Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

MF Global Australia - What are you doing?

Ahoy,

I'm caught up in the MF mess along with many others. I, like others, was concerned about whether or not lodging an informal proof of debt would reduce my rights, especially as I have done this (and Deloitte have recommended doing so via their communications).

I spoke to ASIC first, and they've marked my case as urgent and will get back to me today hopefully. I said I was concerned our funds might end up paying Deloitte's fees, espeically if we identify ourselves as creditors.

Then I spoke to Deloitte. They have essentially said whether we fill out the form or not, our entitlements to our money will not change. However doing so gives us the right to vote at the first creditors meeting. They said that we (clients) are creditors based simply on the fact that MFGA owes us money. After thinking about it a bit it did make sense that fillling out that form can not be used to change our legal entitlements to our funds as that would be open to a massive can of worms and deceptive ploys etc.

I probed Deloitte further for timetables and information. To Deloitte's credit the person I spoke to was quite helpful and did seem to know what they were talking about (you would hope so too given the fees!) They couldn't give anything concrete (as usual) however they believed a tangible timetable for things such as reconcilliation and paying funds back to clients and so forth was not too far off. It was hard to guage what this meant exactly, but my feeling was we should have this within weeks. This was the timetable though - not the funds themselves!

I asked if it could take a year even to receive funds, and they reacted in a manner suggesting it should not take anywhere near that long - but certainly months seemed on the cards.

I also tried to probe about the status closing positions and account reconcilliation. This affects everyone indirectly as until everything is closed we are all in limbo - my understanding is they won't give anyone anything if there is one position out there unnaccounted for. Nothing concrete again, but I took from his responses that a very small percentage of positions with some international exchanges were outstanding. Hopefully this means the risk of losing positions eating into the money is lower.

If there are losing positions I'm not sure who pays though... the wait must be even more nervous for those that don't know if their positions have been closed AND they can see their positions would be losing.

I did feel much better after speaking to them that money is there and coming back at some point. Though it is part of their job to make me feel better so it has to be taken with a grain of salt.


There is a great insight into market psychology here for all traders that have money with MF. Stocks and other instruments do not like uncertainty at all, and they generally can't move on while that uncertainty remains. We MFGA clients are just the same now, with the uncertainty getting to us more than the reality, with every unanswered question playing on our minds. Figuring out the path forward without knowing if/when we are getting how much money back is difficult.

Hopefully a concrete timetable is issued soon. The list of questions Brent and Pierre-Francis are putting forward, if all answered, will be most helpful.

Well done to anyone involved that has taken action - it may be for not much in the end but I would kick myself rather hard if it was all over, I lost out and did nothing.
 
anyone noticed the forms sent by Deloittes refers to MF Global Australia Limited ACN 001 662 077(tick Box), yet my statement from emidas refers to MF Global Australia Limited ABN 50 001 662, no mention of the ACN.

I'm wary of legal technicalities and i cannot contact Deloittes by phone and email replies are a just form responses - their service performance(considering their excessive fees)is way below par.
 
Hi

I have a otc CFD comsec account. Up until today (9/11), I am still unable to get my money out from commsec. Can anyone advise me what is their current situation with commsec otc cfd account?

I just wonder what right does commsec has in 1. Not releasing our fund which is with commsec, and 2. Close our cfd positions without our consent. Bear in mind that we never trade with mfglobal which is their counterparty, and we opened the account with commsec only.

I would appreciate forum members can shed light onto it.
 
Please be very careful to check what Deloittes are telling us as account balance holders of MFGA - they have their own interests to look after first and foremost and that means maximising their fee pay out and getting access to as big a pot of funds as possible to do that.

Deloiitte will say that client balances are creditors - it is in their interest to do so - if this is the case all client balances will be categorised as unsecured creditors and therefore become available to pay secured creditors and also the administrator (being Deloittes) BEFORE giving client balance owners back their money. Just because a client has a deposit balance does NOT always mean they are a creditor. For example if a trust is holding the cash balance on behalf of a client, the client is the benificiary and not a creditor. This generally affords a lot more protection to the beneficiary/client - third party interests will find it much harder to access their cash balances.

From the legal advice I have had to date - and as per Companies Act S.981 Regulation 7.8.03 - client balances held with MFGA should be seen as being held in trust, not as creditors as Deloitte might have us believe - simply because it is in their interest to tell us that.

However, please check with independent legal counsel for yourselves to verify if what I am saying is correct
 
As SKC mentions, Commsec OTC CFDs uses MF Global as a counterparty. Hence, when I asked if I could transfer funds out of my Commsec OTC CFDs account this morning, I was told that this is not currently possible and would have to wait for further information.

I rang MF Global Australia's number this morning and the phone rang out with no answer.

Anyone else with Commsec OTC CFDs?

I am with Commsec otc cfd. Up till today, I was not able to tranfer funds out. I feel that we should not be penalised as 1. Our funds are with commsec, 2 we never trade with mfglobal.

Commsec has no right in withholding our fund , and also one-sidedly close out our positions.

Please give me your thoughts on this and how can we move this forward?
 
To MrLunch: the information I have is consistent with yours.

To all - we are considered a "contingent" creditors.
If all money belonging to the respective segregated accounts can be repatriated to Australia, then, with segragated accounts overall balancing, the money "held in trust" will be returned to account holders. Without us been technically creditors.
If however some money is missing from the segregated account, then all account holders from this segregated account become creditor for the shortfall.

One source of confusion is that being referred to as creditor (or contingent creditor) does not imply that we are considered creditor with respect of the whole account balance, only fo the shortfall. Hope this makes sense.

Because Deloitte can not assess the shortfall until all overseas parties have transferred the funds held, they conservatively consider all of us "contingent" creditors.

For people still hesitating to fill in the Informal Proof of Debt, my recommendation is to go ahead, as it will allow them to participte to the meeting and to vote without affecting their ability to recover their funds (this is a personal opinion, don't quote me on this, I'm not a lawyer or a Insolvency specialist; I am a full-time futures trader, affected like you by the collapse of MF Global; I have been across communications from ASIC and deloitte which confirm MrLunch findings).

PF
 
I watched the webcast on the creditors meeting and here are some random thoughts.

Positives:
- It sounds like MFGA is pretty much doing everything above board. There are no missing client money. Indeed there may be small surpluses if all the funds held at counterparties are returned into the system.

- Deloitte is keeping client moneies in separate pools between the different product areas (CFDs, Futures, FX etc). There is a chance that certain type of clients can get their money back sooner if the transactions within that product area are resolved.

- It looks to me that MFGA is a going concern and hopefully will be sold as such. There may be some interests to make client accounts whole from a potential buyer. The buyer may also be in a better position to ask the existing counterparties to expediate the release funds held back to MFGA.

- There seems to be adquate cash at the company level to pay off local staff's redundancy payments. This is important as the staff are vital to helping Deloitte unravel the puzzle. The same goes with other general creditors - there doesn't seem to be much problems there.

- Quite a number of knowledgeable people have volunteed themselves as members of the creditor committee.

Negatives:
- The counterparties (e.g. Deutche Bank for CFDs and ASX for futures) are not forthcoming with the necessary information in a timely manner. In fact, as Deutche has multiple touchpoints with the MFG globally, they don't seem to want to release the funds in one country if they are going to be short of funds in another country. I am not sure they are legally allowed to do that, but that seems to be a main reason for the holdup.

- Certain futures counterparties are other entities within MFG who are now also undergoing administration. So the administration process for those entities may prove to be a bottleneck for MFGA's process.

- Some future account holders are putting in claims on market risks experienced because of positions being frozen. These claims (of which I don't know if there are merits or not) will delay the whole process further.

Overall verdict...

The money is probably there, even though much of it is outside the MFGA system (and hence not in the administrator's control). Those counterparties have their own agenda wrt holding onto those cash/information which brings the risk mostly to collection risk.

If clients receive >90% within 6 months that would be an acceptable outcome to me.
 
heard that Deutche Bank has some futures account with MF global UK and may file a case using the collateral from clients margin funds (this is not verified) to offset this liability.
If this is true (i hope it's not true and it doesn't seem to be incharacter with DBA) I think Deutche Bank is playing a very dangerous game here, first the chance of them willing this type of case from my personal view is not too significant. These are AUSTRALIAN client money and have nothing to do with UK holding company is my view.
Secondly I think that DBA would be doing a huge amount of damage to their brand name., which Australia institution would leave fund in DBA or trade with a DBA counterparty if they are not going to release the fund when there it is needed.
I think DBA are forgetting that MFGA cfd accounts are used by Commonwealth Bank Clients, Westpac clients, etc and they are effectively damaging their brand in Australia.
I think the creditor should write to the CEO of Commonwealth Bank, Westpac and any other Australian institution that deals with DBA and advise them of the issue and risks in dealing with DBA. (using this case as an example and using the action of BNY as a contrast)
If this doesn’t there should be a campaign in the media. Let me know what you think.
 
And now for some not so great news-

MF Global's local arm lacking information

"Deloitte partner Chris Campbell said the process would take more than three months but less than a year assuming all data was received and reconciled."

http://www.theage.com.au/business/m...information-20111111-1naqt.html#ixzz1dMjZvIuR

Lets face it folks, your money is gone.

There is buckleys of you ever getting much if any back, as there is criminality at 3 or 4 levels of separation from you.

It sounds like a Storm Financial Mark2 in a way, litigation is the only option and the lawyers will suck most of it up anyway. The local dealers will fall back on the statements you all signed prior to opening your accounts.

gg
 
Lets face it folks, your money is gone.

There is buckleys of you ever getting much if any back, as there is criminality at 3 or 4 levels of separation from you.

It sounds like a Storm Financial Mark2 in a way, litigation is the only option and the lawyers will suck most of it up anyway. The local dealers will fall back on the statements you all signed prior to opening your accounts.

gg

You have no idea what's going on. The money is there, there are no criminal activities in MFGA and even those at Sonray was able to get 87c in the dollar when the directors there were criminally stealing from client accounts. The ASIC rule of using client segregated account doesn't offer 100% protection, but it does offer some protection unless there is blantant criminal activity (e.g. Sonray or what may be the case with MF in US).

Have a look at the creditor meeting presentation if you are interested in making more informed posts.
 
Just read this one , have a look-http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9QU45E80.htm"], seems like all the clearing houses have the same problems!:banghead:
I'm also part of this MFG debarcle, and was at the meeting yesterday , I'm no legal eagle , but the process of placing MFGA under admin, seems like the were acting in haste , in not considering closing out clients positions. (at least with the Aussie Exchange products, ASX, SFE, CFD's, and solvent OTC counterparties).
I do understand they may of had thier hands tied, legally, and with ASX/FE operating rules.
They may of been able to get up to 80% of the futures pool, and better than the woefull 36 or so percent of the OTC CFD cash .
 
1) I have not yet seen the creditors presentation posted on deloitte's website
2) GG - your post is incorrect
3) Check this out: this excellent white paper presents the issues with a broader perspective. ASIC and Bill Shorten's office should read this too. There were commercial organisations at yesterday's creditors' meeting who are clearly affected by the MF Global collapse (GrainCorp, Georges Weston Food (the tip top bread), superannuation funds); it's not just the financial speculators's problem
http://www.futuresmag.com/News/2011/11/PublishingImages/MF Global White Paper- FINAL.pdf
(in case the link above does not work, that's: futuresmag dot com/News/2011/11/Pages/CME-gives-300M-guarrantee-to-SIP-Trustee-for-customersegregated-funds dot aspx)
4) The sad thing is that everyone is starting to pull the cover in their direction; some claim their losses from slippage when their positions got liquidated several days after 1st-Nov should be shared by all (guess they would not be willing to share any profit from slippage); others, essentially non-active traders with a dormant account claim they can't take any loss as they were not in the market (these should have a better read now of what the PDS clearly states - or even better, read the PDS next time before they open a trading account)
So, instead of moving towards a situation where 50%-70% of the funds could be released in the very short term, we now face a situation where the Administrators will have to fight multiple claims. No need to be a rocket scientist to know who will benefit from that situation: lawyers and the administrators, using the segregated account money to finance their fees - God knows for how long.
pf
 
1) I have not yet seen the creditors presentation posted on deloitte's website
2) GG - your post is incorrect
3) Check this out: this excellent white paper presents the issues with a broader perspective. ASIC and Bill Shorten's office should read this too. There were commercial organisations at yesterday's creditors' meeting who are clearly affected by the MF Global collapse (GrainCorp, Georges Weston Food (the tip top bread), superannuation funds); it's not just the financial speculators's problem
http://www.futuresmag.com/News/2011/11/PublishingImages/MF Global White Paper- FINAL.pdf
(in case the link above does not work, that's: futuresmag dot com/News/2011/11/Pages/CME-gives-300M-guarrantee-to-SIP-Trustee-for-customersegregated-funds dot aspx)
4) The sad thing is that everyone is starting to pull the cover in their direction; some claim their losses from slippage when their positions got liquidated several days after 1st-Nov should be shared by all (guess they would not be willing to share any profit from slippage); others, essentially non-active traders with a dormant account claim they can't take any loss as they were not in the market (these should have a better read now of what the PDS clearly states - or even better, read the PDS next time before they open a trading account)
So, instead of moving towards a situation where 50%-70% of the funds could be released in the very short term, we now face a situation where the Administrators will have to fight multiple claims. No need to be a rocket scientist to know who will benefit from that situation: lawyers and the administrators, using the segregated account money to finance their fees - God knows for how long.
pf

Hi I think there is a key point being missed here. DBA is the second largest bond holder of MF GLOBAL (see attached)
http://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/Brokerage-MF-Global-bankrupt-afp-3323400847.html?x=0
and this is probably why it's not paying or has not yet paid the A$48 million Deutsche owes MF Global Australia.
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/20...ators-pursue-deutsche-bank-for-cash?category=
This is despite the fact that DB is paid a risk premium for holding it's lowly rated MF Globlal paper. this is where you need to focus the fight.
 
GG - your post is incorrect

I hope so, but the UK Guardian tells me that MF Global is all over the place in New York.

The hunt for the missing money is reportedly being complicated by disorganised paperwork within the firm. Poor record keeping is believed to have been one of the reasons buyers refused to step in and rescue the firm. Banks, clearing houses and the firm's UK subsidiary have all been suggested as locations of the missing money but so far the trustee and regulator have not said whether they have found the funds.

Giddens said: "While the investigation is proceeding around the clock we are unable to estimate when it will be complete. The trustee's investigation will be deliberate, thorough, and independent."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/nov/11/mf-global-missing-600m-sacks-staff

gg
 
I am also caught up in the MF Global Saga (CFD pool).

My thoughts are the money DB is holding onto right now came from our client segregated funds in Australia.

All CFD trades have now been closed so they should return the margin.

In an effort to draw attention to our money which is not being returned by DB what if 500++ of us turned up at the DB branch in Sydney ?

Thoughts/comments appreciated.
 
If most / all positions are closed and it is simply a case of counterparties of MFGA withholding money (eg Deutsche Bank Australia (DBA)) - then client balance holders or representatives thereof have to get on to ASIC and pressure them into enforcing their own regulations onto DBA etc.

If MF Global has balances with DBA and there are no open positions DBA has a legal obligation to pay back the money to MFGA as soon as practicable. The Client Segregated Account Rule has to be enforced by ASIC - this is Deloittes job as Administrator to get on to ASIC to do this. If in fact, DBA or DB AG had a debenture on the parent company - that is a separate issue - they need to take that up with the administrator of the parent company in the US not hold balances of Australian client money to compensate. It is against US and UK Securities regulations (and also supposedly Australia) to cover shortfalls of company money with client money - so DBA will be breaking laws of all 3 countries by trying to repatriate Australian client money out of Australia to US and UK to do this. In the US and UK, unlike Australia, I believe it is also illegal to cover shortfalls of one client account with surplus funds in another client account (though this should be checked). If ASIC are not enforcing their own Client Seg regulations they are telling all client balance holders in all brokers and banks in Australia that these regulations do not mean anything - and that client balance holders funds rank equally with unsecured creditors. This should be highlighted in the media and ASIC should be made aware of this - if ASIC cannot take action to enforce their own rules and it does come out in the media there will likely be a run on all brokers accounts in Australia both from local and international parties - not in the in best interests of ASIC or anyone else. It will make them look like a joke worldwide. This is exactly what CME are trying to prevent by offering a USD 300 million guarantee for client shortfalls. There is no supposed shortfall in Australia yet no one is doing anything to release client funds. It is time we all got on to ASIC to make sure this happens and that counterparties of MFGA such as DBA are forced to release the funds immediately ....It is easy to force DBA to produce statements showing what positions are still open and what cash balances they have - they have to do this on a daily basis anyway and they would know exactly what funds they have and what positions are open. They have this information now. If DBA are in breach of Client Seg regulations ASIC are within their rights to revoke their license. ASIC has the power to get clients of MFGA their money back - it is about time they used this if the only issue is MFGA counterparties withholding balances. ASIC has to realise that the sanctity of client segregated accounts has to be preserved for the trading and broker industry to survive.
 
Top