Cameron Robertson

Manager of Asia ex-Japan strategy, at Platinum Asset Management (@platassetmgmt)

[Cameron Robertson @cameronrob1]

@nick_coatsworth @ShackelWill Think you might have missed the main point of the article?

[Cameron Robertson @cameronrob1]

@OwenRask Believe Australia-US has a tax treaty which means the threshold is more like US$13.6m net worth (not US assets, because it’s a pro rata calculation), just needs to be claimed by the executor?

[Cameron Robertson @cameronrob1]

Not close to the institute, and don’t usually bother voting… but sounds there’s been some issues worth looking into and perhaps worth voting this year.

If you’re CFA member, see thread below

[Christopher Bloomstran @ChrisBloomstran]

The CFA Institute is no longer the outstanding organization it was when I joined upon earning my charter 31 years ago. If you are a CFA charterholder and have not yet voted your proxy (deadline this Monday the 21st at noon Eastern) or may consider changing your vote, or are simply interested in an opinion as to how a once-great advocate for financial education, advocacy and ethics is failing a large proportion of its membership, please read on. Please also resend this message.

I’ll get to the important proxy vote and bad governance on display shortly, which I hope all charterholders take the time to vote, but first, many likely saw the CFA Institute’s Chief Marketing Officer “allegedly” embezzled nearly $5 million from the Institute from 2016 to 2024, including $150k for an engagement ring, and another $1 million from another employer. He was indicted on June 23 by the Manhattan DA. Despite immediate media coverage, the institute waited more than two weeks to address the disaster with its membership and on July 8 finally sent an incredibly tone-deaf email update from its President and CEO, Margaret Franklin, CFA, paid $1.4 million compensation by the Institute in 2024. The accused embezzling CMO was earning $500k annually. The message took zero accountability, other than suggesting it would do better.

As an institution that holds itself out as an exemplar of ethics, integrity, and that administers the CFA examination program, which focuses on accounting, financial statement analysis and ethics, among other subject matter, a failure to detect fraud over eight years is beyond a financial-controls black eye. It serves to destroy the CFA brand, already under assault from the way the organization sitting atop the membership and local member societies is managed and governed.

The CFA membership received another email message from President and CEO Franklin three days later on July 11 which encouraged the members to vote their proxies. They need a quorum. Franklin is an infrequent direct communicator. I find only a New-Year’s message over the past two years from her in my inbox. Franklin’s urge to vote notes, “By voting, you and or your colleagues around the world will be electing a chair, vice chair, and governors to serve on the Board, and additional proposals related to Board governance.”

The “additional proposals” the President and CEO FAILS TO DISCUSS are bylaw changes serving to grotesquely strip the membership and local societies of representation. The members and societies are the bedrock of the organization and for whom the President and CEO serves, and this year’s proxy initiatives are a perfect illustration of governance gone haywire. The proposals are an embarrassment to the Institute but more importantly to all 211,000 CFA charterholders globally.

Specifically, proposals 1a, 1c, and 1d shift the election of the Chair and Vice Chair from the membership to the current CFA Institute Board, concentrating power within the Board and diluting the perpetually diminished role that members and societies play in shaping the direction of their global association. The proposals erode membership democracy, weakening transparency and member engagement in governance decisions. I voted AGAINST.

Proposal 1e merges the Nominating and Governance Committees, restricting its composition to only current Governors. This removes multiple non-Governor perspectives, including two from the membership’s elected Presidents Council Representatives, PCRs. It is obscene that the current Board would introduce a proposal to self-select nominees to serve on the Board. Of course a one-sided, like-minded Board will work to perpetuate itself. Stunning. Between the four proposals the Board nominates itself and solely elects its Chair and Vice Chair. I voted AGAINST. 1/3

[Cameron Robertson @cameronrob1]

@AmyRemeikis If it was the whole point, then that would be the sole focus of the rules, no? Just cap the maximum size of super balances, makes complete sense you shouldn’t get tax benefits on huge sums of money.

But instead of doing that, the proposal is to tax unrealised gains?

[Cameron Robertson @cameronrob1]

@TheAusInstitute Weird to see a think tank argue so adamantly that a policy doesn’t need to be sensible if it doesn’t apply to many people.

[Cameron Robertson @cameronrob1]

@TomBurkeDarwin No it’s not on earnings… that’s the problem… if it were just on earnings I don’t think this would be causing the commotion it is.

Totally fine to say super tax concessions shouldn’t be extended for balances over $3m.

Totally ridiculous to suggest taxing unrealised gains.

[Cameron Robertson @cameronrob1]

@Pixeltoy @DarrenAdams1967 @MisinfoFact Just because a dumb policy doesn’t affect many people doesn’t mean it’s not still a dumb policy.

[Cameron Robertson @cameronrob1]

@SDHamiltonVIC This issue isn’t about who is being taxed, it’s about questioning how taxing unrealised gains could possibly be a sensible policy.

[Cameron Robertson @cameronrob1]

@SatPaper Unrealised gains is an ill conceived policy.

Limiting the tax breaks people receive through the superannuation industry is just fine.

[Cameron Robertson @cameronrob1]

@AusCommenter It’s about pushing back on ill considered policies, like taxing unrealised gains. Just because it doesn’t affect me doesn’t mean I think it’s good policy all of a sudden.

[Cameron Robertson @cameronrob1]

Seems we have our answer! Coalition has split.

[Cameron Robertson @cameronrob1]

What’s your thoughts, was this:

A) a normal (but big) loss for the LNP

B) a sign the long standing coalition between Liberal and National party may have a limited life

[Cameron Robertson @cameronrob1]

@BrisMarSci The threshold isn’t an issue. Taxing unrealised gains is a pretty ill conceived idea at any threshold though.

[Cameron Robertson @cameronrob1]

@poiter58 Not fussed about the $3m limit. But taxing unrealised gains is a silly policy at any threshold.

[Cameron Robertson @cameronrob1]

Taxing unrealised gains really is a horrifically ill conceived idea.

Increase tax rates or whatever is needed, but to try tax unrealised gains strikes me as unworkable and completely illogical in a whole heap of situations.

[Geoff Wilson @GeoffWilsonWAM]

Taxing unrealised gains is a bad idea that is already backfiring. @JEChalmers @albomp @ausgov change it before it’s too late. Startup founder, investor, mentor and advisor @deanmcevoy warned the policy creates impossible liquidity challenges and risks damaging Australia’s startup ecosystem.
“I’ve turned down like five good companies that I would have put money into, just because I don’t even know how I’m going to deal with it,” McEvoy said https://t.co/XVON0b9I8n
@mcranston1 @johnkehoe23

[Cameron Robertson @cameronrob1]

@AusCommenter Taxing unrealised gains strikes me as simply bad policy. Don’t see how the liquidity aspects could work on certain assets. And there are plenty of cases where that can tax money that people never genuinely had access to. Impractical and really poorly thought out idea.

[Cameron Robertson @cameronrob1]

@themitzman1 @aurora_inno Huh?
https://t.co/Kym2u5hCxM

[Cameron Robertson @cameronrob1]

@tanya_plibersek Why is this a political debate? Let the market or bureaucrats work it out, the voting public shouldn’t have to care about the relative costs, merits, or operational details of different power sources… both sides are in the wrong for making this a political issue

[Cameron Robertson @cameronrob1]

@Peter_Fitz When people get scared (economically) there is typically a flight to “safe haven” assets. Bonds and USD were historically often in that camp. This time though, the USD and US bonds declined, seen by many as suggesting they have lost market confidence, i.e. no longer so “safe”

[Cameron Robertson @cameronrob1]

@JustsomeMud @Trev__Says @MarcoFoster_ And the reverse? The US provides substantial subsidies to your domestic agricultural sector - Australian farmers don’t face a fair playing field when exporting to the US in many agri products as a result. You also limit sugar imports from Australia through a quota system.

[Cameron Robertson @cameronrob1]

@benthompson @EastAsiaStocks @sharptechpod Not a ‘gotcha’, just some of these comments didn’t quite land for me.

China is now a big global exporter of ICE vehicles. And seemingly may have domestic turbine blades.

Anyway, appreciate your perspectives 👍

[Cameron Robertson @cameronrob1]

Still hear people say China isn’t good at “innovating”, and where they succeed it’s just bringing cost down and leveraging learning / scale.

Nonsense

People used to say similar things about Japan. Then Korea. Now China.

1/3