Slashdot Mirror
Financial Services Group WCS Sues Online Forum Over Negative Post
First time accepted submitter kavzee writes The popular Australian online discussion forum, Whirlpool, is being sued by a financial services group for refusing to remove a negative review about its services. A similar story occurred a number of years ago when another company by the name of 2Clix attempted to sue Whirlpool for the same reasons but later withdrew their case. "A financial services business licenced through National Australia Bank is suing an online forum for refusing to remove an allegedly fake and negative post about its services, claiming it has damaged its reputation with would-be clients. It is the latest legal action launched against an online forum or review website for publishing negative comments, following several high profile cases in Australia and overseas. Financial advice group WCS Group has initiated action against Whirlpool in the Supreme Court of Victoria, seeking unspecified damages and costs, despite the fact the forum generates no revenue."
...when Australia had the reputation, especially with conservatives, as being "America done right." How times have changed!
Why did WCS hire Barbara Streisand? She doesn't know anything about investing.
In an age where companies collect and trade info about customers, it seems only fair that customers should be able to trade info about companies and governments. I hate it when my bank sends info about me to their financial investment partners. Banking and investing are separate business, however there is money to be made off suckers and to avoid people with financial or legal problems.
The most egregious of these are doctors, who recommend unnecessary procedures just because you have the money to afford them. A patient puts his trust in a doctor, yet it seems as if oftentimes this trust is misplaced. I noticed that Angie's List no longer maintains reviews on doctors. They must have been sued into silence.
The other day, Fox news ran a story about a lawyer who was charging his client money for sleeping with her. Funny story, but it would have been even funnier had they released the name of the lawyer. Whatever happened to free speech and defending to the death our right for it.
That's irrelevant. All that matters is who has the bigger wallet the hire better lawyer. Even OJ won in court.
I mean, all the companies do fake positive posts, buy likes, give presents like whole tablets for 'free' (for positive ratings), so why would it be more illegal to post fake negative comments?
In the end you can never tell which post is real and which is not, do you?
This is the comment they're referring too apparently. http://forums.whirlpool.net.au... Could have all been dealt with, had they participated in the forum to correct any misunderstanding. Too late for that now.
Area51 - We are watching...
When will people learn that trying to take down negative reviews just gets you more negative reviews and the spotlight.
Maybe that is intentional. When you are at the bottom of the pile, any publicity is good publicity. The saying in Hollywood is "It doesn't matter what they write, as long as they spell your name correctly."
My nest egg is managed by a firm who (like many firms) charge a standard fee based on the amount of money under management.
If that fee is more than 0.1%, then you are still getting screwed.
Error messages when posting. The reason you are seeing multiple postings from people is because they are receiving an error message saying: "please try posting again you are either behind a firewall or a proxy." Even though their post has been posted it is telling them to try again.
When will people learn that trying to take down negative reviews just gets you more negative reviews and the spotlight.
You have to remember that there might be many cases like this where the negative review gets successfully removed and gets no public attention. That might be the reason why "they won't learn" -- because the trick might actually work.
The definition of trolling is to post messages with the deliberate intent of exciting readers into an emotional response, so I'm not sure if it's the correct term to use here. I don't think that was the main motivation of the writer of the review.
A word to the wise, anyone using the phrase "I'm not a racist" usually is. Not that you seriously believed any of that stuff you posted.
Here's some more advice: racist trolling stopped being in vogue over ten years ago. Consider changing to something a bit more up to date.
My nest egg is managed by a firm who (like many firms) charge a standard fee based on the amount of money under management.
If that fee is more than 0.1%, then you are still getting screwed.
You're 226.3% correct, sir. Because if I use a firm who charges 0.05% and gives me a 3% return, that's better than a firm that charges 1% and gives me a 10% return. I'm so glad to have your wonderful advice. May I turn over all my assets to you so you can manage them for me?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Gross overstatement isn't the same thing as "talking out of your ass". And I'm not even sure that it was a gross overstatement, though it is clearly not true of *all* financial services companies.
That said, it's also true that there are many "honest police". But somehow the honest police never inform on the dishonest ones. Similarly, the "ethical" financial services companies don't campaign to get the rules changed that enable the unethical ones to prosper to the point where they dominate the industry. I understand that in the case of the police, each individual may have his life depend on support by any other, which may partially mitigate their reluctance. I don't understand, however, what is equivalent in the financial services sector.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Why should it be a % of the money under management is $200 somehow twice as hard to manage as $100, or do they guarantee your money so if they lose it they will pay you back? No, so the risk is all yours.
You may say $1,000,000,000 is harder than managing $100, not sure but if it is, is it 10,000,000 times harder? Its interesting since they fund managers tend to under perform the market, so they are worse than just blindly picking stock.
Gross overstatement isn't the same thing as "talking out of your ass". And I'm not even sure that it was a gross overstatement, though it is clearly not true of *all* financial services companies.
That said, it's also true that there are many "honest police". But somehow the honest police never inform on the dishonest ones. Similarly, the "ethical" financial services companies don't campaign to get the rules changed that enable the unethical ones to prosper to the point where they dominate the industry. I understand that in the case of the police, each individual may have his life depend on support by any other, which may partially mitigate their reluctance. I don't understand, however, what is equivalent in the financial services sector.
A reasonable point. I guess my reaction was more to the tone of the whole post (angry, as if the poster had been scammed -- which is certainly likely), rather than the phrase I singled out. Perhaps I should have used less inflammatory language.
As to your point about the lack of effort on the part of "ethical" FS companies not advocating needed reforms, I couldn't agree more. A mitigating factor might be that many of the "unethical" FS companies hold significant power to harm other companies which might prefer a more ethical marketplace.
The staggering lack of ethics or conscience in pursuit of ever more profit makes me want to hurl. And before someone starts accusing me of being a Marxist shill, I would point out that I am fully integrated into our capitalist system and have no problem with people making profits. What I'd prefer is that those making profits do so on a level playing field (you know, that whole "equality of opportunity" thing).
And while I do see the value in providing financial services, changes in the legal (tax and regulatory) framework (in the US at least) over the past 30 years or so have given large players undue advantage.
Those changes have been wrought by politicians and regulators who are beholden to the self-same players who have benefited from them. That won't change until the outsized influence of money is removed from our political system.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Because if I use a firm who charges 0.05% and gives me a 3% return, that's better than a firm that charges 1% and gives me a 10% return.
Funds that charge higher fees DO NOT give better returns.
Higher Fees Don't Mean Higher Returns, Study Finds
24% of Active Mutual Fund Managers Outperform the Market
In every single time period and data point tested, low-cost funds beat high-cost funds
Morningstar Study Says High Fees Are Bad for Investment Performance
Anybody that thinks that high fees are buying high performance is delusional.
Why should it be a % of the money under management is $200 somehow twice as hard to manage as $100, or do they guarantee your money so if they lose it they will pay you back? No, so the risk is all yours.
You may say $1,000,000,000 is harder than managing $100, not sure but if it is, is it 10,000,000 times harder? Its interesting since they fund managers tend to under perform the market, so they are worse than just blindly picking stock.
I get your point. However, it seems to me that charging a percentage of money under management makes a lot of sense. If the manager increases the value of your portfolio, their profit increases. Which makes your self-interest their self-interest.
Such an arrangement provides the relatively honest money manager with a strong incentive to make more money for you.
Yes. If I wanted to spend a significant amount of my time watching the markets and moving my assets around, i could, potentially, increase the value of my portfolio to outperform the typical money manager. At the same time, I would have to pay someone to move those assets around, so there is a cost there as well. It's a calculation -- how much will I have to pay to move those assets around, plus how much time will I have to spend monitoring the markets and researching particular investments? And further, how much is my time worth? That needs to be weighed against the returns, not from a typical money manager, but from *your* money manager.
I could also spend two or three hours at the laundromat washing my own clothes. It would certainly be cheaper. However, I made the calculation that I'd rather pay extra to have the laundromat staff wash and fold my clothes for me, so I can spend my time doing other things -- and the premium I pay for the extra time is worth it to me.
That brings me back to the self-interest bit. If I pay a money manager a percentage of the money under management, they have a strong incentive to maximize my returns, as it improves their bottom line. And if they give me reasonable (again, that's a subjective determination) returns, it's a win-win all around.
All that said, the value/cost calculation is a subjective one, and one person's subjective calculation is likely different than another's.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
I guess the phrase is "I'm not a racist, but ..."
Because if I use a firm who charges 0.05% and gives me a 3% return, that's better than a firm that charges 1% and gives me a 10% return.
Funds that charge higher fees DO NOT give better returns.
Higher Fees Don't Mean Higher Returns, Study Finds 24% of Active Mutual Fund Managers Outperform the Market In every single time period and data point tested, low-cost funds beat high-cost funds Morningstar Study Says High Fees Are Bad for Investment Performance
Anybody that thinks that high fees are buying high performance is delusional.
A reasonable point. Often (as is evidenced by the links you provided), higher fees are associated with organizations which maximize their profits at their customers' expense. My point was most certainly not "you should find a money manager who charges you more! They're the ones who will make you the most money!" My point was that money managers who charge a percentage of money under management (regardless of what that percentage might be) have a strong incentive to maximize your returns, as it maximizes their profits as well.
That said, my point about returns is still valid. If (and, as you correctly point out, that's a big if) you are being charged a certain percentage and are receiving a certain return, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's impossible for someone to pay a higher fee and get an even higher return. How does that disclaimer go again? "Past performance is no guarantee of future performance."
The truth is that regardless of how someone manages (or pays someone else to manage) their assets, they should keep a close eye on them and make sure they are maximizing their returns. Making the point that, in the aggregate, higher fees don't necessarily translate into higher returns, is useful and should be factored into investment decisions.
However, each person needs to make their own decisions and those decisions may or may not track with the graph. It's in that decision space that the aphorism generally (and incorrectly) attributed to PT Barnum is proven correct every single day.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
money managers who charge a percentage of money under management have a strong incentive to maximize your returns, as it maximizes their profits as well.
True, and the best way to maximize the return is for the fund manager to invest in a high risk crap shoot. If the gamble pays off, they get their fee, and attract lots of new investors. If it doesn't pay off, then hey, it wasn't their money. This is exactly what high-fee managers do. They run multiple funds, make risky investments, then shut down the funds where the gamble fails, and advertise and promote the funds where it pays off. This gives investors the illusion of success, when on average, they would be much better off investing in a low fee index fund.
"Past performance is no guarantee of future performance."
This rule is an understatement. Past performance is not even an indicator of future success. Fund managers that have done well in the past, are no more likely to do well in the future than predicted by random chance. There is no evidence that their past success was due to anything other than luck. There is no rational reason to pay someone to gamble on your behalf.
...The defendant always as the advantage in US criminal law.
That's hilarious! I wish I had mod points this is definitely a +5 Funny!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
money managers who charge a percentage of money under management have a strong incentive to maximize your returns, as it maximizes their profits as well.
True, and the best way to maximize the return is for the fund manager to invest in a high risk crap shoot. If the gamble pays off, they get their fee, and attract lots of new investors. If it doesn't pay off, then hey, it wasn't their money. This is exactly what high-fee managers do. They run multiple funds, make risky investments, then shut down the funds where the gamble fails, and advertise and promote the funds where it pays off. This gives investors the illusion of success, when on average, they would be much better off investing in a low fee index fund.
"Past performance is no guarantee of future performance."
This rule is an understatement. Past performance is not even an indicator of future success. Fund managers that have done well in the past, are no more likely to do well in the future than predicted by random chance. There is no evidence that their past success was due to anything other than luck. There is no rational reason to pay someone to gamble on your behalf.
You're quite correct. Although I think we're talking about different scenarios. You're talking about independently marketed investment funds, while I'm talking about licensed financial advisers managing portfolios of assets (which may include securities, index funds, investment funds as well as other financial instruments) on a client-by-client basis.
If I'm misunderstanding you, please correct me.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
How about you follow your advice?
You who complain about Americans, and tell them to get out. Perhaps you should set the example.
Anyone in Australia who hasn't at least considered one of the many smaller (and better) financial institutions instead of the big 4 banks (or one of their subsidiaries) is stupid, the smaller guys are just as good (if not better) than the big 4 when it comes to service, products etc and they dont do a lot of the crap the big 4 do.
Here's the payment scheme I'd like to propose - the fund manager gets to keep 40% of every dollar earned above and beyond the return garnered by the appropriate index benchmark fund. Period.
I can make the averages, and the fees at Vanguard are low. I'm willing to pay you handsomely to beat the averages - but not to loose.
Great! Send me a prospectus. I can be reached at /dev/null.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Yes, don't forget that religion, work habits, family values and attitudes toward violence are genetically determined, with no element of free will allowed. That makes any comment about other cultures a racist comment. Isn't academia wonderful?
Here's the payment scheme I'd like to propose - the fund manager gets to keep 40% of every dollar earned above and beyond the return garnered by the appropriate index benchmark fund. Period.
Only a complete moron would invest under those conditions. All a fund manager needs to do is take your money, walk into the closest casino, and bet it all on one spin of the roulette wheel. If he wins, he gets 40% of your money, and you get 160% back. If he loses, then you have lost 100% and he makes nothing. On average the fund manager will make 20% and investors will get 80% back, having lost the other 20%.
But there are enough morons out there to support an entire industry of investment funds that pretty much do exactly what I just described. They make risky or leveraged investments, keep a chunk of the winnings, dump the losses onto the investor, and collect generous fees for doing so.
Yes, you are racists. Most blacks were born in the USA, so why should they go anywhere? Maybe it's you who should buy a ticket to England or Ireland or to a country where your ancestors came from?
Well if they don't like it, then they can go back to their own shitty countries. Im not a racist, but whenever blacks complain about slavery or discrimination here in America, I offer to buy them a one way ticket to Africa. But no. They don't want to go back to that shithole. I'd do the same for Mexicans or Chinese or any other fuckers who complain and cause problems in America, yet none want to go back home.
Just out of curiosity, if the one complaining was a Hopi, or Cherokee, or Navajo, or Apache, or perhaps Salish, to which destination would you purchase a one way ticket for them?
This space unintentionally left blank.
If I post some recipes on the forums, will I get sued by Australian restaurants for helping people make their own meals and avoid their services?
Whirlpool is incredibly popular, and has a very loyal user base - the offers of money for a legal fund are starting to roll in! I saw nothing in the thread that is defamatory, the OP asked for advice, was told 'do your homework' (entirely sensible), OP came back and said 'I found a better deal, thanks'. Nobody came out and said "this company is shit!" I very much doubt they have a leg to stand on, and all they have done is ensure that a future Google search will bring this little act of douchery up and forever associate their name with it. Good Job!
That's irrelevant. All that matters is who has the bigger wallet the hire better lawyer. Even OJ won in court.
Not in Australia.
In Australia we have judges that are competent, not simply waiting for their next cheque.
Also the whole "better lawyer" thing is not as skewed because the winner can go after the loser for legal fees (even if they withdraw their case). So a lot of lawyers work on the idea that they'll get their fee after the case if your case is strong enough. Besides this, Whirlpool's Simon Wright has been putting money away after the 2Clix fiasco for just this kind of emergency.
But the National Australia Bank (NAB) owned WCS is about to learn about the Streisand effect the hard way. Before the tried to sue Whirlpool the only people who knew about that post were the people in that thread (I'm an active member and I didn't know about it) but now, there's an article in the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald about them.
This wont end well for NAB.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
6 cases is FAR from proving your point. "innocent until proven guilty"... that alone sounds like it is stacked in favor of the defendant. Not to mention all the rules on how you obtain evidence. And how you actually were noticed to begin with. I could go on... but that can't compete with your 6 examples. >_>
I probably shouldn't be feeding you, but most of those links (you obviously didn't read them) refer to studies discussing the unfairness of the US criminal justice system WRT to prosecutorial discretion/abuse and plea bargaining and not specific cases.
'Tis better to remain silent...
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Thanks for sharing the links. Good to have definitive studies to confirm intuitive suspicions on the matter
I have a friend who's complained about the illegal immigration that happened maybe two centuries ago....
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Suing Whirlpool will have a much bigger negative impact on their business than any post would have. Goodbye WCS.
How did that turn out? Did you get that house painted white again?
White man's immigration to America - and their genocides of the inhabitants - started well over 3 centuries ago, in large part as a colony for transportation of criminals and other undesirables. By two centuries ago the hecatomb of the native inhabitants was well under way using germs, steel and guns in approximately that order of importance. Though that's not the origin myth that your educational machines in Hollywood put out.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"