ACCforum: Acc Investments - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Acc Investments ACC Investments

#1 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 484
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 23 July 2005 - 10:54 AM

The Securities Commission has published a document - "Good Corporate Governance in NZ: Principles and Guidelines" - which outlines the principles of Openness, Integrity and Accountability.

ACC is a Corporate and it invests public money not immediatly required for expenditure in other Corporates such as Telecom, the Banks, Breweries, the Media etc etc. (See s.275 of the Act)

If you were a director of Corporate and you knew or became aware that the money ACC was investing in your Corporate had possibly come from alleged flagrant disregard of the law and unethical conduct what would you do?????

As a director do you have a responsibility to ensure that substantial amounts of money invested in your Corporate has come from the proper lawful activities of the other Corporate????

If you knew or became aware that there were allegations about unlawfullness swirling around about somebody who was investing huge amounts of money in your Corporate, but you did and said nothing, would you then be complicit in the alleged unlawful actions???

How would this effect the public perception of openness, integrity and accountability of your Corporate?????

For example, what would the public think about your stewardship and the probity and propriety of your Corporate if they became aware of this?????

The UK's Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy also has something to say about Good Corporate Governance and openness, transparency and accountability.

IMHO, these aspects require further investigation because it brings overall Corporate Governance in NZ into issue and how our public bodies such as ACC do business in the world.
0

#2 User is offline   watcha 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: 15-November 03

Posted 23 July 2005 - 03:25 PM

I would like to know a lot more about the investment arm of ACC. Who are these faceless people, what is their delegation, to whom are they responsible? No doubt ACC will claim commercial sensitivity and quote the usual crap about withholding information under sec xx of the Privacy Act and try to wriggle out of accountability.

Then again we could enlist the aid of the Ombudsman in instances of withholding information that is of considerable public interest. $B6.5 worth of public interest in funds that should be used for rehabilitation in the first instance and invest only those funds not immediately required.

It seems the Ombudsman has a few teeth after all, baby teeth maybe, but teeth nonetheless and wouldn't it be nice to catch the crooks deliberately misleading the Ombudsman; it might only be a couple of hundred dollars on conviction, but it is the conviction entered against a name that is the icing on the cake. Criminal conviction equates to loss of face, considerable difficulty with passports and visas etc, etc, nice eh!!

I'll be a tough nut to crack and no doubt Wilson will be egaged in last minute activities to cover his tracks before his departure in September. We sure do need an inquiry into this hidden branch of Accident Compensation Corporation activities, both overt and covert. Is it greed for personal gain or something far more insidious? I suspect both.
0

#3 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 23 July 2005 - 03:55 PM

these investers have been cought with dipping there fingers lately.

They are responcable to the board through the COE and other employes on the board.

hard nut to crack I think not but getting the figures for rehabilitation would be the hard part.

I agree that this should be looked into.

Could be also worked into a studdy on the case managerment to see if the A-C report stacks up.

Don't worry about wilson leaving in september as if he is cought misleading the board and os paid a bonus criminal conviction under theif as a servent could be looked at.

the same charge can be brought to every claim manager that EXIT a claimant illegality.

while I'm here the 13 week assessment to carry on your claim is an assessmentb required by the ACc under section 72 ( 1) (d ) think about applying for a refund of all that money that the corporation requires you to pay every 3 months.
0

#4 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 484
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 23 July 2005 - 08:34 PM

Can anyone draw any parallells with ACC with the statements made about this company by the Commerce Commission prosecutor's and the Judge's statements in this article?????

If so, what do you think they are?????

Why isn't the Commerce Commission prosecuting ACC?????

Isn't the law supposed to be applied consistently and equally??????

Does the Commerce Commission need to be approached again about ACC in light of this story????

Haven't vulnerable claimant's also relied on ACC and have been gullible enough to believe ACC's claims Prevention, Care, Recovery?????

Haven't some of our forum members (claimant's) also been disadvantaged by patently untrue claims to the public????

HEADLINES ALERT

Commission seeks $2.6m fine for Body Enhancer
23 July 2005

The Commerce Commission is seeking fines close to the $2.6 million maximum against a company that made extravagant claims for its weight-loss product.


In papers filed in the Auckland District Court, the commission is also asking Judge Lindsay Moore to order Zenith Corporation to take out corrective advertising in newspapers, on radio and on its own website and to contact people who bought bottles of the company's Body Enhancer.

Zenith, owned by husband and wife directors Winston and Sylvia Gallot, was found guilty by Judge Moore in June of 26 breaches of the Fair Trading Act in its advertising.

The product was claimed to assist fat burning, muscle growth, liver detoxification and prevention of collagen depletion.

It was also said to help build bones and tendon cells, heal cartilage, strengthen joints and heart muscles, break down fat and control appetite.

Judge Moore was scathing about the claims made for Body Enhancer and about the Gallots.

Body Enhancer did not confer any of the claimed benefits and the couple "seized an opportunity to make very large profits", he said.

Mr Gallot was exposed as "calculatedly dishonest", he said in his judgment, and his wife, who did not give evidence, employed a "succession of blatant untruths" in trying to launch Body Enhancer in Britain.

The company was due to be sentenced this week.

A new hearing has been fixed for September.

In papers filed with the court, the commission's lawyers, Mark Woolford and Todd Simmonds, asked the judge to impose a fine close to the maximum penalty of $2.6 million, plus nearly $180,000 costs.

There were significant sales of the product at between $82 and $92 a bottle. Competitors as well as consumers were disadvantaged by the false claims for Body Enhancer, they said.

As a weight-loss product, Body Enhancer "was targeted at a particularly vulnerable and gullible section of the community who would very much want to believe these claims..."

The claimed benefits were not only misleading, they were "proven to be patently false" leading consumers to part with large sums of money, said the prosecutors.

Judge Moore observed at this week's hearing that Zenith sold $7 million to $9 million of body Enhancer between March 2000 and December 2002, resulting in a "ball park" gross profit of around $5 million after paying the manufacturer for the product but before taking into account other business expenses.

The prosecutors said that the company had to be "stripped of any commercial gain" as a result of its widespread breaches of the legislation.

The commission withdrew an application for Zenith to provide the names of all customers in the 2 1/2 year period of offending and the purchase price they paid.

Mr Woolford told the judge that commission investigators had information from the product manufacturer about the quantities and cost of Body Enhancer supplied to Zenith which the judge said would "sharpen up" the court's view of the extent of the commercial operation.

The prosecutors said that the company had remained "vigorously unrepentant" and "totally indignant and devoid of any acknowledgment of any wrong-doing".

It had adopted a "dismissive approach" and had sought to minimise any wrongdoing through extensive media statements since the judgment.
0

#5 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 23 July 2005 - 11:13 PM

What part can you not see as equal to ACC. They use the public purse to claim that all rehabilitation is being done and have a group of so call profesionals to deceive the public.

May be we should approach the Commerce Commission to see if they can put the ACC into the same position.

I beleive thatit would be the managerment and board that would be hit the hardest. then would the Commerce Commission do an avestigation on all the data produced.
0

#6 User is offline   watcha 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: 15-November 03

Posted 24 July 2005 - 01:38 PM

Quote: The prosecutors said that the company had remained "vigorously unrepentant" and "totally indignant and devoid of any acknowledgment of any wrong-doing".

It had adopted a "dismissive approach" and had sought to minimise any wrongdoing through extensive media statements since the judgment. Unquote.

There are exact parallels between Zenith and ACC, Prevention Care Recovery, the Corporation's official logo is grossly misleading and if that's not false advertising then what on earth is it.

Surely this is worthy of a formal complaint to the Commerce Commission that the Accident Compensation Corporation has systematically and callously set about defrauding claimants and the general public of New Zealand.

Its primary functions are to provide rehabilitation to the injured - to restore their health, independence and participation to the maximum extent practicable - to reinforce the social contract represented by the first accident compensation scheme - a fair and sustainable scheme - the incidence of injury in the community - the impact of injury in the community and the economic, social and personal costs - isn't the latter a sick travesty of the purpose of the scheme, indeed, the reality is that ACC's operations are at variance with the statutory purpose of the entire scheme!!

Thanks Magnacarta for bringing this to our attention, now, who's going give it a go; I've got enough on my plate as it is, time for someone else to grab the baton and run with it.
0

#7 User is offline   flowers 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 25-March 04

Posted 29 July 2005 - 07:51 PM

Aspattane? is that the stuff they put in diet and local drinks and foods?
If it is used in beer then they may have shares in some brewers.
0

#8 Guest_Iw2_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 22 August 2005 - 10:38 AM

Top trio spot funds opening

22.08.05

By Jenny Ruth

High-profile asset manager Stephen Montgomery has left the Accident Compensation Corp to form a funds management company.

Aspiring Asset Management, in which Montgomery will team up with former prominent stockbrokers Murray Doyle and John Rattray, will concentrate on high net-worth individuals rather than seek wholesale funds mandates or try to attract retail investors.

Montgomery's record at the ACC was an enviable one. ACC investment manager Nicholas Bagnall said the funds he managed achieved an annual 17.4 per cent return over the 13 years ended in June, compared with a 10.1 per cent return from the benchmark.

Bagnall said he had known for two or three years that Montgomery was planning to go out on his own and that had allowed for orderly succession planning at the ACC, which has $6 billion under management.

Montgomery had managed all ACC's New Zealand equities until three or four years ago when he moved to concentrate on smaller companies, which make up about 30 per cent of the portfolio.

He will be replaced by analyst Blair Tallott, formerly at JP Morgan and Ord Minnett, who was hired about two years ago.

Montgomery, 52, said the time had come for a change. "The older you get, the more difficult it gets to muster the energy."

Doyle, former principal at Doyle Paterson Brown, which was sold to BT Securities and then Deutsche Securities, said the trio would take advantage of planned changes to rules governing managed funds.

"Traditionally, for anyone with a reasonable amount of money, it would have been quite silly for them to invest in managed products.

"They're unlikely to be taxed doing it themselves, but funds, as they stand, are taxed."

The Government plans to align the tax treatment of investment in New Zealand companies through managed funds with the way direct investment in the same shares is taxed.

Funds now pay tax on capital gains but individuals, unless they are professional share traders, do not.

If the tax rules change, it will become more efficient and cost effective for wealthier individuals to invest in managed vehicles.

To begin with, the trio will pool their not inconsiderable portfolios.

Doyle said they planned to contract out all the back-office paperwork.

"The people at the front end can concentrate on what they know. A separation of custody and settlements is quite good from a prudential and fiduciary basis, particularly if you're handling other people's money."

It might take up to six months to get the firm established, he said.

"We're in no particular rush. We all enjoy each other's company and three heads are better than one. We can have some fun together and make some money. It can't get much better than that."

Rattray was a director of JP Morgan after its takeover of Ord Minnett Securities. Montgomery is a director of Pyne Gould Corp, Doyle is a director of Michael Hill, Hirequip and Kirkaldie & Stains and Rattray advises the Salvation Army on its investments and manages money for some private individuals.

http://www.nzherald....jectID=10341835
0

#9 User is offline   Karney 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 11-March 05

Posted 24 August 2005 - 12:41 AM

Surely the fraudulent claims made by ACC are more of a concern than those of a fake health supplement? We have a choice over whether we buy this companies health products, or shop elsewhere, or dont bother. With ACC we dont have any choices. And, providing the supplements dont cause any physical harm to consumers, all that is lost is the cost of one or two bottles of the stuff until people catch on that its no good. As we all know, ACC can cause plenty of damage to the public - financially, physically, and psychologically.
0

#10 User is offline   Karney 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 11-March 05

Posted 24 August 2005 - 12:48 AM

Aspartame is used in diet foods and drinks, but probably not in alcoholic drinks as it is the sugar that turns to alcohol, isn't it? But some breweries also make soft drinks which are likely to contain aspartame.
I have also heard that another common artificial sweetener -(sorry, I've blocked on the name, but think it starts with S) - has been linked to the developement of neurological symptoms that resemble multiple sclerosis. Better just stick to the sugar, get fat, lose your teeth and die of diabetic complications!
0

#11 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 08 September 2005 - 09:43 PM

yes entitlements are hard to get and this increases the libility.

Simple maths.
0

#12 User is offline   flowers 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 25-March 04

Posted 04 December 2005 - 08:39 AM

Government investments under fire


Crown financial institutions accused of investing in overseas tobacco companies



2 December 2005

The Government is under fire for investing in tobacco companies.

The shot comes from the Council for Socially Responsible Investment - a trust set up three years ago to promote ethical investments.

It accused five Crown financial institutions, including Michael Cullen's superannuation fund, of investing in overseas tobacco companies.

Others on the list include the Earthquake Commission, and the Accident Compensation Corporation.

Socially Responsible Investment Council chairman Dr Robert Howell says crown entities have also invested in companies with questionable human rights and environmental records.

He is calling for ethical guidelines to be strengthened so such companies are taken off the Government's "okay to invest in" list.


© 2005 NZCity, NewsTalkZB
0

#13 User is offline   flowers 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 25-March 04

Posted 04 December 2005 - 08:46 AM

Crown Funds Shown to Invest in Tobacco
Friday, 2 December 2005, 11:16 am
Press Release: Council for Socially Responsible Investment
Friday 2 December 2006
New Zealand Pension and Crown Funds Shown to Invest in Tobacco Companies

Research undertaken by the Council for Socially Responsible Investment around May 2005 has shown that all five of New Zealand’s Crown Financial Institutions invested in tobacco companies and/or companies with arguably questionable human rights behaviour or environmental impacts.

Earlier this year, the Chairman of the Council for Socially Responsible Investment Dr Robert Howell wrote to all the Crown Financial Institutions asking them for a list of the companies they invested in, a list of any companies they had excluded from investment, their policies for investment and how they implemented these.

The information the Crown Financial Institutes returned showed:
- all of the Crown Financial Institutes (New Zealand Superannuation, Earthquake Commission, Government Superannuation, National Provident Fund and Accident Compensation Corporation) invested in major tobacco companies (see table following). The companies invested in included: British American Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco, Reynolds American.


Dr Howell said:
“As a country we have made a considerable effort and committed resources over decades to reduce cigarette smoking. Yet our public investment funds are still investing in tobacco companies. These investments would not be acceptable to a very large number of New Zealanders” .


Further information returned showed:

- the National Provident Funds invested in BJ Services, a company which is working in Myanmar (Burma). “Myanmar is known for its appalling human rights record,” says Dr Howell.

- Many Crown Financial Institutes invested in companies about which the New York based pressure group ICCR (Interfaith Centre for Corporate Responsibility) holds concerns. The ICCR is a group of 275 faith-based organisations with US$110 billion under management. ICCR have concerns about the human rights protection afforded by the following companies (all invested in by one or some of New Zealand’s Crown Financial Institutes):

- Boeing [ICCR particularly concerned about Boeing’s behaviour in China]

- Burlington Resources [ICCR particularly concerned about indigenous rights in the company’s forests in Peru]

- Delphi Automotive [ICCR concerned about the company’s policies to protect human rights, using underage or forced labour, and workers’ health and safety]

- Exxon Mobil [ICCR concerned about Exxon Mobil’s operations in Angola, Cameroon, Chad, China, Equatorial Guinea, Indonesia and Nigeria.]

- Newmont Mining [ICCR recommended a review of social and environmental liabilities, especially in Peru, Indonesia, Ghana and USA]

- Occidental Petroleum [ICCR particularly concerned about operations in Columbia]

- Time Warner [ICCR recommended about China operations]

All Crown Financial Institutions are subject to an ‘international criterion’ which states that Crown investors must ‘avoid prejudice to New Zealand’s reputation as a responsible member of the world community’.

Yet Dr Howell said that the New Zealand Superannuation, Government Superannuation and the National Provident Funds showed from the information they returned, “they have never excluded any companies from their investment choices on the ‘international reputation’ criterion.”

“This is meant to be the main non-financial criterion for our Crown Financial Institutions, and is meant to guide and inform their investments. It is clearly not strong enough as a criterion. There is no difference from an organisation that invests purely for short-term financial gain.

The international reputation criterion is inadequate and should be replaced. Their ethical guidelines need to be strengthened,” he said. “Moreover all the Crown Financial Institutions need to include more information about how they are implementing criteria for investment. ”

The Council for Socially Responsible Investment is a charitable trust that was set up in 2003 to provide practical guidelines and methodologies for ethical investment by religious groups (e.g. churches), business organisations, Government organisations and individuals. As part of this, the Council advises organisations on workable ways of assessing, identifying and measuring their own investments to ensure they have invested well and ethically.

ENDS
0

#14 User is offline   Hatikva 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 12-June 05
  • LocationWop Wops

  Posted 04 December 2005 - 09:18 AM

Quote

Research undertaken by the Council for Socially Responsible Investment around May 2005 has shown that all five of New Zealand’s Crown Financial Institutions invested in tobacco companies and/or companies with arguably questionable human rights behaviour or environmental impacts


Hmm - not only is the investment unethical, is it a prudent investment?

Let us consider the fact (which can be proven) that tobacco companies are under ongoing and arguably increasing, litigation over the effects of tobacco.

Would you, as a reasonable person, place your investments in a company that may be forced into bankruptcy due to current/pending litigations?

Has any one considered that at ACC? Now, just how clever is the ACC investment team, after all? How secure are those investments in the long term?

One can but only wonder ..... are ACC frittering away our future?
0

#15 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 04 December 2005 - 03:41 PM

It must be remembered that it has already frittered away millions on a previous ocasion.

Think it was about 1988.
0

#16 User is offline   Spacecadet 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 24-January 07

  Posted 06 July 2008 - 02:10 PM

ACC's shares in struggling finance companies
5:00AM Sunday July 06, 2008
By Jane Phare and Jared Savage
Finance companies in freefall

The Accident Compensation Corporation is a shareholder in struggling finance companies Dominion Finance and Dorchester Finance, but the corporation says it won't be affected by their troubles.

ACC has 1.2 million shares in Dominion and 1 million in Dorchester, finance companies which last month stopped repaying deposit investors. Dominion and North and South Finance, subsidiaries of Dominion Finance Holdings, owe $276 million to 13,000 investors and Dorchester's investors are owed $176m.

Last week ACC declined to answer questions from the Herald on Sunday, saying in a statement that comments about specific shareholdings could affect the market and "influence the decisions of others". The ACC's investment in Dominion Finance represented less than 0.1 per cent of its New Zealand equity portfolio and "will not therefore have an impact on total returns".

Meanwhile, the chairman of another finance company wrote to investors assuring them "it was business as usual" weeks before the firm collapsed. Nathans Finance director Roger Moses contacted investors after last July's Bridgecorp collapse and said the firm was "proud to provide peace of mind". Five weeks later, Nathans went into receivership owing $166m.

The latest report by PricewaterhouseCoopers receivers John Waller and Colin McCloy says Nathans provided $171m of debt to parent company Vending Technologies Ltd (VTL), associated parties and VTL franchises.

The receivers also commented on VTL's reported loss of $133m for the 14 months to the end of August 2007. "The magnitude of the loss is of serious concern and is the subject of a thorough investigation by the receivers," the April report said.
0

#17 User is offline   redsquare74ucys 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 628
  • Joined: 23-June 07

  Posted 06 July 2008 - 05:19 PM

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/3/story....jectid=10520174
0

#18 User is offline   flowers 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 25-March 04

Posted 20 September 2008 - 10:58 PM

In addition to the 11 odd billion dollars stolen from over 3000 "Tail" claimants exited by devious means, the legality of which and the methodology used and which are still being thrashed out in the courts ACC is also the investment arm for several other state owned enterprises and Funds.

Since about june when several finance companies they have invested several million shares in have stopped paying dividends and possibly now gone bankrupt.
Refer posts #17 & #18 http://accforum.org/...?showtopic=2385

Recent investor panic world wide is currently causing a world wide dismay as previously stable companied such as merril lynch and others well documented in the financial pages over the last couple of weeks are seeking their governments support to bail them out of billions of debt. Most have crashed and world markets are in a tailspin with no end in sight.

Are the midnight lamps ablaze in Shamerock house?
How many billions have we lost?
What is the current status on all of Acc's investments and what are their loses to date and what is the projections for all the funds they represent?

I suspect yet again Kiwi will suffer from more ineptitude by the hellengrad administration.
My prediction is a fiscal loss of mammoth proportions.
0

#19 User is offline   redsquare74ucys 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 628
  • Joined: 23-June 07

Posted 20 September 2008 - 11:22 PM

The worst is not yet over in the financial markets - ESPECIALLY the US. Most people have no idea what is happening, either the scope or the implications for everyday folk. How many of you have even heard of AIG before last week?

The bailout will only serve to fuel the meltdown. Any reprieve is tempory.

In NZ we have much to be thankful for. Peace, water (soon to be in much higher demand worldwide), and an environment that can support abundant plant and animal life.
0

#20 User is offline   Sparrow 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 534
  • Joined: 22-March 07

Posted 21 September 2008 - 01:06 AM

Does anyone know how much money ACC have lost in dodgy investments with failed Finance Companies ??
I would think several million $$.
What advice do they receive as to the security of these companies?
Bang goes my rehab once again...
0

Share this topic:


  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

2 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users