orangeblock

You can’t blame the media for this mess

09 September 2010 | People and Companies | News | Gareth Stokes

What do you do when your multi billion rand property syndication business runs into financial difficulty? In a press release carried on realestateweb.co.za, André Brand, chairman of Sharemax Investments’ board of directors, seems intent on blaming the media. He said that the media “tried to sensationalise” Reserve Bank concerns over the group’s investment structure, thereby forcing “many potential investors and financial advisors to adopt a ‘wait and see’ attitude regarding further investments in The Villa.” And without fresh capital – Sharemax’s most ambitious retail project to date – is floundering.

The third paragraph in Brand’s release will send shockwaves through the investment community. He writes: As a result of [new inward investment drying up] Capicol, the developer of the regional shopping centre [The Villa], is experiencing cash flow problems and the completion of the centre is being delayed. This also means that the developer is currently not in a position to service the monthly income to investors, and this situation may continue for several months. Investors’ investment capital is however not at risk.

How serious is the problem

What do we know about the extent of the crisis? On 6 September, Julius Cobbett penned an article on moneyweb.co.za. The article included claims from Capicol’s legal representatives that it is owed an undisclosed amount for “final adjustment” at the now complete Zambezi Retail Park syndication and as much as R526 million for work done at The Villa. It was also suggested that the Zambezi property hadn’t yet been transferred to investors. Brand confirmed the Zambezi allegations in his press release, saying: “Zambezi Retail Park has been developed by the same developer as The Villa (Capicol) and the final adjustment account has not yet been completed. As a result, the building has not yet been transferred into the investors’ name and the developer is still responsible for interest payments to investors.”

Pity the investors who are now confronted with a cash strapped developer on one hand and Sharemax on the other. The developer cannot pay them interest until it receives funds from Sharemax, which in turn says interest is for the developer’s account.

This press release is very close to an admission that interest payments are being made from new investor capital! At the very least the directors of Sharemax (or its investment vehicle) have proceeded with massive capital projects (R2.6 billion for the two syndications mentioned) without adequate funding in place!

Directors to the rescue

As the questions about Sharemax stack up its directors are adamant they’ll save the situation. “The directors of the property companies have pro actively investigated transactions to protect the investors’ interests,” continues Brand, referring to the potential sale of Sharemax’s property portfolio to Bonatla Property Holdings. “Should the transaction have the support of the investors, it could contribute to the completion of The Villa project as well of the completion of the transfer of the Zambezi Retail Park project, with the resultant resumption of monthly income payments,” he says.

It remains to be seen whether the JSE allows a small listed company with a market capitalisation of some R42 million to gobble up a property portfolio worth approximately R5 billion. But if it does investors will quickly shoot holes in the “capital is not at risk” statement made earlier. The selling price of the properties is bound to be inflated to make up for the massive administration fees and interest costs already sunk in the various Sharemax projects. And – to make matters worse – the “best of breed” listed property companies only pay yields of around 8% versus the considerably higher interest offered by Sharemax.

Should brokers be concerned?

If the Sharemax problem escalates brokers should be very concerned indeed! We asked Ian Middleton, managing director at practice management company Masthead, if disgruntled investors could lodge claims with the FAIS Ombud. His response: “Yes, absolutely – if financial advisers didn’t follow the principles and processes set out in the FAIS Act and the General Code. The Ombud has of late taken a very strong stance on this. Reliance on a prospectus is not enough. Due diligence entails more than simply investigating an opportunity and presenting the benefits of the product to the client. It includes a sound understanding of the prospectus as well as questioning the excessive commissions (as much as 6% in Sharemax investments).”

While intermediaries suffer a few sleepless nights, it’s business as usual at Sharemax. They’re still selling investments in The Villa, and are about to expand their product offering. “Sharemax will soon make a project of the Sharemax Income Plan available to the investor network and the public, and the focus will be on suburban convenience shopping centres which are running concerns,” says Brand.

Editor’s thoughts: The latest Sharemax rumour to surface was that Dawie Roodt of Efficient Group and Steve Booysen (former Absa CEO) had been appointed directors in all 39 of Sharemax’s property investors. When we spoke to Roodt he stated categorically neither he nor Booysen were directors of Sharemax or any of its divisions. But he was tight lipped on whether Efficient Group would get involved in Bonatla in any way. What do you think is happening at Sharemax? Add your comment below, or send it to [email protected]

Comments

Added by Tango, 17 Sep 2010
Sarb orders Sharemax to refund backers Sep 17 2010 14:01 Leani Wessels Related Articles Capicol heaps pressure on Sharemax No relief for Sharemax backers Bonatla vows Sharemax disclosure Sharemax eyes listing Rescue plan for Sharemax on table More questions surface on Sharemax Johannesburg - The South African Reserve Bank (Sarb) has directed Sharemax and its 35 syndication companies to repay funds allegedly collected illegally from investors. Sarb spokesperson Brian Hoga said on Friday the bank has appointed two managers to oversee the repayment process. "This is done in terms of section 84 of the Banks Act, that stays all legal action against the companies so that the managers have time to review the situation and to conduct the repayment in a manner that causes the least disruption," said Hoga. Law firm Hahn & Hahn confirmed on Friday it has been appointed as the statutory manager. According to the law firm, the managers will seek to put shareholders' interests first as they evaluate the state of the company and its related syndicated properties. "We are conducting an urgent review of the companies and will inform investors of the next steps as soon as we are in a position to do so," read a statement. Business as usual Sharemax, led by CEO Willie Botha, has been selling shares in syndicates for 11 years, focusing especially on small shopping centres. Its most recent scheme, the development of the Zambezi Retail Park and The Villa shopping centre in Pretoria, ran out of funds and the properties were claimed by the developers, Capicol. Capicol said on Thursday it is looking into finding its own financial backing to complete the projects and protect shareholders' interests. Sharemax backers are mostly pensioners, who rely on the dividend income as their only income. According to Hahn & Hahn the statutory managers met with Sharemax in Pretoria on Thursday, and will ensure business goes ahead as usual as they evaluate the company. The managers will take into consideration the recent offer from listed group Bonatla Property Holdings to purchase some of the Sharemax syndications. - Fin24.com
Report Abuse
Added by Dirk Burger, 11 Sep 2010
Hi Gareth All may be true.If The Villa does not reach completion we may never know.A fact however is that remarks by person/s in the media creating perception, has "hurt" 9000 investors undeservingly.If there was/is any wrongdoing,send in the heavies to investigate,get to the bottom of it and manage the process in the best interest of investors.Sensationalising has unfortunately yet again created a near "Saambou". When does the industry become preventative? Dirk
Report Abuse
Added by Don, 10 Sep 2010
Basie is reg. Die agente kry 6% maar die produkvers****** maak sommer maklik tot 26% - so 20% vir hulle. Boonop as jy sien hoeveel probleme die soort beleggings skep en hoeveel huiswerk(tyd en geld) jy moet spandeer om die produkvers******s te sif ( om waarde vir geld vir beleggers soek), nie te praat van verduidelik as daar wilde media berigte of interne veranderinge is, dan dink ek 6% is te min kommisie. Jy kan jou tyd dan beter spandeer as adviseer. Op die ou end gaan makelaars nie meer waardeprodukte soek nie, maar net ten koste van beleggers die produkte verkoop wat nie langtermyn waarde gee nie. Wie gaan dan die langtermyn verloorders wees? Sommige van die tradisionele produkte wat as beleggingsprodukte gebruik word het een hoof kenmerk: Die enigste voordeel wat dit vir beleggers inhou is bloot toevallig.
Report Abuse
Added by Sakkie, 10 Sep 2010
Die makelaars wat die produk verkoop het moet nie kla nie. Die eerste berigte wat gewaarsku het teen Sharemax het al in 2006 verskyn,en dit het toe al soos n piramide gelyk.Al wat hulle tot dusver gered het was die groot toeneme in die waarde van eiendom.As iemand 12% rente aanbied as geldmarkkoerse 6.5% is moet die rooiligte aangaan.Onthou Saambou?
Report Abuse
Added by Long time coming!, 09 Sep 2010
Greed! All I have to say. From the investor right through to the Sharemax directors. Did the advisors really act on behalf of the investors or on behalf of their own bank accounts???
Report Abuse
Added by Peter Calitz CFP Licenece #18670, 09 Sep 2010
I have been following this saga with interest in Finweek for years. As a CFP accredited Financial Planner I have been astounded at the vitriol aimed at Vic De Klerk regarding his investigative journalism by financial advisers who are marketing Sharemax. Vic, you have been vindicated and all strength to your journalistic arm.
Report Abuse
Added by Another CFP, 09 Sep 2010
It is a pity happenings such as these and others (e.g. Divvest) do nothing to promote an investment that is essentially a building block of a diversified portfolio. Property is and always will be an investment. According to reports, upward of 80% of commercial properties in Australia is held by individuals directly or indirectly. Here we have been unable to create a sound model where people understand the investment and, more importantly, where we have weaned out the dross that keep dipping the industry in the muck. It is the only investment with the potential of an inflation-linked increase in income, when run properly.
Report Abuse
Added by Braam, 09 Sep 2010
During 2005 I told the Sharemax marketer in KZN, whom was trying to pursuade me to invest clients capital with them; That whoever is in business in 10 years time will buy the other lunch, and that I would bet him that I'd be buying......
Report Abuse
Added by Basie, 09 Sep 2010
Waarom moet die makelaars altyd die skuld kry as n belegging skeef loop?Sal n makelaar n produk aanbeveel as hy weet dit gaan probleme optel?Moet makelaars in die toekoms kan sien?Hoekom word die produkvers******s nie aangespreek nie?Stel vas wie die fout gemaak het ,en dan blameer julle hom!Die stomme makelaars is ook net mense wat in die beste belang van die klient probeer optree En ek is moeg vir mense wat die kommissie wat makelaars verdien bevraagteken.Wat van die kommissie wat eiendomsagente verdien en wat doen hulle daarvoor en watse vreantwoordelikheid dra hulle?Regverdig die werk wat hulle doen die kommissie wat hulle verdien?If it is not your fault,it should not be your problem!!!
Report Abuse

Comment on this Post

Name*

Email Address*

Comment*

You can’t blame the media for this mess
quick poll
Question

If you had to hazard a guess, when do you reckon the COFI Bill will be signed into law?

Answer