GH and others and MHP... Two of MichaelHP's comments in one post...

GH and others and MHP...

Two of MichaelHP's comments in one post of yesterday had concerned/confused me and I did not comment on either of them.  The first is as you state above....the recent lack of licensing. Inferences are often drawn from euphemistic statements and the intent of the poster's statement may or may not be accurately interpreted  by the reader.  Like many, we are being bombarded with news daily re Royal Commission proceedings and outcomes for corporations and also the consequences for numerous individuals.

The second euphemistic MHP comment without revisiting it....was re 'too many fingers in too many pies".  Who was the inferred/reference expert referred to? and what qualification did they have?  I don't really want to know but I do expect that a response would be that you could not reveal their identities or corporate roles or affiliations.  With respect to uninformed investors and trying to assist them - without knowing or verifying the capacity/role you did operate in and who your informed/expert sources are, your statement might actually frighten 'naive or new investors' into selling as it does infer you have or did hold an insightful position.  It might not help them as they may realise premature 'losses' if they sell based on unsubstantiated information or might cause selling fear/panic especially with the SP falling.

I do believe ISX is one of the best and balanced HC discussion forums.  I do not know of one better and I do value the posting of differing beliefs, opinion and the wide and diverse experience of the posters.  Like you, I am also entitled to my opinion.  To date, none of us know the future outcome for ISX.  We're all speculating, whether we are holders or not.  For those of us who hold, we probably believe we are 'informed' holders who understand the 'bigger picture' and also believe any downside risks can be easily circumnavigated by the company in the near future.

Re the 'too many fingers in too many pies'  from MHP's post,  there are so many pies to dig fingers into at the moment.  Not only here in Australia but overseas - EU and the US.  In Australia, the Royal Commission is still yet to determine and enact/legislate future processes.  As we learnt recently, the Commonwealth Bank preferred to pay the hefty multi-multi million dollars fines for lack of due diligence, rather than engage the relatively cheap services of fintechs or others who could have limited the damage to their corporation.

News excerpt below - this is from the EU and ING has certainly been profiled here in Australia.  If you do a generic internet search on the most likely sources of money which is laundered, those same sources/laundering factors appear to affect most/many/if not all countries in the world.  The sources are diverse however the majority of sources fall into only a few different categories.  Easy to guess without searching.

ISX is proving and has proven themselves in the highly complex EU environment.  It is unlikely (??) that US and AUS regulations will ever be as stringent or problematic as those in the EU.



ING fine highlights extent of money laundering
Dutch bank ING has paid €775m to settle a criminal investigation over money laundering.
Picture: AFP
Dutch bank ING has paid €775m to settle a criminal investigation over money laundering.
Picture: AFP

By Margot Patrick and Max Colchester
The Wall Street Journal
12:00AM September 6, 2018
   
Banking group ING has agreed to pay a record European fine of €775 million ($1.25bn) to settle an investigation by Dutch prosecutors into money laundering failings, as regulators scramble to staunch flows of illicit money entering the European Union.

Danish lender Danske Bank saw its shares tumble 6.5 per cent following a report that local prosecutors had uncovered a higher than expected tally of allegedly illegal Russian money moving through its Estonian branch.

Banks worldwide are under increasing pressure to clamp down on the trillions of dollars of illegal money flowing through the global financial system.
Read Next

The US has led the way in policing banks in the past decade. Since 2008, it has imposed around $US23.5bn ($33bn) in fines, according to consultants Fenergo, hitting lenders whose ineffective systems officials say have let clients launder money out of countries such as Mexico, Russia and Venezuela.

In contrast, European regulators and prosecutors extracted $US1.7bn over such breaches in the same period, including this week’s ING fine.

The EU’s anti-money-laundering laws are policed by a patchwork of local regulators, which critics say leaves it open to abuse.

More recently, local regulators have toughened their stance after embarrassing data leaks from whistleblowers on company money laundering and tax avoidance, and criticism that the authorities have been too meek in pursuing such transactions.

ING shares fell 2.6 per cent after the announcement as Dutch prosecutors said it had been “seriously deficient” as a gatekeeper of the financial system.

For example, the bank handled bribes paid by telecoms company VimpelCom to the daughter of Uzbekistan’s former president and didn’t report the suspicious transactions to regulators for several years, prosecutors said. In 2016, Amsterdam-based VimpelCom, now called VEON, paid $US795m to the US and The Netherlands to settle the matter.

Other infractions ranged from poor record-keeping to helping a Suriname client launder money through electronic payment terminals.

Danish authorities have been investigating Danske Bank since a whistleblower flagged issues at its Estonian branch in 2013. The Financial Times reported that consultants had found that up to $US30bn of Russian money flowed through the Baltic branch, far higher than thought.

“The main concern for investors remains whether the US regulator becomes involved,” Citi analysts said. So far Danish and Estonian authorities are leading investigations, but US involvement could see any eventual fines increase substantially.

US authorities have already punished European banks for failings in money laundering compliance. In 2014, French lender BNP Paribas pleaded guilty and paid $US8.97bn to US authorities to settle charges it disguised transactions with clients in sanctioned countries. Britain’s HSBC in 2012 paid $US1.9bn to settle US charges that included allowing Mexican drug cartels to launder money through the bank.

The Danske debacle highlighted ongoing concerns about what is seen as a particular weakness in Europe: Russian customers using Nordic and Eastern European banks to shuffle funds across the European Union.

In February, the US Treasury declared Latvia’s ABLV bank an “institutionalised money laundering” operation and cut its access to dollars. The bank closed down shortly after.

Around the same time, Estonian Versobank had its licence revoked by the European Central Bank after regulators found money laundering deficiencies.

SOURCE: The Wall Street Journal