|
The Collapse of Westpoint Financial Services
|
|
Westpoint Financial Services was a Property Development Company that called for people to invest in their organisation, at the promise of great returns and wealth creation. Some 3000 people ranging from Retirees to Young Families did indeed invest with Westpoint, many after soliciting advice from Financial Planners, and instead of the financial boost this investment promised to offer, it bought financial ruin to many. The company collapsed in late 2005 owing these 3000 investors more than $300 million. (Cooper 2006, 28) My intention in this essay is to discuss the ethical behaviour of all the parties involved in Westpoint and those of the Financial Planners, and try to gain an understanding of this most serious company collapse. First I will discuss the facts of the case and offer a timeline which goes through the events of the collapse, as without these we cannot truly have an understanding of this situation. The facts The money from the investors was raised through promissory notes, offering a 12% return, in mezzanine companies, such as The Ann Street Mezzanine, The York Street Mezzanine and The Emu Brewery Mezzanine, from 2001-2004. The notes were sold through Financial Planners who were paid high commissions; the money received was supposed to be used for residential projects i.e. apartment buildings in Melbourne and Perth but was funnelled through separate companies to sustain other projects. (McCarthy and Charles 2006, 27) The timeline of Collapse *• May, 2004 – ASIC acts on mezzanine finance structure and questions as to whether the promissory notes offered by the Emu Brewing Mezzanine Company should have been offered as debentures and why a PDS or prospectus was not issued by Westpoint. *• November, 2005 – ASIC commences legal proceedings to wind up the York Street mezzanine due to significant shortfall in assets over liabilities. *• December, 2005 – ASIC seeks appointment of provisional liquidator for the Ann Street mezzanine and an application for a company wind up on the grounds of insolvency. *• January, 2006 – Westpoint appoints Taylor Woodings as voluntary administrator. *• February, 2006 – Perth Federal Court orders wind up of Westpoint following ASIC application. *• March, 2006 – ASIC orders the assets of Westpoint directors to be frozen. This includes Norm Carey, Graeme Rundle, John Dixon and Cedric Palmer Beck. *• April, 2006 – ASIC commences proceeding to have the Cinema City Mezzanine Pty Ltd wound up. *• December, 2006 – First criminal charges are bought against Neil Burnard. He is alleged to have raised investor funds on behalf of Westpoint by his company Kebbel (NSW) Pty Ltd. ASIC alleged that he “engaged in dishonest conduct in the course of carrying on a financial services business, namely providing financial product advice, by representing to investors that ‘Kebbel Investment Bank’ existed when in fact no such entity existed” (Information for Westpoint Group Investors 2006) .ASIC had previously obtained orders from the Supreme Court of NSW to prevent Mr. Burnard leaving the country, and to surrender his passports. This was done in urgency after ASIC learned Mr Burnard had in fact boarded a plane to the USA; he was however refused entry into the USA and was sent back to Australia. *• December, 2006 – an urgent application by ASIC is made to the Supreme Court of NSW against Ms Jennifer Lee Robbins, wife of Neil Burnard and BDI Pty Ltd. Orders were made to prevent both Ms Robbins and BDI from selling any properties without first giving ASIC 14 days notice. *• September, 2007 – Mr Neil Burnard is committed to stand trial on 11 charges bought by ASIC. In a Statement made by the ASIC Chairman Tony D’Aloisio (2007) it has further been revealed that, since May 2007 ASIC is investigating 2 unlicensed Financial Planners, 6 licensed Financial Planners and 5 authorised representatives. An article in The Advertiser from September 21st 2007 explains that 2 Financial Planners have now been banned by ASIC from offering financial advice, due to the advice they gave to clients in relation to Westpoint. Annemieke De Boer of Shenton Park WA has been banned for life and Glenn Davis from Point Cook VIC has been banned for 5 years. (Advisors banned over Westpoint involvement 2007) What did ASIC do to prevent this? ASIC has been heavily criticised for not doing enough to protect the interests of the investors, however they claimed they were unable to stop Westpoint from issuing the promissory notes, that they had a lack of power in this instance and that it was the responsibility of Financial Planners to inform the investors of the risks, not ASIC. They were told in 2002 of about the controversial notes but only acted in 2004 when they became aware of insolvency within the group. (McCarthy and Charles 2006, 27) Ethical Concepts Ethics refers to standards about what is right and what is wrong and what we ought to do; in terms of benefits to society, fairness and obligations to others. It is also a study and development of our own ethical standards. (Velasquez et al 1987) There are many concepts within the study of business ethics, I have chosen to discuss three that are most relevant to the Westpoint story, these, are dirty hands, teleopathy and stakeholders. *The concept of dirty hands is highly relevant to the collapse of Westpoint. It is widely accepted that if you are in business that you will at some point have to get you hands dirty, but does our own moral compass not regulate this? The Financial Planners that recommended Westpoint to their clients, at a fee, are surely guilty of having dirty hands. Although the majority of blame lies with the directors; Norm Carey, Graeme Rundle, John Dixon and Cedric Palmer Beck, several of the Financial Planners (who let us not forget have since been charged or otherwise reprimanded by the courts) knowingly gave poor advice to those who knew no better, and collected a nice fat fee for giving it. These qualified men and women, who have an understanding of basic Economics and Finance, would have known, just by looking into the mezzanine companies and promissory notes that this company was not operating properly and there was something wrong. But still they told their clients to invest their money with Westpoint and that they would be much better off from doing so. I am certainly not advocating Westpoint’s directors, for they above all else knew they would fail with this scheme, but there are other people whose hands are just as dirty as theirs. *The second concept relevant here is that of teleopathy. Goodpaster (2004 1-8) explains teleopathy to be an unbalanced pursuit of organisational goals, and in it’s most serious of forms can lead to the deferral of our own ethical awareness in a decision making process. He explains that it affects perception, reasoning and action in the way we see things. When this happens, the way we look at things and pursue that which is important, can be myopic. Can we say that in the pursuit of wealth and success the directors of Westpoint were indeed suffering from teleopathy? They of all knew that the mezzanine companies were unstable; they of all knew that the money that was coming in from Mum and Dad investors was not, as was promised in their glossy brochures and fancy seminars, going toward building apartments across Australia, but was being funnelled through their company to prop up other projects. (McCarthy and Charles 2006, 27) Let us please not use this concept of teleopathy to excuse these men, but instead let us use it to understand why people in the business world can behave in a manner that is dishonest, that is unlawful and that is unethical. *The third and final concept I will examine is that of the Stakeholder. Grace and Cohen (2007, 53) define the stakeholder as “a group or individual who can affect, or is affected by, the achievement of the corporations purpose”. We can identify some poignant stakeholders of Westpoint *• The employees of Westpoint – all of whom lost their jobs as a result of the collapse *• The investors of Westpoint – all of whom lost their money as a result of the collapse. *• The Directors – who were responsible for the collapse *• The Financial Planners – who certainly affected Westpoint by advising their clients to invest. *• The community – each and every one of us, we have a legitimate interest in how businesses earn a profit and as such we were all affected by the collapse. This entire group was affected by Westpoint and its collapse, either directly like the employees and the investors or indirectly like the community. So did Westpoint fail in its social responsibility to its stakeholders? I believe we can find that they did. Grace and Cohen (2007, 68) sum this concept up well in that it calls attention to other people that are affected by a company decision. It also gives shows us a way to comprehend two assumptions in society: *1. People have a right to be told about things that will be done to them and have any risks presented to them. *2. People should be asked for their consent before an action is taken that will affect them, be it that they are third parties, like the community or directly affected like the employees In summary: Being an ethical person is not the same as being a lawful person. We have found that the directors of Westpoint and the Financial Planners involved were neither. I hope by writing this paper I have not only shed some light on the ethical implications of the Westpoint collapse but also reached at least one person that reads this, and hopefully by us all gaining a greater understanding of such a spectacular financial collapse we will not see Australian investors so badly burnt again. See Also
|
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Main Menu
| Home |
| Articles |
| Search |
| Submit Article |
| Contact Us |
| Donate to Wikibin |
