• Home
  • About
  • Subscribe
  • LATIF
  • Conferences
  • Dashboard
  • Edit My Profile
  • Log In
  • Logout
  • Register
  • Edit this post

Room 151

  • 151 BRIEF

    What's New?

  • Slough welcomes commitment that Office for Local Government ‘will not be a burden’

    June 30, 2022

  • Homes England agrees strategic partnership with two authorities

    June 29, 2022

  • Soaring inflation and pay pressures to add £3.6bn to council budgets

    June 28, 2022

  • Underfunded social care reforms could ‘exacerbate workforce pressures’

    June 27, 2022

  • Nottingham City Council leader labels proposed intervention as ‘disappointing’

    June 27, 2022

  • Government preparing to intervene in Nottingham City Council

    June 23, 2022

  • Treasury
  • Technical
  • Funding
  • Resources
  • LGPS
  • Development
  • 151 News
  • Blogs
    • David Green
    • Agent 151
    • Dan Bates
    • Richard Harbord
    • Stephen Sheen
    • James Bevan
    • Steve Bishop
    • Cllr John Clancy
    • David Crum
    • Graham Liddell
    • Ian O’Donnell
    • Jackie Shute
  • Interviews
  • Briefs

Taken to the cleaners

0
  • by David Green
  • in Blogs · David Green
  • — 8 Nov, 2012

In 2006, 15 Australian local authorities were advised to buy AU$16m of AAA rated constant proportion debt obligations (CPDO) notes, which were synthetic investments designed to increase in value providing that global CDS indices moved within a certain range.  When the global financial crisis came, CDS spreads shot through the roof and the councils lost 93% of their money.   It reminds us that wherever we are in the world, there are unscrupulous financial salesmen all too happy to fleece unsophisticated investors.  The big difference in Oz is that 13 of the councils sued their counterparty, the credit rating agency and their treasury adviser and won. The Federal Court of Australia ruled this week that Dutch bank ABN Amro, Standard & Poor’s and the Sydney-based Local Government Financial Services must each cover a third of the local authorities’ losses.

Most of the international press coverage has focused on the liability of S&P for the accuracy of its credit ratings. According to the 1,500 page judgement, the rating agency plugged wildly inaccurate data into their CPDO rating model to produce the required AAA answer. If any one of four input variables has just been optimistic, rather than vastly exaggerated, a lower rating would have popped out of the model, and the local authorities wouldn’t have bought the investments. And there lies the problem – no investors means no fees for the investment bank, the rating agency or the adviser.  The fact that S&P has not said “sorry, it was an isolated mistake, everything else we do is fine”, but is vigorously defending their rating methodology instead is a little worrying.  If they’ve rated lots of other products in this way, are their ratings any use at all? No wonder their share price is down.

But I think the other defendants are just as interesting. Firstly, the bank formerly known as ABN Amro is now part of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group, and hence the fines will ultimately be borne by RBS’s owners, the UK taxpayer.  ABN Amro apparently sold around €2 billion of these CPDO notes in the years running up to 2008, and if the Australian ruling encourages European investors to sue, it will be another nosebleed for RBS.

Then there’s the culpability of the treasury adviser, LGFS.  In a statement that could easily have been made in the UK, one Council CFO explained how they relied on them to provide high level investment advice. “LGFS held itself out to have the necessary expertise to advise councils about investments that complied with government guidance and which would not place the community’s funds at risk,” he said.  However, the court found that LGFS had breached the fiduciary duty it owed the councils as it had a conflict of interest: it had been losing business to rivals for years and saw this as an opportunity to earn a huge backhander.

The court found that LGFS had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct, published false marketing information and otherwise made negligent misrepresentations to the councils about the CPDO notes.  The adviser also failed to notice that the investment was contrary to at least one council’s investment policy, despite having actually written the policy itself! To cap it all, LGFS breached its financial services license by selling products it was not authorised to trade in.

What lessons are there for us in the UK?  For investors, it’s an obvious reminder not to enter into transactions that you don’t fully understand, although that’s not an excuse not to learn about new products.  You should also be aware that the companies you deal with won’t always be on your side, especially if they have a conflict of interest.

David Green is Client Director at Arlingclose Limited.  This is the writer’s personal opinion and does not constitute investment advice.

Share

You may also like...

  • Q&A: Bond agency responds to ‘ill-informed speculation’ 4th Jul, 2021
  • How to be net zero by 2030 23rd Feb, 2022
  • Despite a commitment of billions, social care funding is ‘not solved’ 21st Sep, 2021
  • No ‘fire sale’ of treasury assets under new Prudential code 8th Oct, 2021

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • 151 BRIEFS – WHAT’s NEW?

    • Homes England agrees strategic partnership with two authorities
    • Soaring inflation and pay pressures to add £3.6bn to council budgets
    • Underfunded social care reforms could ‘exacerbate workforce pressures’
    • Nottingham City Council leader labels proposed intervention as ‘disappointing’
    • Government preparing to intervene in Nottingham City Council
  • Room151’s LGPS Roundtables

    Biodiversity
    Valuations & Risk
    LGPS Women

  • Room151’s LGPS Roundtables

    Biodiversity
    LGPS Women
    Valuations & Risk
  • Latest tweets

    Room151 4 hours ago

    Hillier confirmed as keynote speaker for LATIF/FDs’ Summit: Dame Meg Hillier, chair of the Public Accounts Committee, has been confirmed as a keynote speaker for Room151’s combined Local Authority Treasurers Investment Forum (LATIF) and FDs Summit. The… dlvr.it/ST70F7 pic.twitter.com/hxV676Iley

    Room151 4 hours ago

    Councils’ funding at risk due to ‘undercounting’ in census data: Population estimates in London and Manchester may have been significantly underestimated in the 2021 census potentially threatening government funding for frontline services in these… dlvr.it/ST707J pic.twitter.com/VncIyaXa01

    Room151 2 days ago

    Gove at LGA: councils to receive two-year financial settlement: Michael Gove has announced that councils will receive a two-year financial settlement from next year to provide authorities with “financial certainty” and allow them to plan ahead. The… dlvr.it/ST0kSV pic.twitter.com/wxL3UM4sGO

    Room151 2 days ago

    LGPS valuations: the digital journey: Rob Bilton explains how technology is helping to deliver one of the most complex data exercises in the world of public sector pensions. The 2022 valuations for LGPS funds in[...] dlvr.it/ST0kMq pic.twitter.com/VxjSPC2Uvo

    Room151 6 days ago

    Conrad Hall: ‘more sophisticated’ regulation needed for local government: The chair of the CIPFA/LASAAC Code Board has questioned the sophistication of financial regulation in local government and the continuing focus of the Department for Levelling Up,… dlvr.it/SSnPBV pic.twitter.com/G5d7JCWF8c

    Room151 1 week ago

    Slough Council approves plans to restructure finance department: Slough Borough Council has approved plans to restructure its finance department to enhance capacity and capability and to address a “significant weakness” in the function. The local… dlvr.it/SSf8DG pic.twitter.com/l5lmyHmkBg

  • Register to become a Room151 user

  • Previous story Proposed rise of investment cap in limited partnerships
  • Next story Economic and market briefing: the week ahead

© Copyright 2022 Room 151. Typegrid Theme by WPBandit.

0 shares