Mayfair advertising found as deceptive and misleading

Companies in the Mayfair 101 Group have been found to have made false, misleading, or deceptive statements in its debenture products advertisements by the Federal Court.

According to an announcement by the corporate regulator, the court found that in relation to Mayfair Wealth Partners trading as Mayfair Platinum, Online Investments trading as Mayfair 101, M101 Nominees and M101 Holdings represented that:

  • Mayfair’s debenture products were comparable to, and of similar risk profile to, bank term deposits, when Mayfair’s debenture products exposed investors to significantly higher risk than bank term deposits (Bank Term Deposit Representation);
  • The principal investment would be repaid in full on maturity, when investors might not receive capital repayments on maturity, or at all, as Mayfair could elect to extend the time for repayment for an indefinite period of time; and
  • Mayfair’s debenture products were specifically designed for investors seeking certainty and confidence in their investments and therefore carried no risk of default, when there was a risk that investors could lose some, or all, of their principal investment.

The court also found Mayfair Platinum, Mayfair 101, and M101 Nominees engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by representing that the M Core Fixed Income Notes were fully secured financial products when the funds were:

  • Lent to a related party and not secured by first-ranking, unencumbered asset security or on a dollar-for-dollar basis or at all;
  • Used to pay deposits on properties prior to any security interest being registered; and
  • Used to purchase assets that were not secured by first-ranking, unencumbered asset security.
Related News:

Justice Anderson found the bank term deposit representation were “not comparable to, or a proper alternative to, bank term deposits.

He also said the use of sponsored link internet advertising was “tolerably clear that the defendants’ marketing strategy was addressed to persons searching for a term deposit in order to divert them to the defendants’ websites”.

“I am satisfied that the Mayfair products have been, in fact, designed by the defendants to produce a result which is uncertain for investors and could not on any reasonable view be described as an investment with no risk of default,” he said.

“Mr Mawhinney was the directing mind and will, and the ultimate beneficiary, of each of the defendants.”

Commenting, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, deputy chair, Karen Chester, said firms needed to make sure they accurately described their products when advertising.

“Our ‘True to Label’ project that we commenced in late 2018 identified 30 funds with over $10 billion across these funds, that are misleading investors through online advertising, especially when investors are seeking yield in a low interest rate economy. The online advertising is misleading by claiming to offer products that involve less risk, when in reality, investors could lose some or all of their investments,” she said.

“Advertisements also claimed investors could get their invested money out when they wanted but that was not the case. This case is a warning that ASIC will not only take action where investments are marketed as safer, lower risk, or more liquid when they are not, but when search engines are used in a misleading or deceptive way to entice investors to products they are not searching for.”




Recommended for you

Author

Comments

Comments

Hello ASIC I guess when APRAs heat map shows RESTs so called Balanced Fund to contain 94% Growth Assets, with only 6% Defensive Assets.
ASIC SAY NO PROBLEM at all.
INDUSTRY FUNDS CAN DO WHATEVER THEY LIKE, ASIC WILL NEVER HURT INDUSTRY SUPER.
ASIC, so totally Regulatory Captured Corruption.
Insanely wrong.
Disgusting ASIC !!!

They go for the low hanging fruit everytime...for political purposes!

While I agree that a balanced fund is not 94% growth and alternative investments, I think that it is unfair to say ASIC should call it out. Balanced is simply not defined, so it is legitimate for the fund manager to say "I think my fund is balanced". The only way this will be resolved is to take complaints to AFCA and let them decide. Also to get AFCA to publish decisions so they are on record.

I agree with Ben Dover. Purposely misleading advertising regardless of whether terminology has been defined should always be called out and stopped.

Likewise Australian Super have certain assets such as property and artificially inflated toll road valuations as 'defensive' or worst still 'fixed interest' when clearly they are not.

All union funds also have intra-party deals with associated entities and little underlying actual security on debt structured arrangements, akin to what Mayfair has been accused of, and yet ASIC find zero fault with anything they do. Why is that?

ASIC is corrupt.

So RobinBris, they Mayfair should have called their's a "Balanced Fund" - problem solved.

Sadly - you are probably correct.

And appointed some union officials to their Board. They are an ASIC immunity shield.

Add new comment