Ombudsmann-Tätigkeitsbericht 2012

ankenverband
In 2012, complaints concerning securities business
declined for the first time since 2008. Whereas this
area accounted for 55% of all complaints in 2011, the
figure in 2012 was just under 37%. This can be seen as
a sign that the situation on the securities markets has
calmed down. At the same time, it may be assumed that
customers have learned from the recent “crisis years” and
are more critical when it comes to investing. Last but not
least, the efforts made by banks to restore the customer
confidence they have lost in recent years by changing
and improving the advice they provide are likely also
reflected in the number of complaints received by the
Ombudsman Scheme.
Securities business – complaints in 2012
Securities
account
management
145
Settlement
195
2,298
Investment
advice/asset
management
As in previous years, the lion’s share of complaints in this
area – 87% – concerned investment advice.
Source: Association of German Banks, 30 June 2013.
Many complainants again claimed that they were wrongly
advised when buying shares, bonds or certificates. In
some cases, they suffered heavy losses, for which they
blamed the advice provided by their bank.
The bulk of complaints filed in 2102 concerned
investments in closed-end funds. These were cases in
which banks acted as investment intermediaries, the sales
partner being the fund initiator. The medium to longterm
investments in question were mainly in shipping
funds, although investments in real estate, media and
life insurance funds continue to play an important role.
Because of developments on the financial markets since
2008, many fund companies have closed funds or merged
with others. As a result, the number of complaints by
bank customers claiming that, when investing in a fund,
they were not told about the possibility of the fund being
closed has increased sharply.
Particularly where the purchase of securities or shares
in funds is involved, the customer and the bank often
give such a different account of the advice provided that
no decision can be reached without hearing witnesses.
However, since the taking of evidence by hearing
witnesses is not possible in ombudsman proceedings
(see Section 4 (4), sentence 3 of the Ombudsman Scheme
Rules), the ombudsmen refrain from handling such
cases. In these cases, the ombudsman may propose a
compromise to settle the dispute on an amicable basis.
Since the beginning of 2010, every bank has been
required to compile a record in writing of any investment
advice provided (Section 34 (2) of the German Securities
Trading Act (WpHG)). This must be signed by the bank’s
investment adviser and handed over to the customer.
Legitimate claims for compensation in the area of
investment advice sometimes fail because they can
no longer be enforced: if the claim is already barred
by the statute of limitations and the bank pleads the
statute of limitations, ombudsman proceedings are
not possible. Often, customers do not realise that
the statutory limitation period starts as soon as they
purchase securities and not only once they are aware
of a loss. This changed with the entry into force of the
German Bond Act on 5 August 2009, however. Under
this act, limitation of claims for compensation due to
Tätigkeitsbericht 2012 99