sharetrader
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 125
  1. #31
    action-reaction arco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    AUD.NZD
    Posts
    2,878

    Default Rogue trader cost broker MF Global $142M

    T took only seven hours early on Wednesday for a trader at MF Global to make bad bets on the direction of wheat prices that cascaded into $US141.5 million ($149 million) in losses at the brokerage firm and exposed another breakdown in Wall Street's risk management. The announcement of the ill-fated trades was an embarrassment for the Bermuda-based futures and derivatives firm, which suffered a 28 per cent drop in its share price. It was the steepest decline since MF Global was spun off last year from hedge fund giant Man Group, and the blow-up raised questions about how one of the largest customers on several futures exchanges could have left itself so exposed to a single trader's bets.
    MF Global identified the trader as Evan Dooley, who worked in the firm's Memphis office until he was fired for having "substantially exceeded his authorised trading limit".
    In an interview, the 40-year-old Mr Dooley, who goes by his middle name, Brent, blamed the trading loss on the computer systems he was using. That system "failed on a lot of things", he said, including problems in "setting limits". He declined to be more specific.
    MF Global insisted that the breakdowns resulting in the steep loss were isolated and have been fixed. But Kevin Davis, the brokerage's chief executive, acknowledged that existing internal controls could have stopped Mr Dooley's trades from being processed - but were turned off in certain cases to allow for speedier transactions by brokers at the firm who traded for themselves.
    "This is an absolutely awful event but we believe it was an aberration in our risk controls and we have fixed it," Mr Davis said.
    Mr Dooley, who has spent more than 15 years in the rough-and-tumble business of commodities trading, was betting that wheat prices would fall from their record levels, according to a person familiar with the situation. Wheat and other commodities have surged in recent weeks because of strong demand, tight supply and a cash infusion from investors.
    MF Global's risk management procedures include "buying power controls" that are supposed to flag big or risky trades that might expose the firm to potential losses. But those internal controls had been turned off at the Memphis office and possibly other locations in order to speed up trades. The surge in commodities trading volume has created pressure on brokerage firms to keep up.
    The Chicago Board of Trade handled Mr Dooley's orders. By Wednesday morning, though, wheat prices were moving sharply higher, meaning that Mr Dooley was suffering losses that far exceeded the balance in his own trading account. Since his account was depleted, MF Global was forced to step in and fund the trader's losing position. "It happened very quickly," Mr Davis said. Mr Dooley did not have the capital "to support even a fraction of his positions".
    Traders in Chicago said MF Global's buying binge pushed wheat prices higher and fuelled heavy trading on Wednesday. It took several hours to undo Mr Dooley's trades.
    The MF Global mess was "certainly the main thing" that caused the market to gyrate on Wednesday, said Vic Lespinasse, an analyst at Illinois Grain and a veteran CBOT floor trader. The most actively traded May wheat contract surged to the CBOT-imposed limit of $US1.35 a bushel.
    Covering Mr Dooley's short positions cost MF Global $US141.5 million in cash, or about $US80 million on an after-tax basis. That is equal to 6 per cent of the brokerage firm's capital - and exceeds the company's net income in the fiscal third quarter.
    Some of the loss may be recovered from insurers, but Mr Dooley is unlikely to make much of a contribution. The trader "does not appear to be terribly long of assets", Mr Davis said.



    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...rom=public_rss
    Last edited by arco; 01-03-2008 at 01:28 PM.
    ___________________


    ___________________

  2. #32
    Kanga ru Xerof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,013

    Default

    Tsk Tsk - hang down your head Tom Dooley

    Once again, internal controls fail

    regards to you all

    Xerof

  3. #33
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    hastings, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    306

    Smile

    Hi Xerof
    i imagine people could loose big time back in 1906 but these days everybody gets to hear about the likes of Tom Dooley, not good for self esteem,poor boy your bound to .....

    Inside a Chicago bucket shop, 1906. Reprinted from the Chicago Daily News negatives collection, Chicago History Museum, DN-0002971. Reproduced courtesy of the Chicago History Museum.

    Last edited by roddy; 01-03-2008 at 09:38 PM.

  4. #34
    Guru peat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Whanganui, New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,620

    Default

    pfft a mere 170mill hahah

    love the way they say that 'the trader does not appear to be terribly long of assets"

    cool picture roddy but where are the buckets?
    For clarity, nothing I say is advice....

  5. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    hastings, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    306

    Talking

    PEAT

    here are the buckets one for you one for Arco and DB

    Last edited by roddy; 03-03-2008 at 08:08 PM.

  6. #36
    action-reaction arco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    AUD.NZD
    Posts
    2,878

    Default

    ING shuts out investors as CDO losses mount

    ING bowed to the inevitable yesterday by halting redemptions on two of its funds hit harshly by the sub-prime credit crisis, leaving approximately 8,000 investors stranded indefinitely.

    Thursday, 13 March 2008

    By David Chaplin
    The move comes in the wake of similar bad news from the Absolute Capital, Macquarie, Basis Capital and Forsyth Barr and New Zealand Funds Management, which have all faced serious losses in collateralised debt obligation (CDO) products.
    However, the two ING CDO-related funds dwarfed these comparable products having collectively raised about $850 million from New Zealand investors.
    Together the ING Diversified Yield Fund (DYF) and the Regular Income Fund (RIF) have dropped in value by almost $320 million since last June.
    According to the funds' financial statements as at June 30, 2007, the DYF was valued at $592 million, with the RIF priced at almost $250 million.
    Steve Giannoulis, ING head of marketing, said yesterday the DYF was worth $353 million and the RIF $167 million.
    Giannoulis said after a run on redemptions over the last few months the funds could no longer pay out investors without jeopardising the remaining unit holders as it no longer had enough cash to meet requests.
    In the June 2007 financial statements the DYF was reported as holding $80 million in cash and the RIF $23 million.
    With cash running dry ING would now be forced to start selling the funds' assets to meet redemptions.
    In a letter to investors sent yesterday, ING said it would be hard to find buyers for the funds' underlying CDO assets "in the current illiquid market".
    "Second, as a 'forced seller', if the better quality assets were sold at uncertain or 'quick sale prices' below their true value, the overall quality of the Funds' assets would suffer, penalising investors who remained," the letter says.
    "Third, the extreme lack of liquidity and sentiment in credit markets is making it increasingly difficult to reliably value the assets."
    According to the ING website, the DYF unit price had sunk to 0.81 with the RIF hitting a low of 0.7. The halt on redemptions in both funds was made effective from March 13, the ING letter says.
    "Pending withdrawal requests that were due to be paid on 15 March will not be processed; there can be no exceptions to this," the letter says.
    Giannoulis said the DYF and RIF trust deeds allowed the trustees to halt withdrawals as long as the economic and financial conditions prevailed with no time period when the funds must be wound up.
    The DYF closed to new investors in January 2006, but the RIF was still receiving funds as late as last week, but is now no longer accepting investments.
    "The RIF will continue to distribute income on a quarterly basis as normal, but reinvestment to buy additional units will not be accepted. Distributions will be paid to investors as cash," the ING letter says. "To the extent that income is available to be paid from DYF at 30 June, the current intention is to pay this out to investors as cash, rather than for it to be reinvested as bonus units."
    ING said it would "defer" the management and trustee fees while the two funds remained in limbo.
    "Fees will be accounted for in the unit price but not deducted, leaving the money invested in the Funds," its letter to investors says. "Advisers will, however, continue to receive monthly trail commission."
    In the year to June 30, 2007, ING collected just over $8.3 million in fees for managing the DYF and a further $2.6 million from the RIF.



    http://www.goodreturns.co.nz/article/976493853.html
    ___________________


    ___________________

  7. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by arco View Post
    ING shuts out investors as CDO losses mount

    ING bowed to the inevitable yesterday by halting redemptions on two of its funds hit harshly by the sub-prime credit crisis, leaving approximately 8,000 investors stranded indefinitely.

    Thursday, 13 March 2008

    By David Chaplin
    The move comes in the wake of similar bad news from the Absolute Capital, Macquarie, Basis Capital and Forsyth Barr and New Zealand Funds Management, which have all faced serious losses in collateralised debt obligation (CDO) products.
    However, the two ING CDO-related funds dwarfed these comparable products having collectively raised about $850 million from New Zealand investors.
    Together the ING Diversified Yield Fund (DYF) and the Regular Income Fund (RIF) have dropped in value by almost $320 million since last June.
    According to the funds' financial statements as at June 30, 2007, the DYF was valued at $592 million, with the RIF priced at almost $250 million.
    Steve Giannoulis, ING head of marketing, said yesterday the DYF was worth $353 million and the RIF $167 million.
    Giannoulis said after a run on redemptions over the last few months the funds could no longer pay out investors without jeopardising the remaining unit holders as it no longer had enough cash to meet requests.
    In the June 2007 financial statements the DYF was reported as holding $80 million in cash and the RIF $23 million.
    With cash running dry ING would now be forced to start selling the funds' assets to meet redemptions.
    In a letter to investors sent yesterday, ING said it would be hard to find buyers for the funds' underlying CDO assets "in the current illiquid market".
    "Second, as a 'forced seller', if the better quality assets were sold at uncertain or 'quick sale prices' below their true value, the overall quality of the Funds' assets would suffer, penalising investors who remained," the letter says.
    "Third, the extreme lack of liquidity and sentiment in credit markets is making it increasingly difficult to reliably value the assets."
    According to the ING website, the DYF unit price had sunk to 0.81 with the RIF hitting a low of 0.7. The halt on redemptions in both funds was made effective from March 13, the ING letter says.
    "Pending withdrawal requests that were due to be paid on 15 March will not be processed; there can be no exceptions to this," the letter says.
    Giannoulis said the DYF and RIF trust deeds allowed the trustees to halt withdrawals as long as the economic and financial conditions prevailed with no time period when the funds must be wound up.
    The DYF closed to new investors in January 2006, but the RIF was still receiving funds as late as last week, but is now no longer accepting investments.
    "The RIF will continue to distribute income on a quarterly basis as normal, but reinvestment to buy additional units will not be accepted. Distributions will be paid to investors as cash," the ING letter says. "To the extent that income is available to be paid from DYF at 30 June, the current intention is to pay this out to investors as cash, rather than for it to be reinvested as bonus units."
    ING said it would "defer" the management and trustee fees while the two funds remained in limbo.
    "Fees will be accounted for in the unit price but not deducted, leaving the money invested in the Funds," its letter to investors says. "Advisers will, however, continue to receive monthly trail commission."
    In the year to June 30, 2007, ING collected just over $8.3 million in fees for managing the DYF and a further $2.6 million from the RIF.



    http://www.goodreturns.co.nz/article/976493853.html
    Was just reading that.......

    Appears the CDO/sub-prime debt eagle has landed(in NZ)

  8. #38
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Taiwan
    Posts
    15

    Default Nfa

    Notice to Members I-08-13
    March 12, 2008
    Attention: Futures Commission Merchants and Introducing Brokers

    Regulatory Reminder Regarding Assets Held Outside the United States

    NFA has received inquiries from Members regarding the treatment of deposits at foreign banks for purposes of meeting segregation, secured amount, liabilities owed to retail forex customers, and net capital requirements. The purpose of this reminder is to briefly summarize the current regulatory treatment of such deposits.1

    Customer Segregated Funds and Secured Amount

    CFTC Rules 1.49(d)(3) and 30.7 establish the requirements for the denomination and location of customer segregated funds and the secured amount, respectively.

    Rules 1.49 and 30.7 provide, in pertinent part, that customer funds may be held at: (1) a bank or trust company located outside the U.S. if the institution has in excess of $1 billion of regulatory capital or its commercial paper or long-term debt or, if part of a holding company system, its holding company's commercial paper or long-term debt, is rated in one of the two highest rating categories by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization; (2) a futures commission merchant registered with the CFTC; or (3) a derivatives clearing organization. For the secured amount, Rule 30.7 also permits funds to be held at a member of a foreign board of trade or its designated depositories or the designated depositories of a derivatives clearing organization. Rule 1.49 further requires that, unless a customer instructs otherwise, segregated customer funds must be held in the U.S., a money center country (i.e., Canada, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, and the U.K.), or the country of origin of the currency, provided that the firm continues to meet the segregation requirements set forth in Rule 1.49(e).

    Liabilities Owed to Retail Forex Customers

    NFA Financial Requirements Section 14 provides that a Forex Dealer Member may hold assets outside the United States for meeting its liabilities to U.S. customers only if those assets are in a money center country, as defined in CFTC Rule 1.49. Further, the institution at which the assets are held must be: (1) a bank or trust company regulated in the money center country in which it is located that has in excess of $1 billion of regulatory capital or its commercial paper or long-term debt or, if part of a holding company system, its holding company's commercial paper or long-term debt, is rated in one of the two highest rating categories by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization; (2) an entity located in a money center country, regulated there as the equivalent of a broker-dealer or futures commission merchant, and either has in excess of $100 million of regulatory capital or have its commercial paper or long-term debt rated in one of the two highest rating categories by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization; or (3) a futures commission merchant registered with the CFTC and a Member of NFA. If assets are being held in a money center country, the Forex Dealer Member must also file with NFA a signed agreement with the qualifying institution authorizing that institution to directly provide to NFA and the CFTC information regarding the Forex Dealer Member's accounts.

    Net Capital

    The instructions to the Form 1-FR-FCM provide that in order to be considered as current assets for capital purposes, offshore deposits of proprietary funds must be held in a major money market country2 at a bank or trust company that has net assets in excess of $100 million and is subject to regulatory supervision by an authority of a sovereign national government. These requirements are not the same as those for segregation and the secured amount, and a foreign depository may be permissible for one purpose but not the other.

    Questions concerning this notice should be directed to Sharon Pendleton, Director Compliance (spendleton@nfa.futures.org or 312-781-1401) or Michael A. Piracci, Senior Attorney (mpiracci@nfa.futures.org or 312-781-1419).

    1 This notice addresses only those requirements pertaining to foreign depositories and is not intended to address all requirements regarding the acceptance and holding of customer funds or the Member's capital. As always, Members are reminded to review all pertinent rules and regulations.

    2 For purposes of the net capital rule, those countries considered to be major money markets are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong-Kong, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, United States and United Kingdom.

  9. #39
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Taiwan
    Posts
    15

    Default Nfa

    Notice to Members I-08-12
    March 10, 2008
    Attention: Forex Dealer Members

    Alternative Language for Customer Disclosure

    As of June 1, 2008, forex dealer members ("FDMs") must provide, and customers must acknowledge, prescribed disclosure language prior to the time a customer first engages in a forex transaction. In adopting this requirement, NFA's Board of Directors provided that NFA staff may approve alternative language where appropriate based upon an FDM's business model.

    In response to individual requests, NFA has approved alternative language to be used in lieu of the prescribed disclosure where the FDM's business model, unlike the typical counterparty relationship, has the following characteristics: (1) when a retail customer enters an order on the FDM's platform, the FDM automatically (without human intervention and without exception) enters into the same transaction with another counterparty, creating an offsetting position in its own name; (2) the FDM confirms to the retail customer the price at which the order has been executed, which is the same price at which the FDM entered into the offsetting position; (3) the FDM does not profit from any resulting market movement as its offsetting transaction will result in the same profit or loss as the retail customer's transaction; and (4) the FDM's sole manner of compensation is a commission charge on each trade.

    Any FDM whose business model is the same as that described above may use the alternative language set forth below. An FDM must provide NFA with written notice of its intention to use this alternative language and include in such notice a representation that it's business model is the same as that described above. Such written notice must be signed by a principal of the FDM that is also an NFA Associate.

    The alternative language that may be substituted is as follows:

    THE FOREIGN CURRENCY TRADING YOU ARE ENTERING INTO IS NOT CONDUCTED ON AN EXCHANGE. [MEMBER] IS ACTING AS A COUNTERPARTY IN THESE TRANSACTIONS AND, THEREFORE, ACTS AS THE BUYER WHEN YOU SELL AND THE SELLER WHEN YOU BUY. THE PRICES [MEMBER] OFFERS MIGHT NOT BE THE BEST PRICES AVAILABLE.

    ALTHOUGH [MEMBER] IS THE COUNTERPARTY TO EACH OF YOUR TRADES, [MEMBER] LIMITS RISK TO ITSELF BY INSTANTANEOUSLY OFFSETTING THE TRADES AND POSITIONS IT ENTERS INTO WITH YOU WITH A BANK OR INSTITUTIONAL MARKET MAKER. AS A RESULT, [MEMBER] DOES NOT PROFIT WHEN YOU LOSE MONEY ON A TRADE. RATHER, [MEMBER] EARNS COMMISSIONS ON EACH TRADE IT ENTERS INTO WITH YOU. THE AMOUNT OF COMMISSIONS CHARGED IS DISCLOSED ON PAGE [x] OF THE CUSTOMER AGREEMENT.

    Questions concerning this notice should be directed to Michael A. Piracci, Senior Attorney (mpiracci@nfa.futures.org or 312-781-1419) or Sharon Pendleton, Director Compliance (spendleton@nfa.futures.org or 312-781-1401).

  10. #40
    action-reaction arco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    AUD.NZD
    Posts
    2,878

    Default Investors irate at advice from ANZ

    Investors irate at advice from ANZ


    ANZ says it is confident it recommended the funds to clients in the appropriate manner and for the right reasons. Photo / Herald on Sunday

    Angry investors are questioning why their ANZ financial advisers put them into funds now paralysed by the credit crisis.
    On Wednesday investment manager ING announced it was indefinitely suspending withdrawals from its Diversified Yield and Regular Income funds "due to the recent extreme deterioration in liquidity in credit markets".
    Around 8000 clients have $521 million invested in the funds.
    The funds were based largely on CDOs (Collaterised Debt Obligations) and CLOs (Collaterised Loan Obligations), complex financial products which bundle various types of debt into a security.
    ING New Zealand is 49 per cent-owned by ANZ National Bank.
    Investors who have lost tens of thousands of dollars on the value of their investments in the funds have been left wondering why ANZ steered them towards these products.
    One retired Taranaki farming couple put their life savings of $110,000 into the ING Regular Income Fund last March on the advice of their ANZ adviser. They have since lost $34,000 on the value of that investment.
    Their son says his father has had a nervous breakdown over the stress of the losses, and he has had to take over power of attorney.
    The son said his parents had been in an ANZ superannuation fund which wasn't providing a high return, so they asked the bank for advice on a better investment.
    He said a financial adviser was sent round who put them on to the Regular Income Fund, "in their words saying, 'it's as safe as being in the bank but you get 1 per cent higher'."
    "That's basically how it was sold," the son said.
    Retired investor Eddie Graham and his wife invested $490,000 in a portfolio devised by their ANZ adviser. The money was put into four ING-managed funds, including more than 30 per cent into the Diversified Yield Fund, and into UDC Finance - owned by ANZ National Bank.
    The Grahams have lost around $23,000 on the value of their Diversified Yield Fund investment.
    They have since sought independent financial advice, and have been told their investment portfolio did not match their request for a conservative risk profile - the adviser categorised the portfolio as medium risk.
    In addition the adviser told them no more than 10 per cent of their funds should have gone into the Diversified Yield Fund.
    "Research by investment advisers would have raised warnings about the significance of this risk, even before the credit crunch occurred," the independent adviser wrote.
    An Auckland woman in her 50s, who has lost around $20,000 on the value of her investment in the Regular Income Fund, said the politest way to describe her sentiments was "very angry".
    She had come into a large amount of money and invested in the fund after seeking the help of her ANZ adviser.
    "I needed somebody that I felt I could trust and put my faith into that they were going to do the right thing by me, and I made that quite clear to him actually."
    ING confirmed all financial advisers who sold the funds were paid a 0.5 per cent annual trail commission on the lifetime of the investment, to assist with the costs of servicing the client. However ANZ said its advisers were salaried and fees or commissions went to the bank.
    ANZ said it was confident it had recommended the ING Regular Income Fund and Diversified Yield Fund to clients in the appropriate manner and for the right reasons.
    The ING funds were available to bank clients only through ANZ's qualified financial advisory team, and could not be accessed through the branches.
    "All client situations are different and we will be working with clients on an individual basis to establish the best course of action based on in their own personal circumstances," it said.
    * FROZEN FUNDS
    ING has suspended withdrawals from two funds hit by the credit crisis.
    The funds' $1 units were this week worth 81.05c and 70.5c.
    The funds invested in 'CDOs' and 'CLOs' - complex securities based on a basket of different types of debt.
    Advisers with ANZ National Bank, which half-owns ING, put a lot of investors into the products.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/3/...0498069&pnum=0
    ___________________


    ___________________

  11. #41
    action-reaction arco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    AUD.NZD
    Posts
    2,878

    Default

    Rivkin trustees recoup $2.7m


    Susannah Moran | March 14, 2008

    THE trustees of Rene Rivkin's estate are to recoup almost $3million from Jersey authorities, as well as financial records that could uncover new details of his Swiss bank accounts.
    The Royal Court of Jersey recently approved a claim on a company called Thameslink made by Rivkin's trustee, CRS Warner Kugel's Anthony Warner and Steve Kugel.
    Thameslink, incorporated in the British Virgin Islands tax haven, has $2.7 million in its bank account in Jersey. Its main asset was the luxury boat DaJoShaDiTa, named after the first letters of Rivkin's five children and used as his office.
    The boat, sold in 2005, was refurbished at a cost of $2.3million in 2002. It was bought in the mid-1990s, not long after Australian authorities released the $27 million sale proceeds of a secret parcel of Offset Alpine shares. The shares soared in value after a mysterious fire in the Offset printing plant.
    It was later reported that Mr Rivkin told Swiss authorities that he, businessman Trevor Kennedy and former Labor politician Graham Richardson were the owners of the shares. Mr Kennedy and Mr Richardson deny owning the shares.
    Mr Warner confirmed yesterday that Jersey authorities would be releasing the $2.7 million Thameslink funds to the estate after declaring that Rivkin was the beneficial owner of the company - something Rivkin had previously denied.
    "We are about to take delivery of $2.7 million from Jersey authorities in the next week," Mr Warner said.
    The process of getting the money out of Jersey involved a number of court appearances in London and Jersey and public examinations in Australia.
    Last year, a number of people appeared in the Federal Court, including Mr Rivkin's former accountant, bookkeeper and lawyer.
    "With the admissions we got from the examinees in the Australian public examinations, we were able to use that evidence to get a declaration that Rene Rivkin was the beneficial owner of Thameslink and other companies," Mr Warner said.
    As well as the $2.7 million, part of the sale proceeds of DaJoShaDiTa, Mr Warner said he would also be given access to financial records.
    "We have reached agreement for the books and records of Thameslink to be released and we will be going through those with a fine tooth comb," he said.
    "That could lead to other business dealings or transactions and could lead back to Switzerland." Mr Warner said other investigations were continuing in the bid to uncover further assets of Rivkin.



    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...19-643,00.html
    ___________________


    ___________________

  12. #42
    action-reaction arco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    AUD.NZD
    Posts
    2,878

    Default

    Australia's Opes Prime goes into receivership

    Saturday, 29 March 2008, 7:45pm
    Source: TV3 An Australian stock broking firm has collapsed, owing more than a billion dollars. Opes Prime was put into receivership after regulators discovered what they say were irregularities in its accounts.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/multimedia/tv...onal/6273.html

    _________________________________________

    ANZ 28/03/2008 GENERAL REL: 1334 HRS Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited GENERAL: ANZ: ANZ and Opes Prime Group Following the appointment of a Voluntary Administrator by the Directors of Opes Prime Group Limited and the subsequent appointment by ANZ of Receivers, ANZ today advised its lending exposure to Opes Prime was supported by security in a portfolio of Australian equities. The portfolio is diversified and at current market prices is sufficient to cover the amount outstanding from Opes Prime. ANZ believes that based on an orderly realisation of the security portfolio, it is unlikely to incur a material loss on this exposure. For media enquiries, contact: Paul Edwards Head of Corporate Communications Tel: +61 3-9273 6955 or +61 409-655 550 Email: paul.edwards@anz.com A copy of the full announcement has been lodged with the New Zealand Stock Exchange. End CA:00162425 For:ANZ Type:GENERAL Time:2008-03-28:13:34:56
    ___________________


    ___________________

  13. #43
    action-reaction arco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    AUD.NZD
    Posts
    2,878

    Default Emini

    Opes chief led fraud

    • Leonie Wood
    • April 1, 2008
    THE head of the collapsed stockbroking firm Opes Prime, Lirim "Laurie" Emini, told his staff to falsify the accounts of six rich clients, covering them for personal losses of up to $200 million as the value of their share portfolios plunged, a court has been told.
    One of the six clients, who the Herald believes is the Sydney criminal lawyer Chris Murphy, was shielded from sharemarket losses amounting to $145 million. There is no suggestion that Mr Murphy was aware of the alleged manipulation.
    The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has told the Federal Court that preliminary investigations indicate that the Opes share shuffle amounted to a "round-robin" - shares were borrowed from other clients' portfolios to ensure the six wealthy ones did not lose.
    ASIC has also told the court that a company controlled by Opes directors, which is registered in the British Virgin Islands tax haven but which operates in Singapore, may be involved.
    Opes's main financier, ANZ Bank, appointed receivers on Thursday to recover $650 million owed to the bank about the same time Opes directors appointed administrators from Ferrier Hodgson to protect the interest of all unsecured creditors, including staff and broking clients.
    In a late hearing on Friday, a senior ASIC investigator, Richard Vandeloo, told Justice Ray Finkelstein that after talking to Opes employees on Thursday the company's receivers, Sal Algeri and Chris Campbell of Deloitte, told ASIC about allegations of fraud and manipulation of Opes clients' broking records.
    Mr Vandeloo told the judge: "I'm advised that Mr Emini, over a three-month period between December last year and February this year, instructed various staff to make entries in clients [sic] of high net worth to avoid margin calls being made at the end of the close of trade of a day," Mr Vandeloo said.
    "I suspect that the [financial] institution did make the calls on the stockbroking company, but the stockbroking company has not made those calls on its clients It's one day into an investigation, but there's also allegations that there may be a round-robin of stock to make that cover, that position."
    He said the clients had margin-lending accounts at Opes: they borrowed from Opes's financiers to buy shares, but when the value of the shares fell, they were asked to add cash or risk having their shares sold. The court heard that it appeared that instead of adding cash or selling the shares, Mr Emini told his staff to transfer other clients' shares to the six clients' portfolios to make it appear they had enough collateral.
    Mr Vandeloo told the judge that one of the six had business links to Mr Emini. He also said that either the receivers or Opes staff had suggested to ASIC that one of the six clients was involved in the alleged fraud.
    Justice Finkelstein granted ASIC an order barring Mr Emini from leaving the country.
    http://business.smh.com.au/opes-chie...0331-22r5.html
    ___________________


    ___________________

  14. #44
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Taiwan
    Posts
    15

    Default Futures Brokers - Better?

    Recently I was thinking about trading some futures, mini corn, wheat, etc, so I started checking some brokers.
    The good point is that at least most of them will put my money into separate account, which seems fair.
    Bad point: sometimes large commissions and trade size usually available to account over 10-20k at least (from MM point of view). For example: EUR mini-futures' tick size is USD6.50.

    I was wondering if anyone here trades or has traded futures and through what brokers?

    Since I don't have any signals subsription nor trading software besides MT4 and AccuCharts I also wonder if future brokers provide at least basic charts, where I can draw fibs, trendlines, moving averages, etc. I saw some charts - so useless, not even fibs available, which would make analysis next to impossible in my case.

    So far I've found these:
    http://www.saxobank.ch/en/products/f...ible_contracts

    http://www.pfgbest.com/contact/

    http://mbtrading.com/

    All 3 offer forex as well.

    Next one - I'm not sure if they're bucket shop or brokers.
    http://www.orionbrokers.com/

  15. #45
    action-reaction arco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    AUD.NZD
    Posts
    2,878

    Default Tricom a victim in Opes Prime saga

    Clients of Opes take desperate measures


    • Colin Kruger and Jacob Saulwick
    THE FALLOUT from the collapse of Opes Prime continues to widen, with another embattled broker, Tricom, caught short as it tried to buy back a share portfolio from its failed rival.
    Tricom claimed the deal went through late last night, but other sources disputed the transaction. It was not known what the implications were for the survival of Tricom if the deal failed.
    Meanwhile, a group of Opes clients has begun legal action in the Federal Court to prevent the sale of their shares by ANZ. The group claimed they did not agree to hand over legal title of their shares to Opes's bankers.
    It could be the only chance at a return for the Opes clients. A letter from Opes receivers yesterday appears to confirm that the broker's financing agreement transferred title to $1.15 billion worth of clients' shares to its banks, potentially leaving clients with next to nothing.
    But as a series of counter-claims intensified last night, question marks remained over Opes's ties with Tricom, which also ran into trouble due to its aggressive margin loan financing services, and was also financed by ANZ Bank. After running into trouble earlier this year, Tricom handed over part of its securities loan book to Opes.
    Tricom attempted to get the portfolio back soon after administrators and receivers were called in at Opes last week.
    But the Australian Securities Exchange announced yesterday it had cancelled an "off-market special crossings" at Tricom's request. Tricom said it cancelled the transaction because it was unlikely the receiver would allow the trade to go through.
    Late yesterday, Tricom claimed to have acquired the stock directly from Merrill Lynch and ANZ Bank.
    Opes's receivers, Chris Campbell and Salvatore Algeri of Deloitte - appointed by ANZ - meanwhile informed Opes clients the situation regarding their accounts was "still unclear" and would take "some time to reconcile". The receivers were not in a position to advise on the likely return to creditors, they said.
    The main purpose of this circular appears to be to explain to customers why they would never see their stock again.
    "The net effect of these agreements appears to be as follows. Generally speaking, all securities lent to Opes are owned by the [banks] by virtue of Opes defaulting on its agreement with the banks," the statement said.
    The two banks expect little will be left of the $1.15 billion share portfolio once their loans are recovered. ANZ will rank as a priority creditor for a $100 million loan made to Opes just before Easter.
    Mr Algeri said he had told the two banks selling the stock they should be doing all they could to maximise the price received.
    He said one of the companies in the Opes Group, Hawkswood Investments, held commercial and residential property assets, plus investments in listed companies.
    But a group of Opes clients were taking a more direct route to ensure they got a return. In an affidavit lodged with the Federal Courts in Victoria yesterday, CMG Equity claims that, under the agreements between its clients and Opes subsidiary Opes Prime Securities, they did not hand over legal title to their shares.
    The affidavit says the agreements with customers meant they "retain beneficial and economic ownership of the lent stock".
    The affidavit cites email correspondence from Opes Prime as late as January this year saying: "All client holdings offered as collateral are held by our custodian ANZ Nominees Ltd."



    http://business.smh.com.au/clients-o...401-2301.html#
    ___________________


    ___________________

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •