*by Johannes Fiala, Lawyer (Munich), M.B.A. (Univ.Wales), M.M. (Univ.), Certified Financial and Investment Advisor (A.F.A.), EC Expert (C.I.F.E.), Banker (fiala4instalive.instawp.xyz )
Existential questions: Damaged investors and intermediaries know the situation when it is said ‘No, no, your good money is not gone ? it has only someone else? The mediator of financial products is obligated after the iurisdiction to make simple plausibility examinations. Who omits this, endangers the money of its customers, and not least also its own fortune. Creditworthiness and vita: A first step in this direction is to check the creditworthiness of the contractual partners. Also an evaluation of the specialized press and the inquiry in the colleague network, can promote surprising delicacies to days. Think for example of the case of Mr. Saubermann (name changed), who takes an unsolicited e-mail as a reason for a warning ? from insiders it is to be heard that Saubermann collected in the last years six-digit pre credit switching commissions, the customers waited however for over one year for the money and/or the success. expert rating: https://www.experten.de/upload/dateien/rating_erklaerung.pdf The transparency of the product provider as a company, as well as its management, are the focus of the expert rating. This includes, for example, the questions of whether the necessary information appears in the imprint on the homepage in accordance with legal requirements or whether the annual reports are also available in due time at the commercial register for public inspection by anyone. What about credit scores? Think for example of the case of the company Saubermann (name changed), which claims to be a public limited company on its website, but uses the commercial register number of a private limited company. Information from the commercial register then revealed that a public limited company never existed. Who do you think pays the bill to that phantom corporation? It is up to the intermediary to be clear about what conclusions he draws for himself from the expert rating. Is it a serious transparent partner? Investor Protection Transparency Rating: www.direkteranlegerschutz.de/as_check.htm Jurisprudence requires the intermediary to examine the tax, economic and legal viability of products or investment concepts for plausibility. This is where the investor protection transparency rating comes into play in the area of closed-end investments, including corporate investments. Two points are examined: 1. the objection-free chartered accountant prospectus appraisal: Here it concerns the question, on which for a product and/or concept the mediator and/or the money investor gets involved. Of course, the auditor’s opinion must be unobjectionable, because numerous prospectus auditors have already violated the IDW S4 auditing standard and thus delivered faulty, unobjectionable work. 2. the complete performance record documentation: Here it concerns, on whom mediator and capital investors get involved; in the sense that folder promises and prognoses are submitted to a Soll/Ist comparison. Whether the initiator is a ?Schaumschläger?, the mediator must decide then even, if he visited the performance record. Misleading advertising and training: It seems impossible to eradicate the negligent legal sloppiness of some of those responsible for sales. Consider, for example, the case of Doctor Mustermann (name changed). On its folders there is no publication date, for it again and again changed folder versions come in addition ? who surprises it if then the mediators and at the end also the customers completely different versions are present. The deception by ?wrong? Prospectus versions paves the option for later back completion for the investor. But doctor sample man (name changed), knows how he can impress mediators – it refers to miraculous legal opinion of the professor whistle (name changed) over adhesion-free right organization. The appraisal is however only a ?summary?, does not carry a signature, and does not let also at all recognize, to which chaos folder it refers. Such summaries are worthless and useless in practice. Doctor sample man (name changed), boasts also on training courses with the fact that its concepts were examined by a renowned Kanzlei. However, the clever mediator owns, for example, an experten-archiv-DVD (www.experten.de) and an investor protection CD-ROM (www.anlegerschutzauskunft.de): There it becomes fündig, the Kanzlei is country widely well-known in fact as a trustee, on millions sued, because investor funds were transferred to an insurance letter box company abroad without consideration. ?guaranteed repayment by insurance? If you are an intermediary, you should always use multiple sources of information, because two positive ratings are much more weighty than just one on its own.