Since the collapse of Storm Financial at the end of 2008, many theories have been expounded as to what ails the financial planning industry and a number of fixes have been recommended. Yet, the truth is that no one during this time has really pinpointed the root cause of this financial disaster.
More importantly, WHY so many investors lost all their money? Why so many lives were destroyed?
I spent 7 years or so investigating and writing about the Storm Financial disaster. I did so because Helen and I were two of its victims and I was determined to get to the bottom of this financial scandal. Storm and some of the major banks certainly conspired to scam Storm’s clients but they didn’t cause the huge investor losses that occurred. ASIC did because it hung everyone out to dry where compensation insurance was concerned.
Doesn’t it seem odd to you that the investors caught up in the Storm Financial and CBA Financial Planning scandals were not able to obtain compensation through the insurers for ‘Storm’ and the CBA? After all, it is stipulated in the Corporations Act that all Services Licensees in Australia must take out compensation insurance? An Australian Financial Services License (AFSL,) for those that seek clarity, is a license for any Australian businesses involved in the provision of financial services. It is issued by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) as required under the Corporations Act 2001.”
Investors naturally assume that when their financial advisors do the wrong thing by them and in the process, breach the Corporations Act, they will be entitled to claim against the insurers who issue those advisors with ‘Professional Indemnity Insurance’ policies. Not so as we in Storm found out to our cost.
One of the biggest cons in this country is perpetuated by the insurance industry and it relates to professional indemnity insurance, that provides an avenue of compensation for the clients of a financial advisor. What’s more, this con has the blessing of ASIC and by default, the Government.
Most of the policies issued for PI insurance are not worth the paper they are written on because they invariably lock claimants out when any claims are lodged. What this means is that if your financial advisor does you wrong, you’ve got Buckley’s and none of getting your money back via their insurers.
“How can this be?” you may well ask. “Aren’t we protected under the Corporations Act? After all, the wording in section 912B is clear enough?”
Here’s what that Act states for those that are not familiar with it:
THE CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 912B states:
“Compensation arrangements if financial services provided to persons as retail clients.
(1)If a financial services licensee provides a financial service to persons as retail clients, the licensee must have arrangements for compensating those persons for loss or damage suffered because of breaches of the relevant obligations under this Chapter by the licensee or its representatives”.
ASIC’s letter to me dated 13/2/2012 states
“The arrangements that have been set in place by regulations are that licensees that provide financial services to retail clients must hold professional indemnity (PI) insurance cover that is adequate. Adequacy is measured with regard to factors such as the size of the licensee's business (reg 7.6.02AAA).”
The problem is that ASIC allows many financial advisors to take out PI insurance that is less than adequate despite what it states in the Act.
Storm’s PI Insurance time-barred us from making claims AT ALL so how can it be classified as adequate?
Further, how can ASIC also say that “Adequacy is measured with regard to factors such as the size of the licensee's business (reg 7.6.02AAA)” when Storm had an insurance cover for some $25 to $45 million dollars (the true figure was never ascertained but it lies somewhere between), and yet Storm Financial was handling portfolios worth hundreds of millions of dollars?
When was the last time ASIC measured Storm’s business or for that matter, did it ever measure such?
The truth is that ASIC never did! “Out of sight! Out of mind!”
The point is that even if Storm Financial had a professional indemnity insurance cover in place for $500 million or more, Storm’s clients would not have been able to claim against the insurer because Storm’s PI insurance was inadequate from the get-go.
Now you would think that ASIC has a ‘duty of care’ to ensure that the Corporations Act is abided by. After all, ASIC is responsible for administering it. Not so according to our legal system.
“In Lock v Australian Securities and Investments Commission  FCA 31 a group of Storm investors sued ASIC alleging breach of a duty of care and misfeasance in public office. The investors alleged that ASIC knew, or ought to have known, that Storm was failing to comply with its obligations under the Corporations Act and that ASIC should have warned investors of the risks, or taken regulatory action against Storm, in order to protect investors from the losses they suffered arising from their Storm investments.”
‘Misfeasance’ incidentally is a term used in Tort Law to describe an act that is legal but performed improperly.
“In delivering its judgment, the Court considered in detail the principles that will apply in determining whether a statutory authority (like ASIC) will owe a party a duty of care. The general rule is that a statutory authority that is under no positive legislative obligation to exercise a power will not have a duty of care to third parties, unless by its conduct the authority places itself in a position that attracts a duty of care, and consequently calls for the exercise of that power.”
There are three things that must be established in every tort action.
“Firstly, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant was under a legal duty to act in a particular fashion. Secondly, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant breached this duty by failing to conform his or her behavior accordingly. Thirdly, the plaintiff must prove that he suffered injury or loss as a direct result of the defendant’s breach.”
Because compensation insurance under the Act is administered by ASIC, it qualifies on all three counts!
A “duty of care” by definition is ‘a moral or legal obligation to ensure the safety or well-being of others.’ How can the Court therefore decide that ASIC doesn’t have a case to answer when ASIC’s function is to protect us? Further, ASIC has a legally bound obligation under the Corporations Act to safeguard investors by ensuring that the Act is followed to the letter.
The Corporations Act, that ASIC is responsible for administering, is quite specific.
“If a financial services licensee provides a financial service to persons as retail clients, the licensee MUST have arrangements for compensating those persons for loss or damage suffered because of breaches of the relevant obligations under this Chapter by the licensee or its representatives”.
The wording in this Section is unequivocal. It doesn’t say, the licensee ‘OUGHT TO HAVE’ or ‘SHOULD’ HAVE’ a professional indemnity insurance cover that is adequate” It says the licensee ‘MUST HAVE’ a professional indemnity (PI) insurance cover that IS ADEQUATE,
How can “…arrangements for compensating those persons for loss or damage…” be deemed ‘adequate’ if they then turn out to be inadequate? I would like to hear the judges argue that one because it is a contradiction in terms. This is just one more example of a legal system that does nothing to protect the citizens of this country. Instead, it is designed to protect those in power.
In point of fact, ASIC triggered these losses by its failure to protect Storm’s investors under the Act. The victims of Storm Financial and the CCFPL should have been able to claim against the insurers. After all, there were clear breaches of the Corporations Act and malpractice in both instances? So why couldn’t they do so? Why were the PI insurances in these instances inadequate?
I’m now going to let you in on a little known fact. Most of the Financial Services Licensees in Australia do not have adequate compensation insurance despite this being stipulated in the Corporations Act. ASIC knows about this but turns a blind eye because it’s far easier to do so. You see, ASIC finds it more convenient to reach a compromise because it’s the soft option. The trouble is that by so doing, ASIC is repeatedly putting Australian investors at risk, and the investors wear the consequences when financial advisors then go “off the rails”.
However, the problem doesn’t stop there! ALL investors in Australia still face the same problem because nothing has been done to rectify this situation despite the new regulations that have come into force.
In ASIC’s letter to us dated 17/3/2011, it states:
“Regulatory Guide 210 (RG 210 Compensation and insurance arrangements for credit licensees) and Regulatory Guide 126 (RG 126 Compensation and insurance arrangements for Australian Financial Services licensees) address how ASIC proposes to administer the law in relation to adequate insurance cover for both types of licensees. In setting our policy on PI insurance, we need to take into account the coverage available in the insurance market.”
In other words, ASIC allows the insurance market to dictate policy rather than the other way around. By adopting this approach, ASIC abnegates its responsibility although there is nothing in the wording of the Corporations Act that permits ASIC to do so.
In ASIC’s letter to me dated 13/2/2012, it states:
”Section 912B(1) states that a financial services licensee that provides a financial service to retail clients must have arrangements for compensating those persons for loss or damage suffered because of breaches of their obligations under the Act by the licensee or its representatives. The arrangements must meet the requirements under subsection 2.
Subsection 2 states that the arrangements must:
(a) If the regulations specify requirements that are applicable to all arrangements, or to arrangements of that kind - satisfy those requirements; OR
(b) Be approved by ASIC.
So, in essence section 912B allows a licensee a choice about which arrangements to implement.”
How can ASIC further justify itself by saying, “So, in essence section 912B allows a licensee a choice about which arrangements to implement.’” What does that have to do with anything? This is a cop out! How, for that matter, does ‘…must have arrangements for compensating those persons for loss or damage…” stack up against the fact that Storm had a PI insurance that did not compensate Storm’s investors for loss or damage at all in the end?
Subsection 2 does not in any way diminish ASIC’s responsibility under Section 912B because it deals with the “arrangements” rather than the ‘obligation’. This is an important point to consider in law. The choice regarding any arrangements should have no effect on ASIC’s ‘obligation’ which is to ensure that licensees that provide financial services to retail clients take out a professional indemnity (PI) insurance cover that is adequate.
Is the Corporation Act an instrument that ASIC can interpret as it sees fit thereby defeating the spirit and intention of the Act? ASIC is solely responsible for ensuring that financial services licensees have an adequate professional indemnity insurance cover in place that can compensate persons for loss or damage. Its failure to do its job properly by allowing Storm Financial and other financial advisors to take out inferior PI insurance is negligence of the worst kind. Furthermore, it clearly constitutes a ‘duty of care’ and an ‘obligation’ breach under the Corporations Act. Unfortunately, it appears that ASIC is protected by both the Government and the Judiciary so little can now be done other than to hope that ASIC wakes up to itself!
The frightening thing about all this is that ASIC seems to believe that it is doing nothing wrong.
Because, according to ASIC, Section 912B(1) Sub-section 2 allows a licensee a choice about which arrangements to make, Australian Financial Services Licensees often opt for professional indemnity insurance that is inadequate. Why? Because it’s cheaper and it’s readily available.
By adopting such a short-sighted strategy ASIC allows financial advisors to have the same sort of PI cover that Storm had in place. Good luck on that one!
What ASIC is doing is permitting financial advisors an “out”. The message to all financial advisors is clear enough. “If you can’t obtain the appropriate professional indemnity insurance cover, second best will do!”
There is a reason why ASIC is willing to compromise on this. The insurance industry is not willing to offer an “All Risks” policy where PI insurance is concerned because of the massive payouts they would face if a ‘Storm Financial’ like scenario occurs. Single claims are okay but can you imagine the payouts in dollar terms when thousands of claimants are involved as in the case of Storm? Therefore, the insurance industry opts for pragmatism.
“Offer a ‘claims made’ cover without the trimmings, and then refute it later if any claims are made because we would never be notified in time!”
They know full well that by the time anyone finds out that wrongdoings have taken place, claims against them have all been time barred under the insurance policy.
Take Storm Financial as a prime example. Storm’s professional indemnity insurance came up for renewal in December of 2008. Any claims that we had on Storm’s professional indemnity insurance were extinguished at that time. Yet Storm didn’t cease operations until 26th March 2009.
‘Worrells’, the official liquidator for Storm, did not release the name of Storm’s insurer to us until June 2010. I subsequently lodged a claim which was repudiated by the insurer’s lawyers, Wotton-Kearney, for the following reasons:
“Thank you for your email in response to our letter of 11 June 2010. You have queried whether our client provided professional indemnity insurance to Storm Financial Limited prior to 10 December 2008. The answer is yes.
AIG/Chartis also provided professional indemnity insurance to Storm for the period 21 November 2007 to 10 December 2008 (the 07/08 policy). This, however, does not change the position set out in our prior correspondence, namely, that the relevant policy is the policy incepting 10 December 2008 (the 08/09 policy).
We presume from your email that you consider that the 07/08 policy may nevertheless be relevant. For that to be the case, one of the following things would have needed to have occurred during the period of the 07/08 policy to trigger indemnity under that policy, however, we do not understand either to have occurred:
(a) You would have had to have made a claim for damages against Storm during the 07/08 policy. Our understanding is that you did not do this until the period of the 08/09 policy; or
(b) Storm would have had to have notified facts or circumstances (that might give rise to your claim) to AIG/Chartis during the 07/08 policy period pursuant to section 40(3) of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) (ICA). No such notification of facts or circumstances pursuant to section 40(3) was made by Storm to AIG/Chartis during the 07/08 policy. Please note that the 07/08 policy does not contain a “deeming clause”, as discussed in the cases which are the subject of the commentary about section 54 of the ICA that you quoted in your email of 10 June 2010. As such, section 54 does not assist you to pursue cover under the 07/08 policy even if Storm was aware (which factually may or may not be the case) during the 07/08 policy of facts or circumstances that might give rise to your subsequent claim against it during the 08/09 policy period. While section 54 may be used to excuse late notice of circumstances under a policy with a “deeming clause”, it cannot be used to excuse late notice of circumstances pursuant to section 40(3) of the ICA (see Gosford City Council v GIO  NSWCA34). We realize that you may not like the position that we have outlined above, however, it is based on settled law.
We have provided you with our client’s detailed reasons for its position in relation to your claim. There is nothing more we can do other than to again urge you to take legal advice before pursuing your claim any further against Chartis, as any such action will be vigorously defended.”
How could any of Storm’s claimants make a claim for damages against Storm during the 07/08 policy when the name of the insurer was kept from us for 15 months? What’s more, we were not aware of any wrongdoings by Storm until ASIC began investigating Storm on 12th December 2008. By the time ASIC laid any charges months later, we were “done and dusted”.
So, what type of PI Insurance should Storm have had in order for us to make a claim against Storm’s insurer that would not be time barred? Here’s where it gets a little technical. For one the PI insurance policy would need to contain a ‘deeming clause’ and it would also need to be a ‘run-off’ cover. However, we might still have been time barred even if the PI insurance cover contained the necessary clauses because of the inordinate delay that took place before we were in a position to make a claim.
The lessons of Storm must be taken on board so that notification delays such as these can be catered for in any new compensation insurance system that is implemented.
For your information:
(a) ‘Run Off’ cover indemnifies an insured for claims first brought against the insured during the period of run off insurance, arising from mistakes allegedly made by an insured, in the course of their former professional practice. If an Insured chooses to sell his/her business and retire, then 'Run Off' cover will indemnify them for any unknown claims arising during the Period of Run Off Insurance, arising from mistakes made whilst they were still in business.
(b) ‘Deeming Clause’ provides that a claim is deemed to have been made during the period of insurance if it arises from circumstances which were notified to the relevant insurer during the period of insurance. The significance of a deeming clause in a claims made policy is that, if the insured has failed to notify insurers as required and the insurer seeks to deny cover on the basis that the policy was not triggered, section 54 of the Insurance Contracts Act may apply and require the insurer to pay the claim nonetheless. The insurer's liability is reduced only to the extent that its interests have been prejudiced by the insured's failure to notify. If there is no deeming clause or any explicit language requiring that circumstances be notified to insurers, section 54 of the ICA will not apply. The insured may notify "facts which might give rise to claim" in accordance with subsection 40(3) and this will engage the policy in the same manner as a deeming clause. However, a failure to notify under subsection 40(3) will not be remedied by section 54. It is vitally important, therefore, in the case of a claims made policy without a deeming clause, that circumstances be notified "as soon as practicable" after awareness of potential claims arises, in order to ensure that the policy is attached.”
Storm’s PI Insurance policy was a ‘claims made’ one.
(c) ‘Claims Made’ policies - such as professional indemnity and directors' and officers' (D&O) insurance - only provide cover for claims made against the insured during the policy period. They invariably include a deeming provision, under which the insurance is extended to claims made outside of the policy period, provided they arise from circumstances notified to insurers within it. Without the deeming provision, the insured would be left without cover for such claims. They will not attach to the policy for the year in which the claim is made, since the relevant circumstances will have been disclosed to the new insurer, who will have excluded the claim from cover.”
Storm’s PI insurance policy for 07/08 did not contain a “deeming clause”
So why doesn’t the insurance industry offer a comprehensive PI insurance as an industry standard? Here’s an article by FindLaw Australia’s Michael Gill entitled, ‘Section 54 Review of the Insurance Contracts Act’ that goes some way to explaining this:
“Particular problems have emerged in relation to the operation of section 54 of the Insurance Contracts Act upon claims made and claims made and notified policies. The benefits extended to insureds by section 54 have been gradually extended by the courts. In particular, in the 2001 case of FAI General Insurance Company Ltd v Australian Hospital Care Pty Ltd, the High Court applied section 54 to a deeming clause in a professional indemnity policy. A deeming clause can extend an insured's cover even if no claim is made against the insured during the period of insurance. It extends cover provided that the insured gives written notice during the period of insurance if it becomes aware of any occurrence which might subsequently give rise to a claim against it. An insurer has been obliged to indemnify an insured who failed to notify circumstances discovered during the currency of a policy unless prejudice could be proved.
Since Australian Hospital Care, insurers writing claims made and claims made and notified policies have tended to omit deeming clauses from their policies. This leaves the insured to rely on the statutory right given by section 40(3) of the Act. It has been held by the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Gosford Council v GIO General Limited that section 54 does not apply in relation to the statutory right provided by section 40(3) but, as the Report rightly points out, 'there is still some uncertainty because the High Court may well reverse the effect of the decision in Gosford Council v GIO General Limited'.
The Report indicates that there was strong evidence that the judicial interpretation of section 54 was a factor having material impact on the professional indemnity insurance market in Australia. Some insurers, particularly London insurers, had withdrawn from the market, or had altered their policies in an effort to reduce the impact of the decisions. Others made it clear that they would withdraw if those alterations were found by subsequent judicial decisions to be ineffective. The reviewers also report that even where cover remained, the cost was increasing alarmingly and the comprehensiveness of the cover was declining.
The Report concludes that legislative reform is necessary in relation to the operation of section 54 on claims made and claims made and notified insurance. It recommends that section 54 be amended so as not to apply to a failure to notify circumstances that might give rise to a claim. This would amount to a statutory reversal of the High Court decision in Australian Hospital Care Pty Ltd.
Section 40(3) only gives a statutory protection to an insured where notice of facts that might give rise to a claim is made as soon as was reasonably practical but in any event before the insurance cover provided by the contract expired. The Panel has recognised that this could give rise to unfair results and has recommended an extended reporting period of 45 days after expiry of the insurance policy. There is also a recommendation that insurers provide a pre-expiry notice to insured of their need to notify circumstances, unless there is, to the insurer's knowledge, a broker involved.”
Now you can see why ASIC considers this all too hard and seeks an easy way out. However, in so doing, ASIC does not meet its obligation to investors because most PI insurance covers remain inadequate.
Here’ part of ASIC’s reply to my letter dated 27/6/2013 in which I pointed out the deficiencies in the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009.
“Dear Mr. Ainslie
Your concerns about how ASIC will administer the compensation requirements under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (National Credit Act) and the issue of run-off cover in particular are noted.
Regulatory Guide 210 (RG 210 Compensation and insurance arrangements for credit licensees) and Regulatory Guide 126 (RG 126 Compensation and insurance arrangements for Australian Financial Services licensees) address how ASIC proposes to administer the law in relation to adequate insurance cover for both types of licensees. In setting our policy on PI insurance, we need to take into account the coverage available in the insurance market.
When developing our policy on compensation requirements for credit licensees last year, we undertook extensive industry consultation, and formed the view that the availability of run-off cover varied greatly across different sectors of the credit industry. As a result, we have taken a flexible approach aimed at maximizing the number of credit licensees holding run-off cover, while recognizing that not all credit licensees will be able to obtain such cover.
Our policy is that credit licensees should make reasonable efforts to obtain automatic run-off cover, including documenting the steps they take. Where credit licensees advise us they have not been able to obtain run-off cover, they may be required to provide evidence that they have made reasonable attempts to obtain it (e.g. documented evidence that more than one insurer has indicated that it is not prepared to offer automatic run-off cover to the licensee in question). However, as stated in RG 210.29, ASIC will not require a credit licensee to hold run-off cover where it is not reasonably available to them.
Given the limitations of PI insurance cover, including in cases where a licensee becomes insolvent, the Government has announced an inquiry into the need for a last resort statutory compensation scheme to complement the existing compensation requirements.”
How does ASIC’s so-called “flexible view” equate with compensating investors if anything goes wrong? How can ASIC justify its approach to PI insurance when it adopts such a laissez-faire attitude to the protection of investors in Australia.
I found the following statement made by ASIC in the same letter particularly contentious because it misses the point completely.:
“Note: Australian Financial Services (AFS) licensees are not required to hold run-off cover as part of their PI insurance policies: see Regulatory Guide 126 Compensation and insurance arrangements for AFS licensees (RG 126). We are aware that it may be difficult for a person holding both AFS and credit licenses to obtain run-off cover, and will take this into account when assessing whether a licensee has made reasonable attempts to obtain run-off cover.”
If nothing else, the Storm Financial debacle should have taught this Government that a ‘run-off’ cover and a ‘deeming clause’ are an absolute essential. This type of PI insurance should therefore be mandatory.
Moves have been underfoot to introduce a statutory compensation scheme for victims of bad financial advice. The first thing that needs to be understood is that there is a difference between “bad financial advice” that is given in good faith, and “misleading and deceptive advice” that is designed to deceive. You can’t insure against the former but you can insure against the latter.
“MEDIA RELEASE – “Move for Compensation Scheme for Victims of Flawed Financial Advice.” 21st April 2015
“Independent Senator for South Australia, Nick Xenophon, will next month release an exposure draft of legislation for a statutory compensation scheme for victims of bad financial advice, in the wake of scandals that have engulfed the financial services sector that has destroyed the financial security of thousands of Australians.
The exposure draft will be forwarded to the Senate Economics References Committee as part of its current inquiry into the scrutiny of financial advice so that the committee can properly consider the options presented.
Senator Xenophon will draw the statutory schemes that exist in the United Kingdom and Europe. He will then seek comment from victims, consumer advocates, banks and other financial institutions.
‘Even if there has been a finding of fraud or a breach of corporations’ law the chance for redress for a victim is slim because of the enormous costs in pursuing a case. What we have in Australia is a legal system, not a justice system’ said Nick.
It is anticipated the exposure draft will set out the criteria under which compensation will be paid, caps on compensation, the contributions to be paid by industry, and by government.
‘Not only should industry contribute to such a scheme, but government should too because of systemic failures of our corporate and financial watchdogs.’
The exposure draft will also address the issue of appropriate insurance for financial advisors given many victims were unable to claim due to the inadequacy of current insurance arrangements.
Senator Xenophon praised the work of his Senate Economics Committee colleagues Sam Dastyari, John Williams and Peter Whish-Wilson.
‘This is an issue that goes beyond politics when you have both Labor and Coalition senators, as well as the Greens, championing the rights of victims,’ said Nick.”
It appears that even some of those in Government have now realized that the current compensation system is a shambles, and recognize that ASIC remains part of the problem rather than the solution.
One thing is abundantly clear! Any compensation insurance system will never work in the best interests of the victims of financial misconduct whilst insurance companies are involved. Their reluctance to take on the ‘risks’ involved with compensation insurance must preclude them from any participation. That only leaves one course of action; the Government should take over the role of insuring investors.
This approach would:
• restore investor confidence;
• provide the means whereby claims can be settled quickly;
• create additional revenue for the Government coffers;
• avoid financial debacles such as ‘Storm’ where the investors lost everything;
• reduce the need for litigation with its subsequent costs;
• give investors a degree of security when using financial advisors;
• weed out those financial advisors who do not have sound infrastructures; and
• motivate ASIC to do its job properly.
Yes, I am advocating that the Government creates an insurance arm that provides a comprehensive compensation insurance cover for all investors. Further, I would separate the victims of financial fraud from the recovery process which would be left in the hands of the government’s insurance arm. It is unfair to expect the victims to fund the legal costs when they are the wounded party. The fact that our present legal system expects just that is a sad reflection on the current state of affairs.
A tribunal could be set up to deal with the rights and wrongs of a particular case thereby relieving the courts of this burden. This would speed up the legal process and ensure that any claims lodged would be dealt with expeditiously. This can’t be said of our court system where the proceedings are protracted and expensive which leaves the victims at an unfair disadvantage.
The insurance arm (within ASIC) would be funded by a levy on all Australian Financial Services (AFS) licensees and other financial institutions such as banks that offer financial services. Because of the numbers involved, this levy would be a nominal one that would not really impact on those that pay it. Because this would take the place of professional indemnity insurance, there would be an immediate cost saving to those in the industry.
Of course, such a system is a pipe dream because there are too many people in the financial sector that have a vested interest in making money from other people’s misfortune. The lawyers, the Judiciary, the financial advisors, the insurance companies and the rest would prefer that nothing is done. After all, whilst chaos reigns money is to be made. The financial sector has evolved into one gigantic cash cow, and the resistance to reforming it would be resisted vigorously.
The powers that be tweak the financial sector every now and again to keep the investors on side, but they will never fix it because it’s not in their best interests. Then again, am I being too cynical?
It will be interesting to see what those that want to change the system finally come up with? No doubt, it will be more of the same under a different guise.
Whatever, something has to change because, until it does, these financial disasters will keep on reoccurring year after year.
FRANK AINSLIE – 25th May 2016