Huljich not the only one in the gun
Sunday, November 21st 2010, 11:42AM 
7 Comments
| « OnePath to the bank door | A new suitor for AXA » |
Special Offers
Comments from our readers
On 21 November 2010 at 1:10 pm Independent Observer said:
The industry must cease taking the “well no one was really hurt” approach to this issue, and begin to support the Regulators in removing the systemic failings of the NZ superannuation industry.
Whilst Huljich’s actions are undeniably the outcome of ignorance, it is appropriate for the Regulator to demonstrate to all Kiwisaver managers the importance of their duties. For that to be achieved, the Regulators must ask some tough questions of the other Huljich Directors as well as the Trustees.
We must remain mindful of the fragility of the NZ financial services industry, and the embryonic nature of the Kiwisaver program. Unless the Regulator flexes its muscle now, the industry will pay dearly for a softly softly “no one was hurt” approach in years ahead.
On 22 November 2010 at 7:22 am ok corral said:
You ignore the effect on other providers in the KiwiSaver market that could not compete with the compelling returns being reported by Huljich. Seccom is there to protect the integrity of capital markets. This includes a wider scope than investors alone. Huljich's membership growth has been helped significantly by illegal sales. I am not sure if this is also being covered by Seccom. I hope so; as Seccom has rightly recognised, KiwiSaver is the face of investments for the majority of New Zealand and confidence must be maintained. On 22 November 2010 at 8:01 am Ricardo said:
I'd rather see the SFO chase real criminals, like the previous Hanover directors, and the fools at Allied who accepted their false valuations. Then we would see real justice for NZ investors. With those three behind bars we might see investor confidence rise. And whilst we're at it throw in a couple of ING/ANZ directors. A clean sweep would do wonders. On 22 November 2010 at 1:55 pm Jonathan said:
If people say HWM's actions were victimless then they miss the point. The net result of this guys "mistake" was that he could claim superior performance compared with other funds. THIS WAS FALSE. Maybe this explains why so many people signed up to his fund. Honestly folks - we wonder why no Kiwi trusts anyone in finance. duh!!!!! On 24 November 2010 at 1:02 pm also interested said:
The Trustee would have or should have known given the size of the transaction relative to the size of the fund at the time and the fact that they get comprehenisive reporting each month, and we mustn't forget the AUDITORs should have also known something of this transaction due to its size relative to the fund size and it's unusual gain charateritics. On 6 January 2011 at 12:10 pm James Nesbitt said:
Of course he should be prosecuted to the full extent the law will allow - he misled people and benefited from it - this time maybe no one lost out - oh except for the other less deceiptful companies. The Finance industry in this country is the wild west - if you want people to invest in this sector it needs to have far more integrity and way less sharks operating in it - and a regulator that can not only seize assets but lock people up - this is what investors (remember them? the customer?) want more than anything else - honesty, integrity, truth and whopping big stick if we dont get it. Commenting is closed
|
|
Printable version |
|
Email to a friend |
Maybe its their image they are worried about and in this case there egos have got in the way. With people in authority taking this action I wonder where their ability to apply some common sense has gone to.