GUILTY Case# 2011-035 | Steve Callaway vs www.appleinvestmentcompany.com.au/

Based on the available evidence, do you believe that Apple Investment Co is guilty?

  • Guilty

    Votes: 74 90.2%
  • Not Guilty

    Votes: 8 9.8%

  • Total voters
    82
  • Poll closed .
Liz

You got that answer from the FOS because you mentioned only Apple Investment. They had only a REPRESENTATIVE licence ( ceased 04/04/2011 ). But they were the representative for a LICENCEE. It is their LICENCEE that is under the jurisdiction of the FOS.
You should have mentioned the LICENCEE Mark Power Financial Lic 332428

You could have seen from a previous post by Steve Callaway that Mark Power Financial got in touch with him pleading ignorance about what Apple Investment was doing under their licence but THEY MADE A COMPENSATION OFFER in order to not get in trouble with the FOS.
Thanks, MichelAnge21. I've just checked what I sent them. I sent FOS a joint complaint against Mark Power and Apple Investment Company. I also sent copies of the submission to Apple in Australia, the US and to Mark Power himself. It was after this that I heard from Mark Power (letter posted above). I replied to the FOS email today asking them to review my case in light of Steve's case and detail for me why my claim was unsuccessful. We had similar time frames: Steve traded live, I didn't initially because I knew my slow internet would create problems. I didn't get a compensation offer from Mark either. I followed the information from FOS and ACCC and took it on to Office of Fair Trading which is supposedly coming to a conclusion this week. From there I'll be able to see whether I have to go to small claims tribunal. It could simply be that my case is different in that I purchased an educational package which of course turned out to be software with all the set up for live trading. I still expect a refund regardless of the excuses about the software.
 
Last edited:
Product Disclosure Statement (Fx Calibre)

:nerd:

PDS for Apple Investment Company Fx Calibre
 

Attachments

  • PDS.pdf
    179.3 KB · Views: 7
Apple Investment Company Financial Services Guide

:nerd:

The information in this is related to the PDS.
 

Attachments

  • FSG.pdf
    29.3 KB · Views: 7
Did any of you receive or request the PDS or FSG prior to purchasing FxCalibre?

A little information on the MDA
http://www.mdaa.info/a867002-apple-investment-company-announce-mda-managed.cfm

This can also be viewed on the US AIC site.

The Australian AIC site has been reduced significantly during the week to a promotion for charities.

Apple Investment Company - Securing your future.

and lost the AFSL and licencee details.

These details are still on the US site, along with most of what was on the Australian site until recently.

The "live" connection to FXCM account creation is nowhere to be found, unless I've missed it.
 
Where is did the MDA investors (the big AIC money) go?

:nerd:

Re: link on MDA for larger investors.

This is a combination of our knowledge, evidence and the probable trajectory if the past becomes the future.

December 2010/January 2011 AIC some MDA investors, who had been looked after by their AIC representative, were invited by that representative to look at KPI Capital's Global Macro Fund. By that stage the AIC representative was probably looking to move on from the problems besetting Apple Investment Company and FxCalibre both at the level of corporate regulation, the courts and media. The high stakes investment market is very sensitive to bad press and when one of theirs goes down they step away because mud splatters and sticks for a while.

The licencing issues were also impacted by the jailing of Stephen McArdle. Sure, different entity, but still in the same neck of the wood. http://www.moneymanagement.com.au/news/planner-jailed-for-12-months. Most of you would already know that. It's now 6 months on. No doubt there is more to the story than what is revealed in court or the newspapers.

Any good fund manager does try to keep track of these matters to ensure a consistent ROI for their members. High yield with real risk minimisation strategies are premium investments. They require consistent monitoring and are certainly trading based in this economic climate to maintain respectable yields.

I have reliable information on one trust fund that went across from AIC's MDA to KPI Capital's Global Macro Fund with some of their clients/members and where that secured investment if actually being held. There would be others.

You may already know about the "rebirthing" of companies, so called "phoenix". http://www.moneymanagement.com.au/news/ato-phoenix-prosecution.

It's no news that Australian companies can incur a major debt as one entity or asset strip (they're getting more clever at doing that) then go into liquidation leaving their creditors with nothing. The next thing they (or their mates with the money) have risen from the ashes, phoenix like, with different directors. There's a lot of song and dance about finding directors, looking for someone to blame then a scapegoat often is found to take the punishment, which satisfies the public, victims, regulators and government. Most laws are created in reaction to crime, not anticipating crime as a preventative measure. For those who tread the fine line between business and breaking the changing statutes and regulations it's easy to get caught without actual criminal intention. For the real crooks its a perpetual cycle of cleverness and staying one step ahead of the investigators and regulators.

One challenge is for ASIC is to work out where the value in AIC went to.

By contrast for most of us the interest is in getting a refund of our money: that spent on software, coaching or any other unsatisfactory product purchased from Apple Investment Company. If they won't give that back to us with adequate proof then we have to show how they have broken the law in order to ensure that they are ordered to do so through the courts. Correct me if Im wrong on this information.

It then follows that certain proofs about the software and the process would logically lead to our claiming all the money lost through their product - costs and/or damages, depending on who is handling the case. I expect to have more information on this from the solicitor soon.

The Global Macro Fund is no doubt a large collection of investors. My last information is that KPI Capital are using the Australian Mutual Holdings AFSL. No doubt they'd like one of their own.

They are also sharing an office, from my understanding, with AIC (if anything is left of AIC).

KPI Capital are not investment retailers. This means they aren't dealing directly with individual investors. There are trusts under trusts and some of these are overseas registered trusts, as the trust taxes are lower in other countries, e.g. NZ.

When some companies get tired of the corporate or other regulators in Australia there are ways to move money on from one investment trust to another and so on. Eventually some gets 'lost' in countries where it's too hard to track and seems to disappear. Often it's still there, it's just so elusive that no one can be bothered chasing it up for ever.

As well finding individual investors within these complex investment trusts and funds is the proverbial needle in haystack operation. If you're inclined to go looking I suggest you message me directly for any more information beyond what I've given you which in all probability is where the "income" AIC received went to for at least some of the time. Of course in writing this it may also be already moved on or just about to move.

One of the tactics used in effecting this movement of investors is creating a buzz to attract investors in the next fund/trust/investment company. This company then performs well enough to keep the investors, or sets up the investment conditions to make it more difficult for investors to get their money out at short notice. This of course makes it easier to manage consistency in the investment. It also creates the impression of solid investors staying with the company, which is good for business confidence.

When an "international" company (I've got a letterbox in NZ - that will do for an office!) wants to pull out of Australia up comes the representative (who maybe used to work for AIC, then KPI, then whomever) and as a good mate suggests another similar high yield investment, backing of Hallifax or whomever. All of this keeps the representative in pocket money as well as everyone/every entity along the way who also gets a cut on the deal and commissions.

Some investment companies take quite a % out of the raw ROI. KPI Capital takes 20% which no doubt covers their contributions to AMH (for the AFSL), their level 13 office in Surfers Paradise, lunch at Oscars, waterfrontage real estate, etc etc.

When a company becomes less of a darling with investors and its value "drops", what is hoped by all involved is that everyone will just forget about it and let it die quietly. Where does the company value go to when it eventually vanishes? Paying debts? Not if they can help it!

Read Pensee's case on FPA. It helps if the company has overseas "offices". Regulations in other countries may exist but may not be equally enforced, depending on the corporate attitude to governance practices and other cultural considerations.

Speaking of cultural context, Australia is still a country that has issues with "dobbers". It comes from the origins and causative factors for our early settlers. Consequently truthsayers and whistleblowers are not treated to the kind of care and respect they deserve. People are wary about speaking out - still. Things are changing very slowly.

Without getting into a gender debate, which would be inappropriate in my opinion, I have observed that getting answers and results is definitely a job for the "boys club" here. In dealing with the corporate culture, the law and the entire government process from end to end men will get better results than women, provided one isn't "sold out" by the "old boys club". And you'd better believe it, elements of the good old "white shoe brigade" of the Gold Coast still rules the roost in modern guise as does the kickback system. (Apologies for the local language.)

From my experience all this makes for real challenges in getting good legal representation that is willing to go out on a limb to get the maximum possible results for their clients. I'm expecting that level of commitment from my legal representation and I trust that you do too. Keep them up to the mark and make sure they are very clear about who they are working for! In saying that it is hard for a solicitor who works that way to get the level of co-operation they need from the "establishment" in order to be effect for the client in real terms. It's catch 22 and can be very expensive.

Maybe I would have been better just accepting the offer of money and shutting up. I'll get it anyway, it might just take longer this way. It's a matter of the greater good, of ethics and how honest one person in Australia can afford to be.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top