Many observers think the 'definition' of a 'wholesale investor' has been abused, so that people who have come into some money, ordinarily qualify. On the face of it an investor with a six-figure asset can self-certify that they know what they are doing as a wholesale investor.
But as is clear to many, not only is that not the case, it allows fund raisers to target a group of people who may in fact be financially naive.
There are some high-profile cases where this seems to have been the case.
The FMA is rightly concerned. People are getting hurt. The whole sector is far too loose in its approach.
Now the FMA has applied to the High Court for some guidance on how to interpret the law.
It has issued the following note today.
The Financial Markets Authority (FMA) – Te Mana Tatai Hokohoko – has filed a case stated proceeding to seek the Court’s determination on legal issues about the use, confirmation, and acceptance, of eligible investor certificates in the wholesale investment sector.
The proceeding follows investigations into the use of eligible investor certificates by various wholesale property developers. These investigations followed the FMA’s thematic review of wholesale offers of financial products.
A case stated proceeding is a process by which the FMA can ask the Court for its opinion on a question of law. It is not an action taken against any specific party. The FMA has previously used a case stated proceeding to seek clarity from the Court in relation to CBL. This is the second time the FMA has brought a case stated proceeding.
The purpose of the proceeding is to provide clarity to the market on clause 41 of Schedule 1 of the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 and to ensure confident participation in wholesale markets by offerors and eligible investors.
The answers from the Court will help to ensure those investors who require the protections provided by the Financial Markets Conduct Act receive those.
Annex
The FMA is asking the court’s opinion on clause 41 of Schedule 1 of the Financial Markets Conduct Act and the following questions of law:
- To be valid, does an eligible investor certificate in relation to an offer of financial products need to expressly describe:
- the previous experience that A has in acquiring or disposing of financial products; and
- the aspects of A’s experience in acquiring or disposing of financial products which they consider would enable them to assess the matters required by cl 41(2)(a)–(c) for the transaction to which it relates?
- For an offeror to rely on an eligible investor certificate, or otherwise treat an investor as an eligible investor, in respect of the transaction to which it relates, does the offeror need to be satisfied that:
-
the eligible investor certificate is valid; and/or
-
in the context of an offer of financial products, based on the grounds stated in the certificate, A could make the assessments requirement by cl 41(2)(a)–(c) in respect of:
- a financial product of any kind; and
- the financial products involved in the transaction to which the certificate relates.
-
- If the answer is yes to either (2)(a) or (b), is an offeror permitted to rely on information which is not contained in the eligible investor certificate to undertake either assessment?
- If an offeror makes an offer of financial products to A in circumstances where it is not permitted to rely on A’s eligible investor certificate, is disclosure required to be given to A under Part 3 of the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013?
Full details of the Case Stated Proceeding can be found here
15 Comments
The current definition is ridiculous - basically anyone can "self certify" that they have investing experience, or can drop $750k from the sale of a house or inheritance into an investment. Both these grounds for qualifying should be removed. That would leave investors with $5M of net assets, and those who have previously invested $1M in financial assets, as qualifying.
I know of people who met certain nameless property developers at an event spruiking their investments, who then invested their entire life savings (from the sale of their family home after downsizing into a small unit) into the property development fund without doing an ounce of due diligence, all because of a 10% promised return and the assurances of the company owner that they were honest and reputable. They wouldnt have a clue as to the risks of the investment, or even realise that their rights to protection that existed were being surrendered.
We'll see what falls out of the Du Val saga, but there are far bigger funds with far more elderly retirees invested in them than Du Val out there.
Shame on the FMA when they investigated these funds a few years ago. I would have thought, having found them all guilty of taking investments from naive and inexperienced investors, that at the bare minimum an order would have been made to force immediate repayment of those investors. Instead, all the property companies got was a letter from the FMA telling them not to do it again. Newsflash - they're still doing it.
Sure it's tragic but *shrug* investor beware.
When FHB find themselves in negative equity after buying homes off these very elderly retiree investors, they're told they should've done more diligence on the biggest purchase in their life. Yet when old people make a doozy and invest in the wrong places, the narrative is they were duped and must be compensated at once.
The "by the bootstraps" fair-weather expert generation very quickly turns into plausible deniability.
Nobody is advising FHB to go buy a home and making false promises to them about the security of their asset. Unlike people who get swindled by developers and their agents making false promises to them. In which case they are entitled to compensation, because thats the law. You dont get to pick and choose which laws you feel like complying with.
https://businessdesk.co.nz/article/finance/nikki-connors-firm-found-to-…
You obviously haven't been listening to the various subject matter experts such as bank economists, Tony Alexander etc. Quite prevalent during the boom.
Here's just one article from just 12 months ago. I don't see any caveats around this information being his "opinion". Sounds a lot like "10% guaranteed" by DuVal.
20 Dec 2023 - Tony Alexander: Expect 10% house price growth in 2024, more in 2025
https://www.oneroof.co.nz/news/tony-alexander-expect-10-house-price-gro…
"You obviously haven't been listening to the various subject matter experts such as bank economists, Tony Alexander etc. Quite prevalent during the boom.
Here's just one article from just 12 months ago. I don't see any caveats around this information being his "opinion"
1) There is a world of difference between a generic market price forecast and a guaranteed market rate of return made on a specific asset to a specific buyer (and who is reliant on that forecast for their decision). I think this is the case with Propellor Property (unable to confirm due to paywalled article)
2) "Sounds a lot like "10% guaranteed" by DuVal. "
The financial product offered by DuVal was a credit product (like a bank term deposit with a fixed interest rate for the term of the deposit) - most people are unable to see or assess credit risks.
Credit risk is very different to house price risk.
CAVEAT EMPTOR.
To be fair the Du Val business model was totally different to the 2 well known building companies you are insinuating about KW!
Du Val was very poorly managed and to have put money in with someone who had been bankrupt before was always going to be a very risky investment.
Do not tar all property investment companies with the same brush as Du Val or Blue Chip,
The only difference between Du Val and the others is that the others have been bailed out by family money and other people they know. How long these people will be prepared to keep funding them is another story. But the funding structure and the "sell" to non-wholesale investors is EXACTLY the same. The point is not whether the company is "well run" (or lucky) but whether they are accepting money from non-wholesale investors, which is illegal, and they are. And I firmly believe that if a company is prepared to break the law (not to mention the complete lack of ethics or integrity) to obtain funding from people who dont have money to lose, then they are very likely breaking the law (or operating unethically) in other areas of their business. Just like Du Val did. These greedy graspers just cant help themselves.
"The only difference between Du Val and the others is that the others have been bailed out by family money and other people they know. How long these people will be prepared to keep funding them is another story. "
Yes. Since outsiders don't know:
1) internal cashflow forecasts of the business to meet liabilities as they fall due
2) how long the funding sources continue to meet any cash and cashflow shortages, and
3) if the lenders choose to not renew their funding for the business,
there is likely to be increased credit risk under current economic conditions.
Its not that hard to prove - just hand over 1-2 years of brokerage or fund managers statements to show you have $1M of financial assets, or provide evidence of $5M of net assets. Any other "test" should be irrelevant as they are the ones being exploited by unscrupulous property developers.
Is there a way to make sure that investors have the requisite expertise without making it even more difficult for productive enterprises to get funding, causing yet more money to get pushed in to housing as direct investment possibilities reduce?
That consequences are unintended doesn't mean they are unforeseeable.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.