Tag: Peter Kenny

Keep Calm: Just avoid OMI/Quilter

OLD MUTUAL INTERNATIONAL HYPOCRISY OVER NEW MALTA REGULATIONS

OMI’s Peter Kenny advises the industry to “keep calm”.

He obviously wants to be able to keep flogging these useless, pointless and exorbitantly expensive insurance bonds to thousands of innocent victims.

With the announcement of new regulations in Malta for QROPS, International Adviser has quoted managing director of OMI (soon to be Quilter) Peter Kenny: “Old Mutual International is encouraging all market participants to help rid the industry of inappropriate structured products“.

Kenny´s statement, to the untrained eye, may seem logical and thoughtful. However, here at Pension Life we are well educated about OMI´s dirty laundry and routine use of toxic structured notes.

The statement Peter Kenny made is downright hypocritical. He is clouding the irresponsible and negligent actions OMI have made in the past, and the damage the high-risk structured products have inflicted on pension funds. Kenny hasn´t even mentioned the huge quarterly fees OMI have applied to ever-dwindling pension funds.

These fees are OMI´s way of clawing back the commissions paid to the scammers. And this is why victims are tied into these insurance bonds for so many years, and why there are such enormous penalties for exiting the bonds.

Kenny told International Adviser:

“The Malta Financial Services Authority’s proposed new regulations are sensible, appropriate measures to be taking.

Specifically, we welcome greater restrictions on structured notes. Old Mutual International is encouraging all market participants to help rid the industry of inappropriate structured products which are having a damaging impact on investor confidence and outcomes.

Over the years, Old Mutual International has taken action to tighten its criteria, introduced a maximum fee level, and in some cases banned certain types of structured products from certain institutions.

Not all structured products are bad, and they can be useful for clients who want a degree of capital protection whilst also providing exposure to investment markets or a fixed return. However, many structured products are often very complex in design. Regrettably, some investors and advisers will not always possess the depth of knowledge required to fully understand the risks and rewards associated with investing in such structured products.”

Doesn´t that sound lovely in theory! However, I´m sure the victims of the CWM pension scam would not agree.

“Specifically, we welcome greater restrictions on structured notes. Old Mutual International is encouraging all market participants to help rid the industry of inappropriate structured products which are having a damaging impact on investor confidence and outcomes.”

For the last eight years at least, OMI have allowed the use of structured notes. We have seen many examples of victims having 100% of their portfolios invested in structured notes – including the fraudulent Leonteq ones. We have the hundreds of victims of the CWM pension scandal as evidence of this.

Peter Kenny must surely be aware that OMI were happy to invest the life savings of the CWM victims into structured products which clearly stated at the top of the investment sheets (so as even the most short-sighted OMI employee could not miss it):

HIGH-RISK AND FOR PROFESSIONAL INVESTORS ONLY

Here at Pension Life, we do hope that even trainees at OMI are aware that pension fund members are retail investors and should be placed into low to medium risk, liquid investments. However, it seems that these details obviously don´t feature in OMI´s training manual.

Structured products are illiquid and they often lock the fund in for fixed terms – up to 5 years. Added to this is the fact that victims were also locked into ten or eleven-year term OMI´s life assurance policies. It is absolutely ridiculous to lock people into a product which does nothing to protect the funds and only serves to erode the value of the funds with the exorbitant quarterly charges which inexorably “drag” the fund down.

“Over the years, Old Mutual International has taken action to tighten its criteria, introduced a maximum fee level, and in some cases banned certain types of structured products from certain institutions.”

This is an outright lie and we have hard evidence that even in the past couple of years, OMI has done nothing to tighten its criteria in any of the CWM cases. In fact, OMI were still accepting fraudulent Leonteq structured notes up until very recently. Peter Kenny is being dishonest as the reality is that there was no thought or care at all over a very long period.

One Pension Life member started with a fund of £38,000. His last valuation showed that it was now worth just £800. When OMI apply their next quarterly fee, the entire fund will be wiped out as OMI simply kept taking their fees based on 11% of the original value (as opposed to the constantly dropping value). But clearly OMI didn’t care or even show any interest – they made a packet in fees, paid a huge commission to the CWM scammers and sat back and did nothing while the fund dwindled to nothing.

“Not all structured products are bad, and they can be useful for clients who want a degree of capital protection…”

I highlight here a “degree of capital protection” – just a degree? Pension funds are normally a person’s life savings. So what does a “degree” mean? 10%, 50% perhaps 75%? The degree of capital protection in the case of the CWM/OMI scam was 0%.

“Regrettably, some investors and advisers will not always possess the depth of knowledge required to fully understand the risks and rewards associated with investing in such structured products.”

Regrettably for the investors who were victims of the CWM scammers and OMI, they most definitely did not possess the depth of knowledge required to fully understand the risks. They put their faith in the smartly- dressed scammers. With promises of high returns, the high risk of the investments and high fees to be charged were left unmentioned. OMI were supposed to protect the victims’ interests but failed dismally to lift a finger to help arrest the downward spiral of the funds.

OMI just sat there like a lazy, greedy, callous parasite and watched the victims’ retirement savings dwindle.

Malta´s new regulations have been put into place to protect investors from scammers like CWM and firms like OMI. I think OMI are secretly seething as the changes to the regulations will surely affect their already dropping profits.

International Adviser also reported on 30 Apr 18:

“Quilter, formerly Old Mutual Wealth, said its assets under management and administration had fallen in the first quarter of 2018.”

Here´s hoping they fall further – much further – 2/3rds further like Pension Life members Pete and Val´s did. Peter Kenny needs to experience a taste of how the victims of the CWM scam felt at finally receiving the news that their pension funds had been left in tatters.

May 10, 2018
OMI SUES LEONTEQ over undisclosed commissions

A fine journalist at International Investment reports that Old Mutual International is taking legal action against Leonteq. She reports that this action is being taken on the basis that Leonteq lied about commissions paid to advisers for using high-risk structured notes.

This news is, of course, very welcome news – especially if it succeeds in securing redress for the “significant financial losses” for the Continental Wealth Management victims. OMI has stated:

“Had the true level of commission been disclosed, the high-risk structured notes would not have passed Old Mutual International’s (OMI) criteria, and no investments would have been made”.

OMI has mentioned the “true level of commission”. What it is referring to is the fact that for some particularly toxic notes, the commission paid to the scammers was 8% instead of 6%. The victims ultimately pay this commission – which is always hidden from them – but in reality the difference between 8% and 6% pales into insignificance when compared to the actual losses themselves.

Leonteq’s high-risk structured notes had been failing and causing crippling losses for years. Just as RBC’s, Commerzbank’s and Nomura’s had also done. One victim saw his £38,000 pension pot dwindle down to £800 since 2015.

The truth of the matter is the none of the victims should have had any of their retirement savings invested in high-risk structured notes which clearly state on the term sheets:

FOR PROFESSIONAL INVESTORS ONLY

Continental Wealth Management – an unlicensed firm of scammers – bought more and more structured notes. CWM was not licensed for either insurance or investment advice.

But this raises an important question:

Why aren’t SEB and Generali suing Leonteq?

The SEB and Generali victims suffered very similar crippling losses to OMI’s. What are they doing about this fiasco? What would their “criteria” have done to intervene had they realised Leonteq was paying the scammers 8% instead of 6%?

Apparently, Leonteq is now disclosing commissions on the term sheets for their products. Great. Problem is that the victims never get to see the term sheets – or at least not until it is way too late and they have lost half of their life savings. Having had access to a Leonteq termsheet which clearly states:

This Product may only be sold to qualified investors (the term “qualified investor” has the meaning as defined in Section 10 of the Swiss Federal Act on Collective Investment Schemes “CISA”).

and

Given the complexity of the terms and conditions of this Product an investment is suitable only for experienced Investors who understand and are in a position to evaluate the risks associated with it.

But even if the victims had seen these warning and the fact that they were paying 6% or 8% – on high-risk structured notes – to have their fund systematically destroyed, what could these people have done about it? Because, at the end of the day, the client is not the client (apparently). The client is the life office. OMI, SEB and Generali are the legal owners of these dodgy structured notes. Or perhaps the trustee is the legal owner? Depends on who you ask and why – the answer is always different.

Fortunately for OMI clients – the MD of OMI – Peter Kenny – has said the company is “taking a firm stand against the behavior which has led to such devastating consequences”.

Kenny goes on to say that OMI “will do all that we can to bring to account those responsible.” And is “encouraging all market participants to help rid the industry of inappropriate structured products, which are having a damaging impact on investor confidence and outcomes”.

The International Investment journalist ends her article with Kenny’s parting comment:

“I would encourage all industry participants to work together to eradicate poor practices once and for all.”

For some, however, the damage has already been done.

A life’s worth of savings has already been destroyed.

******************************************

As always, Pension Life would like to remind you that if you are planning to transfer any pension funds, make sure that you are transferring into a legitimate scheme. To find out how to avoid being scammed, please see our blog:

What is a pension scam?

FOLLOW PENSION LIFE ON TWITTER TO KEEP UP WITH ALL THINGS PENSION RELATED, GOOD AND BAD.

April 12, 2018
SWISS DERIVATIVES AWARD 2018 – LEONTEQ – SERIOUSLY?
I’ve decided on a radical career change. I’m going to study to become a psychiatrist. My first patient is going to be Prof. Dr. Marc Oliver Rieger who voted Leonteq as best peddler of toxic, high-risk, crappy structured notes at the Swiss Derivatives Awards. Even before I qualify, I already know what treatment this idiot needs: a smart slap on his shiny head and then therapy to help him acknowledge what a waste of time he is.

Professor Rieger was chairman of the Swiss Derivatives Awards jury. And he damn well should have known better than to shame his country, the financial services industry, and those who wasted their time and qualifications educating him in the first place. This guy has a PhD, so he must have had at least a couple of brain cells at some point. But something obviously fried them both because he should have known better than to allow Leonteq to be rewarded – as opposed to vilified and sanctioned – for the wholesale damage caused by their toxic products to hundreds of victims.

Professor Rieger will need months – if not years – of intensive psychiatric therapy to cure him of his inability to comprehend that rogue firms such as Leonteq should be banned from financial services altogether – not given awards for helping to scam innocent victims out of their life savings. Leonteq was selling their rubbish products to an unlicensed firm of “introducers” masquerading as financial advisers: Continental Wealth Management between 2010 and 2017. Further, Leonteq was paying this firm of scammers commissions of between 6% and 8%. Many of the victims whose pensions were invested in Leonteq’s derivatives products have lost most – or even all – of their retirement savings.

Professor Rieger is not the only one who has caused this award abomination. On the panel of judges was another academic who should have known better: Philippe Béguelin. He appears to have a decent pedigree and was editor at FuW for seven years. He is reported as having a background in financial markets, monetary policy, economics, investments, foreign currencies, commodities, and financial instruments such as structured products.

There are numerous obvious things lacking in Phillippe Beguelin’s education and career history – including basic decency and common sense. You just don’t give awards to rogue firms which facilitate financial crime.

In my new career as a psychiatrist, I am bound to have my hands full – not just with the various nutters in offshore financial services the world over, but also with other members of the Swiss Derivatives Awards judges panel which include:
- Dr. Heinz Kubli, CEO Fundabilis AG
- André Buck, Head Sales, SIX Swiss Exchange AG
- Stephan Welti, Managing Partner – Geissbühler Weber & Partner AG
- Prof. Dr. Martin Wallmeier, Lehrstuhl für Finanzmanagement und Rechnungswesen, Universität Fribourg (Research Award)
- Martin Raab, Executive Director, Derivative Partners AG
They are all, obviously, stark-raving bonkers. There may be no hope for most of them, but I might be able to help one or two of them to lead normal lives one day.

What these sad cases need to understand is that:
- Leonteq sold their toxic, crappy products through an unlicensed scammer: Continental Wealth Management
- Knowing full well that their rubbish products were only suitable for idiots with more money than sense, Leonteq sold their crap to an unlicensed firm of scammers and paid them between 6% and 8% in commission
- Leonteq put together an ultra-high-risk pile of crap which paid 8% to the scammers and which caused even higher losses to the victims.
One of the partners of this absurd awards ceremony was Geissbuhler Weber & Partner – who should also hang their heads in shame. This firm claims to advise providers on the fulfillment of financial market regulatory requirements and the optimisation of compliance and risk processes. Today, Geissbühler Weber & Partner is, allegedly, known in Switzerland as a “reliable partner for banks and asset managers”. As far as I am concerned, they are as bad as Leonteq and the scammers they helped make rich.

Perhaps the hundreds of Continental Wealth Management victims would like to email these morons and let them know what they think of them condoning giving “awards” to a firm which has facilitated and profited from financial crime:

alex.geissbuehler@gwp.ch

reto.weber@gwp.ch

stephan.welti@gwp.ch

pia.aeberhard@gwp.ch

admira.besic@gwp.ch

regine.wolfensberger@gwp.ch

www.gwpartner.ch
March 24, 2018
OMI complaint
COMPLAINT TO OMI, THE ISLE OF MAN FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, THE CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND, FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN AND THE ASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL LIFE OFFICES

ATTENTION:

Martin Middleton, CEO

Michael Hampson
Complaints Handler | Complaints Team | Old Mutual International

T: 44 (0) 1624 655451 | Int Ext: 75451
F: 44 (0) 1624 611715
E: omifmcomplaints@ominternational.com | W: www.oldmutualinternational.com

Isle of Man Financial Services Authority
PO Box 58
Finch Hill House
Douglas
Isle of Man
IM99 1DT

info@iomfsa.im

GeneralMailbox.ATG@gov.im

Central Bank of Ireland:

enquiries@centralbank.ie

Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman

Lincoln House, Lincoln Place, Dublin 2, D02 VH29. Tel: (01) 567 7000 Email: info@fspo.ie Website: www.fspo.ie

AILO – Association of International Life Offices

secretariat@ailo.org

COMPLAINT REGARDING OMI’S NEGLIGENCE, FAILED GOVERNANCE AND FACILITATION OF FINANCIAL CRIME – European Executive Investment Bond (EEIB)

OMI has facilitated financial crime over a period of many years; stood by while innocent victims’ retirement savings were destroyed; paid huge commissions to an unlicensed (and illegal in Spain) firm of scammers; continued charging crippling fees while victims’ funds dwindled away; extorted early exit penalties from victims unfairly and unreasonably; failed to take any action to stem the torrent of huge losses of millions of pounds’ worth of retirement savings for many years. And now it is failing to uphold the victims’ complaints.

OMI has been in receipt of a number of complaints (and will be in receipt of numerous further ones) regarding their negligence and facilitation of financial crime in offshore financial services. OMI has not upheld these complaints – and indeed has neglected to grasp the extent of their own multiple failings and errors.

The existing complaints do relate to serious regulatory breaches and fraud – as well as failing to adhere to OMI’s own terms and conditions. Much of the fraud was caused by the financial advisory firm: Continental Wealth Trust (which traded as Continental Wealth Management). However, the firm’s fraud was only successful because OMI facilitated it.

The complaints submitted to date include:
- That investments were made into high-risk professional-investor-only funds. Many of these failed and caused huge losses to victims’ funds.
- That OMI paid commissions/fees to CWM who not only held no investment licence – but also held no license of any kind.
- As a result of the huge, un-disclosed commission paid to CWM – an unlicensed firm – OMI imposes crippling early surrender charges on the victims.
OMI has responded that they are “very sympathetic to victims’ concerns” and has responded that it appreciates what a very worrying time this must be for those who have lost such huge amounts of their life savings.

OMI has also stated that the roles and responsibilities of all the parties involved with this fraud have got to be clarified. However, OMI claims – entirely disingenuously – it does not want victims to get the feeling it is trying to distance itself from the grievances.

In order to address what it refers to as “concerns”, OMI has attempted to “explain” matters. The use of the word “concerns” is obviously a really crass clanger on the part of OMI, since the victims are absolutely not just CONCERNED – they are furious, terrified and devastated at their dreadful losses. Some victims are suicidal, and many have had their health seriously compromised.

OMI has described the EEIB as being held by the trustee for the benefit of a member of their pension scheme, enabling policyholders to hold a “wide range of investments in one tax-efficient product wrapper”. OMI goes on to claim that policyholders and their investment advisers “have complete flexibility over the investments they place inside the EEIB”.

Some or all of the above may be true. However, that does not make it right that OMI has allowed unlicensed advisers to place clearly unsuitable investments inside their wrappers. Further, it does not make it right that OMI then stood by and watched the investments fail for many years AND DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING EXCEPT KEEP ON TAKING FEES BASED ON THE ORIGINAL VALUE – AND NOT THE REDUCED VALUE OF THE FUND.

OMI claims that it reviews all investments to ensure they meet Irish regulatory requirements, and their own administration requirements.

If this is indeed true, it is a very serious indictment of the Irish regulator if their requirements are so appallingly lax. What OMI seems to be claiming is that both the Central Bank of Ireland and OMI have such low standards that they will allow low-risk pension savers to have their retirement funds invested purely in high-risk, professional-investor-only structured notes. If this is true, then the regulator is as bad as OMI in condoning an investment strategy which has no regard for suitability, liquidity, diversity and risk tolerance.

In fact, the Central Bank of Ireland has stated that it carried out a review of suitability requirements in 2017 and found that: “governance structures for the identification and treatment of vulnerable clients were absent or ineffective”. The CWM victims were about as vulnerable as it was possible to get – as their retirement savings were systematically and inexorably destroyed. And OMI’s governance structure was about as absent and ineffective as it is possible to get while it stood by and didn’t even bother to raise a red flag on the whole disaster as it unfolded.

There was no jangling of alarm bells as OMI watched millions of pounds wiped out. There was no expression of concern that the same toxic structured notes which had failed in earlier years were bought again and again by the same unlicensed scammers. There was no governance to protect new vulnerable victims from having their funds destroyed from 2015 onwards in the same way hundreds of victims had suffered in previous years.

OMI has claimed that customers/their appointed advisers are responsible for the suitability assessment and selection of the investments held in the policy – and that “it is important that customers read the prospectus/offering documents of investments carefully, before making any investment decisions”. However, OMI watched wholesale destruction taking place inside its own wrappers and took no action. Had OMI asked a few simple questions they would have found the following:
1. The victims were being advised by a known firm of scammers which had been involved in cold calling in the Evergreen pension liberation scam in 2012
2. The victims were being advised by a firm which was not licensed at all – for anything
3. The victims had ALL insisted they wanted either low risk or no risk investments as they could not afford to lose any part of their retirement savings
4. The victims had no idea their retirement savings were being invested in high-risk, professional-investor-only structured notes
5. The victims’ signatures were repeatedly forged on the dealing instructions
6. The victims were duped into a false sense of security when losses started to be reported on their statements by the scammers claiming these were not genuine losses but only “paper losses”
7. The victims had no idea how high the charges and commissions were as these were not disclosed either by the scammers or by OMI
8. The victims were not consulted as to whether they wanted or needed an entirely useless and exorbitantly expensive insurance bond
9. The victims were unaware that tied agents are illegal in Spain
10. The victims were unaware of the huge fees and commissions which were concealed by both the scammers and OMI
OMI claims that term 12 of the EEIB policy terms states that it is the policyholder who bears the risk of investment. But then OMI goes on to assert that the policyholder was the trustee who would be classed as a professional investor.

So OMI has got to make up its mind – it has already stated that: “customers/their appointed advisers are responsible for the suitability assessment and selection of the investments held in the policy”. So who is the customer? The victim or the trustee? And whom did the adviser advise – the customer or the trustee? Or OMI?

OMI goes on to refer to term 11.4 of the policy which confirms that it may allow investment into professional or experienced investor funds because it owns the investments held within the EEIB, rather than the policyholder.

So, who gave the advice and to whom? OMI can’t seem to make up its mind who the customer is: the victim; the trustee or OMI itself. If OMI is the customer, why is it charging the victim fees?

OMI goes on to quote policy term 11.4.1 – which apparently clearly highlights that professional-investor-only funds carry a high degree of risk. So who is taking the risk? The victim, the trustee or OMI?

Let us ask ourselves, where did the original funds come from? Not the trustee; not OMI; but the victim.

OMI then procedes to claim that it will “only accept applications via regulated financial advisers”. But Inter-Alliance was not licensed to provide investment advice – or indeed insurance advice. CWM was not licensed either. So why did OMI accept applications from unlicensed advisors (who were also known scammers)? Also, OMI failed to identify that tied (insurance) agents are illegal in Spain – so it shouldn’t have been dealing with them at all – let alone paying them huge commissions.

OMI states that CWM was a member of Inter-Alliance WorldNet, and obtained their authorization to act via that membership. But this is not true – Inter-Alliance was not licensed and therefore neither was CWM. The application form may, in some cases, have confirmed the appointment of CWM as investment adviser with full discretion – but why didn’t OMI check that CWM was licensed? In fact, most of the victims were under the impression that they would be consulted on the investments and that their risk tolerance would be respected – but this never happened in any of the cases.

OMI goes on to claim that CWM was able to submit investment instructions directly to OMI, without consulting the trustees. But that isn’t true either: dealing instructions were sent to the trustees first, and then the trustees sent on new instructions. How can OMI not even know how its own internal systems work?

OMI concludes that it is sorry the complaining investor is “disappointed with the performance of some of the investments selected by CWM” and then goes on to claim the investments “met the criteria for a permitted asset under the EEIB policy terms”.

So who at OMI was responsible for writing and updating EEIB policy terms? Did this person not notice the losses repeatedly decimating the funds? Did this person not see the same investment failures repeating in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017? Did this person not question whether the policy terms ought to be revised somewhat? The answer to these questions is, inevitably, a resounding and disgraceful “NO”.

OMI is now refusing to refund or waive early withdrawal charges on the basis that CWM was an appointed investment adviser. This is because OMI initially paid a big chunk of commission to CWM – an unlicensed adviser and known scammer. If a victim wants to get out of the toxic, pointless insurance wrapper, in order to put a stop to the exorbitant fees taken quarterly out of the fund – and based on the original value rather than the decimated value of the fund – he basically has to refund the commission OMI paid to the scammers.

The victims remain dissatisfied with OMI’s response, and the complaint is now being referred to the Irish Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman. OMI has deliberately misunderstood and overlooked every aspect of the victims’ complaints and failed to address even the most basic issues surrounding OMI’s failures and negligence.

OMI has facilitated financial crime over a period of many years; stood by while innocent victims’ retirement savings were destroyed; paid huge commissions to an unlicensed (and illegal in Spain) firm of scammers; continued charging crippling fees while victims’ funds dwindled away; extorted early exit penalties from victims unfairly and unreasonably; failed to take any action to stem the torrent of huge losses of millions of pounds’ worth of retirement savings for many years. And now it is failing to uphold the victims’ complaints.
February 22, 2018
OMI – AND OTHER GRIM REAPERS

OMI – Old Mutual International (Quilter), SEB, ZURICH, GENERALI, FRIENDS PROVIDENT, ZURICH INTERNATIONAL, RL360 AND HANSARD INTERNATIONAL. They are all as bad as each other. They rip their clients off, charging them huge fees and commissions, tying them into useless, pointless products for years.

These LIFE OFFICES – which cause the death of many life savings – use unregulated advisers to flog their crummy wares. It is hard to tell which of these bandits is the worst.

For years life offices charged their huge fees, paid Continental Wealth Management huge commissions, and sat idly by as they watched hundreds’ of victims’ pensions plummet in value as CWM played roulette with the funds using toxic structured notes from Commerzbank, RBC, Nomura and Leonteq.

One Generali victim saw her £119k pension fund plummet to £36k in five years.

Neither Generali nor SEB has offered any compensation to the hundreds of victims in the Continental Wealth Management scam. Undoubtedly, they treat all their victims just the same: BADLY.

Pension scams are not the only arrangements that these life offices profit handsomely from. Another method they use to rinse extortionate fees out of unsuspecting victims is the LONG TERM SAVINGS PLAN. Clients think these are a good idea until they realise the huge hidden charges which decimate the funds they put towards these plans.

And when they finally admit to themselves that they have been conned, the victims discover how inflexible these plans are with fatal exit arrangements that can wipe every last penny saved.

It is time to recognise and admit that if life offices continue to behave in this way, they have no place in pension and retirement arrangements – since all they do is facilitate catastrophic losses. It is also time to expose the fact that life offices’ long-term savings plans merely fleece savers and put their savings at risk.

**********************************************

As always, Pension Life would like to remind you that if you are planning to transfer any pension funds, make sure that you are transferring into a legitimate scheme. To find out how to avoid being scammed, please see our blog:

What is a pension scam?

Follow Pension Life on twitter to keep up with all things pension related, good and bad.

January 9, 2018
OMI? OMG! SAME OLD, SAME OLD MUTUAL – SAME OLD LIES
Old Mutual International (OMI) is at the heart of much of what is wrong with offshore financial services. The CWM debacle clearly evidences this.

OMI, formerly Skandia and soon to be Quilter, provided the vehicle used to wipe out thousands of victims’ life savings – not only in the CWM scam, but also with many other rogue financial advisers (often referred to by the Spanish regulator as “chiringuitos”).

OMI (Old Mutual International) is used as a bogus life assurance policy to “wrap” dodgy investments which subsequently nose dive and destroy portfolios.

The so-called “life wrapper” serves absolutely no purpose from the investors’ point of view, other than to pay exorbitant fees to OMI and the adviser (which is often not licensed to provide either insurance or investment advice). These fees, of course, mean that the victims’ pensions and investments never have a hope in hell of growing – or even maintaining their original value.

High-risk, illiquid, professional-investor-only structured notes bought with the victims’ retirement savings by rogue advisers (such as Continental Wealth Management – CWM) frequently fail – and sometimes are even fraudulent – so bring victims’ funds crashing down even further. In the case of the CWM debacle, the structured notes were mostly Commerzbank, Nomura, RBC and Leonteq, and many of the notes crashed – costing the victims millions of pounds.

OMI charged the victims the following fees:
- Regular Management Charge 1.15% for ten (yes – TEN!) years
- Admin Charge Eur 144.00 annually
- Early Surrender Charge 11.5% – reducing by 1.15% a year to nil after ten years
But did OMI do any actual “management”? No. They never monitored the losses, alerted the investors or offered to do anything to help stem the hemorrhaging of victims’ funds. OMI just sat there like a lazy, greedy, callous parasite and watched the victims’ retirement savings dwindle. OMI must have known that this would be condemning thousands of people to poverty in retirement and yet they obviously did not care two hoots.

Did they do any actual “admin”? Yes. They reported the losses and ever-shrinking funds. But they took no action to help the thousands of victims or prevent further losses.

Was it reasonable to tie victims into a useless, pointless insurance bond for ten years? After all, the bond clearly offered no protection or guarantee of the capital invested. And was it right to charge 11.5% for the privilege of losing huge proportions of the funds? No, absolutely not. In law, a pension scheme member has a right to transfer and needs the flexibility to alter their pension arrangements whenever they need to. Being tied into a useless and expensive insurance bond FOR TEN YEARS is the last thing a retirement saver needs.

In the wake of this appalling tragedy, what has OMI done to put things right?

Has OMI offered to pay compensation to the victims?

NOPE

Has OMI offered to rebate its (extortionate) charges?

NOPE

Has OMI offered to waive the punitive exit fees for those who want to try to rescue what’s left?

NOPE

Has OMI lowered the 25% barrier so that ruined and desperate victims can access some income to avoid starving to death?

NOPE

Has OMI learned anything whatsoever from the CWM debacle? Has it turned over a new leaf and stopped accepting business from unlicensed scammers such as CWM? Has it stopped making exorbitant charges which drag retirement savings down? Has it stopped paying huge commissions to scammers to encourage them to destroy thousands of victims life savings? Has it stopped allowing and promoting toxic structured notes?

The answer to all of the above is a resounding NO. OMI knew exactly what terrible fate it was condemning the victims to for the past seven years.

OMI knew that the victims could face losing significant parts of their retirement savings – and stood by while it happened. Well, not exactly just stood by – they made huge profits in the process.

Has OMI learned anything from this tragedy? Has it turned over a new leaf? Absolutely not. In November 2017, it was still offering – and even aggressively pushing – structured notes to financial advisers and offering meaty commissions – obviously trying to replicate the huge success it made out of the Continental Wealth Management scam. On 30th November 2017, OMI sent out a bulk email to advisers:

From: Old Mutual International mail: intmarketing@engage.omwealth.com]

Dear Greedy Broker, HURRY HURRY HURRY! SPECIAL OFFER ON STRUCTURED NOTES TO FLOG TO UNSUSPECTING VICTIMS. GET YOUR RUNNING SHOES ON – THIS OFFER CLOSES 15TH DECEMBER 2017. WE NEED MORE UNSUSPECTING MUGS LIKE THE CWM VICTIMS SO WE CAN MAKE MORE HUGE PROFITS AND CONDEMN MORE PEOPLE TO POVERTY IN RETIREMENT.

“The latest, tranche of structured products provided by BNP Paribas is available now through our portfolio bonds. But you don’t have long to get business in – this tranche will now close on 15th December 2017.

The products on offer during this tranche are:

Global Equity Income 5 – with a five year term paying quarterly income of 6% a year in USD or 5% a year in GBP – capital at risk product

Global Equity Autocall 9 – autocall product with a six year term paying 10% a year in USD or 8.25% a year in GBP – capital at risk product

Multi-Asset Diversified Global Certificate 10 – with a five year term and 100% capital protection

Full details, including how to access the products, are on our dedicated structured products page.”

Notes pay initial commission of 5.88% to Old Mutual of which 4.69% is paid to the adviser. OMI pockets 1.19%. No wonder OMI are pushing this!

The BNP Paribas “handbook” spouts the same old same old rubbish that CWM was using to con around 1,000 victims out of their retirement savings between 2011 and 2017:

“Structured Products are investments that are fully
customised to meet specific objectives such as capital
protection, diversification, yield enhancement, leverage,
regular income, tax/regulation optimisation and
access to non-traditional asset classes, amongst others.
The strength of a Structured Product lies in its
flexibility and tailored investment approach.
In their simplest form, Structured Products offer
investors full or partial capital protection coupled
with an equity-linked performance and a variable
degree of leverage. They are commonly used as a
portfolio enhancement tool to increase returns
while limiting the risk of loss of capital.”

The hundreds of CWM victims know that this is all lies: with structured notes, there is no capital protection; no flexibility; no portfolio enhancement; no increased returns and no limit to the risk of loss of capital. Shame on BNP Paribas for helping OMI to dupe more victims into losing their retirement savings and facing financial ruin.

So, the message to the public is:

DON’T TOUCH OMI – OLD MUTUAL INTERNATIONAL – WITH A BARGEPOLE

DON’T TOUCH STRUCTURED NOTES IN GENERAL WITH A BARGEPOLE

DON’T TOUCH STRUCTURED NOTES BY BNP PARIBAS WITH A BARGEPOLE

DON’T BELIEVE THE LIES TOLD BY ROGUE FINANCIAL ADVISERS, OMI OR BNP PARIBAS

DON’T BECOME ANOTHER VICTIM OF THE INSURANCE BOND/STRUCTURED NOTE SCAM

Lastly, OMI’s self-congratulating rubbish on their website crows about their “customer principles” and the many awards they have won. An example of this is the following statement:

Giving good service to financial advisers and their clients is at the heart of our business. We work hard to constantly improve our standards in this area. Our track record speaks for itself.

And yes, OMI’s track record does speak for itself – and anyone who does even the most basic maths will inevitably say “Oh My God!”.

And BNP Paribas’ claim that “a Structured Product lies” sums it all up nicely.
January 7, 2018