BCS - BrisConnections Unit Trusts

Garpal Gumnut said:

On the face of it , it appears reasonable, let these mums and dads as you call them know via email of the dangers.

It then spreads.

An announcement is made as they click the buy button. Should they be allowed buy or warned of the announcement. ??

The rest of us have to put up with mountains of emails warning us of what we already know.

Best leave it as it is.

They shouldn't be in the market if they don't understand or read the dangers inherent in trading.

They'll be more careful next time.

gg

Click to expand...

chops_a_must said:

My first reaction if buying something with a 5 letter code would be, "why the hell am I buying an option?"

I'm confused as to how people did not investigate further. Surely they would know that these aren't normal shares, and "normal" shares only have 3 letter codes.

Click to expand...

cuttlefish said:

The same if you look them up on the ASX site. Type in BCSCA in the price search field, and no mention is made that its a partly paid securiy in the price results. Click on the hyperlinked BCSCA stock code in the price results to get company information and it makes no mention that I can see either, and no link to the product disclosure statement either.

Also, even if people were aware they were partly paid, they may have thought the additional instalments were optional. It is only in the subsections of the PDS that it is made clear that they are not optional.

Click to expand...

rocket12 said:

I always thought options (shares that have options) were four letter codes, and in Commsec it states clearly on the main pages of each option that its an option and gives the expiry date. And when you go to the buy page it tells you its an option and when it's going to expire. The same should have been done with the Brisconnect shares, giving the dates of the next two installments.

Also when you look up shares in the Age (which is where I initially looked) It just lists them as Brisconnect. Whereas shares that come with options are listed as options with the expiry date.

Click to expand...

I asked BrisConnections chairman Trevor Rowe whether there is any prospect of improved terms or a change of heart within the BrisConnections team. Rowe says the PDS fully disclosed the terms of the deal. He also says his company must legally make its “best endeavours” to get the money from investors who don’t pay up, and that includes the use of debt collectors.

But is using debt collectors feasible? Tony Aveling, the chief executive of Collection House, the biggest debt collection agency in Australia, says: “I don't think it is. I just don't think you'd get to collect a lot of money in any exercise to do with BrisConnections."

I think when you see the chief executive of a debt collection agency publicly shooting down the notion of chasing small shareholders and day traders for instalment dues, not to mention his willingness to turn down potential new business before it even comes to his door, it's safe to say the debt collector route is pie in the sky.

Click to expand...

rocket12 said:

Hehe, my wife makes a good point. It seems the peeps who know about the 5 letter code are also the ones not blessed with much logic or sense of whats right and wrong.

Click to expand...

Sunder said:

I think you've hit the nail on the head right there. (I know I said last post, but this really gets my goat) Not that we don't have much logic or a sense of what's right and wrong, but we have a different, and I would argue, a more mature logic and sense of right and wrong.

It is "right" to make sure that kids do not have to bear the full force of their mistakes while they are learning. It is right to make sure that adults do. We have a lower set of expectations for children. For example, when a child plays on railway tracks and gets hit by a train and is injured, we claim more needs to be done to ensure safety, and we talk compensation for "failed safety systems". If an adult does the same, we say "too bad, but he knew the risks when he climbed the fence to get in".

You, presumably, are an adult, yet you want the protection of a learning child, claiming that people did not make you aware of the facts, despite the facts being freely available in many different places.

You're like the guys in America who sue because Starbucks didn't write "Caution coffee is hot" on the cup. To a reasonable adult, some degree of logic and judgement is assumed. You did not apply this logic and judgement, when you bought a share that is clearly not a normal share.

I ask you one simple question. Were you intentionally deceived? If not, then Caveat Emptor. The information was out there. There was no hiding the signs if you had known it was there, and if you didn't - the signs were differentiated sufficiently from normal, that a reasonable person would have stopped to check.

You sir, do have a different sense of logic and moral direction from many of the rest of us - but do not assume it's superior than the other people here. It's clearly failed you and landed you in hot water. Failure is not the mark of superior logic and moral direction.

My only concession is that the punishment for naivety this time, is disporportionate to the offence. However, being a zero sum game, someone has to pay the piper, and I'd rather it be the one who made the mistake, than anyone else.

Click to expand...

bigdog said:

http://www.tradingroom.com.au/apps/qt/quote.ac?code=BCSCA

The Age reports the same:

(BCSCA) BRISCONNECTIONS UNIT TRUSTS
STAPLED SECURITY PAID TO $1.00, $2.00 UNPAID

I simulated buying BCSCA with Westpac Broking; the minimum buy is $500 or 500,000 shares and $1 million to pay!

There was no information about the $2 owing reported by Westpac Broking!

Click to expand...

Sunder said:

I think you've hit the nail on the head right there. (I know I said last post, but this really gets my goat) Not that we don't have much logic or a sense of what's right and wrong, but we have a different, and I would argue, a more mature logic and sense of right and wrong.

It is "right" to make sure that kids do not have to bear the full force of their mistakes while they are learning. It is right to make sure that adults do. We have a lower set of expectations for children. For example, when a child plays on railway tracks and gets hit by a train and is injured, we claim more needs to be done to ensure safety, and we talk compensation for "failed safety systems". If an adult does the same, we say "too bad, but he knew the risks when he climbed the fence to get in".

You, presumably, are an adult, yet you want the protection of a learning child, claiming that people did not make you aware of the facts, despite the facts being freely available in many different places.

You're like the guys in America who sue because Starbucks didn't write "Caution coffee is hot" on the cup. To a reasonable adult, some degree of logic and judgement is assumed. You did not apply this logic and judgement, when you bought a share that is clearly not a normal share.

I ask you one simple question. Were you intentionally deceived? If not, then Caveat Emptor. The information was out there. There was no hiding the signs if you had known it was there, and if you didn't - the signs were differentiated sufficiently from normal, that a reasonable person would have stopped to check.

You sir, do have a different sense of logic and moral direction from many of the rest of us - but do not assume it's superior than the other people here. It's clearly failed you and landed you in hot water. Failure is not the mark of superior logic and moral direction.

My only concession is that the punishment for naivety this time, is disporportionate to the offence. However, being a zero sum game, someone has to pay the piper, and I'd rather it be the one who made the mistake, than anyone else.

Click to expand...

rocket12 said:

The Age has done it well... Confused about the Westpac buy, are you saying they did mention there was $1 million to pay??

Click to expand...

cuttlefish said:

The ASX had a choice - allow brokers to offer online trading and non-advisory discount services or not.

This is more like coffee with 10,000 volts running through one side of the rim of the cup and if you happen to turn it the wrong way and drink from the wrong side you get fried. (and once you've bought the coffee you're not allowed to throw it in the bin once you realise how dangerous it is because they removed all the bins and glued the cup to your hand).

Click to expand...

Sunder said:

The risk is not inherent in the product. The risk created in this particular market for this particular share, due to the share price falling to such low levels, and the market for it dying.

Click to expand...

Sunder said:

The risk is not inherent in the product. The risk created in this particular market for this particular share, due to the share price falling to such low levels, and the market for it dying.

Sticking with the coffee cup analogy, it's like saying everyone who buys take away coffee, must undergo strict training, on the possibility that one day, through a manufacturing defect, a cup might be produced that accidentally sticks to your hands, and can give you a fatal 10,000 volt shock. Don't laugh. Considering coffee cups can be made out of stryofoam, static electricity could form, and even mild static shocks to the head can disrupt brain function

The probability of the BCSCA debacle happening was small, and regulators can't regulate against everything. This is the adult/child world view I have been talking about. Our world is has gone from legislating criminal behaviour, to legislating against negligent behaviour, to legislating against personal responsibility.

We don't need it, and our world would be much worse for it.

Click to expand...

rocket12 said:

So the financial review listing it as a fully paid share doesn't register with you?

Click to expand...