In this section
Offers for readers
Follow the news from interest
The comment stream
Recent comments
- 1 of 20799
- ››
Editors choice
- 1 of 295
- ››
Finance sector jobs
Lead from the front utilising your strategic, technical and leadership qualities within th...more
New Zealand
Lead from the front utilising your technical expertise in this highly attractive senior li...more
New Zealand
Customer focus, high performance, exceeding client expectations and achieving profitable g...more
New Zealand
Reporting to the Senior Manager Operational Risk Effectiveness and Assurance, the key focu...more
New Zealand
The news stream
Latest news
Most commented
- BNZ cuts most fixed mortgage rates 48
- Govt eyes NZ$1.4b revenue grab 43
- 90 seconds at 9 am 43
- Fonterra to tighten TAF rules 41
- 90 seconds at 9 am 40
- Thursday's Top 10 with NZ Mint 34
- English wants more house builds 30
- Budget tax moves to target high income NZers 29
- Budget 2012 reactions 28
- Wednesday's Top 10 with NZ Mint 24
Most viewed
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!