with the privacy act? you know something is dead wrong, but cannot say it otherwise get punished. @andrew: it's the adviser, not the title. it doesn't matter if the adviser is an AFA or RFA, if he's a crook, he's a crook.
0 0
12 years ago

alan milton
The key thing here is the absolute ignorance of large numbers of investors who seem to be blissfully unaware of prudent management and supervision of their wealth by a third party. Not to have regular reports and being told they have returns way above the norm should have quite quickly sent alarm bells ringing.When will they learn?
0 0
12 years ago

Simon Rule
@ w k: Yes, I am sure the privacy act will be used as an excuse by IRD no doubt (or some other BS reason) to explain why they didn't drop a dime to the FMA. Expect to see some serious questions asked in Parliament on this matter. @ Andrew: what w k said. Regulation has not changed anything. If an adviser is an RFA or AFA has no bearing on whether he/she is going to act unethically.
0 0
12 years ago

Regan Thomas
Hey Bob: We're not all like that. In fact many of us played an active role is reducing the harm done by the finco collapses. Property isn't a land of gold and sunshine either but it suits the dyer who's willing to bet the family silver and home on one horse. And the types who think they know everything. Like Bob.
0 0
12 years ago

Kevin Kevin
Of course, we can all get rich selling properties to each other! Let me get this story straight. As a 19 year old student you went to a financial adviser and, despite not understanding what they were saying, arrogantly, though typical of 19-year old students, decided you knew better and were just fortunate enough to buy property at arguably the best time in history. Now you claim this experience proves property is the single best investment back then, right now, and in the future, and (through some brain-fartian logic) that the RAM fraud discredits management of all other asset classes while the long list of property implosions reveals nothing about that asset class. Now, which is more likely? (psst.. I reckon its got to be B. You know why? Because if A was true, $4.7 million would represent an abject and embarrassing failure.) A) as a 19 year old student, you had the foresight to accurately predict asset market behaviour, you had the clarity of vision and knowledge of everything from demographics to technological advances as well as a keen sense of politics as it pertains to town planning, and used these magical skills to construct a 22 year financial plan that you have followed to the letter right up to today. Or B), as a 19-year old you invested in the only asset class you really had any connection to and now as a 41-year old you are ignoring the potential risk of your previous actions and claim your good fortune was purely the result of good judgement. Ah risk, this is probably one of those things the financial adviser talked about that didn't make any sense to you. It probably still doesn't. If you stay true to form you will claim your financial plan didn't have any risk. Although its possible you might claim you understand risk, and that's why you diversified by buying properties in different regions!
0 0
12 years ago

Michael Donovan
There is much good stuff written by all commentors and as a reader & formerly both a top financial adviser(NZ) and property investor, I can see both sides. Bob' your comments about how well you have SAID you have done certainly READ good, however, it is only words about what you have SAID. Your SAID property portfolio would obviously have originally been nearer the $7 or $8 million mark due to having dropped in value with all property in the recent financial debacle that virtually no-one was immune to, however, the (circa "said) $5 mill is still a good "nest-egg" result...good on you if what you SAID is true. I have to assume by the way that you simply made a typo in your haste to create your comment,,,and actually meant you BOUGHT your first house...not BROUGHT it (on a truck)?? I still raise (property gurus and financial-planners alike)two main points relevant to this recent Ross AM thingy. 1. Why, if there is now such an investor protection called regulation, is there still a regulatory thing called a prospectus, which in turn contains an added protectant called TRUSTEES, where it(the prospectus) carries no regulatory element....ie: we are still never seeing any TRUSTEE being publicly quizzed (in court or otherwise) about such things as satisfactory reports, tax returns filed (not 2 or 3 years late),and ROI's which are very easily identified as "ponzi" or not each quarter (not bi-annually)??? Why are directors the only ones taken to court...and not the people who are supposed to be of TRUST,,, subsequently called TRUSTEES??? 2. Bob, and all you financial-planners. Do you still not come clean with the recognition that there is no such thing as INFLATION (except as a word). The truth is that what we are brainwashed to believe is "inflation" is actually the end effect of the truth that it is the process of our "bosses" eroding the value of our currency...that is what we believe is "inflation.!" Bob,...is that more why the likes of Blue Chip were able to suck people into their version of good investment? Remember...how you property-only people made sweeping statements that houses doubled in value (INFLATED)each 10 years? Only dummies accepted that false advertising over the TRUTH......being that over each 10 year period the RB managed to halve the value of your currency (that you invested into houses)?? They did that simply by printing twice as much money into circulation in that 10 year period..! Rob Muldoon even let it "out of the bag" back in 1984 when he made the public statement that he was going to devalue our (NZ) currency at the rate of 1% per MONTH..(that was another way of saying he was going to create INFLATION at the rate of 12% per ANNUM. Once you understand the difference between "devaluation" (of currency) and "inflation" then both solely-property investors, and diversified-portfolio financial-planners alike will surely take a very different approach to their respective "investment" philosophies,and I for one can remain in the camp that does not believe the "brainwash" that I can pop out and buy a house for $300,000 dollars today....and sell the same house in 10 years for $600,000 "and buy TWO!" Secondly, I have been told that no-one in the FMA came from any financial services type of background, and must therefore assume that they are just an added type of "people-police" and are simply not as on track as you all may be led to believe. Lastly, the Ross A.M. debacle of present is not going to be the last, as I went to print on in recent years. As you have said "Amused"...belonging as an AFA or RFA will prove that they are not parts of the regulatory protector you may get brainwashed into thinking...people are people and you can never change that fact. All the original Finance Companies had a (regulatory) prospectus. Each prospectus had a TRUSTEE. What on earth was the role of those TRUSTEES (other than to provide a form of TRUST and regulatory protection to relevant investors)? Yet no trustees have been held accountable before any court?? Bicker between yourselves if you wish and both can pretend that each has the only answer to investment philosophy, however, keep an eye on the "truth" of how and why you invest (or advise so), because 37% is not necessarily a Nigerian scam or ponzi scheme, and most of the world's truly wealthy would not even bother to get out of bed for such returns...believe it or not? It may all be down to how you may have already been conditioned? Hope I didn't leave any typos? M.D.
0 0
12 years ago

Kevin Kevin
1. Those guys weren't bagging property. YOU called funds management a joke based on the Ross fraud and said people were right to only invest in property. THEY showed that property is not immune to fraud, in fact it was much more prevalent. 2. A risk profile is to gauge someones tolerance of risk. You don't do a risk assessment to determine if someone understands risk. The weight of irony of that being your response to the suggestion you don't understand risk almost broke the internet. 3. Apology accepted.
0 0
12 years ago

Regan Thomas
I'm almost disappointed to have been spared in that lengthy rebuttal. 20 years ago turning up in a 7 year-old camry was as respectable as doing so today would be. I don't smoke or turn up smelling like gin, and I definitely don't wear a cardigan. And I rarely go to clients at night. You could have invested your 10k in many different things, but you went with the only thing you knew, and I would guess your parents knew. Yes getting your own place is a sensible thing to do but that is not investing, that is housing yourself. Getting your mates to pay your mortgage/rent is using your house cleverly. Many do that. So far I remain unimpressed by the pious rantings of yet another property investor who can't tell the difference between housing and investment, and likes to take a lot of credit for their lucky outcomes. Making large (unexpected) capital gains through the 2000's while remaining either ignorant or at least naive to the risks is not the result of astute investment, it was pure dumb luck. Ross was a fraud. So were Hotchin, Petricivic et al from the finco debacle. So was Buddle. We all acknowledge that. Most advisers now charge a fee, not a commission for investment, fully disclose their remuneration up front and genuinely care about helping their clients move in the right direction. Perhaps Bob prefers not to work with one, but that doesn't make it OK to come on here and pare us all out for the criminal activity of one person. It doesn't make it OK to make sweeping insinuations about the honesty, the integrity and the motives of advisers at large.
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.