Three financial REs have been exposed in the ASIC marketing crackdown

Three financial REs have been exposed in the ASIC marketing crackdown

The four unnamed funds were opposed for a number of reasons. The publication of their letter would be unreasonably harmful.

They argued that the public interest was satisfied with the correct disclosures and that information released after the ASIC underscored the risks.

Documents reveal that the ASIC unit responsible for controlling investment managers carried out a scheme that was “like unnamed funds” and “actively engaged in advertisements that could mislead and mislead and prevent this behavior.”

ASIC examined ads using search Terms such as “term deposit conversion”, “bank transfer”, “term deposit” and “high yield account” Found on Google or Nielsen’s ad search sites.

This led to the identification of 10 REs, of which ASIC wrote a letter to seven to raise concerns about the funding they promoted.

No worries were identified with the three funds even though search terms appeared in the marketing materials.

Of the three funds named in the documents, all responded promptly to letters from ASIC attorneys outlining that they had taken appropriate action.

Australian Unity has withdrawn notes on term deposits in advertising materials related to its marketing and its Australian Solidarity Advanced Cash Fund, according to the ASIC summary of its action.

Skiering’s RE removes asset class comparisons in an image on its main page, while deleting references to “capital fixed” and evidence related to its skirting fixed income fund.

DPT, which oversees 2,262 million selected mortgage funds, suspended applications until amendments were made to its claims on capital stability, while reviewing the terms of the withdrawal to ensure that they “comply with the fundamental assets of the fund”.

ASIC then wrote a letter to all funds, no further concerns.

Broad repression

The project was carried out on time ASIC initiated federal court proceedings against financial operator Mayfair 101 It is said to be misleading and deceptive marketing.

ASIC stated that Mayfair Platinum could compare false, misleading or fraudulent statements with bank term deposits by representing its credit products, and that they had risk details similar to term deposits when they had a higher risk profile.

Mayfair 101’s IPO Wealth Finance Units and Mayfair Platinum Credits were set up as wholesale products for sale to so-called sophisticated investors, as opposed to retail financial products overseen by a responsible company.

Mayfair Platinum and Mayfair 101 used affiliate web ads advertised by Google Ads and Bing Ads.

Websites for Mayfair bond products appeared as advertised links when consumers searched for “bank term deposits” or “term deposits” online, ASIC said.

“Mayfair’s advertising material used terms such as ‘term deposit’, ‘term investment’ and ‘fixed term’, ‘firm’ and ‘confidence’ and ‘capital growth’.”

Last month, as part of a moratorium on Victorian Supreme Court proceedings, Mayfair 101 Group has developed a monthly bill for Google ads Related to term deposit related searches, more than 000 150,000.

In June 2017, more than 22,000 clicks were registered as part of a campaign entitled “IPO Wealth Term Deposit”, which costs about $ 7 per click, according to Google Invoice submitted to the court.

You May Also Like

About the Author: Cory Weinberg

"Alcohol evangelist. Devoted twitter guru. Lifelong coffee expert. Music nerd."

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *