sharetrader
Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 5678910111213 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 125
  1. #81
    action-reaction arco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    AUD.NZD
    Posts
    2,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AMR View Post
    Hi has anyone tried KVB Kunlun here in Auckland? How are their fills and order placements? I'm interested in them solely for Index CFDs and commodity CFDs as they have Metatrader 4. Prices seem slightly higher than CMC though but after working with MT4 I can't go back to marketmaker. Not to mention they also have the Yuan.
    I have no personal knowledge of KVB but they were mentioned by Xerof here...............

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerof View Post
    The only Company I am aware of that offers a managed FX product that is based here in New Zealand is NZ Currency Concepts http://www.nzcurrencyconcepts.co.nz/

    Of course there are any number of sites that allow you to 'do it yourself' but it seems that is not what you are looking for.

    I haven't heard of Aaron Brett, or the Companies you mentioned, so can't assist any further. Sounds like they may have "gone to ground" or been closed down (by the Securities Commission?). I have noticed the flurry of advertisements that used to be on talkback radio stations on FX trading have disappeared.

    Please be aware that before investing in any 'managed FX fund', you should ask for a prospectus and investment statement, or ask to see evidence that they are an 'authorised futures dealer' gazetted by the Securities Commission (Authorised dealers are not required to issue prospectus/investment statements)

    The regulations surrounding margin trading in FX contracts on behalf of clients is currently under review by the Securities Commission, as its a relatively new product and the current legislation is somewhat unclear and inappropriate in respect of FX margin trading. I do know, (from asking) that they currently consider FX margin trades to be 'futures contracts' (basically because there is no other category to put them under), and that the Securities Markets Act 1988, the Securities Act (Authorised Future Contract) Exemption Notice 2002, and the Futures Industry (Client Funds) Regulation 1990 are relevant and must be adhered to by authorised dealers.

    'Unauthorised' dealers would be required to issue prospectus' and investment statements I would imagine, but I am not aware of any out there in the market at this stage. It would be extremely difficult to get a prospectus approved IMO, as this area of the investment market is extremely high risk/high return with excellent potential to be a complete disaster if not handled properly.

    There are two recent additions to the list of 'authorised futures dealers' - KVB Kunlun NZ Ltd, and Intercontinental Financial Services Corp Ltd, but I don't know what products they are offering and would imagine its probably not FX

    I am currently applying for authorised futures dealer status, but, at least for the immediate future, will be operating a 'closed fund' for a small group of habitual investors personally known to me.

    Anyway, hope this assists you Alpine


    Xerof
    ___________________


    ___________________

  2. #82
    action-reaction arco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    AUD.NZD
    Posts
    2,877

    Default ASIC steps up scrutiny of rumour-prone brokers

    STOCKBROKING houses peddling rumours to boost sales volumes will face increased scrutiny.
    The corporate watchdog's markets crackdown is entering its second year.
    Australian Securities and Investments Commission commissioner Belinda Gibson said the watchdog would question numerous broking houses in coming months about the way they handled potentially market-sensitive information.
    "Brokers may not create rumours but they certainly play a part in spreading them," Ms Gibson said.
    Speaking at the annual conference of the Australian Investor Relations Association in Sydney yesterday, Ms Gibson said the regulator would seek to ban those brokers engaging in "rumourtrage" to boost sales volumes.
    "There are sales desks which make their money out of transactions and making sales and maybe we need to look at their sales processes," she said.
    "The objectionable element is the way inferences are drawn from a relatively minor fact and the way they are portrayed to the market."
    In reviewing the first year of ASIC's Capital Markets Taskforce, created to tackle excessive stock market turbulence, Ms Gibson said the timely disclosure of company results, guidance and insider trading remained key areas of investigation.
    She said the recent surge in stock market volatility meant listed companies were obliged to be more diligent in publicly reporting information expected to affect share prices.
    Ms Gibson also called on companies to be diligent when dealing with market-sensitive information. She said that to stop the flow of information, "companies should provide information only to those people who need to know. They must be alert to leaks and disclose (any leaks) to the market immediately."
    Ms Gibson said ASIC had substantially bolstered its action in fighting insider trading during the past 12 months.
    Five insider trading charges had been laid this year, with seven more cases expected to be redirected to the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions by February.
    Ms Gibson said ASIC had attended 29 analyst and media briefings undertaken by ASX200 companies in recent months under its broader review of insider trading.
    She said the meetings attended by ASIC "did not raise concerns", but conceded that the regulator had forewarned those companies that its representatives would be attending.
    The Australian Investor Relations Association has heavily lobbied ASIC against ending closed analysts briefings, and that line was repeated by the association's chief executive, Ian Mathieson, yesterday.


    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...017996,00.html
    ___________________


    ___________________

  3. #83
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Shore
    Posts
    1,088

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peat View Post
    yeh I checked this out but couldnt get their html link cut and paste option to work , you tried it?

    long term data too and they do currencies.
    Nah I'm no good with HTML, although perhaps you could draw up the chart with your parameters and establish a link through to the image?
    Disclaimer: Do not take my posts seriously. They are only opinions.

    AMR has sold all shares and is pursuing property.

  4. #84
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Shore
    Posts
    1,088

    Default

    What time should an FX broker open in NZ time? I always thought it was 10am along with the NZX, what time does the forex market start trading? Just got off the chat with my broker and they open at 11am.
    Disclaimer: Do not take my posts seriously. They are only opinions.

    AMR has sold all shares and is pursuing property.

  5. #85
    action-reaction arco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    AUD.NZD
    Posts
    2,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AMR View Post
    What time should an FX broker open in NZ time? I always thought it was 10am along with the NZX, what time does the forex market start trading? Just got off the chat with my broker and they open at 11am.
    I dont presently deal with anyone in NZ, but if you want a comparison give Tricom a call in Auckland to see what time they open
    ___________________


    ___________________

  6. #86
    action-reaction arco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    AUD.NZD
    Posts
    2,877

    Default Tricom Recapitalised

    News

    Wednesday, 12th November 2008

    Tricom Recapitalised
    As you may be aware, the recapitalisation of Tricom has been completed. The recapitalisation results in a number of important changes for our clients.

    • A strong financial position
    • A renewed focus on core businesses
    • A new shareholder and management team committed to our objectives
    • A continued commitment to client service

    Tricom has been recapitalised by isolating all legacy assets and legacy liabilities. As a result, Tricom’s new balance sheet has no debt and sufficient regulatory capital to give it a capital ratio far exceeding the minimum requirements. A committed A$20m working capital facility and the isolating of all legacy issues will allow Tricom’s management and staff to focus on building the future.

    Tricom has a new major shareholder, Taemas Bridge and a new Managing Director, Rob Topfer. Robert’s focus will be to deliver an operations and compliance regime that will match our front office capability. Our CEO, Lance Rosenberg, will work closely with Robert and continue to provide leadership to the equity capital markets business.

    Clients will benefit from our renewed focus on operations with a new team including enhanced legal, risk and compliance. Their goal is to provide a seamless, timely and accurate service to clients across each product area. In the near term, we propose to develop a client relationship group who will ensure that client needs are satisfied.

    Notwithstanding the turmoil that has overtaken other participants in our industry, Tricom and its staff take substantial pride in the fact that no client has lost funds held with Tricom. With the support of our financiers and the constructive approach of the regulators, we have been able to move forward with our client responsibilities and reputation intact.

    Tricom would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your continued support over what has been a difficult period. With the financial crisis now touching all firms, it has become clear that the clients and staff of Tricom have a relationship that will ensure that Tricom is one business that will continue to prosper.

    http://www.tricom.com.au/news.aspx?nid=13
    ___________________


    ___________________

  7. #87
    action-reaction arco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    AUD.NZD
    Posts
    2,877

    Default Defunct Hanover a $200m cash cow

    Hanover Finance owners Mark Hotchin and Eric Watson have withdrawn more than $200 million in cash from the company since they acquired it, accounts show.
    The bulk of the $204.6m in cash dividend payments and share redemptions occurred in the past two years, with $55.2m extracted in the year to June, and $41.5m the previous year. In those years the shareholders invested $800,000 in Hanover's preference shares.
    Investor advocate Bruce Sheppard, of the Shareholders Association, said the withdrawals showed scant regard for the finance company's debenture investors.
    "So, they've nearly pulled out half of what they owe to debenture holders. Aren't they generous," he said.
    The payments also showed little regard for prudent cash management in a tightening property market, he said.
    Hanover chief executive Peter Fredricson said the dividend payments were entirely appropriate at the time.
    "When I joined [in April] the business had $80m in the bank," he said. "We had significant reinvestment rates and the business was operating quite properly with all the governance arrangements required."
    Watson and Hotchin bought Hanover, then known as Elders Finance, in December 1999 for an undisclosed sum. The business they took over was much smaller than now, with net equity of about $4.3m and total assets of $104m. The Sunday Star-Times understands the purchase price was less than $10m.
    The sellers were Eric Spencer, Mel Stewart and David Bryan, of rural services group Elders New Zealand.
    Since then accounts show Watson and Hotchin have invested cash of $46.8m in the company.
    In addition to the cash withdrawals, other companies owned by Watson and Hotchin borrowed huge sums from Hanover Finance to fund various property ventures. In the latest financial year, disclosed related party borrowings totalled $83m, down from $141m the previous year.
    A great deal of that related party borrowing was by Axis Property Group, the Watson/Hotchin property development vehicle whose assets are to be transferred to Hanover Finance as part of a restructuring deal to repay investors owed $553m.
    In return, Hotchin and Watson want $40m, but not until Hanover and United have repaid small investors the money they owe them.
    Hanover claims to have spent $3.35m preparing its restructuring proposal, yet it gives very little detail about the properties involved in the Axis deal, in spite of its central role in the plan.
    No independent valuation of the properties has been commissioned, nor is there an itemised list of the individual properties themselves nor a summary of the debt they carry.
    In its review of the Axis deal, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) said it "cannot endorse the $40m element of the proposed transfer value as necessarily indicative of the current fair market value".
    If a "fire sale" of the assets was carried out, said PWC, it "would almost certainly mean there was no equity in the Axis Group".
    In other words there would be no money left over once the mortgages were repaid.
    The main properties are completed sections or bare land in subdivision developments at Jacks Point near Queenstown and Matarangi on the Coromandel Peninsula. There is also a half share in some sections and units at the Clearwater Resort near Christchurch and three units in the Sebel Hotel in Auckland.
    The first mortgagees on these properties are the BNZ, HSBC, ANZ National and Fortress Credit Corp. Collectively, these financiers hold security for up to $179m on the properties.
    On top of that, Hanover and United Finance hold second mortgages securing up to $81.8m.
    So that could be up to $260.8m of debt.
    Neither Hotchin or Muir responded to requests from the Star-Times to discuss the Axis proposal and there is nothing in the information sent to investors which details how much debt the properties carry.
    The amount of debt is a critical issue because the underlying assets are mainly development properties, intended to be sold down over time. Most of them do not produce any income.
    Sources close to Hanover say interest on the loans is being capitalised, which means the interest portion is to be repaid with the principal at the end of the loan term or when the underlying assets are sold.
    In the meantime, the interest keeps accumulating.
    The banks may have been happy with this arrangement during the boom, when property sales were brisk and prices kept going up.
    But with the market now in a slump and prices going backward, reducing the value of the banks' security in the process, they are likely to be wanting to be paid at least the interest due on their loans.
    There is also the possibility, especially with development properties in the current market, that the banks as first mortgagees could force a sale of any of the properties if interest payments or other terms were not met.
    That is the fire sale scenario mentioned in the PWC report, suggesting the prices achieved may not cover the amounts owed on the mortgages.
    Inquiries by the Star-Times suggest sales are slow in the areas where the Axis properties are located.
    At Matarangi and Jacks Point, the Axis-owned properties are facing competition from people who have previously purchased sections but have changed their minds about building on them and have put the sections back on the market.
    In both places, the number of sections being advertised for sale exceeds the number of sales being made in a year, suggesting a considerable oversupply.
    Fredricson said despite the questionable value of the property assets, it was better than receivership. "So long as the package exists there is likely to be more available to debenture holders than not," he said.


    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4777654a13.html
    ___________________


    ___________________

  8. #88
    action-reaction arco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    AUD.NZD
    Posts
    2,877

    Default

    According to Simon Trader This is what stop hunting looks like

    GBP/USD Action Forex 4H chart compared to the 4H chart of "another broker" - (Not Interbank by the way)...Mind you in my experience ringing them up or getting on their help line is no use when you spot this. You say "Your price was 60 pips different to the rest of the finanical world!" -- They reply "Our feed was correct, there are no errors..."


    ___________________


    ___________________

  9. #89
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Shore
    Posts
    1,088

    Default

    CFD providers battle it out for top spot
    CS - November 20, 2008

    A snapshot of the CFD industry has just been released and there is movement in the ranks as the top players battle it out for the top spots.

    The Investment Trends’ 2008 Contracts for Difference Report – which is based on an online survey of 8,000 investors, including 2,000 CFD traders - reveals some telling insights into the state of the CFD industry in Australia.

    Most interesting is who owns what in market share.

    Ranking of CFD providers in terms of market share



    According to Investment Trends, CMC Markets continues to take out the top spot with a 32 per cent market share, followed by IG Markets (27%), MF Global (18%) and MQ Prime (7%). MF Global’s market share includes its white labelled offerings.

    Interestingly, the much-vaunted ASX CFDs only accounts for about 1% of the total volume of CFD trades.

    Below is a list of the 2008 rankings.

    2008 Rank – Top CFD providers based on market share

    1. CMC Markets
    2. IG Markets
    3. MF Global
    4. MQ Prime
    5. First Prudential Markets
    6. ANZ/E*Trade
    7. CommSec
    8. City Index
    9. Sonray
    10. Tricom
    11. Marketech
    12. GET Financial

    Today, IG Markets is hot on the heels of market leader CMC Markets, whose market share has headed south since 2005 when it owned a massive 60 per cent share of the CFD market. Since then its share has tumbled to 32%, according to the report.

    Other providers losing market share over the past year include E*TRADE tumbling from 3rd place in the 2007 rankings to 6th place today. Sonray & GET Financial have also lost ground.

    For comparison purposes, here is a list of the 2007 rankings.

    2007 Rank – Top CFD providers based on market share

    1. CMC Markets
    2. IG Markets
    3. E*TRADE
    4. MF Global
    5. MQ Prime
    6. First Prudential Markets
    7. City Index
    8. Sonray
    9. CommSec
    10. Tricom
    11. GET Financial
    12. Marketech

    Clearly, the biggest gainers in market share over the past few years are IG Markets, MQ Prime, MF Global, CommSec and First Prudential Markets.

    The report also noted that the number of CFD traders in Australia has fallen from 31,000 in April 2007 to 26,000 in August 2008 – largely due to high levels of market volatility.

    However the good news for CFD providers is that the report shows that a further 33,000 investors intend to trade CFDs within the next 12 months.
    Disclaimer: Do not take my posts seriously. They are only opinions.

    AMR has sold all shares and is pursuing property.

  10. #90
    action-reaction arco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    AUD.NZD
    Posts
    2,877

    Default Scrooge McANZ

    ANZ Bank and Merrill Lynch are inflicting the most appalling legalised cruelty upon the unfortunate souls who chose Opes Prime as their stockbroker.

    They are, in effect, issuing a $258 million retrospective margin call on stocks that were sold more than six months ago.

    The Opes receivers, Chris Campbell and Sal Algeri of Deloitte, are pursuing 223 clients for $258 million. That’s more than $1 million each. The money is due and payable by this Friday, and interest is accruing at 6.25 per cent. Happy Christmas.

    ANZ and its receivers are within their rights, and in fact they are supported by a Federal Court ruling from Justice Ray Finkelstein.


    Nevertheless the question many will be asking is: why are the receivers dong this? ANZ and Merrill apparently got all their money back when the shares were sold after March.

    They might be legally entitled to gouge more from the hapless Opes clients, but in the light of the PR nightmare that Opes has caused ANZ already, it seems a pretty greedy and heartless thing to do.

    I spoke today to one of the receivers, Sal Algeri of Deloitte. He told me: "We just have a job to do. Under the Corporations Act every receiver is required to realise a company’s assets to pay creditors. Accounts receivable are an asset and they must be realised.”

    I asked him whether he and Chris Campbell would pursue the Opes clients to bankruptcy if necessary, and he said they would talk to clients individually. “If they don’t have the money, I suppose there’s nothing we can do.”

    Would you send them bankrupt? “That is one of our options, and I suppose we’ll have to consider that on a case by case basis. What we have sent this week is clearly a statement, not a demand for payment or legal letter. We just wanted to explain the situation.”

    But, boy oh boy, what an absolute shocker it is. Never mind ASIC – this is a job for the armed robbery squad.

    The share portfolios of Opes Prime Stockbroking were seized by Deloitte on behalf of ANZ and Merrill Lynch on March 27 this year, after Opes was placed first in administration and then receivership, and were dumped on the market as fast as possible.

    In most cases the clients had no idea that this was even remotely possible: they thought they had a margin loan arrangement with Opes, when in fact they had securities loan agreements that gave Opes, and then its receivers, full title to their share portfolios.

    Investors who had a positive net worth in March were wiped out in April, even though the market went up. They were doomed to queue up as unsecured creditors of Opes, behind ANZ, which had taken out a fixed charge over the Opes assets just a few weeks before.

    That security is in some doubt because it looks like Opes was insolvent for some time before that – possibly years.

    But now the situation has become far, far worse even than what happened in March. Not only have these people had their assets seized and sold from under them, they are now in debt to the tune of a $1 million each because of a retrospective margin call.

    On October 15, futile settlement mediation between the administrator, John Lindholm of Ferrier Hodgson, and ANZ and Merrill Lynch, finally broke down and Opes went into liquidation. That was an event of default.

    A month earlier Justice Finkelstein had ruled that the “performance date” for determining its debts would be the date of the liquidation.

    That means the value of each client’s portfolio would be calculated according to the market price of the relevant shares at October 15, even though they were all sold in April and May and the proceeds snaffled by ANZ and Merrill Lynch at the time.

    So when the company did go into liquidation on October 15, the receivers were able to examine each client’s account and come to a new calculation of how much was due to be paid back to the client, and how much was due to Opes.

    Between March 27 and October 15 the Australian ASX 200 index fell 22 per cent.

    So just taking the average market decline, the amount owed by those Opes clients blew out by $47 million while ANZ, Merrill Lynch and John Lindholm were wasting time pretending to seriously discuss a settlement. Lindholm might have been serious, but ANZ and Merrill never were.

    But Opes clients did not invest in many ASX 200 stocks; they went for high return, high risk speccies.

    Between March 27 and October 15, the Small Ordinaries index fell 33 per cent – half as much again as the ASX 200.

    And many small stocks have dropped much, much more during that time. For example, Kagara Zinc and Timbercorp are down 94 per cent, FKP Property 90 per cent, Straits Resources and Mirabela Nickel 87 per cent, and so on. I don’t know whether these specific stocks are part of the ex-portfolios, but it’s a demonstration of what could have happened.

    And remember – this is after the shares were actually sold. But thanks to Justice Finkelstein’s ruling, the receivers can use the liquidation date of October 15 to determine whether each client’s “assets” (that were sold six months ago) are such that a top-up is required.

    Needless to say, after the six months we have just been through, top ups are needed. The theoretical accounts are now even deeper underwater – $1 million under each – and this week’s letters amount to retrospective margin calls.

    A tsunami of litigation will now be launched against ANZ, including an expected challenge from Ferrier Hodgson against the bank’s security. Class actions will claim that ANZ knew that Opes was not informing clients of the nature of their contracts.

    If successful, these actions would result in the money finding its way back to the clients – minus legal and insolvency fees of course.

    But that could take years. In the meantime, Opes clients have already lost their houses, declared bankruptcy and generally had their lives ruined.

    And now they are being hit with a brutal retrospective margin call – a demand for a million dollars a week before Christmas, with interest mounting up for every day the money is not paid.

    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Opes-clients-held-up-and-robbed-$pd20081210-M75ET?OpenDocument&src=sph
    ___________________


    ___________________

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
  •