Old Mutual: Throwing away our savings

This week, I found myself wondering: What's the difference between Fidentia's arch-villains J Arthur Brown and jailed accountant Graham Maddock and friends and the decision-makers over at Old Mutual Investment Group SA's property asset management division?

Brown and friends recently decimated the savings of mostly mineworkers' widows and orphans. Some of this money was "invested", but much of it was used as fuel for a corporate empire. Brown's Century City, Cape Town, HQ offices were plush, the staff perks - like restaurants, gyms and company-sponsored parties - overflowing. The individuals who worked for Fidentia were by all accounts paid marvellous salaries, certainly higher than industry norms.

Over at Mutual Park in Pinelands, Cape Town, the asset managers also have their hands on the savings of ordinary South Africans. They are tasked with investing their policyholders' money with the objective, as policyholders' understand it, to produce the best possible returns for them. Like Fidentia's employees, Old Mutual's asset managers work in upmarket, comfortable offices. They too enjoy staff perks and big pay packets. The money for this lifestyle and working environment, one way or another, is paid for by everyone who has money tied up in an Old Mutual investment or savings product.

This week, it emerged that Old Mutual's property asset managers rejected the highest, R120m, bid for a building ultimately owned by policyholders - telling the buyer it could not sell for "competitive reasons". But, it went on to sell that building, Nedbank Gardens in Johannesburg's Rosebank, for R30m less to another bidder who in turn quickly "flipped" the building on for a profit to the buyer (Hyprop) who wanted it originally.

Madison Property Fund Managers' executive director Marc Wainer, a doyen of South Africa's commercial real estate sector, revealed this astonishing deal to Moneyweb's editor-in chief Alec Hogg on the SAfm Market Update on Monday evening. Wainer said the building "was owned by Old Mutual, but they didn't want us to own it because they saw us as a competitor, so they sold it to a third party for R90m. And obviously we have done a deal with the third party. So a nice deal for us, not so good for Mutual policy or shareholders. They gave up R30m, and we still have it".

So far, the folks over at Mutual Park seem puzzled about the furore this deal has caused. They can't understand what the fuss is all about, is the message that has come through in their vague, unsatisfactory written response to questions from Realestateweb, property news site in the Moneyweb group (click here to read Old Mutual's response).  

Noses are out-of-joint, too, that Hogg referred to this written response as "arrogant" on the show the next evening. Some at Old Mutual wonder whether Hogg said this in a case of sour grapes because OMIGSA property asset managers apparently declined an invitation to explain their decision on live radio. That attitude, I reckon, just goes to show how out-of-touch those Old Mutual people are with the basic issues of accountability or understanding that this should not be their "play money" to do with as they please.

What's R30m? Compare it to the R850m it is spending on property elsewhere in the Rosebank area and it is not that much money, is one of the points Old Mutual has been trying to make behind-the-scenes.  That's really not the issue here, though. As the dozens of Realestateweb and Moneyweb visitors have overwhelmingly voted: it is not Old Mutual's "prerogative" not to sell to the highest bidder.

Said INVESTOR, under the article R30m roperty shocker: Old Mutual unrepentant: "Is there any integrity left in the financial sector? They are so used to losing our money without any care that they almost consider it their right. No wonder the Old Mutual share price is where it is."

"Threshold" agreed. In a posting titled "Disgraceful", that commentator said: "The building was a policyholders' investment. Old Mutual has a duty to these clients to realise the best price for this asset. Old Mutual's personal agenda with regard to their strategic intentions in relation to (its) own business are of no . .more relevance. They deliberately prejudiced their principals (and waived their principles) for their own gain. This could be criminal. They have failed in their obligations to their clients and should be sued for the forgone profit (easy to prove the buyer at the higher price)."

Ripped off was even angrier, saying: "Scary to think these (people) in charge of our savings can say there is nothing wrong with selling something for 25% below market value. Make them liable; we have enough corruption around." And Mr X said: "Only a lunatic can decline a bid of R120m for R90m and give a brainless reason as there was no negative impact to policyholders - what an outrageous comment. I'm now a very disappointed Old Mutual policyholder."

So what is the difference between what Fidentia was up to and what Old Mutual's property asset managers have been up to? Both groups have been driven to a large extent by ego, it seems, and have frittered away other people's money as they would surely not do with their own. Who, for example, would refuse to sell their own property to the highest bidder by a long stretch?

Observer urged, on Realestateweb: "Let's see what the FSB do! Fund managers have no prerogative but to act in the interests of the policyholders - just like the recent high court judgement that trustees have no discretion but have to act in the interests of the trusts' beneficiaries."

Hopefully, though, this matter won't require the intervention of the Financial Services Board or any other officials. Hopefully, Old Mutual will do the right thing by explaining in full exactly what happened in this deal, stating clearly how the decision was made and giving us the full financial details. If there was some funny business, Old Mutual should take decisive measures against those who are responsible.

In a nutshell, this company should stick to its publicly-emphasised "values". The listed life assurer crows on its own website that it "strives to achieve higher levels of performance", takes "responsibility" for its actions and problems that occur, "act(s) honestly and openly" and in accordance with the highest level of ethical standards. It says staff "treat others as they would like to be treated" and "actively listen to others and recognise that everyone has a contribution to make".

As Realestateweb community member Vramaarnet has put it about this property fiasco:  "Give a proper explanation and I'll retract my words, however in the absence of an intelligible rationale there is something just rotten in this."

*Jackie Cameron is editor of Realestateweb - South Africa's fastest-growing property news website. Follow JackieCameron on twitter. Write to her at jackie@realestateweb.co.za.

Click here to subscribe to Realestateweb's FREE newsletters and here to catch up with the top property news stories today.

What do you think Old Mutual should do? Share your views, below this article.

Services Subscribe to newsletters News feeds Share this article Facebook Google Laaik.it Yahoo! Digg del.icio.us

Comments

 

responses to this article

A thought Whilst I have no personal interest in defending Old Mutual, having read this article I would personally hold back judgment until further research , as while they are tasked with other peoples money, it is their strategic positioning that gives them . .more the opportunities at the right price that they have, and so when selling I agree that their strategic positioning is a key factor in who and how much they sell for. . .less by brownbear on July 17 2009, 11:47 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Old Mut This article understates the scale of the problem. OM like other Lifers has been stealing and mismanaging their clients money for years. What with interest on notional loans to fund exorbitant undislosed commissions to pay agents, arbitrary fees debited . .more at will and general incompetence, OMut should be put out of our misery asap. . .less by Spike on July 17 2009, 11:58 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

krouks Send OM execs to prison like i have been urging the authorities to do for years.Let them receive a thorough rogering just to experience what we policyholders have become accustomed to from OM. by bwahaha on July 17 2009, 12:17 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Truthfulness I worked for Fidentia. There was a single cafeteria, a small gym and annual Christmas parties which were arguably a huge cost and a total waste of money. The salaries paid to most employees were industry standard though. If those facts are incorrect, I . .more would dispute the validity of the rest of the article. . .less by James on July 17 2009, 13:36 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

there can be no justification If anyone or OM think that they can justify, for any reason in these times why they would steal 30 mil from their shareholders and policy holders they must be a joking. But keep those debit orders and pension plans comming in suckers!!!! we . .more need the money at OM. I can see discovery doing some serious damage to the OM's and Sanlams of the world. tip - invest yourself, at least you can blame yourself. . .less by dfb on July 17 2009, 13:37 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Wrong assumption, Ball Bag. Jackie is a hottie...... The English for Sakkie most probably would be "ball bag" or something like that. You make the same mistake of "wrong assumption" that you accuse Jackie Cameron of. She is quite a hottie and Old Mutual should have put out a press statement . .more days ago when this story broke. Not a peep from Pinelands........ . .less by Financial Virgin on July 17 2009, 13:47 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

What a load of bollocks! "Brown's Century City, Cape Town, HQ offices were plush, the staff perks - like restaurants, gyms and company-sponsored parties - overflowing. The individuals who worked for Fidentia were by all accounts paid marvellous salaries, certainly higher than . .more industry norms." . .less by Cynic on July 17 2009, 14:05 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

OM I trust Sakkie has a lot of money invested with OM. If this deal was clean, clear and simple, why is no immediate clean, clear and simple explanation available? Yes, OM should investigate and not only come clean; OM must hold the responsible . .more people accountable and recover the money from them / fire them. It is just too easy, when it is not your money, to hide behind 'Strategic' reasons. . .less by Albert on July 17 2009, 14:17 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

the offices i worked in....... at OM in '87 were posher that those of Fidentia in '07.......and the staff cafeteria was better too! the piece is just sensationalist fluff. by omfid on July 17 2009, 14:31 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

OM OM cares zip. by AA on July 17 2009, 15:50 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

hahahahaha hahahaha - its just policy holder money - we will still get our HUGE bonuses, even though policy holders suffer and our share price is lower than it was 10 years ago hahahahaha viva capitalism viva by OM Director on July 17 2009, 16:09 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

sensationalism ag no jackie man - why inflame the issue with reference to luxury offices and inflated salaries? the OM offices are normal for corporates and salaries paid there are market related. why sensationalise it like that???? "have their heads" the mob screams . .more behind your malemalistic drum beating. tsk tsk. on face value this does smell. a proper investigation and public explanation is called for. . .less by meetjoeblack on July 17 2009, 17:07 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Trust me vramaarnet is more than just a little out of pocket due to byzantine layers that seem to be part of OM. The nonsensical reasons why one cannot move from a policy denominated by stocks to cash around July last year seem to ring true to the assinine way this story is being handled. Bunch of palookas. Trust me . .more no-one in my family is ever going to be investing in OM ever again. Not that they could care one jot as there are more than enough suckers around. . .less by Vramaarnet on July 17 2009, 18:01 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Curators Jackie your only claim to fame is Bruce Cameroon, you constantly feel the need to mention your false claims about Fidentia. You should rather invest your precious time in investigating the two Biggest thieves of them all - Dinesh and George Pappadakis who . .more is mentioned in Glen Aglioti statement to the Scorpions. Dinesh who also stole from Montogue Goldsmith in Switzerland. . .less by Tsotsi on July 17 2009, 19:46 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Ben Kodisang Hey Ben Kodisang and Gary Hartehty...we still waiting for a response from you guys......? I mean you can't just go and dump my mothers poliyc money down the 'tube' like that...! You know,...she was a domestic worker for 30 years . .more when she bought that policy MAN>>>! X . .less by X on July 18 2009, 05:41 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Pointless article So these managers made a bad decisionSo what? As far as i know thats a normal part of business Pointless article by Ted on July 19 2009, 09:28 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Old Mutual I recently had an O.M. policy mature - I have been repeatedly advised over the years of an estimated maturity value which ended up being four times more than what eventually paid out!! If they had told me the real maturity value i would have been able to . .more cancel long ago and invest my monthly payments more wisely resulting in a far better position today!! You believe you have adequately covered yourself only to find yourself hopelessly short!! . .less by Retiree on July 19 2009, 10:15 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

old mut this is white collar crime in my opinion the acounting oficcer should taken to task how much did he personaly make out of this deal? by joe amod on July 19 2009, 11:04 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

OM Had exactly the same as 'Retiree,' an investment which paid nothing like the estimated value. OM full of excuses, they don't care less. Could have made better investment somewhere else..... You pay for bad investments and all the hidden costs. by Dave on July 19 2009, 11:29 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Shareholders' RED CARD Let South Africa make a law that allows the shareholders to PRODUCE A RED CARD to the guilty party...that means shareholders should FIRE the guity B***** or management to PAY back the lost difference from their pockets. by Chairman on July 19 2009, 11:59 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

OM DEAL STINKS EVEN FURTHER...READ ON If you dig deeper Moneyweb you will find that there was more than 1 buyer for that property. So R120m is the minimum they could have got for that property.!!! Dig a little and you will find a lot.That the deal went through at R90m is a disgrace. Why do . .more you think Waner was prepared to pay R120m ...he knew there was another potential buyer of that property at a higher price. Good luck to Waner they swallowed their pride,didn't sulk about missing, and did a deal. Shame on OM though. . .less by Oracle of Delmas on July 19 2009, 17:35 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Jackie and commentors are missing the point How many of you have actually read Old Mutual's response? It's clear that Jackie ias actually a complete moron because she should have read it. The rest of you are just misinformed. The decision not to sell the to highest bidder was taken in . .more the light of a separate property investment, also for the benefit of policyholders, that would be negatively effected by the sale of the property in question. At least this is Old Mutual's explanation and until Moneyweb address this issue, they are being dodgy as all hell. . .less by Clear Thought on July 19 2009, 21:06 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Easy vote with your feet If you think you will get out what is estimated from your policy in whatever amout of years you are in for a shock. Wake up now and cancel your policies and do your own investing its easier than you think. I cancelled mine and moved on and am way better . .more off doing my own investing and if you really don't have the stones for it buy satrix 40 or something like that... Or even put your money in the bank you are better off. I contributed for 16 years to a poilicy and when I wanted a statement to see how it was doing it was worth less than the money I had put in. So I would have done better by putting my money in the bank... . .less by Brendan on July 19 2009, 22:13 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Old Mutual Property If it was done for 'competetive reasons' (whatever that means) why did OM not have a 'no sell' clause? It seems that the 'competitor' ended up with the buliding anyway? And how does the Competition Board view what seems to be deliberate 'anti-competetive' . .more behavior? Or what am I missing? Looks to me like there are some very 'dof' people 'looking after' the assets of aothers. Trebles and a big bonus all round!! . .less by Vaalseun on July 20 2009, 07:51 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Fact or Fiction? The return of the sensationalist journalist! Ad hominem rubbish ("enjoy staff perks and big pay packets"), unnamed sources ("folks over at Mutual Park"). Puhleeeze! by Bemused on July 20 2009, 08:55 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Response to Clear Thought,Sakkie Clear Thought, if you understand the rationale behind the deal, please explain it to all of us. More importantly, though, Sakkie: You might be interested to note that a number of us at this media organisation - including me - have been calling Old . .more Mutual since early last week and appealing for full answers to a range of questions. These include requests for answers to questions posed by visitors on this site. As soon as they arrive, we will publish them in full. . .less by Jackie Cameron on July 20 2009, 09:11 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Since demutualisation the Old Mutual has gone to the dogs. OM no longer exists for the policyholders and their interests on a small "admin fee". It is now driven by greed, and dog eat dog policies for the managers and administrators / and shareholders personal benefits. F***** the policy holders - they are only . .more the recurring income stream and just a means to the end it seems.. Compare The Old Mutual of the van der Horst 60's/70'swith the ingregrity bankrupt and lacklustre organisation now. An absolute disgrace. . .less by OM Policy Holder on July 20 2009, 09:42 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Old Mutual will make me a financial success. I also beleive in tinkerbell and the Easter Bunny. ARe'nt penalties there to add more money to my investment pie. What is 30 million when my investment success depends on on those paying penalties. Viv penalties, via property dealls that give me . .more "business" profits of 30 million. Don't you guys understand the BEE business model? . .less by Free the Rest on July 20 2009, 09:56 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Old Mutual Property - Although Old Mutual Property is involved. This affects all the sectors of Old Mutual, the life side, investments, group schemes. At the moment the filed staff are faced with replacements by the competition. With this debacle the competition will . .more have a feast on us. R30m is a lot of money and one cannot forgive anybody no matter what the rationale. . .less by Victor Moodley on July 20 2009, 09:56 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Well done Jackie ! Jackie, keep up the good work and ignore these OM people have a go at you ! by Watcher on July 20 2009, 10:32 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Disinterest I have a Capital "protected" provident fund (R2.8m at 1 Jan 09) that is, at the end of June, worth R2,500 LESS than 1 Jan. Never mind inflation. OM is still to respond to my rerqust for an explanantion or alternative options. I accept a cost for . .more "protection" but ZERO growth? . .less by Furious on July 20 2009, 10:49 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

how many times Arfur Brown has posted comments here? Seems he had(s) a personal beef with Jackie. by Just wondering.... on July 20 2009, 11:10 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

It comes out in the wash Having had past dealings with Old Mutual Properties, I am not surprised at their lack of integrity or concern for stakeholders. In fact, an article claiming that they *have* a culture of integrity would suprise me more. As they say: "The truth . .more will out" . .less by Burnt on July 20 2009, 11:48 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

rehash This story came out months ago in a FM article by Ian Fife ... by old news on July 20 2009, 13:08 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Old Mutual Why are they so silent.THEY HAVE boobed big time and are now trying to evade the publicity.let them come clean and give us their explanantion. by Kaddy on July 20 2009, 13:13 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

@ Jackies reply to me... You just dug yourself a grave honey! Now the article seems even more personal (because you did not get a response from them, so lets write something (nasty) to get their attention?! Looking forward to you publishing your official . .more answers. The reason why most of you idiots on here are in debt is because you cannot see further than your nose. Interesting to note that the ones that think its ALL about the money, are the ones who just got their cars and houses repossessed! Good luck chum! Sakkie aka Liberty Life policy holder And to you morons that think that OM short changed you when you cashed up, well, read the fine print before you sign up!!! Thats why they are referred to as "Illustrative Lumpsums" (cause it is based on current market conditions - which we all know changed drastically just under a year ago). If you wish to invest aggressively, then pay the consequences !!! . .less by Sakkie on July 20 2009, 13:14 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

OM / Nedbank Gardens I noted my concerns re: this deal on the previous article. I do think that the heading refering to Fidentia is sensational.... a poor attempt to grab readership. Sakkie... with respect your comment is moronic.You express strong views on a . .more situation in which OM seem to have acted very poorly and have provided a pitiful explanation. There is cause for scepticism. Hopefully OM can provide a reasonable answer (the previous response by A.Breytenbach was embarrassing). Having a go at JC seems to make absolutely zero sense! PS: WTF does this mean "Interesting to note that the ones that think its ALL about the money, are the ones who just got their cars and houses repossessed!"??? . .less by Charlie Chaplin on July 20 2009, 15:44 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Life savings trimmed This is hardly surprising. I invested lump sum R250K in a diversified OM property portfolio 18 months ago. Brick by brick my savings were down 10.8% when I withdrew from the investment by Kasiboy on July 20 2009, 17:44 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

OM RIP OFFS Get financially educated and do your own investing and then you will release how you have been rip off all these years by most of these insurance schemes. by Alvin on July 20 2009, 18:01 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Does the picture on the homepage show a cutie or a hottie? Quite what planet Sakkie is on is not clear. And "Financial" "Virgin"... Well there's an interesting concept. And by the way Sakkie I have read the fine print on my OM contract and it stinks. They don't even have to tell me what they do with . .more the money. They seem to think I must be happy because I'm getting a percentage point or two above inflation. They are doing well I am told. Just like the balderdash statement on why they sold a building for 25% less than the best offer. Only to have it purchased by the guy who wanted it anyway for less than he offered OM. How thick is that? . .less by semaarnet on July 20 2009, 21:10 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Old Mutual I still have some OM RAs but I made a decision over 10 years ago that I would never have any further dealings with OM or Sanlam ever again as they have been woefull in the management of my investments and less than transparent in their responses to my . .more queries.... I see no reason 10 years later to review my decision... . .less by Piet on July 21 2009, 04:13 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

theres more to this than meets the eye Thank goodness,the author did not add words such as respected,esteemed,highly regarded to her description of this well known property wheeler dealer. What was his motive for boasting about this deal? Was he so taken by the author that he felt it . .more would impress her? Anyone who has had the misfortune to have dealings with the commercial property developers of our country will know that there is much to this story that will never be revealed. . .less by cooldog on July 21 2009, 05:10 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Old Mutual: Throwing away our savings Hand these guys over to the Hawks. Charge them for fraud, insider trading, and conflict of interest. Recover the back handers they make on these "deals". Then... Fire them! by Ikbal on July 21 2009, 11:07 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Astounding Arrogance Amazing that after all is said and done so far, no-one in Pinelands has the balls to give their perspective ???? Bad Business OM - bad form!!! As a policy holder I'm not happy!!! by Abe on July 21 2009, 15:38 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Old Mutual to come clean I still maintain that OM made a huge mistake which might have been influenced by either personal gains or agendas or even stupidity and the only solution to make this go away is for OM come clean, admit the mistake and be accountable. Quiet diplomacy is . .more definitely not the going to resolve this, as we all need to know the real reason for their decision and I wish all those who are placed in the right places to keep on making noise about this until OM come clean. To the rest of us, I know that we have freedom of speech. However, I would like to appeal that when posting comments - we try to mind our language, ensure that we attack the problem and not the person. We are dealing with the real problem here which might affect thousands of unsuspecting, poor and innocent victims. Somoene really has to do something before history repeat itself. . .less by Mr X on July 22 2009, 09:43 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

MR X You have quite missed the point. THE PERSON IS THE PROBLEM IN THIS INSTANCE!! Did you entirely miss the entire thrust of the article. Should really wake up before opening mouth. OM is a total disgrace, always has been, always will . .more be, under present " management ". Should be subject to a deep forensic analysis with no doors closed. I offer my services having been involved in this sort of work. But, of course, nothing will be done. . .less by Cicero on July 22 2009, 11:09 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Old Mutual - the friend of the FSB Why is it that the FSB only focus on small players and turn a blind eye to the real crooks - the institutions. they have for decades milked policyholder funds, cross-subsidising their loss making entities from policyholder funds. their are hundreds of . .more examples over the years, but the FSB don't seem to do anything about them. They only seem to go for individual businesses and small organisations that don't compare to the losses that the large corporates incure with policy holder funds. Quite interesting that OM was the first to be approved as a FSP under FAIS Act!!!!!!! . .less by FSB_FAN on July 22 2009, 14:20 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Fsb The Fsb are famous for destroying the small players, but don't addres the substantial worng doings of r the corporates. they always seem to be overlooked. What happened to the offshore embezzlement of hundreds of millions by the First Rand Group . .more executives? The FSB are the enemy of the public and the friend of the corporate thieves. and so the rich get richer (from the poor) and the poor get poorer due to the Fsb . .less by Fsb-lover on July 22 2009, 14:24 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

OM and FSB The FSB needs to be regulated. they have too much power and seem to do as they please. too many small companies are destroyed because of minor issues, where the big players don't even get a slap on the hands! by FSB supporter on July 22 2009, 14:25 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

FSB We unfortunately do need a regulator, because the industry is unable to self-regulate, but the current overegulation and the excessive powers given to the FSB is crazy! Simple government workers paid by the tax payer are making an absolute mess of our . .more industry! wE WERE BETTER OF WITHOUT THEM! . .less by Impartial on July 22 2009, 14:27 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Old Mutual / FSB There are many of these issues to come going forward. Unfortunately the ONLY loser will be the Investor. I believe that the FSB has little or no teeth. Looking at earlier comments on the subject it seems however that the smaller entrepeneur is . .more being hassled. Anyway, i am done with any investment house that professes they will manage my money. One thing i am glad about is that i realised this years ago, my fellow countrymen still have to walk the road. I am with Alvin on this one. Eucate yourself. . .less by ASB on July 26 2009, 09:36 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Liberty pays out less on its Provident fund than you invest in it ...not only OM...also Liberty. Our provident scheme was just closed down due to the company closing. Liberty got its genius's to calculate what we would get out...well, we should have known that they would take off 20 % for their fees and commisions and . .more that we would get less than we contributed to the scheme !! Never again. The Solution: DO NOT GIVE THEM YOUR MONEY.....you have been warned ! Had this been the first time I would write it down to bad luck ...but this is the third time....I have now learnt...they get nothing from me. Buy your own propeties and you can then blame yourself..should / if things go wrong.!! Legalised theft...they should all go to jail. Ombudsman....well well I am not sure if they really have the resources to take on the giants.. FSB...hmmm has no teeth....a base ball bat on their knees may sort them out though ! . .less by Aapie on October 31 2009, 13:37 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Name
Subject
Comment