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.
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."
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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!