Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Billionaire Rupert lashes out at SA's government - leadership of SA is becoming hard to defend abroad.





SA news
Author: Mike Cohen, Bloomberg|
25 November 2014 17:01
Billionaire Rupert lashes out at SA's government

Says leadership of SA is becoming hard to defend abroad.

Johann Rupert (pictured), the billionaire chairman of Cie. Financiere Richemont SA and Remgro, berated South Africa’s government for failing to address corruption and power shortages.

“The leadership of this country, quite frankly, is becoming very, very hard to defend abroad,” Rupert said today at Remgro’s annual general meeting in Somerset West, near Cape Town. “The people who are running the country now were not given proper education. Wherever you look we have got stagnation and really worrying signs.”

South Africa’s central bank expects the second-largest economy on the continent to grow 1.4% this year, the slowest pace since a 2009 recession, as a series of blackouts caused by a creaking power-station network and strikes crimp production. The negative sentiment has been compounded by corruption scandals implicating President Jacob Zuma and his administration.

An inspection of 450 state entities by the nation’s Auditor-General uncovered R30.8 billion in irregular, unauthorized or wasteful expenditure in the 12 months through March last year, up from R30 billion the year before.

Thuli Madonsela, the nation’s graft ombudsman, alleged in a March report that Zuma unduly benefited from a 215 million-rand state-funded makeover of his private home. Zuma denied ordering the renovations, which included a swimming pool, chicken run and cattle enclosure.

“I’m concerned that we are not prioritizing the right things,” Rupert said. “We picked low-hanging fruit for a very long time. Those trees are now starting to run empty. How can a person not have electricity? How can we create jobs? ”

Remgro is an investment holding company with interests including banking and financial services, packaging, wine and spirits, and construction.

Asked by a shareholder about the company’s prospects, Rupert said the global economic outlook “is not looking too rosy” and that leading fund managers were focused on capital preservation.

“It doesn’t really matter who you listen to, whether it’s the IMF or whosoever, they are petrified,” he said. “The only way to get out of this is economic growth. I see nothing on the horizon to pull Europe out of its malaise. America will do better than Europe. Yes, India will grow, yes, China will grow.”

©2014 Bloomberg News
Topics: johann rupert, corruption, power shortages, remgro, SA central bank, president jacob zuma, corruption scandals, Thuli Madonsela

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Commissions for selling investments to go



November 2014
By Laura du Preez

Colin Daniel
The Financial Services Board (FSB) has taken the first step towards scrapping commissions on investments – and, as a result of these commissions, the severe penalties that can be imposed on you when you break contractual investments such as retirement annuities (RAs) and endowments.

Yesterday, it published the much-anticipated Retail Distribution Review (RDR) discussion paper, which contains 55 far-reaching proposals, including banning financial institutions from paying commissions on investments and allowing advisers to charge only advice fees for these products.

The proposals are aimed at eliminating conflicts of interest that can result in your being steered into inappropriate financial products and ensuring that you know what you are paying for when you receive advice and services.

If implemented, financial advisers will be forced to detail for you the services they offer and the charges for these services.

The RDR has implications for investment products, life policies, short-term insurance policies, investment platforms and entities that compare financial products.

Numerous financial sector laws and regulations will have to be amended over the next few years to implement the proposals.

The proposed changes are in line with the Treating Customers Fairly regime adopted by the financial services regulators, which aims to ensure that you are given appropriate advice and that products meet your reasonable expectations.

New investment products

Jonathan Dixon, the deputy executive officer in charge of insurance at the FSB, says the proposal to prohibit product providers from paying remuneration in any form to advisers or brokers for selling investment products will apply to new investments and to voluntary increases in contributions to existing life assurance RA and endowment policies.

It will not apply to increases agreed to in contracts taken out before the date on which the proposals are implemented, which is expected to be in mid-2016, he says.

If implemented, the proposal should put a stop to the penalties that assurers impose on your savings in RAs or endowments, because life companies charge these penalties to recover the commission they pay to advisers upfront – or before you have paid your contributions.

Currently, the penalties on life assurer’s RAs and endowments taken out after January 1, 2009 are limited to 15 percent and 20 percent respectively, and a sliding scale reduces the maximum penalty to zero. On older policies, the penalties are as high as 30 percent on RAs and 40 percent on endowments.

Dixon says the FSB hopes to introduce other regulatory changes that will reduce the penalties on policies taken out before 2009.

The only exception to the proposal to ban commissions on investment products is to allow commissions on investment products aimed at low-income earners. This exception is intended to ensure that advisers continue to advise on products that meet certain standards of simplicity and value, the RDR discussion document says.

The discussion document proposes that the new commission rules should also apply to older life assurance policies that allow you voluntarily to increase the premiums on an ad hoc basis. This is to prevent advisers from being biased towards increasing the premiums on these policies, rather than recommending new policies that would be in your interest.

Negotiated advice fees

If the proposals are implemented, your financial adviser will have to negotiate with you on the advice fee to be paid for advice on an RA, endowment, unit trust or other regulated investment.

The product provider will be able to deduct the agreed fee from your investment contributions, or from your savings – for example, by selling units in a unit trust fund – and pay it over to your adviser.

The RDR discussion document says the cost of investment products sold after the proposals have been implemented will have to be reduced by the amount of the commission currently included.

Another RDR proposal, aimed at ensuring that you pay an advice fee that is commensurate with the service you receive, is to set standard services for which you can be charged. The document also proposes standardising the methodologies used to determine advice fees.

The services for which you can be charged for financial planning and planning your risk cover will also be standardised, and you will have to agree to the fee, how it is calculated, how it is paid and the scope of the planning it covers.

The RDR document says the FSB will not prescribe the amount your adviser can charge, but it may publish benchmark guidelines on the fees that can be charged.

The FSB is likely to prescribe what needs to be disclosed about fees to you, the document reveals.

It proposes that ongoing fees be charged only where you have agreed to pay for ongoing services.

The FSB will draw up “conduct standards” aimed at preventing advisers from churning your RA with a life assurer (that pays upfront commission) to one offered by a unit trust company that pays commission when you pay your contributions. These standards will include what must be disclosed to you to ensure that you are aware of any penalties that may be imposed and any new advice fees that you will be expected to pay.

Currently, the Pension Funds Act prohibits the payment of commission on a transfer from one life assurer’s RA to another; advisers can earn only an advice fee.

You have until March 2 next year to comment on the RDR proposals. Email FSB.RDRfeedback@fsb.co.za

Have your say on our Facebook page

Follow us on Twitter

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

KEEPING THE DIRECTORS OF AN FINANCIAL SERVICE PROVIDER LIABLE



KEEPING THE DIRECTORS OF AN FSP LIABLE

( FA NEWS )18 November 2014





It is human nature to look for a way to indemnify oneself when something goes wrong. Often, when you are part of a large corporation, you may be tempted to hide behind the company in the hope that it will provide you with ample protection.

However, there is a famous proverb which says that you can fool some people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. This was the case regarding an appeal brought before the Appeal Board of the Financial Services Board (FSB) against the findings of the Ombud of Financial Services Providers (FSPs) regarding the well documented fraudulent activities of the Blue Zone Investment product.

Relevant background

In 2006, John Moore (the first appellant) rendered financial advice to Gerald Black (the respondent). At the time Moore was the key individual and representative of Johnsure Investments (the second appellant) and at the same time, the first appellant was also a representative of Blue Zone, an authorised financial services provider.

According to the mandate, Moore acted under the supervision of Jacob van Zyl, who was a key individual and Director of Blue Zone.
This was common practice under the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act (FAIS Act) for independent financial advisers, acting under their own license to be added as a representative on another FSP license, such as Blue Zone, USSA (linked to Sharemax) and PIC (PICvest) for purposes of marketing unlisted property investments.

In July 2010 the respondent filed a complaint at the Ombud's Office and on 7 March 2011, after considering the appellant's response, the FAIS Ombud found that Moore and Johnsure Investments were solely liable for the respondent's loss due to non-compliance with the provisions of the FAIS Act.

At the time Blue Zone was not cited as a litigating party to the respondent. The matter was taken on Appeal on the basis that Blue Zone should have been cited as a party to the respondent because Moore disclosed to the respondent that he was a representative acting under the supervision of Blue Zone for purposes of unlisted property investments and he was duly registered as such with the FSB.

An application of leave to appeal was later granted and the Appeal hearing took place on 29 November 2012.
On 15 January 2013 the Appeal Board referred the matter back to the FAIS Ombud for reconsideration, but on 14 February 2014 the Ombud issued a supplementary determination in which it was stated that Blue Zone could no longer be cited as a litigating party, due to its demise in 2011.

The appellant was not satisfied with the Ombud's response and applied for a continuation of the Appeal, which took place on 17 September 2014. The Appeal Board issued its decision on 12 November 2014 and held the following:


1. It was in agreement with the appellant that Blue Zone should have been a litigating party right from the beginning and should have been liable for the respondent's loss.

2. Van Zyl, the key individual of Blue Zone and supervisor of Moore, had specific duties in terms of the FAIS Act.

3. The fact that Blue Zone and Van Zyl have not been cited as litigating parties to the respondent and the fact that the Ombud had not approached them since the complaint was lodged with its office, cannot absolve them of their liability.

4. Van Zyl and the other directors had every intention to defraud investors.

5. Moore could not have foreseen the fraud perpetrated by the directors of Blue Zone, but he could have foreseen that Black could have suffered a loss due to the risks of the scheme.

6. It was a requirement that the complainant had to be advised and furnished with a disclosure document and failure to do so was a vital act of non-compliance on Moore's part.

The Appeal Board referred to it as the "crucial missing link" in this case. The relevant disclosure document highlighting the nature of the product was not presented to the respondent, so he was in essence not given the opportunity to consider the investment in light of this document.

7. Given that the Blue Zone Investment product was a high risk product, the respondent probably would not have invested in the product if he was made aware of the disclosure document.

8. Supervisors and supervisees must work together and have an equal obligation to their clients and it was found that there was non-compliance by both Moore and Van Zyl.

9. The appellant and Van Zyl should be held jointly responsible for the loss.

10. Both parties need to pay the respondent an amount of R100 000.

A full version of the appeal can be read here.

Observations

The time factor:

It can take a number of years for matters that serve before the FAIS Ombud to be resolved.

The importance of full disclosure:

It is clear that financial advisers will be held accountable for non-disclosure of relevant and material product information, with specific reference to terms, conditions and risks.

Key individual responsibilities:

Key individuals will be held accountable for the acts of their representatives.

Representative responsibilities:

Representatives will also be held individually responsible for non-compliance with the General Code of Conduct.

Supervisors and Supervisees:

Rendering services under supervision is not as simple as it seems. One wonders if the financial services industry fully understands the mutual responsibilities of the relevant parties?

Finding against a person which was never a litigating party to the complaint:

It is interesting to note that, although neither Blue Zone nor Van Zyl was ever approached by the FAIS Ombud for their version, the Appeal Board held Van Zyl accountable.

Piercing the corporate veil:

In this case the Appeal Board supported the principle of lifting the corporate veil and keeping the directors of an FSP liable in certain instances. Could this decision be indicative of what is to come in the Siegrist matter against the Directors of Sharemax?

Editor's thoughts:

What are your thoughts regarding this appeal. Please comment online, interact with us on Twitter at @fanews_online or email me your thoughts.

Kind regards,

Jonathan Faurie

FAnews Journalist

jonathan@fanews.co.za

+27 11 768 2299
+27 79 516 3417






_______________________________________________________________________________________________

19 July 2013

Pensioner commits suicide outside Sharemax offices
In my Blog I have posted so many Blog Posts on both Sharemax and Picvest.

I have always looked at it from the point of view of an interested observer with a keen interest in the Property Industry. I was always interested in the legal ramifications of the coniving that has gone on with these two investment schemes.

When taking an analytical view of these type of activities, it is easy to forget that there is a real impact on people's lives.

I was therefore stunned to see the latest news on Moneyweb about Sharemax. One of the investors in The Villa committed suicide right in front of the Sharemax Offices, which also happens to be very close to my house.

The fact that Nova Property Group is now simply trading as Sharemax with another name (and the same directors) while investors (many of whom can't afford it) is in my opinion an absolute travesty of justice.

Gareth Shepperson

A step closer to Sharemax successor's shareholder register - SHAREMAX and DIRECTORS schemed to defraud public, says Fais ombud







Special Investigations

Author: Ryk van Niekerk|

A step closer to Sharemax successor's shareholder register



NGHC dismisses bulk of Nova, Frontier and Centro’s interlocutory application.

A swift judgment in the North Gauteng High Court (NGHC) has paved the way for Moneyweb’s application to inspect the shareholder registers of several companies related to the restructured Sharemax investment scheme.

Judge Neil Tuchten dismissed the most contentious request from the Nova Property Group, Frontier Asset Management and Investments and Centro Property Group to force Moneyweb journalist Julius Cobbett to hand over all his correspondence with third parties during his extended Sharemax investigations.

This includes all correspondence with Sharemax investors, forensic auditors, complainants to the FAIS Ombud and the Financial Service Board.

This interlocutory application follows Moneyweb’s application in July last year to access the shareholder registers of Nova, Frontier and Centro in terms of Section 26 of the Companies Act. This section allows for any individual to access the shareholder register of a company.

Moneyweb believes there is huge public interest in seeing these registers, as Nova is the company that now owns all the various properties that used to belong to Sharemax investors. Frontier and Centro are involved with the management and administration of these properties.

When Nova was formed through the scheme of arrangement, the executive directors Dominique Haese, Rudi Badenhorst and Dirk Koekemoer held 43.2% of Nova's issued shares. Moneyweb hopes to see whether this shareholding has changed and who owns the balance of the issued shares.

Interlocutory

The directors of these companies have bluntly refused Cobbett request for access to the registers. They allege that Moneyweb and Cobbett are engaged in a sustained vendetta against them and that Cobbett will use the information contained in the shareholder registers to further defame and vilify individual directors.

Moneyweb has consistently denied that such a vendetta exists and approached the GNHC in August to force the companies to provide Moneyweb with access to their shareholder registers.

Nova, Frontier and Centro strongly contested this application by Moneyweb. The companies then brought the interlocutory application to force Cobbett to hand over copies of what may include highly sensitive information, citing a court rule designed for discovery in trial actions. This rule requires parties to trial actions to make full discovery of all relevant documents. But Moneyweb’s application is not a trial action.

The documents demanded by Nova and its associates include all Cobbett’s correspondence with virtually every single individual he has ever consulted in his investigations relating to Sharemax, Nova, Frontier and Centro and their directors.

Moneyweb argued that these broadly described and unspecified documents were totally irrelevant to the Section 26 application, and that the interlocutory application was brought as a ploy to delay the main application, which is to get access to the shareholder registers.

On Friday Judge Tuchten found that although a “compelling case for discovery” has been made, a request for such a vast amount of documents is inappropriate under the circumstances. He suggested that the dispute may be best resolved through oral evidence, rather than on affidavit only. Moneyweb did not agree to this suggestion. Judge Tuchten then dismissed Nova’s claim for these documents.

Moneyweb ordered to provide physical documents

Moneyweb did provide web addresses to other, public documents, requested by in Nova, Frontier and Centro in terms of Rule 35, as they were all available on the internet.

But Judge Tuchten ruled that this was insufficient and ordered Moneyweb to provide physical printed copies of these public documents to the three companies. Moneyweb will immediately comply with this ruling.

This judgment now paves the way for the main case to be heard in the GNHC. The initial Section 26 application was made more than a year ago, and should in theory only be a simple administrative process to access the shareholder registers.

Hopefully, the main application can be dealt with in the same swift manner as this interlocutory application.

See Judge Tuchten judgment here.

----------------------------------------
Special Investigations

Author: Julius Cobbett|

FSB weighs in on controversial Sharemax opinion


Responds to Sharemax director’s comments on Fais Ombud complaints.

JOHANNESBURG – The Financial Services Board (FSB) has found it necessary to comment on a circular issued by Sharemax director Dominique Haese. The circular, dated August 6, 2013, suggests to investors that if they pursue complaints against their financial advisers with the Fais Ombud, they may forfeit rights to investment returns or repayments from the Nova Group. See: Sharemax director warns against Fais Ombud complaints.

The Nova Group has approximately 33 000 investors who acquired shares or debentures as a result of the restructure of property syndications promoted by Sharemax Investments. The restructure resulted out of a scheme of arrangement which was sanctioned by the High Court on January 20, 2012.

The Nova Group is controlled by four directors, two of whom, Dominique Haese and Dirk Koekemoer, played important roles in the promotion of Sharemax investment products.

On October 25 the FSB issued a media release in response to Haese’s circular.

Says the FSB: “The circular may be read as suggesting that the Fais Ombud no longer has jurisdiction to deal with complaints of former Sharemax investors, not only against the Sharemax companies themselves, but also against their directors or functionaries.”

“Further, that pursuing claims through the offices of the Ombud may be interpreted as that such claimants have abandoned and repudiated their claims arising from the schemes of arrangement.

“The FSB cautions, without suggesting a particular alternative, that views on the above issues are still subject to adjudication by the FSB Appeal Board and until this has been decided upon, investors are well advised to consult their legal representatives before taking a decision on the matter.”

The FSB’s recommendation that investors “consult their legal representatives” may be come as cold and cynical advice to those investors, many of them pensioners, who are struggling to finance living expenses, let alone legal ones.

The very purpose of the Fais Ombud’s office is to provide recourse to victims of bad financial advice, especially to those who can’t afford legal expenses.

The FSB notes that a number of determinations have been made by the Fais Ombud against Sharemax, persons or entities associated with it, and independent intermediaries who had advised their clients to invest in Sharemax products.

Haese is one of those people who have been on the receiving end of the Ombud’s determinations. For more, see Fais Ombud finds Sharemax directors liable for investor’s loss.

“”Many of these determinations have been taken on appeal to the FSB Appeal Board where they are still pending,” says the FSB. “In one such instance the Chairman of the Appeal Board has granted leave to appeal.

“The FSB is trying its best to have this appeal heard as soon as possible. However, nothing prevents any former investor in Sharemax from lodging complaint with the FAIS Ombud against any party considered to be liable for any loss suffered.

“Once the outcome of the appeal referred to, is known, the FSB will issue a follow-up media release in order to guide former Sharemax investors as to their further options.”

Topics: FINANCIAL SERVICES BOARD, SHAREMAX, DOMINIQUE HAESESpecial Investigations
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Author: Julius Cobbett


Moneyweb is terrorising and extorting us – Sharemax director




Directors refuse access to shareholder registers of Sharemax-linked companies.


JOHANNESBURG – A director of Nova Property Group has accused this Moneyweb journalist of terrorism and extortion. This came after a reminder that the failure to allow access to a company’s securities register may constitute a criminal offence.

Moneyweb has applied to inspect the shareholder registers of three entities: Nova Property Group, Frontier Asset Management and Centro Property Group.

Nova is the company that owns all the properties that used to belong to investors in the various Sharemax-promoted property syndication schemes.

When the Sharemax investors voted in favour of a rescue scheme, they become either shareholders in the Nova Group or debenture holders in a Nova subsidiary.

It remains to be seen how much say these investors have, if any, in the appointment of directors at Nova. An inspection of the securities register would clarify the situation.

Nova is currently under the directorship of its managing director Dominique Haese, chairman Connie Myburgh, financial director Rudi Badenhorst, and operations director Dirk Koekemoer.

On July 24, Moneyweb submitted applications to inspect the securities registers of Nova, Frontier and Centro Prop. The applications were made in terms of Section 26(2) of the Companies Act, which grants any member of the public the right to inspect and copy a company’s securities register, provided the correct process is followed.

On August 14 Centro Property Group financial director Erna Grobler denied Moneyweb access to the securities register on the basis that it is a private company.

Moneyweb replied that the fact that Centro Property Group is a private company is no basis upon which to refuse access to the securities register. Moneyweb informed Grobler that in terms of Section 26(9) of the Companies Act, the failure to comply with a legitimate request for access renders the company, and every director or officer who is knowingly a party to the refusal, guilty of a criminal offence.

On August 15, Moneyweb received responses from Nova Property Group, Frontier Asset Management and Centro Property Group. The responses can be downloaded here (Nova), here (Frontier) and here (Centro).

The responses are virtually identical for each company. In the Nova response, Haese claims that the right to information which Moneyweb wishes to exercise is qualified by and subject to the provisions of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA).

Haese says that Moneyweb’s reference to Section 26(9) of the Companies Act “is not only ill-considered and misplaced, but also unlawful, as same is clearly written in terrorem, and intended to be extortive”.

Haese continues: “…all our rights and the rights of the ‘directors and officers’ who you clearly intend to terrorise and abuse, are reserved.

“As indicated to you previously, no purpose has ever been served in responding to or dealing with you.”

It seems reasonable to ask whether all of Nova’s directors are best suited to manage the property portfolio in the interests of investors. For example, Dominique Haese is one of four Sharemax directors who have been accused by Fais Ombud Noluntu Bam of running “nothing more than a Ponzi scheme”. This comment was made by the Ombud in connection with the Zambezi investment scheme that was promoted by Sharemax under the control of Haese and her co-directors.

Corporate lawyer Connie Myburgh has previously acted for Garek, a scheme that resulted in some 2000 investors losing R74m. Long-time Moneyweb readers will remember Myburgh for his aggressive defence of Garek.

A circular distributed to investors at the time of the rescue reveals that Haese, Koekemoer and Badenhorst jointly held 43.2% of Nova’s issued shares. This would ensure that there is little danger of the directors being voted off the board, should the former Sharemax investors wish to remove them.

Sharemax Investors’ Forum representative Herman Lombaard tells Moneyweb that he has repeatedly asked the Nova directors how they acquired this large stake in Nova and what it cost them.

Furthermore, Lombaard notes that Haese benefits from the rescue scheme in other ways. For example, Haese is a director of and shareholder in Frontier Asset Management, which supplies administrative services to Nova Property Group.

Lombaard also claims that Haese has a shareholding in Centro Property Group, which has been contracted by Nova to manage its property portfolio.

Moneyweb is currently seeking legal advice on how to proceed with the application to inspect the companies’ securities registers.

Prior to publication, a copy of this article was sent to Haese with the invitation to correct possible factual errors or offer comment. Haese's response follows:

Dear Mr Cobbett,

Your email and draft article below refers.

We are not prepared to comment.

This response should however not be assumed by you as you being correct or not.

All rights remain reserved.

Should you wish to print anything, we insist that you print this response.

Regards
Dominique Haese
Managing Director
Nova Property Group

Topics: DOMINIQUE HAESE, CONNIE MYBURGH, RUDI BADENHORST, NOVA PROPERTY GROUP, FRONTIER ASSET MANAGEMENT, CENTRO PROPERTY GROUP, GAREK, HERMAN LOMBAARD, SHAREMAX, ERNA GROBLER


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Special Investigations

Author: Julius Cobbett|

Sharemax-tarnished official agrees to leave FSB




Wife of Sharemax director leaves FSB after unflattering media coverage.

JOHANNESBURG – The Financial Services Board (FSB) and one of its officials, who has been linked to Sharemax, have agreed to part ways. The official in question is Rinate Goosen, a manager in the FSB’s Fais enforcement division. Rinate Goosen is the wife of former Sharemax director Gert Goosen. She is also the former compliance officer for controversial company FSP Network, which traded as Unlisted Securities South Africa (USSA).

USSA was started by Gert Goosen as a company that provided its representatives with the necessary licence to sell Sharemax products. USSA has received severe criticism by Fais Ombud Noluntu Bam, who has described USSA’s business as “nothing short of the hiring out of a licence for a small monthly fee.”

One of the most astonishing things to emerge from the USSA debacle is the sheer number of brokers who were operating under its licence. USSA had literally hundreds of broker representatives yet only one key individual, Gert Goosen, and one compliance manager, Rinate Goosen. The Fais Ombud wrote: “How it was possible to train and supervise this number [of representatives] is beyond explanation.”

Bam continued: “[USSA] abused the [Fais] Act to take advantage of a loophole which effectively allowed unlicensed FSPs to sell risky investments to an unsuspecting public.”

Bam found Gert Goosen and three other Sharemax directors liable for the loss suffered by investor Gerbrecht Siegrist.

The determination does not cast the Goosens in a particularly good light. It seems reasonable to ask whether Rinate Goosen is the appropriate person to hold a senior position at the FSB.

Despite the damning determination, the FSB has defended its employee. Deputy registrar for financial services providers Gerry Anderson has described Goosen as “well qualified and extremely competent”. See: FSB stands by Sharemax-tarnished official.

On Thursday March 14, the FSB and Rinate Goosen issued a joint media release. The release cannot be found in the media release section of the FSB’s website. However it was published in Die Burger on Friday.

In the release, Goosen and the FSB acknowledge that negative media publicity surrounding Goosen’s previous association with USSA has impaired the public’s perception of the regulator’s independence.

The FSB said when Goosen was re-employed, it was aware of Goosen’s previous job as a compliance officer of USSA, and did not find any shortcomings in her original written disclosure.

“The FSB recognizes that Mrs Goosen disagrees with the views and opinions of the Fais Ombud reflected in the Siegrist determination, and Mrs Goosen has stated that the respondents intend to appeal.”

The media release states: “The opinion of the Ombud, with which Mrs Goosen and the appellants disagree, is that Sharemax was a Ponzi scheme, that USSA rented out its licence, that USSA was an extension of Sharemax investments, that USSA engaged unqualified persons as its representatives, and that there were grounds (alleged fraud and reckless behavior) to pierce the corporate veil with respect to USSA and Sharemax Investments.

“The FSB believes that, based on her previous and current service at the FSB, Mrs Goosen is an exceptional employee and the FSB would recommend her to any prospective employer.

“However, because of the negative impression caused by her association with USSA, the FSB and Mrs Goosen have agreed that the FSB’s operational requirements necessitate the termination of her contract.”

The media release did not state whether Goosen received a golden handshake.

The table below summarises Goosen’s career over the past 22 years.

A 22-year summary of Rinate Goosen's carreer
1991 Rinate Goosen joins FSB
1999 Willie Botha starts Sharemax
Rinate Goosen leaves FSB to become compliance manager for Stanlib
2004 Gert Goosen's USSA is licenced with the Financial Services Board. Rinate Goosen is its compliance officer
USSA offers brokers a solution to Sharemax brokers who require a licence to sell property syndication schemes
The solution costs R150 a month
At its peak, USSA had more than 600 broker representatives yet only one key individual and one compliance officer
This raises questions about USSA's ability to supervise so many representatives
2005 Gert Goosen is appointed a director of Sharemax
2008 FSB issues notice 104 of 2008 which requires financial services providers to "directly supervise" representatives who sell shares and debentures
2009 Sharemax collapses
2011 Rinate Goosen rejoins FSB as a manager in the Fais enforcement department
26-Sep-12 Fais Ombud Noluntu Bam describes USSA's business as "“nothing short of the hiring out of a license for a small monthly fee”.
14-Oct-12 Moneyweb identifies FSB's links to USSA
13-Nov-12 Moneyweb reports on a scheme operated by Gert Goosen which pays investors 13% a year.
The FSB claims Gert Goosen's licenced financial services business, Preston Financial Solutions, is "dormant"
29-Jan-13 Bam finds four former Sharemax director's liable for a loss suffered by an investor, Gerbrecht Siegrist
Bam's determination is scathing about USSA's alleged abuse of the Fais Act.
6-Feb-13 The FSB's Gerry Anderson stands by Rinate Goosen, describing her as "well qualified and extremely competent"
12-Mar-13 The Ombud's office confirms that the Sharemax directors have applied for leave to appeal her determination
14-Mar-13 The FSB and Rinate Goosen issue a joint media release announcing the termination of Rinate Goosen's contract.
Topics: FSB, Rinate Goosen, Gert Goosen, Fais Ombud, Noluntu Bam, Gerry Anderson, Sharemax


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Special investigations

Author: Julius Cobbett

Trevor Manuel failed Sharemax pensioners



In 2006 Deon Basson pleaded with Ministers Manuel and Mpahlwa to act on Sharemax.

JOHANNESBURG – In October 2006, journalist Deon Basson wrote to Trevor Manuel and Mandisi Mpahlwa, then the respective Ministers of Finance and Trade and Industry. The letter implored the ministers to do something about property syndication company Sharemax.

Basson did not receive a response to his letter.

When Basson sent his letter, Sharemax had sold syndications to the value of no more than R1.5bn. It was still in its infancy. By the time of its collapse, in September 2010, Sharemax had sold schemes to the staggering value of R5.5bn. The majority of investors are pensioners.

Sharemax’s two largest syndications, Zambezi and The Villa, were launched in 2007 and 2009 respectively. Investors poured a total of R2.3bn into these two projects – R756m into Zambezi and R1.590 into The Villa. These two schemes are also among Sharemax’s most toxic syndications. Fais Ombud Noluntu Bam recently described Zambezi as “nothing more than a Ponzi scheme”.

The obvious question is how Sharemax could continue, unchecked, for so long, when the ministers had been alerted to its alleged transgressions back in 2006.

It’s not as though Basson lacked credibility. Indeed, if there was any financial journalist worthy of the ministers’ attention, it was him. Basson had a formidable track record in exposing financial wrongdoing. He was also a six-time winner of Sanlam’s prestigious Financial Journalist of the Year award.

In March 2007, Basson again wrote to Ministers Manuel and Mpahlwa. His letter can be viewed here. The following regulators were copied on the letter: Errol Kruger, Registrar of Banks, Rob Barrow, chief executive of the Financial Services Board (FSB), Keith Sendwe, chief executive of Cipro, and Narain Kuljeeth, chief director, Office of Consumer Protection.

Basson wrote: “Since I have last corresponded with you, the serious regulatory and compliance issues raised in the Prakke report (attached hereto) had become more burning as a result of ongoing and further non-compliance by Sharemax Investments (Pty) Ltd.”

The Prakke report is an investigation conducted into Sharemax by forensic auditor Andre Prakke. Basson asked Prakke to compile the report to assist him in his legal battle with Sharemax. The 143-page Prakke report was comprehensive and damning. Prakke took particular issue with the investment structure through which Sharemax offered its attractive returns. Prakke argued that this structure was both unsustainable and illegal. He has since been vindicated on both counts.

Prakke says he received several threats of legal action, but never received a summons.

The full Prakke report can be downloaded here.

Basson wrote that there were worrying similarities between Sharemax and the failed Masterbond scheme. Basson concluded that the situation “calls for immediate action”.

Since October last year, Moneyweb has tried to get comment from Trevor Manuel – currently Minister in the Presidency – on Basson’s letter. Although our requests for comment were eventually acknowledged, no response has been forthcoming.

Moneyweb also asked the Department of Trade and Industry’s Narain (Babs) Kuljeeth, who was copied on Basson’s letter, whether any response was sent to Basson, and whether any action was taken. Kuljeeth’s response is produced in full below:

Dear Sir

Much has changed since then. I am certain that it was worked on. I do recall that the Legal Support and Prosecutions section of the Office of Consumer Protection dealt with the matter. I do recall that complainants were referred to the FSB. I also recall that in terms of the Consumer Affairs (Unfair Business Practices) Act, if a business engaged in prohibited conduct, then the Consumer Affairs Committee had no jurisdiction in the matter. It would be SAPS and the NPA.

The Director of Legal Support and Prosecutions has left the Department. I will try to contact him and ask for his input in this matter.

Please also note that today is my last day at the dti. It is not clear for how long I will be away. I will be assisting the National Consumer Commission for some time. I will contact you once I am there. Anyway, I doubt that I will ever escape an esteemed journalist as yourself. You will find me.

Warm Regards

Babs

Topics: Deon Basson, Sharemax, Deon Basson, Trevor Manuel, Mandisi Mpahlwa, The Villa, Zambezi

------------------------------------------------------------------
Moneyweb News

Special Investigations

Author: Julius Cobbett

FSB linked to Sharemax "licence for hire" scheme


Wife of former Sharemax director is top official at FSB.

JOHANNESBURG - A Financial Services Board (FSB) official used to be involved in a company that “rented” licences to Sharemax brokers.

Sharemax is a failed property syndication promoter.

Rinate Goosen, wife of former Sharemax Director Gert Goosen, is a manager in the FSB’s FAIS enforcement department.

However, Rinate Goosen’s involvement with a company called Unlisted Securities South Africa (USSA) may be seen by some as a black mark on her career.

USSA came under scrutiny by Fais Ombud Noluntu Bam last week. In her latest determination against a Sharemax broker Bam wrote that USSA’s business amounted to “nothing short of the hiring out of a licence for a small monthly fee”.

Many brokers were not licensed to sell Sharemax’s share-and-debenture products. Gert Goosen solved this problem by setting up USSA, a company licensed to sell both shares and debentures. For a small fee of R150 per month, a Sharemax broker could become a “representative” of USSA.

Bam’s determination describes how USSA helped Sharemax brokers to obtain the necessary licence to sell property syndication products. At its peak USSA had 1 376 representatives listed on its FSB licence.

Bam’s determination can be downloaded here.

Rinate Goosen is still listed on the USSA website as the company’s compliance officer. Her husband Gert Goosen is USSA’s sole director and key individual. Gert was also a director of compliance at Sharemax. Gert Goosen is also reportedly the brother-in-law of former Sharemax managing director Willie Botha.

At the time of its collapse, in September 2010, Sharemax’s 33 syndication companies owed R4.5bn to about 30 000 investors.

USSA’s high number of representatives has raised eyebrows in financial services circles. Paul Kruger, editor of Moonstone Monitor, a publication associated with compliance company Moonstone, asks why USSA was allowed to operate as it did.

Kruger says it would have been “impossible” for USSA to fulfil its obligations correctly. He notes that an FSB notice, effective 2009, requires financial services providers to “directly supervise” representatives selling shares and debentures.

Says Kruger: “With 1 376 representatives under supervision, it would have been impossible for USSA’s one key individual to comply with this requirement.”

Moneyweb approached Rinate Goosen for a response but she replied that she was not available for comment.

Moneyweb asked the FSB's Gerry Anderson to comment on Rinate Goosen’s links to Sharemax.

Anderson confirmed that Rinate Goosen was employed by the FSB from 1991 to 1999. She left the FSB in 1999 to join Liberty Collective Investments (which later became Stanlib) where she spent five years in a compliance officer position. Goosen later joined USSA where she spent at least four years as that company’s compliance officer.

Last year Rinate Goosen was re-employed by the FSB. This means that she was not employed by the FSB while her husband worked for Sharemax.

Anderson denies there is any conflict of interest: “At the time of her re-employment, it was known to the FSB what the position of her husband was. It is not believed that there is a conflict of interest. Rinate was employed on her own merits and despite being married to Mr Goosen, based on career history.”

Financial journalist and long-time Sharemax critic Deon Basson has also questioned the FSB on its relationship with the property syndication company.

Basson wrote to Anderson in March 2007 to ask about a paragraph that appeared in a Sharemax newsletter. The paragraph read as follows:

Sharemax’s compliance awareness week that ran from 1 to 7 February 2007 was a big success. The closing speech was by Mr. Gerry Anderson, deputy chief executive of the Financial Services Board and responsible for the implementation of FAIS, at Sharemax House. It was a privilege to be able to listen to him and he was pleased with Sharemax’s role in compliance."

Anderson comments: “I was asked at the time (a reasonable request) by Sharemax to address a group of representatives, both connected to it and independent, on the FAIS Act. Such presentation did take place and the duration was about an hour. This is seen as regulatory assistance and I find it strange that, notwithstanding the fact that similar presentations are given to many groups by senior staff of the FSB, this is singled out specifically.”

Click here to read Basson’s full correspondence with Anderson.

TIMELINE
1991 Rinate Goosen joins FSB
1999 Willie Botha starts Sharemax
Rinate Goosen leaves FSB to become compliance manager for Liberty Collective Investments (later Stanlib).
2004 Gert Goosen's USSA is licenced with the Financial Services Board. Rinate Goosen is its compliance officer
USSA offers brokers a solution to Sharemax brokers who require a licence to sell property syndication schemes
The solution costs R150 a month
At its peak, USSA had 1376 broker representatives yet only one key individual and one compliance officer
2005 Gert Goosen is appointed a director of Sharemax
2008 FSB issues notice 104 of 2008 which requires financial services providers to "directly supervise" representatives who sell shares and debentures
2009 Sharemax collapses
2011 Rinate Goosen rejoins FSB as a manager in the Fais enforcement department
2012 Fais Ombud Noluntu Bam describes USSA's business as "“nothing short of the hiring out of a license for a small monthly fee”.
Image:Searching For Facts Vs. Fiction from BigStock

Topics: Sharemax, licence for hire, Unlisted Securities South Africa, USSA, Fais Ombud, Noluntu Bam, Gert Goosen, Rinate Goosen,nonregulator • 3 years ago
Standardbank 's name appears in the prospectus number 20 "The Villa " Sharemax investments ( Pty ) Ltd.
At the end of April 2010 the SA Reservebank instructed Sharemax to stop taking money in from investors for their now "Failed Scheme" as they were contravening the bank act and other regulations which constituted to illegal deposit taking.
Sharemax is now History and more than 33,000 investors have not received any income since the end of 2010.They have also institued a rescue plan "311' legalising an Illegal scheme !
The minimum of 75 % of the investors did not participate in voting for the new rescue plan.

The point i want to make is that Standard bank up to this point in time has never ever made a statement in this regard regarding their involvement with Sharemax.

Their official letter dated 07/04/2010 which appears from Business Banking in the prospectus addressed to the Sharemax attorneys reads as follow

The Directors
Weavind and Weavind Inc
PO Box 34
Pretoria
0001


Dear Sir or Madam

The Villa Retail Park Holdings Limited
-------------------------------------------------------

We as the appointed Business Bankers of the Villa reatil Park Holding Limited ( Reg no 2008/017207/06) do hereby consent to the use of our name in the prospectus of The Villa Retail Park Holding Limited and we confirm that we have not withdrawn our consent nor do we intend to withdraw our consent to the use of our name in the said Prospectus.

We trust that you will find the above in order.

Yours Sincerely

Johann Basson
Senior Account Executive
-------------------------------------------

Mapheto Simon Mamabolo
Acoounts Manager

( Signature appears with a Standard Bank date stamp 2010-04-07 Pretoria Business Centre ) Tel ( 012 ) 643 2115/ 2102 Johan / Simon

I did my investment in May 2010 only to find out that Sharemax was instructed to stop with their illegal activities of taking in new investors money .
The Reservebank appointed statutory managers thereafter with instructions to repay all the funds taken from the invetors by illegal means.
Since then we have seen no legal action taken by the regulators and law enforcemers other than attack
by the ombud on SBFC advisors etc.

My Funds were supposed to have been kept in a Trust account which was paid over to the attorneys: Weavind and Weavind Inc
Absa Business Bank
Centurion
Branch Code - 634256
Account number -405 751 2842


The Prospectus states on the third page in bold;
The Public Property Syndication Association (PPSA) supported by the Property Owners Association ( SAPOA ) ,has laid down a strict code of conduct to protect the rights of individual investors.
The promoters of this syndication is a member of the PPSA ( Public Property syndication Association of South Africa).
Sharemax Investments ( Pty ) Ltd is an Authorised financial Services Provider at the Financial Services Board( FSB) under registration No .6153,other licences held are Sharemax Premium registration No 25694, Sharemax Fund Manager registration no 25694 and Sharemax Short term registration No 30833.

Inflation Protection
Commercial property has proven to be one of the few univerals intruments that retain value in the medium to long term period and consitently beat inflation.

Opening Date : 09h00 on 15 April 2010
Closiing date : 17h00 on 14 July 2010

The Promoters name and directors that appear in the prospectus;

Johannes Willem Botha ID 670128 5015084

Andre Daniel Brand ID 5512145028089

Gerhardus Rossouw Goosen ID 720607 5017 083

Dominique Haese ID 710708 0146 083

There is a letter from Cipro dated 15 April 2010 signed by V Nkhola ( VNkohla@cipro.gov.za) Tel 012 3945102 confirming the above opening and closing dates.

A letter from the attorneys dated 1 April 2010 ( patm@weavind.co.za)

A letter from ACT Audit Solutions Inc dated 14 April 2010 ( act.acc@mweb.co.za )

A letter from W G Haese and Partners/vennote (Townplanners) Tel 012 361 3020 cell 0824570576

A letter from SJ Eloff Professional Associated Valuer ( no 2425) Tel 082 514 5561


Notice: Investors attention is drawn to the fact that on payment to the Attorneys of the Purchase Price for the Unit and once the cooling off period referred to in paragraph 19.4 below has lapsed,an amount equal to 10% (ten percent ) of the invested amount will be released to the Promoter to be utilized by them for payment of the commissions referred to in paragraph 12.3 below.
Units to the value of the full investment amount will however be issued to Investorstors because the promoters will eventually pay all commissions referred to in paragraph 12.3 below.
In this regard investors is also drawn to the understanding given by the Promoters as set forth in paragraph 25.3 below( The promoter undertakes that in the event of the public property syndication as more fully described herein not proceeding he will refund to the investors the amount by them)

base on all above i considered this to be a low risk invesment with all the guarantees and promises built into the prospectus.
Everybody above has been paid or has had a fair chunk of our investments except us as the investor not reciving and monthly interes as well as the false statement made in paragraph 25.3 by the all the promoter of this scheme.
Hwat does the law say ?
Who are the promoters?
According to the Government Gazette everbody that has been mentioned in the prospectus including the Regulators.
The very same people who are now telling the SBFC broker to repay including the FSB must be held liable.They allocated and regeistered Sharmax as a licenced an a auhthorise service provider.
they were fully aware of what tehir business entailed.
Gerry Anderson of the FSB should explain what did he do at the launching and functions held for investors/brokers at sharmax's office in Pretoria during marketing campaigns for this illegal scheme of illegal deposit takkers.
Sharemax took the money ,now brokers are held liable for repayment of the failed scheme .

Why is there a R 64.5 millon shortfall onthe Zambezi mall and why were the properties not registered in us the investors name by the time the Centre was officially opened on the 7th of May 2010.

Why are we not informed of what really is happening .Why did the Reservebank withdraw their instruction for Sharemax to repay our investments.
How can you legalise an illegal scheme with a 311 rescue plan and not hold the promoters liable for repayment of our funds,but the brokers only ?
One thing for certain i would not invest anyof my funds with a SBFC consultant !
The consumer /Investors are not being treated fairly .


Who are the investigators and
see more
17 • Reply•Share ›

Avatar
Chessfin • 3 years ago

Sake-Beeld, 18 Februarie 2004*

©Media24 Bpk©Media24 Bpk*

Die rubriek hieronder was destyds weens ruimte-oorwegings verkortSharemax se Sonet skryf ‘n epos-sonnet‘n epos-sonnetOp 27 November 2003 onderteken mnr. Willie Botha, ‘n direkteurWillie Botha, ‘n direkteurvan die eiendomsindikasiegroep Sharemax ‘n beëdigde verklaringmet die oog op ‘n hofaansoek teen vier mense wie se mondemax ‘n beëdigde verklaringmet die oog op ‘n hofaansoek teen vier mense wie se mondeSharemax wou snoer.


Ingevolge ‘n tussentydse bevel hangende ‘n hofaksie is mnre.Patrick Herron, Erli Bester en Henk Strydom se monde inderdaadvoorlopig gesnoer terwyl me. Mariaan Bester nie die aansoekteengestaan het nie en dus ook gesnoer is.


In sy verklaring verduidelik Botha met groot omhaal van woordehoe Sharemax graag die landswette wil eerbiedig en dus self dieRaad op Finansiële Dienste genader het om te help dat Sharemaxse beleggingskema binne die grense van die wet bly.

Vroeër, op 24 Oktober, skryf die Registrateur van KollektieweBeleggingskemas, mnr. Jurgen Boyd aan Sharemax se prokureursWeavind & Weavind: “Ons beskik oor geen magte om enigeoortredings van die Wet op Kollektiewe Beleggingskemas tekondoneer nie en u word dus vriendelik versoek om Sharemax aante sê om nie verder geld van die publiek te neem nie.Sharemax moet ook ophou adverteer en moet ook geen geld inenige trust belê tot tyd en wyl sy skema ingevolge dieMaatskappywet ingelyf is nie.”


(Dit impliseer onder meer datbeleggings net by wyse van ‘n prospektus gewerf sal word).(Dit impliseer onder meer datbeleggings net by wyse van ‘n prospektus gewerf sal word).net by wyse van ‘n prospektus gewerf sal word).Weavind & Weavind antwoord 19 dae later (op 12 November) enonderneem namens Sharemax om Boyd se versoek te eerbiedig.Vyf dae na Boyd se brief (op 29 Oktober) skryf Sonet Dreyer,Sharemax se bemarkingsghoeroe een van vele epos-geskrifte aanmakelaars: “Die Bluff (‘n gebou in Durban) is uitverkoop.

Nuwegebou is beskikbaar. Atterbury Décor in Faerie Glenn Pretoria netlangs Atterbury Value Mart. Sien aangeheg al die huurders.Inkomste nog nie bekend maar sê maar 10% plus. R45 miljoenwaarde.

Detail sal bekend gemaak word met prospektus. Teken
net op aansoek by 12.2. Skakel my indien iets onduidelik is.”
Watse aansoek geteken moes word is onduidelik maar kom ons
laat dit eers daar.

Lees verder.
Op 18 November skryf die Registrateur van Maatskappye dat
Sharemax se prospektus gedateer 14 November geregistreer is is
(as dié blitsvinnige registrasie nie ‘n rekord is nie moet dit baie
naby aan ‘n rekord wees).


Twee dae later is Sonet in ekstase: “Wonderlike nuus. Die
prospektus is geregistreer. Ons het gisteraand ons
afsluitingsfunksie gehad en die direkteure het ons surprise met die
goeie nuus. Dit moet nou net drukkers toe gaan dan bring ek vir
julle, hoop so volgende week…Dis nog ‘n kort tydjie voor Kersfees,
hoop julle kan nog ietsie gedoen kry voor dan.”


Teen 25 November rol die geld in dat die rook behoorlik trek.
Sonet span haar digterlike vryheid ruim in:
“Hier is die prospektus
met die aansoek. Print solank, ek bring die mooies sodra dit
gedruk is. Daar is maar R17 miljoen oor op Atterbury Décor. Daar
is maar vier dae oor in November.
Kyk wat jy kan doen. Ek wil
graag vir jou kommissie gee.” (Dus was R25 miljoen van die R42
miljoen gewerf in die ses dae sedert die aanvangsdatum van die
prospektus op 19 November).


Dieselfde dag: “Tyd tot Vrydag om kommissie die 10de Desember
te kry.”
Wat my laat dink aan ‘n vorige rubriek: “Die hoëdruk-verkope skep
‘n swak indruk. Dit is so asof Sharemax tot elke prys en teen groot
spoed geboue moet sindikeer om die kontant-trapmeul aan die
gang te hou.”

Waarop ‘n Sharemax-direkteur, mnr. André Brand soos volg
gereageer het: “Hierdie uitspraak deur u skrywer is na ons mening
‘n insinuasie tot ‘n piramideskema en dit word ten sterkste
verwerp.”

Maar vroeg in die Nuwejaar raak Sonet weer digterlik: “Dit gaan ‘n
great jaar wees. Ons nuwe gebou is hier. Yes!!!!!!!. “Comaro
Crossing” Net langs Glen Vista aan die suide van Johannesburg.”Later ‘n baie belangrike paragraaf: “Jammer die prospektus moet
nog gedruk word. Bring of courier vir jou sodra ek dit kry. Gebruik
solank ou A/S (waarskynlik aansoekvorm) van Atterbury Décor
met die keusevorm. Onthou, tjeks word nog steeds uitgemaak aan
Weavind & Weavind.”


Een van die keuses op die keusevorm is om die geld in Weavind &
Weavind Trustrekening te hou en daggeld te verdien. Sharemax
word dan gemagtig om die geld aan te wend in ‘n bestaande
projek soos wat herverkope beskikbaar raak.

Soos Brand dit gestel het: “Elke enkele eiendomsbeleggingsprojek
van Sharemax word totaal en al onafhanklik van die ander projekte
bestuur.”

Intussen motiveer Sonet die makelaars:. Op 27 Januarie skryf sy:
“Hi my makelaar. Ons gaan begin met die roadshow” Later: “Sien
ook die kompetisie vir die nuwe gebou. R2 miljoen vyf dae
spesiale Namibië-toer. Slegs alle netto bedrae op Comaro
Crossing.”

Word dié veelgeroemde prospektus ooit gelees en vir alle
beleggers gegee? Hopelik is die aanmoediging daartoe meer
geesdriftig as in die geval van die vroeëre finansiële state van
Tygerberg Omniplace.

Weer Sonet: “Hier is een van die geboue se state. Lees net mooi
die notas. Jy moet state kan lees om alles te verstaan. Anders
moet jy ‘n ouditeur vra of bel vir Stefan Schoeman (finansiële
direkteur)….’n gebou kan op verskillende maniere gewaardeer
word. Munisipale waarde. Groothandelwaarde. Fundamentele
waarde. Kleinhandelwaarde. Markwaarde. Sien notas van
trusteeverslag soos aangeheg.”


En dan ‘n belangrike opdrag aan die arme makelaars: “Moet
selektief uitgestuur word.”
Hoekom so selektief Sonet? Seker omdat die eiendom vir R21,6
miljoen aan die publiek verkwansel is en daarna net vir net R10,7
miljoen deur eiendomskenner Erwin Rode gewaardeer is. Dis
hoekom (die gebou is nou, onderhewig aan opskortende
voorwaardes, vir R22,6 miljoen verkoop)G’n wonder die direkteure is raadop oor die slegte nuus in hul
finansiële state nie. Veral as dit vertolk en versprei word en mense.
dit begin verstaan.


Sharemax het volgens Sonet by dr Louis Luyt gaan kers opsteek.
Sy advies was glo dat die ou wat al die slegte nuus oor die
finansiële state versprei net geïgnoreer moet word anders gaan hy
nooit ophou nie.

Dan skielik raak onse Sonet bitsig en verloor sy
haar digterlike onskuld. Ek sal haar verdere verse nie hier herhaal
nie… Dit lyk my hierdie Skema is al jare lank onwettig gewees volgens bovermelde berig. Nonregulator se kommentaar is verkeerd.Standard bank het nie die beleggers se geld in Sharemax bele nie.Hulle was Sharemax se besigheidsbankiers.is uitverkoop. Nuwegebou is beskikbaar.

Atterbury Décor in Faerie Glenn Pretoria netlangs Atterbury Value Mart. Sien aangeheg al die huurders.Inkomste nog nie bekend maar sê maar 10% plus. R45 miljoenwaarde. Detail sal bekend gemaak word met prospektus. Teken
net op aansoek by 12.2. Skakel my indien iets onduidelik is.”
Watse aansoek geteken moes word is onduidelik maar kom ons
laat dit eers daar. Lees verder.
Op 18 November skryf die Registrateur van Maatskappye dat
Sharemax se prospektus gedateer 14 November geregistreer is is
(as dié blitsvinnige registrasie nie ‘n rekord is nie moet dit baie
naby aan ‘n rekord wees).

Twee dae later is Sonet in ekstase: “Wonderlike nuus. Die
prospektus is geregistreer. Ons het gisteraand ons
afsluitingsfunksie gehad en die direkteure het ons surprise met die
goeie nuus. Dit moet nou net drukkers toe gaan dan bring ek vir
julle, hoop so volgende week…Dis nog ‘n kort tydjie voor Kersfees,
hoop julle kan nog ietsie gedoen kry voor dan.”


Teen 25 November rol die geld in dat die rook behoorlik trek.
Sonet span haar digterlike vryheid ruim in: “Hier is die prospektus
met die aansoek. Print solank, ek bring die mooies sodra dit
gedruk is. Daar is maar R17 miljoen oor op Atterbury Décor. Daar
is maar vier dae oor in November. Kyk wat jy kan doen. Ek wil
graag vir jou kommissie gee.” (Dus was R25 miljoen van die R42
miljoen gewerf in die ses dae sedert die aanvangsdatum van die
prospektus op 19 November).


Dieselfde dag: “Tyd tot Vrydag om kommissie die 10de Desember
te kry.”

Wat my laat dink aan ‘n vorige rubriek: “Die hoëdruk-verkope skep
‘n swak indruk. Dit is so asof Sharemax tot elke prys en teen groot
spoed geboue moet sindikeer om die kontant-trapmeul aan die
gang te hou.”

Waarop ‘n Sharemax-direkteur, mnr. André Brand soos volg
gereageer het: “Hierdie uitspraak deur u skrywer is na ons mening
‘n insinuasie tot ‘n piramideskema en dit word ten sterkste
verwerp.”

Maar vroeg in die Nuwejaar raak Sonet weer digterlik: “Dit gaan ‘n
great jaar wees. Ons nuwe gebou is hier. Yes!!!!!!!. “Comaro
Crossing” Net langs Glen Vista aan die suide van Johannesburg.”Later ‘n baie belangrike paragraaf: “Jammer die prospektus moet
nog gedruk word.

Bring of courier vir jou sodra ek dit kry. Gebruik
solank ou A/S (waarskynlik aansoekvorm) van Atterbury Décor
met die keusevorm. Onthou, tjeks word nog steeds uitgemaak aan
Weavind & Weavind.”

Een van die keuses op die keusevorm is om die geld in Weavind &
Weavind Trustrekening te hou en daggeld te verdien. Sharemax
word dan gemagtig om die geld aan te wend in ‘n bestaande
projek soos wat herverkope beskikbaar raak.

Soos Brand dit gestel het: “Elke enkele eiendomsbeleggingsprojek
van Sharemax word totaal en al onafhanklik van die ander projekte
bestuur.”

Intussen motiveer Sonet die makelaars:. Op 27 Januarie skryf sy:
“Hi my makelaar. Ons gaan begin met die roadshow” Later: “Sien
ook die kompetisie vir die nuwe gebou. R2 miljoen vyf dae
spesiale Namibië-toer. Slegs alle netto bedrae op Comaro
Crossing.”

Word dié veelgeroemde prospektus ooit gelees en vir alle
beleggers gegee? Hopelik is die aanmoediging daartoe meer
geesdriftig as in die geval van die vroeëre finansiële state van
Tygerberg Omniplace.

Weer Sonet: “Hier is een van die geboue se state. Lees net mooi
die notas. Jy moet state kan lees om alles te verstaan. Anders
moet jy ‘n ouditeur vra of bel vir Stefan Schoeman (finansiële
direkteur)….’n gebou kan op verskillende maniere gewaardeer
word. Munisipale waarde. Groothandelwaarde. Fundamentele
waarde. Kleinhandelwaarde. Markwaarde. Sien notas van
trusteeverslag soos aangeheg.”

En dan ‘n belangrike opdrag aan die arme makelaars: “Moet
selektief uitgestuur word.”

Hoekom so selektief Sonet? Seker omdat die eiendom vir R21,6
miljoen aan die publiek verkwansel is en daarna net vir net R10,7
miljoen deur eiendomskenner Erwin Rode gewaardeer is. Dis
hoekom (die gebou is nou, onderhewig aan opskortende
voorwaardes, vir R22,6 miljoen verkoop)G’n wonder die direkteure is raadop oor die slegte nuus in hul
finansiële state nie. Veral as dit vertolk en versprei word en mense.
dit begin verstaan.


Sharemax het volgens Sonet by dr Louis Luyt gaan kers opsteek.
Sy advies was glo dat die ou wat al die slegte nuus oor die
finansiële state versprei net geïgnoreer moet word anders gaan hy
nooit ophou nie. Dan skielik raak onse Sonet bitsig en verloor sy
haar digterlike onskuld. Ek sal haar verdere verse nie hier herhaal
nie… Dit lyk my hierdie Skema is al jare lank onwettig gewees volgens bovermelde berig. Nonregulator se kommentaar is verkeerd.Standard bank het nie die beleggers se geld in Sharemax bele nie.Hulle was Sharemax se besigheidsbankiers.

see more
14 • Reply•Share ›

Avatar

nonregulator • 3 years ago

SBFC and all other bank brokers are commission driven.They don't receive a basic monthly salary.It has happened in the past and is still happening.The set up unrealistic targets for you as a consultant to reach by a certain date and if the target is not reached they terminate your contract and keep aal the second year commision and future annual escalation update commssion.

Management is just as guilty as their consultants when it comes to bad advice and not complying with the FAIS 's general code of conduct.

Stuart Loxton and Marius Opperman were guilty of this practice and got away with it by firing their consultants to make up for not reaching the companies annual target.

Loxton caused more damage than good for the company at the time when he was a the helm of SBFC previously know as STANFIN

I would never ever use any bank broker who works on commission only as a financial advisor

13 • Reply•Share ›

Avatar

Albert Einstein • 3 years ago

l do follow this saga with great interest. I cannot understand that the so called "investors" do not seek legal advise to finalise this once and for all. You are taken for a ride and the wrong people will end up with the little that is left.

7 • Reply•Share ›


----------------------

Topics: SHAREMAX, NEIL TUCHTEN, NOVA PROPERTY GROUP, FRONTIER ASSET MANAGEMENT AND INVESTMENTS, CENTRO PROPERTY GROUP, DOMINIQUE HAESE, RUDI BADENHORST, DIRK KOEKEMOER


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SHAREMAX and DIRECTORS schemed to defraud public, says Fais ombud

May 24 2013
By Roy Cokayne


SHAREMAX Investments, its network of financial advisers and four of its directors – Gert Goosen, Willie Botha, Dominique Haese and André Brand – were involved “in a scheme calculated to defraud members of the public”, financial advisory and intermediary services (Fais) ombud Noluntu Bam said yesterday.

Bam reached this conclusion in her latest determination on a complaint lodged by a 73-year-old female pensioner from Heidelberg in the Western Cape against financial adviser Edward Carter-Smith after investing R490 000 in the Zambezi Retail Park on Carter-Smith’s advice.

Sharemax promoted and marketed the Zambezi Retail Park property syndication.

Bam ordered Carter-Smith, Sharemax Investments, FSP Network (a network of brokers set up to market Sharemax schemes), Goosen, Botha, Haese and Brand jointly and severally to repay the complainant.

Carter-Smith complained that he had been misled by the directors of Sharemax and called them “liars”.

In an earlier determination Bam said Sharemax was “nothing more than a Ponzi scheme” in which investors were paid interest out of their own funds.

Business Report confirmed in October last year that the Hawks were investigating allegations that Sharemax committed fraud and operated a pyramid or Ponzi scheme.

About 40 000 people invested about R4.5 billion in the various schemes promoted and marketed by Sharemax.

It defaulted on monthly payments to investors in August 2010 when a decision by the registrar of banks that Sharemax’s funding model contravened the Banks Act became public knowledge.

ACT Audit Solution told the ombud that it had concluded after seeking a legal opinion that the transfer of investor funds from the trust account of Sharemax attorneys Weavind & Weavind to the investment property companies in The Villa and Zambezi schemes, prior to the registration of transfer of the property to investment property companies, “may constitute a reportable irregularity on a proper interpretation of the prospectuses”.

However, Sharemax directors claimed no reportable irregularity occurred because a bona fide “copy and paste” mistake had occurred during the drafting of the prospectuses.

Bam said this claim by the directors of Sharemax was “disingenuous and against the probabilities”.

She said her office was in possession of promotional pamphlets produced and distributed by Sharemax in 2010 that also stated investors’ funds would be paid into the trust account of Weavind & Weavind attorneys until the property was ready for transfer into the investors’ names.

Bam said Sharemax, FSP Network and the four Sharemax directors on their own version knew at the time of producing this pamphlet that they were “wilfully and deliberately misleading members of the public” because of the “cut and paste error” and the prospectus was subject to rectification.

They failed to explain why this “error” was only discovered after the Reserve Bank intervened in 2010 and after the scheme had already collapsed. They also failed to explain why Weavind & Weavind, which allegedly made the mistake, did not file any papers or correspondence in support of the “cut and paste error” version.

Bam said Weavind & Weavind had further failed to explain why it did not inform investors there was an error before it started paying the funds out of its trust account.

She said Weavind & Weavind had never supported the notion of an error in the prospectus. The law firm was of the opinion that the government notice on property syndications did not apply to this scheme and it was therefore not illegal to pay the money from the trust.

Letters sent to each investor by Sharemax, acknowledging the investment and stating that their investment had been deposited into Weavind & Weavind’s trust account, and kept there until the investment amount was processed and the property was transferred, were “equally untrue and misleading” because on Sharemax’s version this was a mistake.

Bam said these letters of confirmation were still being written to investors after the “mistake” was discovered.

“The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn… is that the second to seventh respondents [Sharemax, FSP Network and the four Sharemax directors] were involved in a scheme calculated to defraud members of the public,” she said.

Monday, November 17, 2014

The death of the rainbow nation

The death of the rainbow nation

Magnus Heystek

17 November 2014

Magnus Heystek is the investment strategist at Brenthurst Wealth. He can be reached at magnus@heystek.co.za for ideas and suggestions.





If anyone reading this column still had any lingering hopes that SA is not hurtling towards being a failed state, then I'm sure these hopes were finally dashed by what happened in Parliament on the evening of November 13 2014.

When the president of a country, according to some reports, starts sending in his jackbooted thugs into the most hallowed halls of democracy in order to silence dissenting voices, then you need to realise that the end is near for what is described as a constitutional democracy.

These are the kind of images you would expect from a tin-pot dictator in the middle of an African jungle, where some buffoon has proclaimed himself Leader for Life, wearing a full military uniform with rows and rows of gleaming medals, all awarded to himself by himself.

Not in a country where most concerned middle-class citizens were hoping against hope that South Africa would escape the now familiar cascading collapse of the economy, infrastructure and political tolerance in most post-colonial African countries. But it is happening, right before our eyes and we can see just how powerless we are.

Uhuru (Swahili: freedom) in Africa, the cynics often said, lasts for about twenty years before everything starts collapsing: the infra-structure, the economy, the collection of taxes. Does that look familiar to you?

Let there be no doubt: what happened on Thursday evening will have serious consequences, much as the nail-painting ANC-cohorts would like to laugh and jeer. The world is watching and from what I can gather they were alarmed by what was transpiring.

Within minutes of the unfolding events on Thursday evening, my inbox started beeping. Messages and questions started pouring in: from a brother in the Bahamas, a friend in Australia, foreign clients with money still locked up in this country. All the questions were same: what the hell is happening in South Africa?

And what can you say? “Everything is fine, Boet. When are you coming home?”

Such a suggestion will be met with scornful laughter:” Not in a million years,” would most probably be the reply.

Power-mad liberation movement

In one dramatic and shocking evening the ruling ANC party was unveiled for what it really is: a power-mad liberation movement prepared to follow a scorched-earth policy in order to achieve its political objectives.

The world is watching and the world is worried.

Every time one of the international credit ratings agencies such as Fitch, Standard and Poor’s and Moody’s downrate our country, as happened two weeks ago, it is laughed off by local politicians as not being important.

We will see how important it is when we get downrated to junk-bond status and our bond, property and currency markets suffer in the fall-out.

The ANC has only one political objective and that is to remain in power.

It will use every mechanism available to it. It will use legislation that was drawn up by the Nationalist Party in 1961 in order to control the flow of money, namely foreign exchange control.

It will use the legal system for as long as it can at the expense of the taxpayer. It will use the tax system to spy on taxpayers. And it's bound to get worse.

Where is our so-called “best constitution in the world”, as it is so often described?

When they come for you and your possessions the constitution will be of little comfort.

If you doubt me or think I’m talking through my hat my dear friends, then I suggest you spend some time reading the book “BEE: Helping or Hurting” by Dr Anthea Jeffery (Tafelberg), one of country’s most respected political analysts, published only weeks ago.

Like a proverbial sleuth has Dr Jeffery attempted to link the various, at first glance, unrelated and seemingly innocuous pieces of legislation already before Parliament or in the process of being drawn up. They deal with BEE, Affirmative Action and the right of the State to take possession of property if it deems it to be in the national interest.

“Behind the schemes, however, the ANC had other objectives in mind. In particular, it had long been committed to a national democratic revolution (NDR) aimed at eliminating property relations and ensuring demographic representivity in every sphere of society. In addition, its allies in Cosatu and the SA Communist Party—joint rulers with the ANC in the governing tripartite alliance—had long identified the NDR as providing the shortest and most direct to a socialist and then a communist society,” she writes.

Since coming to power the ANC has never deviated from its belief in the NDR, with the most recent reaffirmation coming at its national conference at Manguang in the Free State in 2012.

Read the book, all 500 pages, over the coming Christmas break and then tell me you are not worried.

Property rights under threat

And 'property' in this context, does not merely refer to your personal residential property, it refers to property in the broadest possible sense of the word, i.e. all your earthly possessions, be it a farm, business, factory, restaurant, café and even intellectual property rights which you might own. All mineral rights in SA were confiscated by the State in this manner some ten years or so ago.

My advice for some time has been to repatriate as much as your personal assets out of the country as you can.

This followed on, in particular, after my altercation with SA Reserve Bank, when I saw first-hand the enormous power this institution has over the individual and how it can be abused [by] individuals within the system.

Where is our wonderful constitution when the SA Reserve Bank can make rules and regulations in secrecy, attach your personal property at whim and then act as judge and executioner should you wish to dispute the rulings?

I took a vow at the time in 2010 that I will never allow myself to be in such a position again and I repatriated all my disposal assets at the time out of the reach of the local banking system and out of reach of the clutches of the SA Reserve Bank. This has, ironically turned out to be an outstanding investment as I bought US dollars at R6,7 and invested most of it in biotech and technology funds offshore where the returns have been in excess of 200% so far.

And with the way the rand and economy is performing I’m sure that these returns will get even better over time. My view is that the rand will be R20 in four year’s time. More on that in the next column.

Asset swaps not as safe as you think

And don’t for a moment think that your rand-hedge investments will protect you when the collapse in the rand really gets going. Few investors realise (and the fund management companies will try and keep this very quiet) that assets swaps exists at the mercy of SA’s exchange control regulations. If SARB - under direction from the government - orders all these asset management companies to unwind these asset swaps you will end up with local investments again, most probably at a time when your need for offshore investments is the greatest.

And don’t think it can’t happen. It can and most probably will happen in the next five years as the cumulative effect of weakening growth, weakening foreign exchange and a rise in direct offshore investing starts to manifest itself.

Government will one day, is my forecast, simply send in its jackbooted bankers from SARB to switch off the offshore investing tap. It will happen overnight, without warning and at precisely the time when the demand for foreign assets is at its peak.

It reminds me of the old joke that used to circulate in the offices of The Star in the mid 1990’s when I was employed there: there are only two types of ex-Rhodesians in the world. Those who took all their money out of the country and those who wished that they did.



*Magnus Heystek is the investment strategist at Brenthurst Wealth. He can be reached at magnus@heystek.co.za for ideas and suggestions.

Friday, November 14, 2014

LIVE: Maimane - DA no longer recognises Mbete's authority

No fear No Favour No ANC criminals in parliament.......



2014-11-14 08:22
DA parliamentary leader Mmusi Maimane says the party no longer recognises the authority of National Speaker Baleka Mbete.


http://youtu.be/UIKsqBJdFh4

News24.com

Parliament’s ‘chaotic circus’ has ‘serious implications’

14 November 2014 10:27





Recent disruptions by opposition parties in Parliament could lead to the institution losing its integrity, the ANC said today.
“Yesterday … the nation watched with shock and horror as the National Assembly degenerated into a chaotic circus due to the unruly conduct of members,” spokesperson Zizi Kodwa said.
“Despite whatever short-term gains some parties may seem to think they are reaping now, the African National Congress is extremely worried about the more serious long-term implications of our Parliament losing its integrity and respect currently afforded to it by society.
“The dangerous alliance of a racist Democratic Alliance and a fascist Economic Freedom Fighters, driven by a common hatred and disdain for the ANC has once again displayed its contempt for our democratic institutions.”
Yesterday, opposition parties shouted down National Assembly Speaker Baleka Mbete when she tried to prevent them bringing dozens of motions.
Most of these were related to spending on so-called security upgrades at President Jacob Zuma’s private Nkandla homestead in KwaZulu-Natal, which Public Protector Thuli Madonsela found Zuma to have unduly benefited from.
Tempers flared as African National Congress MPs retaliated by objecting to motions the opposition attempted to bring to delay tabling a report on the upgrades.
Members of the police public order policing unit also entered the National Assembly chamber, causing a scuffle.
The drama unfolded after Economic Freedom Fighters MP Ngwanamakwetle Mashabela refused to leave the podium when she was ordered to do so by house chairperson Cedric Frolick.
Mashabela called Zuma a “thief” during a debate on the Grand Inga Hydro Project in the Democratic Republic of Congo and refused to withdraw her remarks.
Mashabela would not be moved when serjeant-at-arms Regina Mohlomi tried to escort her from the podium.
Police arrived minutes later, and tugged at Mashabela – who could be heard shouting “I don’t want to be touched”.
MPs from opposition benches, expressed outrage, and jumped to Mashabela’s defence.
Meanwhile, Small Business Development Minister Lindiwe Zulu was physically restrained after an altercation in the hallways outside the chamber.
Tensions rose when Zulu and EFF MP Godrich Gardee started sparring verbally off microphone inside the chamber.
Zulu signalled to Gardee that they take the matter outside and stormed into the hallway.
Gardee did not emerge from the chamber, but police officers and members of Parliament’s protection services stood alert.
ANC MPs held Zulu back as she shouted: “Where is he?” in her mother tongue.
She was eventually escorted away, and police officers warned those in the hallway to remain calm.
Later, Zulu returned to the chamber, only to be confronted by a motion by DA MP Geordin Hill-Lewis, who asked that she be removed because she “brought shame to the house”.
Zulu was seen shouting the word “liar”, prompting DA MP Dianne Kohler Barnard to jump up.
Zulu eventually withdrew her remark unconditionally.
Usually composed deputy speaker Lechesa Tsenoli, who had replaced Mbete, also had to withdraw a remark.
DA chief whip John Steenhuisen had called Juli Kilian, who defected from the opposition to the ANC, a “turncoat”.
“Who the hell do you think you are talking to when you use a term like that?” Tsenoli asked, before immediately apologising and withdrawing the remark saying it was a slip of the tongue.
Kodwa today commended the “hard work” of the Nkandla ad hoc committee.
“It has been regrettable that opposition parties chose to walk out of the ad hoc committee for purposes of political expediency and point scoring,” he said.
“By so doing, they lost an important opportunity to add their voices to solving the problems concerning all of us and to play their role in guarding against the misuse of public funds.”
Meanwhile, Parliament’s presiding officers were set to address the media today on the disruptions. The briefing was due to start at Parliament at 9am.
At 10.30am, the opposition DA would hold its own briefing on the matter.
DA parliamentary leader Mmusi Maimane and Steenhuisen will brief the media on “the next steps that will be taken to arrest the constitutional crisis that we face”.
-Sapa

COMMENTS BY SONNY

THIS IS HOW THE AILING PRESIDENT OF THE ANC JACOB ZUMA RUINS THE COUNTRY!!
FROM THE OUTSIDE!
HE IS TOO SCARED TO ATTEND PARLIAMENT.
Always out of the Country when the paw paw hits the fan!