Westpac ordered to pay $2.7m for misleading client
- Thread starter theiain1
- Start date
Which marketing genius came up with that product name :|
goldpelican said:
In all fairness it didnt say WHAT it guaranteed - They could say "yes, it Guaranteed to make Westpac money"...or "Guaranteed to move with the markets"...or "Guaranteed to lose value"...
Funnily it actually says "guaranteed portfolios service" meaning it guarantees portfolio service :lol:
nonrecourse
Well-Known Member
Ag said:
If you hand your money over to someone else to "invest/speculate then you deserve to reap what they sew. I have no sympathy with absentee investors.
Kind Regards
non recourse
" If you hand your money over to someone else to "invest/speculate then you deserve to reap what they sew. I have no sympathy with absentee investors. "
Can we say the same thing when we employ a plumber to fix our hot water system ? or if we cal in a mechanic to to repair a fault in our car ?
I for one know nothing of fixing engines and thats why i pay a someone to do the work for me. So if he screws it up i feel the fault lies with him , not me . If the guy works at a large car repairer then i would assume my car is in safe hands.
Just my two lunars worth
Can we say the same thing when we employ a plumber to fix our hot water system ? or if we cal in a mechanic to to repair a fault in our car ?
I for one know nothing of fixing engines and thats why i pay a someone to do the work for me. So if he screws it up i feel the fault lies with him , not me . If the guy works at a large car repairer then i would assume my car is in safe hands.
Just my two lunars worth
nonrecourse
Well-Known Member
Crunchy Nut said:
Spoken like a true employee with an entitlement mentality.
If you want to be a victim you abrogate responsibility and live a life in poverty. You never A$$ume anything. You must delegate that does not mean you don't direct. That is what running an SMSF or a business is all about. If you want to be ripped off; believe in the safe hands spin you are sold on. I'd rather think, direct, act and grow rich.Kind Regards
non recourse
nonrecourse said:
I can certainly see that side of things, but surely there is a point where the other party to a deal has to provide you with clear, honest and accurate information in order for you to make your decision.
In this case it looks like the guy made a decent effort to do his due diligence and went to the trouble and expense of having his lawyer to follow up on some points that might not have initially been clear.
WOW . Way to make an assumption about someone .
I have run my own business for the last 25 years, i like to think i know what i am doing. I also believe that running a successful business means that you cant do everything yourself , that just hinders the growth of your business. I think i am good at what i do ( puts flame suit on ) since i have a lot of return customers.
Yet i know my limitations and i have an accountant , mechanic etc . I do what i know and leave the rest to others. If you have the time to do all that yourself , well great , i hope you dont burn out. For me life is too short .
edit : reading this it sounds a bit harsh , i see your points but i dont see how giving others the responsibility to do their job is an entitlement mentality . Doing it all yourself really doesnt always guarantee succuss either
edit2 : will get the spelling right one of these times
I have run my own business for the last 25 years, i like to think i know what i am doing. I also believe that running a successful business means that you cant do everything yourself , that just hinders the growth of your business. I think i am good at what i do ( puts flame suit on ) since i have a lot of return customers.
Yet i know my limitations and i have an accountant , mechanic etc . I do what i know and leave the rest to others. If you have the time to do all that yourself , well great , i hope you dont burn out. For me life is too short .
edit : reading this it sounds a bit harsh , i see your points but i dont see how giving others the responsibility to do their job is an entitlement mentality . Doing it all yourself really doesnt always guarantee succuss either
edit2 : will get the spelling right one of these times
Just to clarify this point that I made above:
Clear = A concise summary of the nature of the investment. Must be able to present technical and legal concepts in a way that can be understood by someone without specialised knowledge in those areas.
Honest = No attempt is made to conceal information that is relevant to the nature of the investment.
Accurate = Information and data that can be independently verified as either true or false. May also include known outcomes in certain circumstances.
From the original article, the banker was not able to meet all those criteria when he offered the product to the investor and therefore the judge decided the banker shouldn't have offered it to him.
Big A.D. said:
Clear = A concise summary of the nature of the investment. Must be able to present technical and legal concepts in a way that can be understood by someone without specialised knowledge in those areas.
Honest = No attempt is made to conceal information that is relevant to the nature of the investment.
Accurate = Information and data that can be independently verified as either true or false. May also include known outcomes in certain circumstances.
From the original article, the banker was not able to meet all those criteria when he offered the product to the investor and therefore the judge decided the banker shouldn't have offered it to him.
Big A.D. said:
Well said Big A.D. As you know I am a big fan of pure capitalism in all it's forms and for the government to stay well out of it for the most part. But one of its responsibilities is to enforce contract law so that system can function properly. In this case I am utterly angry that the guy sueing did not get a better judgement on behalf of the court.
As far as I am concerned the quoted text above would have to be found to be true for ANY payment to have been awarded. If that is to be true then Mr Coco should have been awarded his 10million investment plus the dividends plus the costs of taking the matter to court. He obviously had a contract (verbal or otherwise) that stated this and only in the event that Westpac was bankrupt should he receive 1 cent less than this.
Lovey80 said:
Ta
I do also think that even "pure capitalism" requires an equitable legal framework for people to be able to engage in private transactions.
Some people might call that "burdensome government regulation", but if you need to hide "gotcha" clauses to an agreement in 28 pages of fine print in 6-point type with a white font on a light-grey background then even a simplified legal system for enforcing contracts is going to be overwhelmed by loads of trivial cases that wouldn't need to be heard if "not screwing other people" is a fundamental element of the law.
Au.Ag.Mzch
New Member
@nonrecourse
@Crunchy Nut
I think Kiyosaki in The Cashflow Quadrant talks about how sometimes successful B quadrant ppl wrongly assume that they'll automatically succeed in the I quadrant, and end up crashing and burning. Eg. someone who builds up then sells their business for $millions then loses it all through a couple of poor investments.
I can only guess what Mr Coco's $$ starting position was prior to this lemon, but IMO if he didn't understand in plain terms what he was investing in (or how the financial product worked), then he should've walked away from it. Yes he tried to do the right thing by getting his lawyer to verify some details - but lawyers are trained in law, not financial investment products. Also if the lawyer was coming from the E or S quadrant and wasn't personally in the I quadrant himself, then he wouldn't have the necessary mindset that would've identified any major shortcomings in the investment.
@Crunchy Nut
I think Kiyosaki in The Cashflow Quadrant talks about how sometimes successful B quadrant ppl wrongly assume that they'll automatically succeed in the I quadrant, and end up crashing and burning. Eg. someone who builds up then sells their business for $millions then loses it all through a couple of poor investments.
I can only guess what Mr Coco's $$ starting position was prior to this lemon, but IMO if he didn't understand in plain terms what he was investing in (or how the financial product worked), then he should've walked away from it. Yes he tried to do the right thing by getting his lawyer to verify some details - but lawyers are trained in law, not financial investment products. Also if the lawyer was coming from the E or S quadrant and wasn't personally in the I quadrant himself, then he wouldn't have the necessary mindset that would've identified any major shortcomings in the investment.
Big A.D. said:Lovey80 said:
Ta
I do also think that even "pure capitalism" requires an equitable legal framework for people to be able to engage in private transactions.
Some people might call that "burdensome government regulation", but if you need to hide "gotcha" clauses to an agreement in 28 pages of fine print in 6-point type with a white font on a light-grey background then even a simplified legal system for enforcing contracts is going to be overwhelmed by loads of trivial cases that wouldn't need to be heard if "not screwing other people" is a fundamental element of the law.
Absolutely and I think that's the way we need to encourage the legal system to work. Very few people just fall or luck themselves into a position where they can invest 10 million dollars anywhere. He obviously thought he had done his due diligence and so did his legal team. If it got to the point where the gotcha clause was missed by not only him and his legal team but the Westpac advisor selling the product to the point that no loss and dividends can be "guaranteed" then Westpac needs to take the hit on this one to the full amount IMO.
nonrecourse
Well-Known Member
I don't agree with this post ^^^^ I may sound harsh but handing over $10 million to a product sales person for the bank when you were not clear and you went to a lawyer and relied on someone else?????
Every time I have been kicked in the teeth its because I abrogated responsibility. That is not doing it all yourself. Too many people want their hand held and cry about being ripped off because they fail to look beyond the spin, grow up....
Every time you purchase a service or product it is caveat emptor. There has not been a true capitalist country in existance for over a hundred years, the small businesses are the last vestige of that bygone era. We have big buisness that sucks off the teat of the liberal scum and we have the trade Labour mafia with the hard labour criminals...take your choice. One borders on fascism and the other on communism.
Kind Regards
non recourse
Every time I have been kicked in the teeth its because I abrogated responsibility. That is not doing it all yourself. Too many people want their hand held and cry about being ripped off because they fail to look beyond the spin, grow up....
Every time you purchase a service or product it is caveat emptor. There has not been a true capitalist country in existance for over a hundred years, the small businesses are the last vestige of that bygone era. We have big buisness that sucks off the teat of the liberal scum and we have the trade Labour mafia with the hard labour criminals...take your choice. One borders on fascism and the other on communism.
Kind Regards
non recourse
Im in NRs corner here WTF does a lawyer know about investments? He knows terminology & legalese but sfa about investing money ..Lawyers are only good for making sure its worded correctly & have no idea where the bank is putting your money or what returns they might/might not get..Big A.D. said:
I think the sentence "you must delegate that does not mean you dont direct " says it all . Its your money ALWAYS know where it being spent
Renovator, the if Westpac guy that was qualified to sell the product didn't know any better (even worse if he did) how is anyone else suppose to know any different?
Westpac have gone to the lengths to name a product a "Guaranteed Portfolio Service" there own people selling the product told him that his investment and dividends were guaranteed also. If that is not predatory behavior by the bank I don't know what is.
Westpac have gone to the lengths to name a product a "Guaranteed Portfolio Service" there own people selling the product told him that his investment and dividends were guaranteed also. If that is not predatory behavior by the bank I don't know what is.
I didnt say it wasnt predatory behaviour . I think every financial advisor is a predator . Thats why ive never used one .Lovey80 said:
I feel you should always have control of your finances not leave it in the hands of someone else........ Thats wishing/hoping /stupidity.
nonrecourse
Well-Known Member
Big A.D. said:
Yes agreed but you a$$ume that the seller has your interest at heart... they don't. It comes from the top we have no leaders either on the left or the right, our institutions are not there to be fair and equitable. Every time I hear the word "fair" I instinctively want to put my backside against a wall to protect my a$$ets.
Learning to be be financially literate involves more than talking the talk we all need to walk the walk and it is a constant battle. That is why I take no prisoners on this site with the employee entitlement mentality that now pervades our society.
Our banking institutions, insurance companies, big business, unions and our so called democratic governments are there to ensure you are forever dependent. My raison d'etre as a small business is to cut their tentacles when they latch on at every opportunity.
My dream is an Australia that is dominated by self employed people who shut down our controllers ad infinitum.
Kind Regards
non recourse