Dixon Advisory put self-managed super clients into in-house funds that lost up to 90%
Dixon Advisory · Financial advice (subsidiary of a listed group)
The case in brief
Visible before detection
Checks that could have surfaced it, on hindsight
Ownership / related-party links
Would have mapped advisers to product issuers in the same group.
Can mislead when: Nominee directors and offshore layers hide links. Name matching throws up false positives, so every flag shows its evidence path.
Regulatory & litigation records
Would have found ASIC proceedings.
Can mislead when: Court records lag and name spellings vary. A clean record can mean the problem has not reached court yet.
Unit economics & burn
Would have shown fee income across the chain.
Can mislead when: Cost allocation is a judgement call. Kubr shows its assumptions and lets the user change them.
Where Kubr services would have helped
Verified Snapshot
Offered in India- C3 Would have mapped advisers to product issuers in the same group.
- C8 Would have found ASIC proceedings.
Financial diligence
Offered in India- C3 Would have mapped advisers to product issuers in the same group.
- C9 Would have shown fee income across the chain.
Legal diligence support
Offered in India- C3 Would have mapped advisers to product issuers in the same group.
- C8 Would have found ASIC proceedings.
Promoter profiles
Offered in India- C3 Would have mapped advisers to product issuers in the same group.
- C8 Would have found ASIC proceedings.
Mapped from the checks each service runs. A hindsight reading of public records, not a promise that the failure would have been found.
Same pattern
A summary of public documents. It reports what the sources say. It is not Kubr's finding and not a statement of guilt.