Talk:Great Southern Group/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

The article needs a company infobox, examples of which can be found at WikiProject Companies. WP Companies may also be able to give you advice or help you improve the article. The infobox also needs the companies logo. Also in the references section, publications which have a wikipedia article should be linked to. Willy turner (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Start of review
Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. The rules for GA reviews are stated at Good Article criteria. I usually do reviews in the order: coverage; structure; detailed walk-through of sections (refs, prose, other details); images (after the text content is stable); lead (ditto). Feel free to respond to my comments under each one, and please sign each response, so that it's clear who said what.

When an issue is resolved, I'll mark it with ✅. If I think an issue remains unresolved after responses / changes by the editor(s), I'll mark it ❌. Occasionally I decide one of my comments is off-target, and strike it out --

BTW I've occasionally had edit conflicts in review pages, and to reduce this risk I'd be grateful if you'd let me know when you're most active, so I can avoid these times.

Coverage

 * It will take an indefinite amount of time for the results of Great Southern Group's going into administration to become clear. While this is not ideal, Reviewing_good_articles's "fail" condition "The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint" does not apply. --Philcha (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Needs more detail on the group's finances: good and bad years; split of income between forestry & agribusiness operations and MIS unit sales, to show whether the company was ever viable as a legit business (i.e. if possible separate profit/loss accounts for operations and for MIS sales). For example General Motors is only C-class but gives more financial info, even after taking account of General Motors' greater size. The central story needs to be "the rise and fall of Great Southern Group", but at present there's too little info to explain that. --Philcha (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Too little about the early years, before the rapid expansion of 2004-2005. The company only started in 1987 and this raises the question "How did it gain the financing to grow so quickly?" Was it doing things sufficiently right to gain the confidence of lenders and financial advisers in the early years, or were they all gullible from the start? --Philcha (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that is a good question. Until it became 'flavour of the month' (about five years before it became stockmarket poison), not a lot was said about Great Southern. I have found essentially nothing about it for the period 1987 to 1999, despite having access to some useful database sources. I can try and fill in a little more for 1999 to 2005. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * More on period 1999 to 2005 has now been included. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Where did John Young go and when? There's a huge gap between his founding the corp in 1987 and the 1995 2005 expressions of concern by chairman Peter Patrikeos & non-executive director Jeffry Mews. Need to trace the history of top management, incl when, how and why they were hired and left. --Philcha (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The management is pretty low profile. For example, until I created a WP article for Young, none of them had entries here. I didn't want to give weight to the individuals involved because i have the impression they weren't notable in the scheme of things - this is the story of a salesman with some cash in the right place at the right time (Young) and a policy framework that turned the sector into a tsunami - and i choose the word advisedly :-) I have added a bit more on Young though. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No that I've read and hopfully at least partially understood Stumped - the death of MIS:
 * I see that I misunderstood the business. I was hoping to see something that showed a series of losses on timber operations, propped up by further MIS sales.
 * However actual returns, as opposed to the artificial up-front tax relief, appear only after the trees mature 10 years later. GS's projected woood yields per hectare were grossly optimistic, although Stumped - the death of MIS claims that GS knew this all along. Great Southern crash fells expert opinions claims actually knew next to nothing about forestry, and less about raising cattle. The reduced yields meant investments would show a loss - except that a GS subsidiary bought the wood at an inflated price. This was subsidised by further MIS sales, but these dried up as a result of the Credit Crunch and unfavourable publicity, especially about its vulnerability to tax changes, leaving the group with huge losses it could no longer finance.
 * I think the 'crash' article is the only one suggesting GS didn't know how to do forestry, so that isn't a claim i wanted to pursue. Some yield issues are touched on under 'Financial troubles and parliamentary inquiries', as are its internal subsidies on the 2004 / 2005 harvests. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * GS was also spending a lot on training and paying the accountants and financial planners who sold its MIS products. - and on PR and lobbying.
 * Some material added on lobbying. Not sure what to add on the financial planners as yet, but there will be more ASAP. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, the article does not explain this clearly. --Philcha (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Further material on financial planners now added. Section has been restructured. See how it looks. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Structure

 * The first part of the article should be the history, as described above. Since this needs major expansion, I can't comment at present on how the history shoud be sub-divided. So I may have more comments on structure later. --Philcha (talk) 05:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think para "Great Southern Group's business involves the administration of managed investment schemes (MIS) ... 100 per cent of Great Southern Group and Timbercorp's business" should be moved into the history and possibly split up. I can't be more specific at present becuase the history needs major expansion.--Philcha (talk) 05:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See what you think of the current arrangement. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Review paused

 * The Group's history needs so much expansion that there's no point in my commenting on details at present. --Philcha (talk) 05:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Business activities and structure

 * ✅ Needs to explain what a "managed investment scheme" business is - financial institutions, regulations, instruments etc. varyu a lot from country to country. I get the impression that it's similar to a UK investment trust, except that Great Southern sold shares in its own agribusiness operations rather than units that represents shareholdings in other companies. --Philcha (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Added. Please check if you think it is sufficient. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ The ref for "in 2008 formed Australia's largest agribusiness managed investment scheme operation" is a company web page. Can you find an independent source? --Philcha (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Added. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Very clear, thanks. --Philcha (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "provided loans to investors wanting to borrow to invest" - past tense suggests they stopped? When, why? --Philcha (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the trouble with the company being wound up. I'm never entirely sure in what tense to write - and certainly, while it is in receivership I doubt it is still providing loans, whereas technically I think it is still administering its plantations... and may do so for quite a while. Any suggestions? hamiltonstone (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See if any new source says anything during the course of this review. At the end I'll recheck this. --Philcha (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * All refs to specific annual reports should give the URLs of the actual reports, not just the URL of the co's "List of reports" page. --Philcha (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can do this, the trouble is those addresses spawn a download of what can be a large pdf file. For a not so large example, see here Are you sure you want me to do this? hamiltonstone (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern. However the problem is what happens if the index page goes offline - e.g. if GS is wound up. I suggest you save the index page yourself. That way you have the URLs of the PDFs and, if GS goes down, can see if Internet Archive has a back-up copy - see instructions at []. --Philcha (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still willing, but I'm not sure I'm clear what you are saying. First, if GS goes offline, it doesn't matter whether the WP article has the index page link, or the pdf link, neither will work. So from a WP user point of view, it makes no difference. That being the case, i thought it better to give them a choice about the download. Second, i'm not sure how saving the index page gives me the PDFs of the URLs, as the pdfs are not listed on that index page, they can only be seen as 'properties' when right-clicking the link. Mind you, your not talking to someone at the leading edge of information technology, so there may be more to this than I understand. Third, is any of this necessary to comply with WP:CITE?
 * Its more about future-proofing. If GS goes offline but you have the URLs of the docs you cite, there's a chance that the Internet Archive will have back-up copies. Otherwise what can you cite if someone challenges something? --Philcha (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm in favour of accessibility, but your comment "Otherwise what can you cite if someone challenges something" suffers from the same misapprehension as your other comment earlier, just below: just because something isn't on the internet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This is a company annual report - it exists in hard copy, it gets sent to shareholders etc. That isn't changed by it disappearing from the internet... hamiltonstone (talk) 03:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking since you're citing quite large documents you should provide more specific refs, e.g. page number. I don't make a big deal if the source is one I can text-search, but you might be called out on it later. If that happens after the GS reports go offline, you'd have no defence. I therefore suggest you (a) check that you can access them via a back-up such as Internet Archive; (b) if that works, save the URLs of the reports so you can cite the back-ups (Internet Archive searches by original URL); (c) if Internet Archive does not save the GS reports, you should save them to your hard drive. -- Philcha (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Page numbers now provided and format converted to short refs and biblio for relevant sources. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Citing_sources/Further_considerations gives instructions for "pre-emptively" archiving at WebCite. --Philcha (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Stumped - the death of MIS is still online, but shows no content. This might be a tech glitch, or may be a preparation for killing the page. I suggest see if Internet Archive has a back-up copy - see instructions at []. If not, you'll need to find at least 1 new source. --Philcha (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't need a new source, i will just need to remove the URL. it is a link to what was a real newspaper article. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyway, probably just a tech glitch - i can view it OK today. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What a relief! --Philcha (talk) 06:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just noticed "By 2009 its loan book comprised 14,500 loans with an average value of approximately A$50,000". It would be good to provide the total too (A$725,000,000) as the average of A$50,000 gives no idea of the impact. --Philcha (talk) 13:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't state a total, and I thought doing the maths myself would be OR. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, there's an exemption for elementary calculations. --Philcha (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On balance, I decided to leave it as it stands. I can't be sure how thorough the mathematical skills of the journalist were, and whether they knew the difference between a mean and median... I'm not going to be the one to guess. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Business history

 * ✅ In the first sentence, "in 1987" is awkwardly placed. --Philcha (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Should w-link hectares - we're not all agribusiness experts. --Philcha (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Linked. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Re sentence "In 2005 there was further diversification into organic olives ...", I know you're trying to avoid repeating reptition of "diversified " but I think the cure's worse than the disease. I'd prefer e.g. "The following year it diversified further into ... and acquired ...". --Philcha (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Tried another approach that is actually simpler, using plainer english. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ I suggest "In December 2007 Young, the company's founder ..." - you've already identified Young. --Philcha (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Is "Total value, biological assets" in the table a standard Aussie business term? To me it might include e.g. "human capital". Presumably you mean agribusiness stock in trade? --Philcha (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it is standard, but it is the term used in the annual report. I'm not a business person, and it seemed clear to me. As i don't know what "agribusiness stock in trade" means, we might be a bit stuck here :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 04:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, we can't invent terms. BTW in UK "stock in trade" is what a firm has available for sale, e.g. on the shelves of a shop. --Philcha (talk) 06:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you please check the asset values - as stated it looks like the company expanded by a factor of 9 between 2005 & 2006. --Philcha (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Those numbers are correct. I presume they arise from the purchase of an existing asset base (probably the plantations of takeover target Sylvatech), however as it isn't annotated in the financials, that would be speculation / OR. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I know what's missing - the balancing liabilities must have risen by an equal amount, presumably as borrowings. Will the sources support a comment on the sharp increase in the corp's debt? --Philcha (talk) 06:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See my additions on this subject at the start of "Financial troubles and parliamentary inquiries", and tell me what you think. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really. Were the new holdings in cattle and horticulture a significant icrease in "biological" assets (you need the $ values), or just a drop in the bucekt? If significant, how were the acquisitions financed? --Philcha (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Financial results

 * The section does not explain up-front that the company went into administration in 2009. To make this intelligible I think you need to ake this a "rise and fall" story - rise, Stock Exchange listing, darling of the markets, tax issues, losses, administration. --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If the "rise and fall" story works, I think the section title should reflect this. --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I've done a fair bit of restructuring of the article, I have not written the entire thing in the 'rise and fall' structure. See what you think of it at present. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Need to explain why the corp had to go into administration in 2009. On the figures presented it still had substantial net assests, so what was the problem? --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope this is now clear - summarised in an early section, and then discussed more fully near the end of the article. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You highlight the loss in 2008, but the loss in 2007 was slightly greater. Why not mention this? --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Am i missing something in my own text? There was a profit in 2007...? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A loss of A$63.8M in 2008 should be rounded to $A69M or presented as "nearly $A69M" --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Have rounded. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've just noticed that section "Financial troubles and parliamentary inquiries" provides much of the explanation requested above. It looks like most of "Financial troubles and parliamentary inquiries" should be merged into "Financial results". That would leave the parliamentary and regulatory enquiries. Since these also arose because of the collapse, I'd merge these in too. --Philcha (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of it got merged into "business history". I wanted to keep the "Financial troubles and parliamentary inquiries" as the second last section, partly so that the whole article loosely follows a chronological trajectory (loosely), and as a natural intro to the concluding "analysis" section. Welcome further views. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Great Southern and the regulation of managed investment schemes (MIS)

 * "By defraying risk, the schemes were intended to overcome failures in the market for risk" bothers me a lot:
 * In my Shorter OED "defray" means "pay" or "settle (financially)". Would "manage" or "spread" be better? --Philcha (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The source, Economic effects of income-tax law on investments in Australian agriculture assumes that there is market failure in agribusiness MIS risk on the grounds that markets in general handle risk poorly, per Stiglitz (1969). It comments that agribusiness is risky and volatile, but still no evidence of market failure. The problems it diagnoses are to do with sellers having much better info than buyers of these investments, leading to conflicts of interest (management and advisor vs investor) and moral hazard (i.e. irresponsible decisions because the consequneces are liekly to fall on someone else). --Philcha (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The section certainly isn't well crafted, and I'll look at that. To turn to your substantive comment, I am not sure whether we are reading the RIRDC report in the same way. Reading from page 17, I think they are accepting the proposition that there are market failures in the sector. I can't say whether they do a good job of substantiating that acceptance - i'm not an economist so I'm not qualified - but if these RIRDC economists say it is so, I'm certainly not going to argue, which would in any case be OR. However, the fact that they are aware of Stiglitz point (that variations in markets for risk are not per se evidence of market failure) seems to me to make it likely that they would not simply assume this to be the case. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You'll have to work at making this section intelligible to non-econimosts. --Philcha (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have made a couple of simplications, but please make any other specific suggestions. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Should right-align the image, as placing it at left destroys the indentation of the quote "Along with other studies, our analysis suggests ..." --Philcha (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * done. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you change "The Australian government had for many years facilitated generous taxation treatment of agricultural and forestry investment schemes, by ..." from management-speak to English, please. --Philcha (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * attempted an improvement. This is now part of a much larger and completely rewritten and restructured section relating to taxation policy. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think "The company was paying commissions of ten percent – high by industry standards, and similar to those ..." needs to explain the consequence that advisors were motivated to sell these dubious investments because of the high commissions. --Philcha (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps for legal reasons, but most of the references don't make this explicit link (I'm assuming they could be sued perhaps?). They note the facts in a way that invites the conclusion, but they don't actually say it. I've rewritten the section and have taken it about as far as the refs will support I think. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Great Southern and Australian politics

 * Please take "(which became known as Plantations 2020)" out of parentheses and put the nickname in quotes at first appearance. --Philcha (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * done. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Re "Great Southern had found taxation policy during the Howard government's term of office to be a rocky road for its business, the company having faced major challenges ..."
 * "rocky road"? ---Philcha (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Could make this more concise and more informative, e.g. "During the Howard government's term of office from X to Y the company faced unfavouralbe changes in taxation policy..." and then describe the changes. --Philcha (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This has gone as part of a restructure of the article. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Environmental and land use issues

 * Re "The concerns expressed by NGOs related to loss of biodiversity and to greenhouse gas emissions":
 * "NGOs"? Please explain. --Philcha (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Acronym marked where term in full first appears. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * More management-speak. --Philcha (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The detailed concerns in the source covered only the switch form diverse environments to monoculture, not green house gas. --Philcha (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The source only provides detailed complaints from "Greens senator Christine Milne". --Philcha (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Both concerns about sources should now be addressed through insertion of relevant cites. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "required to undertake remediation works" - management-speak again. How about e.g. "required to do work worth A$2M to repair the damge it had done"? --Philcha (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll have a think, but there are risks in moving away from the language of the source here, as I do not think the company was legally conceding it had "done damage". I'll see if I can think of another formulation. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Have tried a fix that sticks to the terms of the sources. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What is the Indigenous Rangers Program? --Philcha (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarified. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "The demand for land also created issues within the sector: t he high demand for forestry MIS schemes led to plantations being expanded on to less suitable land, with timber growth and yield then falling below projections that were based on better quality plantations. ..."? --Philcha (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Some farmers claimed that MIS were increasing competition for scarce water, driving up prices in agricultural water markets"? --Philcha (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see how Farmers blue over forests that ate the landscape supports "divided about whether the expansion of MIS properties in a region was causing shrinkage of towns or was, conversely, stimulating employment". --Philcha (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll hunt through other refs. That was my translation of two parts of the article: "Mr Foster blames them for shrinking towns, sending farmland prices steeply upwards and drying up creeks and exacerbating vermin problems" then later, "They brought business to local nurseries who provided seedlings and "there was great prosperity for the farmers that sold out to the blue gum companies, the timber companies, because the price per acre was far in excess of what farmers would have normally got," Cr White says. The region was gearing up for major blue gum harvesting, which was to have started this year, creating jobs and providing a major economic boost." hamiltonstone (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional ref added. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Analysing the failure of Great Southern

 * Re " It had been a An AFR story that had prompted the letter supporting the forest industries ..."? --Philcha (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * changed. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

General

 * You seem to use single quotes throughout for quotations. AFAIK WP's standard is double quotes, which has the advantage of making apaostrophes usable in quotes.
 * I think I've done a run through and caught all these. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Business activities and structure (2)
I have some holdings in collective investments (all financial) in the UK, and still find this article confusing. I think readers with no experience of collective investments will be totally lost. I think the article needs to explain how forestry MIS work, noting that as late as 2008 forestry MIS was 72% of investment scheme sales. --Philcha (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Need to explain whether GS's MIS are collective investments in the sense that I'm familiar with, i.e. no individual investor in a particular scheme (e.g. "GS 2001 West Australia forestry") owns any specific asset (woodlot) and each investor shares pro rata in the profits or losses of the scheme as a whole. --Philcha (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the way it works is that an investor has rights over a particular identifiable lot, but then contracts GS to manage it, and as part of that agreement agrees to enter into a pool with the other investors to share in the proceeds and losses. Qsjet (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * How the financial calculations work for the forestry MIS schemes, which were still the core business in 2008. Stumped - the death of MIS gives a sample, including: initial investment cost net and including GST (whatever that is); up-front tax deduction; projected return, and (not mentioned by the source, possibly taken for granted) taxation of eventual return, since the investment cost was taken as a tax deduction at the start. --Philcha (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Returns appear only after 10 years. --Philcha (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What happens to the assets, mainly woodlots, of schemes that have matured. Sold? Recycled into the latest scheme offering? --Philcha (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally investors only owned the trees, the land was owned or leased by another GS entity, so once the scheme matured, and the trees were cut down, there were no remaining assets Qsjet (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The section title should probably be just "Business activities". The wording "... and structure" suggests to me that there will be something about financial structure (e.g. holding company and subsidiaries) or organisation structure, which is not presented and appears to be an insignificant part of the story. --Philcha (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think all the above ended up addressed, including by using the example figures from one source. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Structure (2)
I'm afraid the article still is not working for me as a story, and I think the problem is the structure of the article. One symptom of this is the repetition of some elements, e.g.: the basic idea of agribusiness MIS (in "Business activities", "Great Southern and the regulation of managed investment schemes (MIS)"); tax treatment ("Great Southern and the regulation of managed investment schemes (MIS)", "Taxation treatment of MIS schemes", "Analysing the failure of Great Southern"); unsustainable business model, perhaps a Ponzi scheme, compounded by non-discloure of actual yields ("Great Southern and the regulation of managed investment schemes (MIS)", "Financial troubles and parliamentary inquiries"). I suggest a better struture might be: --Philcha (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Business activities - as at present plus the changes suggested above. --Philcha (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Decline and fall" - including founding, darling of the markets around 2002, early concerns about yields and subsidisation of sales, increasingly high gearing, difficulties in servicing debt because of credit crunch and loss of confidence all roud; administration. Should use somewhere [Stumped - the death of MIS]'s point that its' unclear who will "farm" the current woodlots and other assets and eventually sell their produce. --Philcha (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Critique of the business model:
 * Foresty operations actually unprofitable, making the business an accident waiting to happen. Incl all the independent & official analyses of this. --Philcha (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Excessive marketing of tax advantages. Proposed tax changes made selling harder - but presumably for investors, not for GS itself? -Philcha (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Business practices - (non-)disclosure; information asymmetry between MIS producers and investors; heavy marketing expenses; high commission for intermediaries, a feature shared with other failed investment businesses. --Philcha (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Influence on politics. Incl as background the long-standing policy of subsidising forestry. --Philcha (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I asked the advice of an experienced GA reviewer, as I know I can sometimes be rather demanding. He said the article looked GA stansdard apart fomr the need to explain how GS's type of MIS works. --Philcha (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Structure (3)
I like the new structure, all leading to the wrap-up at "Analysing the Group's failure". --Philcha (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Business activities and structure (3)

 * "including providing management services" to whom? The group? MIS investors? For hire? --Philcha (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * While the description of agribusiness MIS is much better, there a few items that are not clear:
 * ✅ "Investors in Great Southern generally purchased individual lots" suggests that each investors "owned" specific woodlots, so that two investors in the same scheme could have different final returns. This appears contrary to the ASIC's What are managed investment schemes?, where "money is pooled together with other investors (often many hundreds or thousands of investors) or used in a common enterprise". --Philcha (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct in noting the apparent difference - i have added a sentence that makes the arrangement explicit. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your final sentence is very clear. However, the earlier "Investors in Great Southern generally purchased individual lots ..." sets up a misleading expectation that investors get the returns on specific lots. I suggest "Investors in Great Southern generally purchased individual lots ..." --Philcha (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The description of the total return to investors is unclear. If a business was making this type of investment, it would look at all the expenditures and returns per year, using discounted cash flow analysis, to see if the final outcome (12 to 23 years in the future) is better or worse than for other investments of a similar level of perceived risk. If any source presents and actual DCF example for a GS agribusiness MIS, that would be ideal. Otherwise for the article to present an actual DCF would be WP:OR. In that case it would important to specify what expenditures made and returns received by investors in each year of a scheme, so that readers can form their own impression. Information needed for this would include: --Philcha (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether the original investment is refunded on maturity. "Returns to investors comprised a tax deduction when they bought the products,[10] and returns from the sale of produce over the life of the project ..." makes it look as if the original investment is not returned. "Great Southern was forecasting a return of between $1923 and $4569 per woodlot on top of the original $3000 investment, however early schemes did not achieve these figures on the basis of the timber sales" seems to imply that the original investment was returned", but not explicitly enough to clear up the doubts raised by the first sentence quoted. --Philcha (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll look at improving this. I'm puzzled by your use of the word "refunded" in a couple of spots. It's an investment, so i wouldn't ever imagine something woudl get refunded, as though one were returning a product to a shop. Also, I really don't think a DCF is needed, here or even at FA. But I will try and see if I can make clearer from reliable sources the expenditures and returns. Briefly, it works like this: you invest money in year 1, you get a tax break on the money in year 1, and then you get a lump sum return on the investment in the year of harvest, from which management fees get deducted. That's it. Not all schemes work this way, but that's GS's forestry ones - though to be honest i have not checked the investment rules for each individual scheme, of which there are many. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made the text more explicit. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's use an extreme case to clarify this. Suppose the sales value is zero, e.g. because of forest fires or some pestilence. Does the investor get $3000 or zero at maturity? If zero, then there is no refund of the original investment, and the investor is out of pocket if the sales value is less than $3000 (less the value of the tax break to that investor; plus the return on alternative investments). --09:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * They get zero. I have made another edit to try and avoid the impression that the 3000 was something separate to the 'profit'. It is difficult to make it clearer than I have without putting words into the mouths of the sources, as it were. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ The value of the up-front tax deduction needs to be specified, although I appreciate that this may vary if tax rates change, and depends on the investor's marginal tax rate. --Philcha (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is already in the section: $2900 one-off deduction for a $3000 woodlot. There are no other deductions. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, now I think I understand the financials a little better now. But I confess I still don't see how such investments could be considered attractive, compared with a low-risk investment over the same period. For your early 2000s forestry example, the initial outlay is $3000, plus $300 GST (please explain GST). This outlay is reduced by a tax deduction of $2900 in the year of purchase, reducing the investor's income tax; the saving is $2900 times the investor's top tax rate (up to 45% in 2008-2010, need source with rates for early 2000s). The return comes when the crop is sold. For forestry investments, this is a 1-time sale 10-12 years after investment. GS estimated sales would recoup the original investment and produce a profit of between $1923 and $4569 per woodlot. GS' management charges would be deducted from the sales revenue - it's still unclear whether GS' forecast of the net return for forestry lots includes these charges. The total sales (? minus management charges) would be liable to income tax. --Philcha (talk) 06:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd remove "however early schemes did not achieve these figures on the basis of the timber sales, with some resulting in woodchip sales of only around A$1500, half the value of what was originally invested" and include the $1500 figure (plus a comment "about half the original investment") in the para of "Fall" about disappointing yields. IMO that makes the structure clearer: what GS advertised; growth of the corp; its fall. --Philcha (talk) 06:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (My OR - ) The tax advantages look best for people whose max tax rate is expected to decline between investment and sales, e.g. people expecting to retire. The finances of retired people are always a political hot topic (at least in UK). Anything on this aspect of the GS affair? If so, I'd put it in "Fall" or "Great Southern and Australian politics", depending on where the hypothetical sources' material fits best. --Philcha (talk) 06:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What are the amounts and timing for recurring crops such as almonds, grapes and olives (19% of MIS sales 2004-2008, per diagram)? How does it work for cattle (9%)? I'm beginning to think you need a separate para for recurring crops, and possibly another for cattle. --Philcha (talk) 06:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One day, maybe, but all the sources basically discuss forestry, apart from general comments that the cattle investments looked OK. I just don't have the material. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ What tax liabilities do investors incur thereafter? Presumably the net proceeds of crop sales are taxed? If the original investment is refunded on maturity, is that taxed? --Philcha (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to make this clearer. The sources i've glanced through don't mention it since i think they treat it as self-evident that income gets taxed. On the original investment, presumably no, it doesn't get taxed - tht was why it was a tax deduction. If it got taxed then what would be the point? And is this really necessary in the article on Great Southern Group? I can see a case for it in Managed investment scheme or maybe Taxation in Australia, but it seems to be moving a fair way from the company picture here. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ The section should quantify the management fees and whether they are one-time (if so, up-front or at maturity?) or recurring. --Philcha (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The management fees can't be quantified as they vary from scheme to scheme, and their charging at maturity I thought was already in hte article. I have tried to make that more explicit. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Links validity check
(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved) link checker
 * The following references change sub-domains and the URLs need fixing: Ref #11 (stumped: the death of MIS), Ref #44 (Keen buyer interest in Great Southern cattle stations), Ref #79 (Great Southern placed in receiveship), Ref #80 (Banks refuse Great Southern rescue deal), Ref #88 (Troubled Timbercorp calls it quits), Ref #132 (Inevitable fate of our very own Ponzi sceheme), Ref #135 (Great Southern crash fells expert opinions). Wizardman  12:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Check for disambiguation and other dubious wikilinks
Redirected and disambig pages report shows no problems. --Philcha (talk) 06:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of images
No issues. --Philcha (talk) 06:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead
A little light, but acceptable. It's difficult to summarise effectively as the repercussions are not yet clear. --Philcha (talk) 07:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Result: Pass
I'm pleased to say that this article meets the Good Article criteria: it provides good coverage, is neutral and well-referenced, clearly-written, complies with the parts of WP:MOS required for a  GA and uses appropriate images that have good captions and comply with WP's policies on images.

A few suggestions for further improvement:
 * Clarify the sales proposition, to explain the attractions of the investment.
 * Was GS incompetent, dishonest or just unlucky? Some of the Sydney Morning Herald come v close to "fraudulent", but we'll have to see what appears when the dust dies down. --Philcha (talk) 07:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Then the lead can give a summary of the conclusions.

Many thanks for the work you've put into this. --Philcha (talk) 07:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment from Johnfos
As someone who has reviewed scores of GA nominations, I have no hesitation in saying that this article meets the GA criteria. In particular, it is well written and the referencing is impressive. Johnfos (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

- - - - - '''please add review comments /responses above this line - - - - -

If you want to start a new section of the Talk page while this review is still here, edit the whole page, i.e.use the "edit" link at the top of the page.