Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 366

Punting with retail financial products beyond ASIC's watch

Despite the publicity in recent years about financial institutions selling unsuitable financial products to retail investors, the behaviour has not stopped. ASIC should take action to prevent sales of a number of investment products designated as ‘deferred purchase agreements’ (DPAs) by ‘large, reputable’ and other financial firms. Investment banks and financial advisers have offered such products with doubtful understanding by their clients.

Not suitable for retail investors

Notably, there appears to be no public information on the outcomes of past investments in such products. In some cases, they may well have been good. But the inability of a retail investor to assess the expected return and risk makes them unsuitable products.

What are they? To illustrate, imagine investing in a financial product where the final return in two years depends upon both the share prices of some US companies such as Amazon, Twitter, and Facebook (the ‘reference’ assets) at that time, and the paths the share prices have taken over those two years. The precise relationship between your payoff and the share price behaviour is very complex (as illustrated later), and you could lose a lot or gain a lot.

While explicit formulae are specified to determine the payoff, the likelihood of a retail investor or SMSF trustee (the target market for these products) being able to understand these sufficiently to accurately assess expected return, risk, and value for money is very low.

A finance specialist with the aid of good computing power could probably do it in a couple of days. But, realistically, the internal workings of these products are no clearer for the average investor than the workings of a poker machine!

To make things even more obscure, the contracts involved are classified as DPAs. This occurs because the value of the payoff in two years is settled by the financial product issuer delivering an equal value of shares in some specific company unrelated to the reference assets involved (such as Telstra). The DPA refers to the fact that the issuer has entered a contract for future delivery of some (uncertain) number of Telstra shares, for a payment by the investor at that time which is equal to the value of the investment’s payoff.

In most of these products, the issuer will agree to sell those Telstra shares on behalf of the investor, rather than deliver them, and provide the cash proceeds to the investor. Does something smell fishy? Why have this roundabout way of generating a cash outcome for the investor?

Designed like this for tax and ASIC reasons

The answer appears to lie in the bowels of tax legislation. The receipt involved in a DPA (of more than a one-year term) is treated as a capital item for tax purposes, meaning that profits or losses are treated as capital gains (taxed concessionally) or capital losses, rather than as normal income. Thus, if an investor on a 50% tax rate received $12,000 from an initial investment of $10,000, the tax on the $2,000 profit would be $500 (since only half of the capital gain is included in taxable income) rather than $1,000.

For those with suspicious minds, there may be another reason for structuring the investment product as a DPA. For some unknown reason, the product disclosure statement (PDS) of a DPA does not need to be lodged with ASIC!

Why are these products so hard to value? Consider an illustrative (simplified) typical structure.

First, over the two years there will be quarterly ‘memory call’ dates specified. On any call date, if certain conditions are met, the product may be terminated by the issuer by repaying the investor their principal plus a prespecified dividend amount. The product cannot be terminated at a call date if there is at least one share whose price has never been above its issue date value either at that, or an earlier, call date.

Second, if at any time the price of any single reference asset falls below 65% of its value at the product issue date a ‘kick-in’ event occurs. This triggers a specific formula being used for the final payoff, which also depends on the values of reference assets at that final date. A likely outcome is that the final return depends on the share price of the worst performing reference asset, such that a large loss could occur if that share price was less than its issue date price.

Third, if no ‘kick-in’ occurs, the final payoff will be the larger of some specified minimum positive return and the absolute return of the worst performing reference asset. If all reference assets have a positive return, it is likely that a call event will have occurred such that the product has been terminated earlier. But if one has a negative return, the formula is relevant, and the investor’s return will reflect the (absolute) return of the reference asset which has deviated most from its initial price (if that deviation is above the specified minimum).

Complicated? Certainly

The issuer can model these possible outcomes and determine how it might hedge its risk by derivative transactions in the reference assets (and the exchange rate if they are overseas stocks), and how setting of the various terms will affect its likely profit. But the chances of the retail investor being able to do likewise and determine whether the product offers fair value seem very unlikely. Nor, for that matter, are the financial/client advisers likely to have the technical skills needed to properly assess expected risk and return and product suitability for their client.

The introduction of Design and Distribution Obligations for financial product manufacturers and distributors to show product suitability for the target market has recently been deferred until 2021. Once they come into operation it seems unlikely that such complex products would meet those requirements and cease being offered. In the interim, there looks to be a good case for ASIC using its recently acquired Product Intervention Powers to stamp out such offerings.

 

Kevin Davis is Professor of Finance at University of Melbourne. In 2013, Professor Davis was appointed to the Commonwealth Government's Financial System Inquiry panel (The Murray Inquiry) which was "charged with examining how the financial system could be positioned to best meet Australia’s evolving needs and support Australia’s economic growth", and which presented its report to the federal Treasurer in November 2014 (www.fsi.gov.au)

This article contains general information only and does not take into account any person’s individual financial circumstances.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

Easy money: download Robinhood, buy stonks, bro down

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

Coles no longer happy with the status quo

It used to be Down, Down for prices but the new status quo is Down Down for emissions. Until now, the realm of ESG has been mainly fund managers as 'responsible investors', but companies are now pushing credentials.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

The 'Contrast Principle' used by super fund test failures

Rather than compare results against APRA's benchmark, large super funds which failed the YFYS performance test are using another measure such as a CPI+ target, with more favourable results to show their members.

Property

RBA switched rate priority on house prices versus jobs

RBA Governor, Philip Lowe, says that surging house prices are not as important as full employment, but a previous Governor, Glenn Stevens, had other priorities, putting the "elevated level of house prices" first.

Investment strategies

Disruptive innovation and the Tesla valuation debate

Two prominent fund managers with strongly opposing views and techniques. Cathie Wood thinks Tesla is going to US$3,000, Rob Arnott says it's already a bubble at US$750. They debate valuing growth and disruption.

Shares

4 key materials for batteries and 9 companies that will benefit

Four key materials are required for battery production as we head towards 30X the number of electric cars. It opens exciting opportunities for Australian companies as the country aims to become a regional hub.

Shares

Why valuation multiples fail in an exponential world

Estimating the value of a company based on a multiple of earnings is a common investment analysis technique, but it is often useless. Multiples do a poor job of valuing the best growth businesses, like Microsoft.

Shares

Five value chains driving the ‘transition winners’

The ability to adapt to change makes a company more likely to sustain today’s profitability. There are five value chains plus a focus on cashflow and asset growth that the 'transition winners' are adopting.

Superannuation

Halving super drawdowns helps wealthy retirees most

At the start of COVID, the Government allowed early access to super, but in a strange twist, others were permitted to leave money in tax-advantaged super for another year. It helped the wealthy and should not be repeated.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.