Groups push to remove pool exemption

13 Sep, 2016 07:29 AM

FARMER lobby groups are pushing for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) to remove an exemption currently granted to pool managers that means they are not required to issue product disclosure statements or have financial services licences.

Critics have argued the exemption allows pool managers to be less transparent than similar products used in the finance sector.

ASIC is currently reviewing the exemption provided to grain pools classed as managed investment schemes.

​Warracknabeal district farmer and Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) member Ross Johns said the issue came down to transparency and accountability.

“There is little difference between managing a pool and fund management, it is all revenue for the person in question yet the rules surrounding the two types of product are different.”

Mr Johns encouraged growers at a VFF branch meeting in Horsham last week to contact ASIC during its review process with their perspective on the matter.

Pools have been in the spotlight for their lack of transparency in the agriculture sector in recent years, culminating in a group of Western Australian grain growers taking Emerald Grain to court for the underperformance of the 2011-12 wheat pool.

In response to grower unhappiness with pool structures, Grain Trade Australia (GTA) in 2013 implemented a voluntary Code of Practice in regards to pool operators, including provisions regarding the use of estimated pool returns as a pricing signal and a quarterly issuing of reports regarding the pool’s performance.

Brett Hosking, VFF grains group president, said his group would urge ASIC to make the voluntary code mandatory at the very least.

“We ultimately would like them to do away with the exemptions altogether.”

Pool providers have previously said that removal of the exemption would lead to higher costs that would be passed back to growers.

GTA chief executive Pat O’Shannassy said the organisation did not have an official position on the ASIC review but said the code played an important role in providing transparency for people using grain pools.

Mr Johns said he did not feel there would be significant additional costs for pool operators should the laws be changed if they were already adhering to best practice management.

“In theory, if they are well run pools and have well run management structures then they would be no different to managed funds.”

Mr Johns said farmers were becoming increasingly aware of the performance of their grain marketers.

“Across the board as a whole we’ve seen a run of failures of smaller grain traders and in the pool sector there have been some significant underperformances, so farmers are looking closer at these matters.”

He said the ASIC review had come at a good time, given the strong possibility of large deliveries to pools this season.

“There is the prospect of there being a lot of grain about at harvest and prices are low, so on past experience you would think there would be higher deliveries to pools.”

single page
Gregor Heard

Gregor Heard

is the national grains writer for Fairfax Agricultural Media
Date: Newest first | Oldest first


13/09/2016 10:56:37 AM

why would a bunch of traders want to open their books for public scrutiny? Pools cannot work successfully in a deregulated marketplace, no trader is going to take that kind of risk without protecting their own margin. This is all so predictable, we had workable open and transparent pooling arrangements under the previous arrangements . The comments by Mr O'shannassy are priceless , what else would you expect the GTA spin doctor to say, code of practice... what a crock!
Jock Munro
13/09/2016 2:26:30 PM

When growers are taken to hell and back through market failure as a consequence of deregulation we will finally see some common sence and purpose. At present the various farm representative groups and the trade are talking a whole lot of rot. Many of the farm leaders are carrying plenty of baggage because they were supporters of deregulation and the loss of grower equity in the market place- they will either have to change their tune or resign from office. The merchants are doing as you would expect- just protecting their patch and positions of strength.
Rural Realist
14/09/2016 8:25:27 PM

There's no reason why pools can't work. The problem is you cant give a PDS before the pools are finalised, as you can't say weather those tonnes will be sold on track, shipped or transferred to the marketers cash book. I believe a better product would be for growers to sell basis to the marketer, then the only duty of the pool manager is to sell when the futures price is suitable.
15/09/2016 7:21:06 AM

Why make a pool more costly to administer? This suggestion is counter productive but typical of farmers who defer to a 1930's dogma. And continually want to abrogate their marketing responsibilities to a higher authority. Free the market further not regress to the past. Grow up lads!
15/09/2016 3:25:45 PM

I think you've missed the point Boris, the big advantages of the previous arrangements was the ability of the marketer to leverage handling costs, deliver tonnages effectively, keep control of the quality problems and keep the overall cost post farm, down. We may all have technology coming out our ears however the fundamentals of human nature have not changed. What ,by the way would you propose to free the market further? The same companies that controlled international grain trade in the thirties are still there now, the only change is that there are a lot less of us


Screen name *
Email address *
Remember me?
Comment *


light grey arrow
I'm one of the people who want marijuana to be legalized, some city have been approved it but
light grey arrow
#blueysmegacarshowandcruise2019 10 years on Daniels Ute will be apart of another massive cause.
light grey arrow
Australia's live animal trade is nothing but a blood stained industry that suits those who