Gareth Richards, Corporate Affairs and Communications Division, Standard Bank writes: We were appalled by Magnus Heystek's highly damaging assertions in his column last week about our Isando branch and its Standard Bank Financial Services (Stanfin) consultant ("Banking ombudsman should be a busy person").
Without so much as checking facts with us he accused this bank of unethical and "even downright immoral" practices; blackmail; cheating a competitor out of commission; and of lacking integrity.
What was worse, he asserted that an independent investment adviser had told him about the litany of ills we had allegedly perpetrated. In fact, the adviser was none other than Heystek himself.
The investor concerned told us so. He said Heystek was the only person, apart from the Standard Bank, with whom he had dealings in this matter.
Heystek has therefore misused the considerable influence of his column to attack a competitor and to further his own self-interest.
Briefly, Heystek claimed that an Isando branch customer was advised by an "independent broker" to invest R600 000 in an endowment product which had a cut-off date of August 22.
He claimed we "blackmailed" our customer by threatening not to release his 32-day notice deposit to facilitate the investment unless it was made through Stanfin. As a result the independent adviser (ie Heystek) lost out on his R12 000 commission.
The facts are that Heystek's proposal ("a lengthy analysis plus an eight-page report") to the client was made on August 19. The client contacted our branch on August 20. He was anxious not to miss the investment product cut-off date.
We explained that the investment could also be placed through Stanfin, and set out clearly who would get what commissions if the client chose to do this. The client has since assured us that he chose to invest with Stanfin for the sake of convenience and was not pressured in any way to do so. He has no complaint against this bank.
Further, Heystek gives out that he is taking up the cudgels on behalf of an aggrieved customer who was pressured into signing indemnities and the like. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our client has assured us that he made no complaint to Heystek, but that Heystek asked him for copies of the transaction with our branch.
Heystek asserts that we had the customer sign an "indemnity" acknowledging that he had approached the bank; that we had not solicited his business; and that the client has no recourse to the bank if the investment goes sour.
Had Heystek bothered to ask, we would have pointed out that the "indemnity", which is worded very differently to what Heystek described and states that the bank did not provide advice affecting the investment decision, is a mere technicality.
The "indemnity" is in fact a small part of the contract in a section which sets out the client's relationship with Standard Bank.
Standard Bank and Stanfin are separate legal entities. Stanfin offers advice and should there be problems down the track, the customer's recourse would be to Stanfin, not the bank. Stanfin does not seek such "indemnities" from customers.
There is no question of our ducking responsibility. The Standard Bank Group has an unparalleled record in standing by its customers whom it placed with businesses that collapsed, such as AA Mutual.
We would be more than happy, as Heystek suggests, to have this case submitted to the banking ombudsman for scrutiny, because we have nothing to hide. But the ombudsman, alas, has no jurisdiction over financial columnists who cannot keep separate their commercial and journalistic interests. It is the banking industry that needs protection from "independent" columnists with commercial axes of their own to grind.
The editor Bruce Cameron replies:
Magnus Heystek was not directly involved in the dispute. The commission was lost by an adviser employed by his company, Magnus Heystek Investments.
The issue raised by Heystek in his column reflects a wider concern in the life assurance industry about banks "poaching" business from independent brokers because of the"inside" knowledge of bank brokers.
Richards is incorrect when he says Heystek did not approach Standard Bank for comment. Heystek spoke to the manager at the branch concerned who, despite saying he would have someone call him back, never did so.
Magnus Heystek is clearly identified in his column as an investment adviser. No other permanent columnist of Personal Finance is a financial adviser. All full time staff members of Personal Finance are precluded from giving advice for monetary reward.