Seems to me like a deep rooted malaise with this company.Other banks up today ,INL going down!Could just be some skeletons coming out to haunt them.Good profits without a good reputation does,nt make for a respected conpany.In my most humble opinion.
IN a nutshell Platsak.According to Noseweek (INL have not refuted any claims in any of the articles)INL,s staff benefits div.has been plundering the surpluses (ala Alex.Forbes)from all the little old pensioners of those schemes.Next you may recall the extortianate fees they ripped from the RANDGOLD/JCI/KEBBLE rescue saga. Most recently they underwrote an IPO in the UK for a company called Claims Direct.They did so in the knowledge that the Coy.had serious flaws, in order to recover a loan owing toINL by Claims Direct, whose cash position was useless!!!! Already some of the Shareholders in the IPO have sued and INL has settled out of court!!!!How many more will claim? I maintain INL is a hit and run outfit always trying to make an easy, quick buck,with no apparent ethics.
I read the article in Noseweek and further articles in Financial Mail on Investec and came to the following conclusion. Noseweek is a bit of sensationalist magazine and tells one side of the story from the investors who lost out to a company which was funded by Investec and went sour but managed to extricate themselves from it with minor loss. Now the investors in Claims Direct want Investec to cover their investment. The same goes for JCI and Fedlife which were possibly risky investments. But as Investec CEO explains they have made a lot of excellent investments and have always well for their shareholders which is their first priority. The FM gives a more balanced report with Investec's side included which Noseweek does not. Investec is a solid Co. and is here for the long term.
It's simple really,if there is no truth in these articles, why does'nt INL just sue them ? Thats what always baffles me. With their muscle and legal army , they could klap Noseweek right outa here.Where there is smoke, they ought to be putting out the fire !!
To All Noseweek Sceptics, herewith my conclusion; When a damaging allegation is made, in the public media, about a Company or individual, and such allegation is either harmful or damaging to that Companies, or individuals good name and reputation, the Company or individual would undoubtely not hesitate to challenge the accuser, restore its reputation and sue the culprit for the consequent harm it has suffered - IF THE ACCUSATION IS UNTRUE, UNFOUNDED AND INACCURATE. That is what big companies, or high profile individuals do in order to maintain their good standing in the public domain. Now where this course of action is not taken one can only be overwhelmingly drawn to the conclusion that such allegations are in fact true. No company/individual which maintains a high level of ethics, accountability and transparency, would allow such allegations, however trivial or from whatever source, to remain unchallenged put the record straight and restore its stature. Nothing could be more logical or elamentary. I rest my case!!
Striker. Thanks for the shortened version of the article. Being in law I can see Investec's predicament. The articles has been published. True, false or half truth is problably irrelavant at the moment. The law does not always provide quick or easy recourse in these matters. They are problably awaiting legal opinions from very expensive SC's before deciding on a course of action. It is thus my opinion that because no response has been forthcoming at this stage must therefore not be construed as x, y or Z.
Don't forget - the way Noseweek (and I think it is "Private Eye" like it in UK) publish in a separate company with no capital for each publication and you would be suing a shell! Ask yourself why Standard Bank, ABSA, Liberty Life and many others before them who have also been castigated in what is possibly just as defamatory a manner, have never sued. This is apart from the fact that if you get into a slanging match with these publications, they will nail you one way or the other, and it is recognized worldwide that it does not pay to sue them. Also their research is normally excellent and there is often a huge amount of truth in what they put out. Remember it was Noseweek who exposed Brett Kebble, and many other crooks (I believe they may even have been first to finger Mr Selebi)
Platsak-I should point out that Noseweek, without exception, has a policy of inviting the company concrened,to respond ,comment and/or provide rebuttal evidence and information, BEFORE they publish any article. INL would have been afforded such opportunity,before publication of the various articles.Makes one think, does it not ??
Striker. I feel that publications like noseweek definately has a place. We do need some unconventional Bulldogs as a means of last resort. The one or two times I have read the magazine it was my personal opinion that they oversimplified some isues and that they were just that bit too venomous in the attack. Truth is problably somewhere in between. Where to from here for Investec?