NB The menu in the left hand panel contain specific documentary evidence of regulatory failure.
ASIC_Regulatory_Guide_47 makes interesting reading. Of particular interest are the items under the heading Underlying Principles. Joseph Gobbels once said, "If you are going to tell a lie, then make it a big one."
ASIC does not apply the same rules of integrity and accountability it expects of others to its own behaviour. Like the previous coalition Government, ASIC, when caught out, employs the time honoured defence of refusing to answer a direct question when it knows just how damaging the answer would be.
Since becoming the operational regulator in 1999, ASIC has drawn continuous criticism for its failure to act in timely manner. A short list of the companies in which this has occurred include: HIH ($4 billion), One-Tel ($600 million), Sons of Gwaila ($125 Million), Harris Scarfe (at least $70 million to the ANZ Bank), Westpoint ($400 million), Fincorp ($500 million), and ACR ($300 million). In companies not on the stock exchange with losses between a few million and less than $100 million a non exhaustive list includes Business Australia Capital Finance Australia ($10 million), Co-Develop Australia ($36 million), Mercator Pacific ($10 million), Gabriel Pennicott ($20 million), Melbourne Investment House ($1 Million), National Investment Institute ($60 million), Pagoda ($15 million), Radisson Maine ($4 million), Robert Orehek ($50 million), Sonntag ($16 million), Streetwise ($50 million), Sovereign Capital ($20 million), Sydney Investment House ($6 million),Tasmanian Mortgage Scams ($70million), Triscott ($60 million), Hanna Bros ($6 million), Viron Hondros ($6 million). In more recent times we have seen the failure of Allco, Opes, Great Southern, Timbercop, and most recently, Storm In almost every one of the above cases every case ASIC had the opportunity to intervene before disaster overtook the investing public, but failed to do so.
As I write this update, it is late October 2009. Daily, the press relates the snippets from the Parliamentary inquiry into Storm. The behaviour of the banks and Storm management beggar belief.
The Australian Finncial review of 28/10/2009 claims
Fincorp and ACR investors have joined Westpoint victims in demanding a Royal Commission into past ASIC performance. Anyone with money anywhere in the ASIC regulated marketplace should have serious concern for the safety of their money.
The specific reasons Westpoint investors call for Royal Commission stems from three separate areas.
1. Past ASIC performance. (Well-docmented from public domain material).
2. The refusal of the Howard Government to answer pertinent questions. The communications between the Assistant Treasurer's Office and myself should suffice to prove my claims of a desperate attempt by the Howard Government to stifle the truth in this matter [see the correspondence between myself and the Assistant Treasurer's Office in Politicians under the heading Dutton].
3. The performance of FICS in relation to methodologies and secrecy.
Read how the Assistant Treasurer's Office launched a defence of FICS (a private company) without the subject ever being raised by Westpoint investors: see [2007_10_08_Hutchinson_MacAulay].
4. The silence of the Rudd on Government on their promise of an open inquiry into past ASIC performance.
Most of the material demanding a Royal Commissions comes from documented lack of ASIC performance. As you read the material below, please keep in mind disclosure is a cornerstone of modern business practice. However, ASIC ignores the need for dislosure whener it suits them ASIC's withholding critical information from the market on a number of occasions has denied investors the opportunity to make informed decisions