Cracks in the System: Learning from the Collapse of Shield, First Guardian & Australian Fiduciaries

Most investors think of fixed income investing as being a lower risk asset class. Yet surprisingly, three major fixed income managed funds—Shield Master Fund, First Guardian Master Fund, and Australian Fiduciaries—have recently collapsed.

It’s been a stark reminder that even at ‘safe’ end of the investment risk spectrum, vigilance, transparency, and governance should be regarded as non-negotiable.

The Anatomy of a Triple Collapse

Sadly, these three fund collapses have cost their investors a fortune. With over $1.2 billion in losses and more than 12,000 investors affected, it’s being compared to the collapse of Storm Financial:

• Shield Master Fund ($480 million assets, 5,800 investors) – Managed by Keystone Asset Management.
• First Guardian Master Fund ($505 million assets, 6,000 investors) – Overseen by Falcon Capital.
• Australian Fiduciaries ($160 million assets, 600 investors) – Managed by Rushton Financial Services.

All three of these funds were marketed as diversified fixed income products which were designed to outperform industry super funds while maintaining strong liquidity.

However, upon their collapse, the liquidators discovered a very different reality. Their portfolios were full of illiquid, potentially worthless assets. Worse, oversight was paper-thin, and investor protections were grossly inadequate.

The question is: how could this happen again, more than half a decade after the Banking Royal Commission laid bare the systemic failures in Australia’s financial services industry?

There’s no easy answer to that question, but ASIC and APRA are apparently on the case. They’re investigating potential breaches ranging from poor conflict management to a lack of independent asset valuations. Moreover, the various platform trustees involved including Macquarie, Netwealth, Diversa, and Equity Trustees are also under regulatory scrutiny.

While that slow process plays out, there are valuable lessons for all Australian investors to learn from these fund failures…

Three Valuable Lessons for Investors

1. Don’t Take Research Ratings at Face Value

   Both Shield and First Guardian were given ‘favourable’ ratings by SQM Research, with their 3.75 star ratings suggesting they offered moderate potential to outperform.

   This highlights a systemic weakness with research ratings: most agencies assess manager capabilities, but not fraud risk or governance integrity. Most investors would agree that’s not anywhere near a sufficient level of due diligence during the fund research process.

   So the lesson here is that investors must understand what a rating does, and does not, mean. In other words, a strong rating should never be a substitute for due diligence. Investors still need to question underlying fund assumptions, delve into governance and risk controls, review asset holdings, clarify fee structures, and understand valuation methodologies. Outsourcing this responsibility to ratings agencies is a risky shortcut.

   Case in point: in our recent report on what to look for in a high-quality mortgage fund, governance and risk controls were the key focal points

2. Trustees Cannot Outsource Accountability

   These recent fund collapses expose a grey area in the interpretation of APRA’s Prudential Standard SPS 530.

   Platform trustees often liken themselves to supermarkets, offering a broad shelf of choices to investors. But of course, Coles and Woolworths don’t tend to stock contaminated goods. There’s no escaping the fact that trustees are legally obliged to evaluate risk, liquidity, valuation, and ratings integrity. So the idea that platform trustees can rely solely on external research providers to conduct due diligence on their funds is no longer defensible.

   ASIC and APRA are likely to clarify this obligation in time. In the meantime, trustees will hopefully accept a more proactive role in product selection and monitoring.

   The lesson for investors is that due diligence of rated funds is unlikely to have been conducted by the funds’ trustees. So it’s time to focus on the four most over-quoted letters in financial markets: DYOR (Do Your Own Research).

3. Everyone in the Advice Chain Must Get Their Hands Dirty

   Advisers also play a role here when they are recommending funds to clients. No one should be signing off on investment products without conducting rigorous, first-hand checks.

   This includes visiting fund offices, examining loan agreements, auditing payments, and tracing cash flows. Regulatory reviews and financial theory are not enough. In a post-Royal Commission environment, passivity is complicity.

   The lesson for investors listening to financial advice is that further due diligence may well be required prior to investment. Also, working with advisers who conduct their own independent fund research to ensure sufficient due diligence has been completed is advisable.

The ultimate lesson from these fund collapses is a sobering one: no regulation, rating, or professional title guarantees investors are protected against poor governance and weak ethics.

Empower Yourself with Useful Information

Translating those lessons into action points, investors should:

• Demand transparency from prospective fund managers not just about performance, but also about governance, risk controls, valuation methods, and asset liquidity.
• Avoid over-reliance on marketing materials, third-party ratings, or simplistic risk labels when deciding which funds to invest in.
• Understand the role and legal obligations of trustees and responsible entities, and remember that these groups are unlikely to have conducted due diligence.
• Focus on investing in funds in which the managers have significant skin in the game to ensure interest alignment.
• Stay informed on the financial sector reform efforts after these fund collapses and pressure policymakers to act faster and more comprehensively.

It’s Time to Ask Hard Questions

The tragic failures of Shield, First Guardian, and Australian Fiduciaries are not just financial accidents. They’re symptoms of a financial system that’s yet to confront some uncomfortable truths.

For Australian investors, the lesson is clear: in fixed income or any other asset class, blind trust is not a prudent strategy. Whether you’re managing your own portfolio or advising others, the obligation to ask hard questions, and walk away when answers aren’t good enough, is more important than ever. DYOR.

---

Disclaimer: This article is prepared by Simon Turner. It is for educational purposes only. While all reasonable care has been taken by the author in the preparation of this information, the author and InvestmentMarkets (Aust) Pty. Ltd. as publisher take no responsibility for any actions taken based on information contained herein or for any errors or omissions within it. Interested parties should seek independent professional advice prior to acting on any information presented. Please note past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance.