Author: Roy Cokayne
Publications: iOL -The Mercury
Date Published: 17 April 2015
Author: Roy Cokayne
Publications: iOL -The Mercury
Date Published: 17 April 2015
Author: Marelize Barnard
Publications: Die Burger
Date Published : 17 Oktober 2014
Wyle Herman Pretorius se beleggingskema het “ ’n baie lae risiko en is gepas vir ’n mens wat op die punt is om af te tree”.
Dít was die raad wat die makelaar Michal Calitz van Impact Finansiële Konsultante in Bellville volgens ’n belegger verskeie kere aan hom gegee het toe hy tussen Augustus 2007 en Maart 2011 al sy aftreegeld by Pretorius belê het.
Die belegger, Hendrik Carstens, is een van die mense wat Calitz by die ombudsman vir finansiële adviseurs en tussengangers (Fais) verkla het. Carstens het vyf keer beleggings met ’n totale waarde van R2,3 miljoen in Pretorius se Relative Value Arbitrage Fund (RVAF)-trust belê en mettertyd R175 000 daarvan onttrek.
Die Fais-ombudsman, Noluntu Bam, kan slegs eise van tot R800 000 hanteer. Sy het Dinsdag beslis dat vir die een belegging van R1,9 miljoen Calitz slegs R800 000 hoef terug te betaal. Sy het egter die ander vier beleggings bygereken en gelas dat Calitz R1,19 miljoen aan Carstens moet terugbetaal.
Bam het Maandag nog ’n eis van R150 000, wat deur Jeanrich Ehlers ingedien is, teen Calitz toegestaan. Dit is die jongste van 13 suksesvolle eise teen Calitz en hy moet nou reeds meer as R8 miljoen aan beleggers terugbetaal.
Die Burger het vantevore berig dat Calitz die eise teen hom teenstaan.
Calitz voer aan dat daar geen kousale verband is tussen die skade wat beleggers gely het en sy optrede as makelaar nie. Die skade was nie sy (Calitz se) toedoen nie, maar die gevolg van Pretorius se bedrog.
Calitz is ook besig met ’n aansoek om verlof tot appèl teen ’n uitspraak van regter Monde Samela in die Wes-Kaapse hooggeregshof.
Dit is nadat Monde gelas het dat Calitz, sy beslote korporasie Impact Finansiële Konsultante en die maatskappy EQ Prop R9,06 miljoen moet terugbetaal.) Vyf makelaars het reeds ooreenkomste aangegaan met die kurators van Pretorius se maatskappye en trusts en hulle het reeds R1,8 miljoen terugbetaal. ’n Verdere sowat R2,4 miljoen gaan deur dié makelaars terugbetaal word.
Michal Calitz, the financial adviser who was paid R8.4 million in share profits from the Relative Value Arbitrage Fund (RVAF), which was, in fact, a scam, has been ordered to compensate two more clients who lost money after he advised them to invest in it.
The RVAF collapsed after Herman Pretorius, the mastermind of the scheme, shot his business partner and committed suicide in July 2012. The scheme collected an estimated R2.2 billion from about 3 000 investors.
In the two latest rulings by the Ombud for Financial Services Providers, Calitz has been ordered to repay Dr Johannes Hartshorne R460 000 and Martha Jooste R165 000.
This brings to four the number of rulings by ombud Noluntu Bam against Calitz (Personal Finance reported recently on the previous two rulings, and the reports can be viewed at http://www.persfin.co.za).
Calitz is the owner of Impact Financial Consultants, an authorised financial services provider with offices in Bellville, Western Cape. Calitz is a member of the Financial Planning Institute (FPI) and an accredited Certified Financial Planner.
Bam’s latest rulings show that in the weeks leading up to Pretorius’s death, Calitz advised both Hartshorne and Jooste to disinvest from the RVAF – “but by that stage it was already too late”.
In both cases, Calitz had been an adviser to the complainants for many years.
Hartshorne contends that Calitz never told him that neither the RVAF nor Pretorius were registered with the Financial Services Board (FSB) and that there could be potential risks.
“On the contrary, Calitz told [Hartshorne’s] wife that Pretorius was a person of integrity and that the RVAF was performing well.”
Hartshorne also told the ombud that Calitz did not carry out a risk assessment on him.
Jooste complained that Calitz assured her that there was no risk of investing in the RVAF and that he had invested some of his own money in the fund, which “was managed by professional people with industry experience”.
Jooste’s R165 000 was her entire investible capital and had been sitting in an Absa money market investment account before Calitz persuaded her that the RVAF was her best option.
In response to both complaints, Calitz claims to have explained to his clients the workings of a hedge fund and that these instruments are not regulated but that investment manager Abante Capital through which the investments were channelled was registered with the FSB.
But in both determinations, the ombud says the key issues, as with previous rulings against Calitz, pertain to the rendering of advice to invest in the RVAF – principally, Calitz’s “failure to understand the entity and the risks to which he was exposing his clients”.
She reiterates that no adviser would have recommended the RVAF as a suitable component in “any” investment portfolio had they exercised the required due skill, care and diligence.
The FPI responds
Jacqui Grovè, the legal and compliance services manager for the FPI, says that when the news broke about the RVAF, the FPI launched an enquiry to find out whether any FPI members might have been involved in the scheme.
By the end of last year the FPI had evidence of the possible involvement of two members, she says.
“Our investigation was made difficult by the fact that, despite our best efforts, we could not find sufficient verifiable evidence with respect to these members. We then took a decision to await the results of the ombud’s investigation.”
The release of the financial advice ombud’s determinations has provided the FPI with [the] information [needed] to proceed with disciplinary action, Grovè says.
“We are now proceeding as speedily as possible, having regard for due process, with finalising hearings. We shall publish the results of these hearings.”
Although the ombud’s rulings carry the weight of a high court ruling, Grovè says an FPI member is “deemed innocent until found guilty by a competent FPI disciplinary panel of his or her peers”.
She says the institute’s purpose is to benefit the public by ensuring that its members can be trusted always to put their clients interests’ first.
The Ombud for Financial Services Providers has handed down another ruling against financial planner Michal Calitz of Impact Financial Consultants in Bellville.
Calitz earned R8.4 million in so-called share profits from the Relative Value Arbitrage Fund (RVAF), which purported to be a hedge fund but was, in fact, a scam.
The RVAF collapsed after its architect, Herman Pretorius, shot himself in July 2012. The fund is in liquidation, and its trustees have indicated that some, if not all, investor funds have been lost.
Both of Bam’s rulings against Calitz are the result of complaints by clients who invested in the RVAF on his advice.
The latest ruling states that, acting on Calitz’s advice, Robert Whitfield-Jones invested two amounts in the RVAF: R350 000 in March 2009 and R250 000 in February 2012. The money for both investments came from Whitfield-Jones’s unit trust fund investments. Calitz told his client that he could earn a better return if he invested in the RVAF.
Whitfield-Jones says he knew nothing about the risks associated with investing in a hedge fund and trusted Calitz to render the best advice, particularly because they had a relationship that went back several decades.
Holding Calitz accountable for his loss of R600 000, Whitfield-Jones turned to Bam for compensation.
In her determination, Bam refers to her previous ruling against Calitz in which she found that, “on the objective evidence, he could not have conducted even the most basic due diligences on the RVAF”.
The issues pertain to Calitz’s failure to understand the RVAF and the risks to which he exposed his clients when he advised them to invest in it, she says.
“Quite simply, no adviser would have recommended this product as a suitable component of any investment portfolio had they exercised the required due skill, care and diligence,” Bam says.
Whitfield-Jones, as a client of a registered financial adviser, relied on Calitz’s advice when he made the investment. When rendering financial services to clients, the financial services provider is required to act in accordance with the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act and its code of conduct. Calitz failed in this regard, Bam says.
She ordered him and his company, jointly and severally, to pay Whitfield-Jones R600 000.
Calitz holds a postgraduate diploma in financial planning and has the Certified Financial Planner accreditation. He is a member of the Financial Planning Institute (FPI), which has its own code of conduct.
The FPI has yet to discipline any of its members who advised clients to invest in the RVAF. In October 2013, the FPI said it was expecting to hold disciplinary hearings in December. The outcomes of the disciplinary hearings would be published once the appeal period had expired. But to date no outcomes have been published. Personal Finance has had no response to questions put to the FPI’s legal and compliance services manager.
JOHANNESBURG – An insolvency inquiry has revealed that one-time unit trust manager Michal Calitz received more than R15m from Herman Pretorius.
Calitz was one of Pretorius’s closest friends. A rare public photo of Pretorius shows him posing with his two sons and Calitz on the golf course. Calitz and Pretorius went to the same Bible study group, which met every second Friday.
Calitz referred many investors to Herman Pretorius’s Relative Value Arbitrage Fund (RVAF), which has since been exposed as a Ponzi scheme. It has been estimated ………