In this section
Offers for readers
The comment stream
Recent comments
- 1 of 19105
- ››
Editors choice
- 1 of 276
- ››
Finance sector jobs
Successful applicants will have the opportunity to work with this leading Australian Advis...more
Australia
Think Global Recruitment is working with this exceptionally respected Australian Boutique ...more
Australia
Sought after opportunity to move to one of the most beautiful westernised countries in the...more
Australia
The news stream
Latest news
Most commented
- 90 seconds at 9 am with BNZ 116
- Wednesday's Top 10 with NZ Mint 78
- Friday's Top 10 with NZ Mint 28
- The problems with NZ's energy use 20
- Amanda's Take Five for Wednesday 19
- More bank mortgage rate cuts 16
- Govt lifts minimum wage 50 cts to $13.50 an hour 16
- Thursday's Top 10 with NZ Mint 15
- 90 seconds at 9 am with BNZ 14
- Full time jobs fall 13,000 in Dec qtr 14
Most viewed
Interest on Twitter
ANZ indemnity clause for mis-sold funds questionable - Molloy
ANZ included a clause in its contracts indemnifying the bank if it mis-sold a fund to a customer, the Sunday Star Times has reported. Barrister Tony Malloy QC was reported as saying the indemnity clause could be challenged in court.
"The bank required customers taking its investment advice to sign contracts featuring a clause indemnifying it from liability for selling them investments outside their risk profile, the SST reported here.
The clause has been cited by the banking ombudsman in rejecting some of the claims made by ANZ customers who claimed they were missold the high risk ING Diversified Yield Fund and ING Regular Income Fund when they wanted low risk funds. The funds have been a debacle for ING and ANZ, losing 70% of their value after investing in CDOs.
Your views? Comments below please.
3 Comments
Of course these banks have
Of course these banks have terms in their fine print that will get them off the hook in terms of liability. It is however whether those terms are fair and reasonable, and clients were made fully aware of them, rather than hiding them in pages of small print.
Whether or not a fund
Whether or not a fund was "mis-sold" has nothing to do with the clause. People often choose to go into funds outside their risk profile and against advice. It sounds like bad reporting or the Barrister appealing for sympathy.
Were these people concerned when
Were these people concerned when their high-risk fund brought in high returns from 05-07? Perhaps they were misled, but if they are unquestioning during the boom, why start whining during the bust? Contract signer beware!