# CIY - City Pacific



## Ken (27 December 2006)

Had a write up in smart investor magazine.

Trading on low PE of 9 and offering 10% dividend.

Looks an interesting prospect.


----------



## YELNATS (27 December 2006)

*Re: CIY-*



			
				Ken said:
			
		

> Had a write up in smart investor magazine.
> 
> Trading on low PE of 9 and offering 10% dividend.
> 
> Looks an interesting prospect.




Have held them for a while now. A quiet achiever with high franked yield if that's what you're looking for.


----------



## Ken (27 December 2006)

*Re: CIY-*

Tossing up between this and PBD. The PBD dividend is solid... 

I dont have a head of property investments.

These look cheap, question I ask is why?


----------



## michael_selway (27 December 2006)

*Re: CIY-*



			
				Ken said:
			
		

> Tossing up between this and PBD. The PBD dividend is solid...
> 
> I dont have a head of property investments.
> 
> These look cheap, question I ask is why?




PBD, looks interesting, never seen it before but.

thx

MS


----------



## Julia (27 December 2006)

*Re: CIY-*



			
				Ken said:
			
		

> Tossing up between this and PBD. The PBD dividend is solid...
> 
> I dont have a head of property investments.
> 
> These look cheap, question I ask is why?




Ken, I saw the same article, thought about buying some, but decided to hold off until the SP starts to move upwards.

Possibly sentiment is still somewhat against them after the 2005 downgrade of earnings.

I like the idea of their moving into high end retirement projects in view of the pending baby boomer retirees, but already have a stake in this market with FKP.

I've noticed for a long time their advertisements paying quite a bit above market rate for investments in their various funds and wonder (a) how, and (b) why they are paying so much to attract investors.

Julia


----------



## coyotte (31 January 2007)

What's this nonsense with CIY --- 6 individual SELLS for 126 shares each at the moment and growing?


Cheers


----------



## coyotte (31 January 2007)

Worked their way down from 4.90 to 3.70 in .05c incentives at lots of 126 




Cheers


----------



## YELNATS (31 January 2007)

coyotte said:
			
		

> Worked their way down from 4.90 to 3.70 in .05c incentives at lots of 126
> Cheers



According to this morning's company request, CIY has been in trading halt all day with trading to resume on/before Friday 02/02. Reason is share placement to "professional/sophisticated" investors - (I'm still waiting to be approached). regards YN.


----------



## coyotte (1 February 2007)

Looks like their at it again today ?
 Are these "Sophisticated" Investors going to pay the Ave Price over the STOP period ?


Cheers


----------



## michael_selway (30 April 2007)

Anybody still like this stock?

Good Yield it appears

thx

MS



> Date: 11/4/2007
> Author: Tina Perinotto
> Source: The Australian Financial Review --- Page: 58
> There are concerns about finance and property companies struggling to distinguish themselves from failures such as Westpoint and Fincorp. In April 2007 City Pacific has even provided investors with analysis from Patersons Securities to differentiate its real estate and financial services from those of Fincorp, which collapsed in March 2007, and Westpoint, a December 2005 failure. The Australian Securities & Investments Commission has troubled some investors with its stop order on the Australian Capital Reserve prospectus.


----------



## investforwealth (30 April 2007)

Michael, looks like I may be alone in this, but I still like City Pacific.  

I'm definitely a lot more trader than I am investor, but CIY's dividend yield appealed to me.  I bought in at $4.18 on 3 April 2007 and as I write this, the SP is sitting at $4.57, representing a capital gain of 9.3% in four weeks.  Obviously not as attractive as many of our resource stocks, but for a stock I got into for it's dividends, I'm reasonably happy.

One of their subsidiaries recently acquired a 50% stake in Greenmount Beach Resort in Coolangatta (at the southern end of the Gold Coast).  The property has been described as the best piece of beachfront land at that end of the Gold Coast and it is expected that a redevelopment of the property will offer some impressive returns for its owners.

Thought I'd throw a chart in (courtesy of BigCharts), it's the first I've posted on ASF :


----------



## ekman (28 August 2007)

*CIY*

Announcement out re article in The Australian.
From this ann. all I can make out is that they are paying divvies from investments. So if the investments go pear shaped it may mean the company goes down the gurgler. Not clear for me to work out what they are doing in their financial engineering
Maybe Kennas might give his opinion on what sort of company this looks like (form their clarifications)


----------



## nioka (28 August 2007)

*Re: CIY*



ekman said:


> Announcement out re article in The Australian.
> From this ann. all I can make out is that they are paying divvies from investments. So if the investments go pear shaped it may mean the company goes down the gurgler. Not clear for me to work out what they are doing in their financial engineering
> Maybe Kennas might give his opinion on what sort of company this looks like (form their clarifications)




The Company disputes the claims in the Australian and gives reasonable answers to all the allegations. If they, the company, are correct The Ausyralian will have to retract. It will be interesting to watch for further developments. Where there is smoke there may be fire.


----------



## doctorj (28 August 2007)

*Re: CIY*



ekman said:


> Announcement out re article in The Australian.
> From this ann. all I can make out is that they are paying divvies from investments.



I don't know the first thing about the company, but I dare say that paying dividends from unrealised gains on investments isn't uncommon at all.  Investments are marked to market and any gains or losses are taken to the P&L.  Companies then pay dividends from retained earnings (ie. profits).

Take it the other way.  If they originally spent $1m on an investment and at 30 June 2008 that same investment was worth $1, what should they disclose as the 'value' of that investment as?  Clearly having it sit at $1mill would be misleading to the reader.  Then where do you take recognise that $999,999 loss?  You've got two choices - either equity (ie. retained earnings) or the P&L.  Would it be fair that it doesn't reduce profit? Probably not...

I guess what you've hit on is the difference between cash and accrual accounting.



ekman said:


> So if the investments go pear shaped it may mean the company goes down the gurgler.



Cash is king.  I assume by your post that they're borrowing to pay dividends, in which case you're right.  If their investments do fall a lot, they probably won't be able to meet their interest payments and they'll fold.  However, given they're business is investing, if their investments do dive a heap, they're probably in trouble anyway.

The interesting question, discussed by ducati on his blog is how people go about valuing stuff.  How reasonable are their valuations...


----------



## ekman (28 August 2007)

doctorj
thanks for your explanations. 
i will wait and watch before i decide to bail or hold. i guess The Australian has interpreted things by reading between the lines


----------



## YELNATS (28 August 2007)

I have held this stock since October 2005 and have received attractive fully franked dividends since then.

Recent dividend history is as follows:

Type Cents per share Dividend Pay Date 
Final 30.00 31 Oct, 07 
Interim 15.00 30 Mar, 07 
Final 34.00 31 Oct, 06 
Interim 11.00 31 Mar, 06 
Final 30.00 30 Sep, 05 
Interim 15.00 28 Feb, 05 
Final 23.00 30 Sep, 04.

At the current price of $3.94 (which is no doubt depressed somewhat today by the "Australian" article), the ff dividend yield is an impressive 11.42%.

Reading CIY's reply to the article, the "Australian" may have to revise or retract its report on CIY.

As I recall, this is not the first time the press has tried to publish critical reports on CIY.

In the time I've been a shareholder, I've received regular updates from CIY on their projects which indicate a diversified portfolio of earning assets in a number of Australian real estate projects.

This company is one of the top ASX companies with a market capitalisation of nearly $600 million.

In comparison, Port Bouvard, PBD, which is mentioned above, has its assets concentrated in only one city, Perth, and has a market cap less than half of CIY. PBD's recent share price performance has been woeful compared to CIY.

Based on the above, I see no reason to sell my holdings in CIY at present.


----------



## pch (28 August 2007)

*Re: CIY*



doctorj said:


> I guess what you've hit on is the difference between cash and accrual accounting.
> 
> The interesting question, discussed by ducati on his blog is how people go about valuing stuff.  How reasonable are their valuations...




Usually they get an independent valuer to do it and explain their valuation methodology in their annual report. However its not uncommon for these valuations to be optimistic  (wine stocks come to mind).

What is truly scary is companies that have wild valuations on intangible assets..


----------



## spruik (9 September 2007)

I also have held this stock on and off (on ATM) and enjoyed most of their dividends.

I recently bought back at $1.80 and not happy off course at the SP right now and look like taking another hit, notwithstanding the upcoming dividend of 30c.


----------



## michael_selway (9 September 2007)

YELNATS said:


> I have held this stock since October 2005 and have received attractive fully franked dividends since then.
> 
> Recent dividend history is as follows:
> 
> ...




Do they really pay dividends out of borrowing monies?

Also whats the forecast EPS next FY year?

thanks

MS


----------



## roland (8 February 2008)

Hi CIY holders. I've been browsing around for top dividend yielders and CIY certainly stands out. The last Shareholder Newsletter was quite inspiring and very upbeat.

The SP has suffered - not unlike most others in the property game. There is very little volume in the stock today - is this normal?

Would appreciate some feedback and thoughts on CIY.


----------



## rub92me (4 March 2008)

Despite recent reassurance from management that they're not overgeared, this one has been severely sold off over the last couple of days. Either some skeletons are waiting to come out, or a good candidate for a bounce trade


----------



## Aussiejeff (4 March 2008)

rub92me said:


> Despite recent reassurance from management that they're not overgeared, this one has been severely sold off over the last couple of days. Either some skeletons are waiting to come out, or a good candidate for a bounce trade




Down 50% today so far ... to 0.96c per share.

Must be some scary skeletons rattling about ..... 



AJ

(Disclaimer: I don't have / have never held this stock)


----------



## rub92me (4 March 2008)

In pre-NR at the moment, probably a 'please explain' from the ASX. A 'we know nothing' response could see this come back. I may hop on depending on what unfolds. Big buyers stepped in around the 90 cents mark, so probably a stop just below that.


----------



## reece55 (4 March 2008)

Does anyone find it completely odd that CIY goes into trading halt to respond to an ASX query........... I mean really, I don't think that responding to an ASX query means you can suspend the trading in your stock.....

CIY has definitely fallen off the cliff, I was interested in a short position after the announcement of the reclassification of their debt position, but just never got around to it.... boy, has it moved downwards quickly.......

This stock has been such a great little yield play for ages and just like the rest of our smaller boutique financials, it seems it was all too good  to be true.... What is lurking in this one me wonders....

Cheers


----------



## gfresh (4 March 2008)

This is only one Journalist's research.. but it does seem to stack up..

http://business.theage.com.au/by-all-accounts-city-pacific-is-in-trouble/20080304-1wuw.html


----------



## michael_selway (4 March 2008)

reece55 said:


> Does anyone find it completely odd that CIY goes into trading halt to respond to an ASX query........... I mean really, I don't think that responding to an ASX query means you can suspend the trading in your stock.....
> 
> CIY has definitely fallen off the cliff, I was interested in a short position after the announcement of the reclassification of their debt position, but just never got around to it.... boy, has it moved downwards quickly.......
> 
> ...




Yeah, I think they got too nervous to announce the bad news!



> City shares went into a trading halt today, after halving in price to 97.5 cents.
> 
> The reason cited for the suspension was "in order that we may respond to a price query received by the ASX''.
> 
> This may be a first: a trading halt, that is, to respond to a "speeding ticket''.




*Date: 4/3/2008 
Author: Scott Rochfort 
Source: The Age --- Page: B5 
City Pacific shares fell $A0.53 to $A1.92 on 3 March 2008 after a second set offirst-half financial results were released by the company. Current liabilities,excluding debts from its largest unlisted mortgage fund, increased from $A126.5min the original accounts to $A156m. The company refused to comment on a mediareport that disclosed the City Pacific First Mortgage Fund has to repay a $A240mdebt facility with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia by the end of May 2008.City Pacific no longer has any financial exposure to the fund afterdeconsolidating it from its accounts in late 2007* 

*Date: 3/3/2008 
Author: Scott Rochfort 
Source: The Age --- Page: B1 
 Brisbane-based property group City Pacific has released revised results for thefirst half of 2007-08. The accounts show a significant rise in thecompany's short-term debt. City Pacific's large unlisted mortgage fundwill have to clear a $A240m debt facility with the Commonwealth Bank by the endof May 2008. The facility was increased from $A150m in September 2007. The fundwas removed from the group's accounts at the end of 2007. The new accountsshow an increase in City Pacific's current liabilities, excluding the debtsof the mortgage fund, from $A126.5m to $A156m. KPMG Australia has noted that itsreview of the accounts is not an audit* 

Thx

MS


----------



## ROE (5 March 2008)

reece55 said:


> Does anyone find it completely odd that CIY goes into trading halt to respond to an ASX query........... I mean really, I don't think that responding to an ASX query means you can suspend the trading in your stock.....
> 
> CIY has definitely fallen off the cliff, I was interested in a short position after the announcement of the reclassification of their debt position, but just never got around to it.... boy, has it moved downwards quickly.......
> 
> ...




If it smell like a cockroach, walk like a cockroach and it hits the radio air wave yesterday to suck in mum and dad investor to invest in its high yield trust then it has done a Westpoint 

http://business.theage.com.au/by-all-accounts-city-pacific-is-in-trouble/20080304-1wuw.html


----------



## explod (7 March 2008)

ROE said:


> If it smell like a cockroach, walk like a cockroach and it hits the radio air wave yesterday to suck in mum and dad investor to invest in its high yield trust then it has done a Westpoint
> 
> http://business.theage.com.au/by-all-accounts-city-pacific-is-in-trouble/20080304-1wuw.html




On my trading screen it says supended.  Does this mean the party is over for City Pacific and the administrators in now ?


----------



## Aussiejeff (7 March 2008)

roland said:


> Hi CIY holders. I've been browsing around for top dividend yielders and CIY certainly stands out. _The last Shareholder Newsletter was quite inspiring and very upbeat._
> 
> The SP has suffered - not unlike most others in the property game. There is very little volume in the stock today - is this normal?
> 
> Would appreciate some feedback and thoughts on CIY.




roland - I hope you held off on these... just another example of what faith shareholders or potential shareholders can place on _"inspiring and upbeat company newsletters"_ these days.

Aka VRE, which after the same sort of ploy also bit a few of us in da-bum....


AJ


----------



## jonojpsg (7 March 2008)

explod said:


> On my trading screen it says supended.  Does this mean the party is over for City Pacific and the administrators in now ?




Not at all explod, if you read their latest announcement, they are in talks with several other parties re selling off some of their Gold Coast assets which is obviously a significant transaction and as such their shares are suspended until those talks are finalised one way or the other.

I don't think City Pacific are heading for the scrap heap, they have some issues to deal with but also have some very attractive projects running which are providing good income.  Just have to wait and see how it all pans out I guess   Hopefully they don't have to sell all those good projects to lower their debt!!

Disc: I hold


----------



## YELNATS (7 March 2008)

I had a good look at their Martha Cove project on the Mornington Peninsula just outside Melbourne at Christmas. Very impressive. I have faith in CIY and their management.

PS. Good to see CIY is taking legal action against Mr Michael West,
the scurrilous professional downramping journalist plus the publications he writes for.


----------



## jonojpsg (12 March 2008)

Hip hip hooray - the situation has been clarified, although nothing really that wasn't known before apart from sale of Townsville development.  Hopefully, especially given the upcoming dividend of 15c in April, this will see more realistic valuations again.  At least one would imagine that some interest will be shown in an interim dividend of about 11% !!  I know I am


----------



## JTLP (12 March 2008)

LOL...

I love it when you look at commsec and see these sort of figures:

Dividend yield 46.2% 
Franking 100%
Dividend Stability 100%

Somehow i don't think so now for CIY :::


----------



## jonojpsg (12 March 2008)

JTLP said:


> LOL...
> 
> I love it when you look at commsec and see these sort of figures:
> 
> ...




Why not?  There is little reason to think that CIY can't continue to improve on their profits - they have done this consistently over the last four or five years.  Assuming that people who have the money are going to continue buying prime real estate properties such as the ones that CIY develop and finance, which they most assuredly will, then CIY should be able to maintain/improve their profits and their dividends.  The only reason the figures look skewed is because their SP has been unnecessarily hammered.  

Their latest releases say nothing about any change to forecasts for FY profit or interim dividend payment.


----------



## treefrog (17 March 2008)

Dividend Type ....Cents Per Share... Franked %... Ex-Div Date ....Pay Date 
Interim.................... 15.00............. 100 ...........07 Apr, 08.... 30 Apr, 08

and wait fer it-------today's shareprice down to 84c but recovering somewhat


----------



## JTLP (17 March 2008)

treefrog said:


> Dividend Type ....Cents Per Share... Franked %... Ex-Div Date ....Pay Date
> Interim.................... 15.00............. 100 ...........07 Apr, 08.... 30 Apr, 08
> 
> and wait fer it-------today's shareprice down to 84c but recovering somewhat




So CIY have no plans to abandon the dividend/reduce it significantly since these latest developments?

You could make a mean killing if that is the case...but i am a sceptic and believe there is more to it...can anyone confirm?


----------



## Aussiejeff (17 March 2008)

JTLP said:


> So CIY have no plans to abandon the dividend/reduce it significantly since these latest developments?
> 
> You could make a mean killing if that is the case...but i am a sceptic and believe there is more to it...can anyone confirm?




If enough gamblers piled into (raided) the stock now to ostensibly reap a huge dividend windfall, wouldn't the massive payout (as the % currently stands) put CIY further in the deeps???


----------



## nomore4s (17 March 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> If enough gamblers piled into (raided) the stock now to ostensibly reap a huge dividend windfall, wouldn't the massive payout (as the % currently stands) put CIY further in the deeps???





Unless they issue more shares the amount they pay out for D/Es isn't gong to change no matter what the share price is. The D/E is paid out per share, the actual share price has no bearing on how much the company pays out in D/Es.


----------



## JTLP (20 March 2008)

Sheesh...

Gonna make myself a sweet 51.7% fully franked divi off CIY the way things are looking :

I'm gonna say it for the thousandth time...has the intermin dividend declared changed at all (ala CCP) or am I right in assuming that if you took COB figures it is a 51.7% yield? Does it state anywhere in the presentation divi declared/stability?


----------



## reece55 (20 March 2008)

JTLP said:


> Sheesh...
> 
> Gonna make myself a sweet 51.7% fully franked divi off CIY the way things are looking :
> 
> I'm gonna say it for the thousandth time...has the intermin dividend declared changed at all (ala CCP) or am I right in assuming that if you took COB figures it is a 51.7% yield? Does it state anywhere in the presentation divi declared/stability?




Not sure where you get 51.7%..... I have 15/7*10 = 21.42/89 = 24.1%

There are reports that contractors on their developments haven't been paid in  about four months, so it would seem a few cheques are sitting the MD's drawer???? See below:

Fortress Investment Group has invested $A100 million in City Pacific's First Mortgage Fund. Fortress demanded the repayment of a $A150 million loan to MFS early in 2008, increasing pressure on the company to reduce debt through the sale of assets. City Pacific shares closed down 11 per cent at $A0.89 on 17March 2008, after contractors at the company's marina development claimed they had not been paid in over four months. City Pacific must reduce a $A240million debt facility to the Commonwealth Bank by the end of March and repay the balance by the end of May...

Given that the ex divy date is in April and the Gold Coast real estate market is feeling the heat, it wouldn't be a bet I would be taking......

Cheers


----------



## jonojpsg (20 March 2008)

Nice green day for CIY - up 10% at the moment.  

CAn anyone help out with an explanation of why they have gone into  PreOpen on my Comsec Pro Trader screen at the mo though?  No announcements of trading halts or anything, and there are some major trades appearing on both sides, eg 381 905 shares at 79c and a couple of big buys around the mid 100ks at $1.12.

Cheers


----------



## jonojpsg (20 March 2008)

Screen now says Adjust and the trades all went through at $1.075 

Why did this happen in the middle of trading?


----------



## jonojpsg (20 March 2008)

OK OK I'm stupid - close of trade early today - only just realised.

Forget my rantings


----------



## reece55 (5 April 2008)

reece55 said:


> Not sure where you get 51.7%..... I have 15/7*10 = 21.42/89 = 24.1%
> 
> There are reports that contractors on their developments haven't been paid in  about four months, so it would seem a few cheques are sitting the MD's drawer???? See below:
> 
> ...




Well, I thought you couldn't trust the divy and what do you know - according to the Australian today, looks like they are going to have drip feed that dividend.... That really is taking the "the cheques in the drawer" syndrome to another level...

My brother who is an electrician in the Sunshine Coast in QLD told me yesterday the Company he was working for is going into administration because creditors requested their money back after bad debts and slow customer payments..... Sounds like the property sector in QLD is slowing down rapidly........

Link here

Cheers


----------



## countryboy (21 April 2008)

have read the last  3 pages and looked at a few  other sites and yes comsec still have :

I love it when you look at commsec and see these sort of figures:

Dividend yield 46.2% 
Franking 100%
Dividend Stability 100%

Somehow i don't think so now for CIY 

I suppose they cant change it until the market receives guidance about future forecasts. Their website acknowledges they have had a run on funds and put 180 day halt on investors extracting their money.

Could be a super bargain if we believe management but i might keep looking elsewhere.


----------



## treefrog (21 April 2008)

countryboy said:


> have read the last  3 pages and looked at a few  other sites and yes comsec still have :
> 
> I love it when you look at commsec and see these sort of figures:
> 
> ...




yep cb, even when u get the co's "latest" numbers - yr and 1/2yr reports or 1/4ly if required they are seriously obsolete: but that's how it is. Just one of the problems of doing only fundamental analysis


----------



## Redhead (22 July 2008)

*CIY City Pacific First Mortgage Fund*

If you are concerned about your investment as much as I am please contact me at r.trudge@bigpond.net.au


----------



## k.smith (15 August 2008)

*Re: CIY City Pacific First Mortgage Fund*

Any ideas about the latest City Pacific proposals announced today on the ASX? They are planning to raise $1billion, and if I understand this correctly, offer us preferred shares in exchange for our units


----------



## jonojpsg (15 August 2008)

*Re: CIY City Pacific First Mortgage Fund*



k.smith said:


> Any ideas about the latest City Pacific proposals announced today on the ASX? They are planning to raise $1billion, and if I understand this correctly, offer us preferred shares in exchange for our units




From what I understand, if you accept the CPS in exchange for your units you can then trade them on ASX if you want to redeem them.  If you are happy continuing to hold your units then CP will continue to pay distributions.

The aim is to provide those unitholders who want to redeem units with a way to do that without the FMF having to force borrowers to repay before their projects are finished as this would reduce the value of those projects and hence the ability of the borrowers to repay.

One assumes that the loans the FMF has outstanding are still good to go and that the only adjustment that will have to be made is the 5% accounting provision that they had in the announcement today.

I don't hold units but if I did I would be hanging on to them rather than going with the CPS.  Just my opinion though.


----------



## k.smith (16 August 2008)

jonojpsg......thanks....do units in a trust have more security than preference shares?...what happens when a unit trust fund is "closed"..? If the fund liquidates,or is taken over, where is the better security?


----------



## mfsperth (19 August 2008)

What do members of the City Pacific First Mortage Fund think of the proposal to amalgamate the company and the fund, and do away with fixed value units? Has any fund member set up a yahoogroup for City Pacific FMF investors?


----------



## mfsperth (20 August 2008)

If you are a member of the City Pacific First Mortage Fund and want to communicate with other members independently of City Pacific Ltd, email
CityPacFMFMembers-subscribe@yahoogroups.com to join the newsgroup.


----------



## mfsperth (5 September 2008)

See the City Pacific FMF members' website at http://www.cpfmf.org, and if you are a member or know another member, pass on the details to suesydneynsw@yahoo.com.au


----------



## mim168 (26 September 2008)

i jumped into this today, anybody know why price increase? any news?
any ideas would be good...I sold CIY about 3 months ago..can't seem to find anything on this...ta


----------



## YELNATS (22 March 2009)

Thankfully, I have only a small holding in this very troubled company. But it seems that they have have taken back part or whole of a distribution made to me via their DRP last year. 

I haven't fully investigated this yet, but is it possible that companies can take back dividends/distributions already made, from shareholders without their specific approval?

Aghast


----------



## YELNATS (23 March 2009)

CIY have put out an announcement today. Apparently they made an "administrative error" in April 2008's allotment of DRP shares and holders received 5 times as many shares as they were entitled to. ie. they were paid 15c/share when it should have been 3c/share.

Now they are taking back 80% of that allotment. They must be kidding. Is this fair or legal?

What about the holders who received their dividend by cheque or credit to their bank accounts and have already spent the money? Will they be asked to pay it back? If not, it seems discriminatory against those holders who chose to receive their dividend by issue of DRP shares, which the company encouraged them to do.

What about the holders who have sold their "excess DRP" shares. Will the new holders be required to surrender the shares back to the company?

This is a weird weird world and it only seems to be getting weirder.


----------



## prawn_86 (23 March 2009)

Yelnats,

It's interesting to say the least. Was there an error with those that recieved cash rather than DRP? Perhpas only the DRP had an error so that covers one of your questions.

As to those that have already sold some, well then you could argue that they will just take it out their other holdings. If they have sold the lot that is interesting though.

Let us know what happens. Any news stories for it?


----------



## YELNATS (23 March 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> Yelnats,
> 
> It's interesting to say the least. Was there an error with those that recieved cash rather than DRP? Perhpas only the DRP had an error so that covers one of your questions.
> 
> ...




Prawn, Upon reading today's announcement more carefully, they only refer to an error with the DRP payment. 

But maybe the same error was also made with the cheque/bank credit payments but they didn't mention it because it would be pointless or too difficult to try to retrieve that money.

Looks like they made a hash of the entire dividend payment as on April 7, 2008 after announcing the 15c dividend, they indicated it would be paid in 5 x 3c instalments at the end of May/June/July/Aug/Sept 2008.

Yet on the other hand in the same ann they said;

Quote
The dividend reinvestment plan (DRP) will still take effect on April 30, 2008 and will apply to the full 15 cents. The shares allotted under the DRP will be at a 2% discount to the volume weighted average price over the five days following the ‘ex-dividend’ date and will not be subject to brokerage, commission or stamp duty costs.
Unquote

So I'm still confused and will investigate further.

What a stuff-up!!!


----------



## YELNATS (24 March 2009)

YELNATS said:


> Prawn, Upon reading today's announcement more carefully, they only refer to an error with the DRP payment.
> 
> But maybe the same error was also made with the cheque/bank credit payments but they didn't mention it because it would be pointless or too difficult to try to retrieve that money.
> 
> ...





I have investigated further and have found a trail of communications to shareholders on this matter, culminating in their letter of 23 March 2009, resulting in only 3c of the dividend being honoured with the remaining 12c being revoked or cancelled.

Apparently, due to an "administrative error" the DRP shareholders incorrectly received the full 15c on 30 April 2008 whereas the holders paid by cheque or credited to their bank accounts only received 3c.

I hardly think this was an "administrative error" when you consider their statement on 7 April 2008:

Quote
The dividend reinvestment plan (DRP) will still take effect on April 30, 2008 *and will apply to the full 15 cents*(my bolding/underlining). The shares allotted under the DRP will be at a 2% discount to the volume weighted average price over the five days following the ‘ex-dividend’ date and will not be subject to brokerage, commission or stamp duty costs.
Unquote  

It also makes you wonder about those holders who sold all their shares including their DRP entitlements. Will they have to refund the monies to CIY? What chance will they have of getting any/most of this money back? Is this fair to holders who received DRP shares who remained loyal to the company and did not sell their holdings?

I have notified my accountant of this development which now makes the 2007-2008 dividend results for my SMSF incorrect. I am awaiting his advice on how to handle this issue.

I wonder if anyone on ASF has been similarly affected by this decision by CIY to revoke and/or retrieve dividends, or by a similar decision by any other failed or failing company?


----------



## rhyslivs (5 May 2009)

Anyone else get the feeling that old City could represent a good trading opportunity at the moment. 

After reading the quarterly it seems they are in desperate need of cash.

The volatility is just so enticing!


----------



## mellifuous (26 August 2009)

*Re: CIY City Pacific First Mortgage Fund*

Chinese splurge in Surfers

Nick Nichols, business editor

August 25th, 2009

A CHINESE buyer has splashed out more than $80 million for a Surfers Paradise beachfront site in what is the biggest property deal in years for the tourism strip.

The buyer is understood to have beaten the cashed-up Sunland Group and Australia's most prolific apartment developer, Sydney billionaire Harry Triguboff, to snare the property in an unconditional contract.

The massive redevelopment site, bounded by Old Burleigh and Wharf roads, is known as Pacific Beach and is one of the many distressed assets controlled by ailing financier City Pacific.

The 1.13ha property, jointly owned by City Pacific and low-profile property investor Craig Perry, was put on the market in May by mortgagee Fortress Credit.

Marketing agents Mark Witheriff of CB Richard Ellis and Dan McVay of McVay Real Estate, would not comment on the deal yesterday, while Fortress Credit did not return calls.

City Pacific's receiver Ian Cousins, of PPB, said he was aware a 'couple' of interested parties were closing in on a contract.

He could not confirm last night whether a sale had been struck.


----------



## mellifuous (26 August 2009)

August 26, 2009 03:44pm

$80m Surfers deal in jeopardy

Nick Nichols, business editor

August 26th, 2009

A $25 million legal battle could delay settlement of one of the Gold Coast's biggest single property deals worth more than $80 million.

The Gold Coast Bulletin yesterday revealed exclusively the sale of the massive Pacific Beach site at the southern end of Surfers Paradise to a Chinese buyer.

But it has since emerged that a partner in the property, Foresight Acquisitions which is led by developer Craig Perry and lawyer Beau Hartnett, has launched a claim in the Supreme Court seeking $25 million from failed financier City Pacific.

The company has alleged that City Pacific, which owns a half-share of the property, breached its $257 million facility agreement by failing to provide the necessary funds to see the project completed.

Foresight and City Pacific were joint-venture partners in the proposed $600 million beachfront development.

The First Mortgage Fund, once controlled by City Pacific, and Fortress Credit funded the early stages of the project.

Court documents yesterday revealed Foresight had placed a caveat on the property, which could prevent settlement of the unconditional deal with the Chinese buyer.

The 1.13ha site cost Foresight more than $100 million to assemble and involved negotiations with almost 100 property owners.
More Gold Coast business news
Have your say on the feedback form below


City Pacific, which had a 55 per cent share in the development, and mortgagee Fortress Credit are owed a total of $205 million on the project.

The frozen First Mortgage Fund, now in the hands of Balmain Trilogy, also is owed money over the failed venture.

Foresight has alleged City Pacific's refusal to provide the funds to build the twin-tower Pacific Beach development was in the property financier's own interests.

The document said this was because 'it was unable to provide those funds'.

"As a result of those breaches, Foresight has suffered loss and damage, including the loss of profits that it would have made, had the project been carried out through to completion," the document said.

"The extent of that loss will depend on the rate at which the Australian economy improves in the immediate future."

Documents said the facility agreement was 'frustrated' in September last year, as the global financial crisis reached boiling point.

Foresight also is alleging the notice from City Pacific and Fortress Credit, issued in May, was 'ineffective' as the money under the facility agreement was not yet due.

On June 17, 2008, Foresight alleged it was told by City Pacific representatives that it had until the end of that month to pay back funds which had been advanced to them.

The company also said it was told the facility would not be renewed after June 30.

Foresight is seeking $25 million in damages from City Pacific and wants a declaration from the other defendants to dump the facility agreement on the grounds of frustration.

It also is seeking an injunction allowing any of the defendants from appointing receivers or selling the property.

The other defendants include City Pacific Financial Services Pty Ltd and Fortress Credit.

Pacific Beach is one of the largest sites assembled along the Gold Coast beachfront and was set to house two towers of up to 41 levels, and beachside villas.


----------



## mellifuous (27 August 2009)

IS THIS A TIME BOMB TOO?


Foreign financiers step in on City Pacific's Southport project

Nick Nichols and Shannon Willougbhy   | * July 31st, 2008*

CITY Pacific is pulling most of its cash out of the Grande Pacific Broadwater at Southport after finding an Asian venture capitalist as a replacement funder.

The Gold Coast property financier yesterday said Singapore's Teak Capital Partners and an unnamed foreign institutional investor had agreed to pour $44 million into the 25-level seniors-only project which is nearing completion along Marine Parade.

The deal will give the offshore partners priority rights to future Grande Pacific projects, a luxury high-rise retirement living joint venture in which City Pacific has partnered with David Cherry.

Chief executive Phil Sullivan yesterday said the deal did not alter City Pacific's equity interest in the project, which was the first of a chain of luxury retirement communities planned by the partners.

Mr Sullivan said, under the deal, Teak Capital would retain the rights to participate in Grande Pacific's second project, the $120 million twin-tower Grande Pacific Imperial planned for Imperial Parade at Labrador.

"They have the first and last rights of refusal on all Grande Pacific projects at this stage," he said.

"They've indicated they want to get involved in the overall Grande Pacific model."

Grande Pacific's pipeline of projects includes the redevelopment of Greenmount Resort and the proposed 409-apartment retirement complex at Martha Cove in Victoria.

Mr Sullivan said that the initial investment by Teak Capital would cut City Pacific's funding commitment to Grande Pacific Broadwater by about two-thirds.

It also would see the return of $30 million to the frozen First Mortgage Fund before the end of August, while $14 million in construction funding would be assumed by the new financiers.

Mr Sullivan said the deal was one of many tie-ups with institutional investors being pursued by City Pacific.

The news came as City Pacific yesterday also announced it would hold off paying its dividend in instalments, opting instead to make one lump-sum payment of 12c a share on November 28.

City Pacific, which last month delayed the June instalment of the dividend until today, said it would instead use the staggered dividend payments to pay down more bank debt.

It has paid only 3c of the 15c interim dividend so far and last month said it would not be paying a final dividend.

Meanwhile, City Pacific yesterday said it was progressing plans to help unit-holders in the First Mortgage Fund retrieve their investments which have been frozen for almost a year.

The company is proposing swapping units in the fund for City Pacific preference shares.

Mr Sullivan said the move would not dilute the value of existing City Pacific shares, while offering First Mortgage Fund investors the chance to exit their holdings through a stock market listing of the preference shares.

Speculation earlier this year that City Pacific was proposing a swap of ordinary shares for unit-holders was premature, said Mr Sullivan yesterday.

"A preference share is what we would consider an acceptable arrangement (for all parties)," he said.

Mr Sullivan said the offer would be accompanied by an independent expert's report, and investors could see the preference shares issued in October.


----------



## prawn_86 (27 August 2009)

Mellifuous,

Please do not post whole articles. Please post a paragraph or 2 and then a link to the article for those who want to read it further.

Also please integrate some of your own opinions/discussion. If people want to read articles they can go to a news site, ASF is about discussing the issues.

Thanks

Prawn


----------



## mellifuous (27 August 2009)

TIGER ECONOMY? Perhaps he was referring to attracting Asian investors?

Queensland Supreme Court Action 7778/09 is a good read for this property.

This is what City had to say about the property,  just months before it 'pulled the plug' (according to Foresight Acquisitions in the above mentioned court action).

From the City Pacific 'October - December 2007 Update', page 3

*'Pacific Beach – A New Wave of Luxury Beach Front Living'*

The Development Application approval from Gold Coast City Council for Pacific Beach in December sent out a signal that the demand for luxury high-rise development is in the ascendancy.

The $600 million twin tower development funded by City Pacific was reported to be the biggest amalgamated beach-front landholding on the Gold Coast at a total of 11,355 square metres.

CEO Phil Sullivan said City Pacific’s funding of Pacific Beach was central to the Company’s proven formula of financing upmarket lifestyle developments in high growth areas.

“We are confident it will appeal to an increasing number of people seeking the high end lifestyle that Pacific Beach offers,” he said.

“Opportunities like Pacific Beach don’t come along every day, particularly given the scarcity of prime beachfront locations.”

Factor in recent research from Colliers International and the case for Pacific Beach becomes even more compelling. 

As reported in the Gold Coast Bulletin 6 December 2007, the total amount of development capital currently invested on the coastal strip has reached a monumental $66 billion compared to a 2001 figure of $13.7 billion. 

According to the editorial, the Gold Coast has become the ‘tiger economy of the nation’ with 13,000 people making their home here every year.

Also factor in KPMG demographer Bernard Salt’s comments as reported in The Sunday Mail, 18 November 2007 – “We Australians are different from both New Zealanders and Americans. We don’t do desert, we do coast….

We are still enamoured with the beach and the sea change shift continues to grow strongly as evidenced by the Gold Coast’s relentless population boom.”

The Pacific Beach towers are 41 and 36 storeys respectively with 322 apartments, plus 4 beach villas and onsite alfresco dining.

Construction is expected to commence this year.


----------



## mellifuous (27 August 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> Mellifuous,
> 
> Please do not post whole articles. Please post a paragraph or 2 and then a link to the article for those who want to read it further.
> 
> ...




Yes, okay.. point noted.. happy to do that..  I wasn't sure how this forum works, but I'll make sure that I do that in future.  I guess I was taken aback when I tried to post links and the forum wouldn't let me until I had posted five times.  So, rather than post things out of context, I thought it better to post the whole articles.

Thank you.


----------



## mellifuous (27 August 2009)

I have attached Foresight Acquisitions Pty. Ltd.'s claim relating to Supreme Court Action 7778/09.  

I'd guess this property at Broadbeach is probably important to both investors in the FMF and share holders in the CPL, since Foresight is seeking $25m in damages from CPL (among other things) and Foresight owes a heap of money to the FMF.

The previous articles I posted relate to this matter, and had I the capacity to just post the links, then I would have done so.

I believe Fortress and the FMF have about $210+ outstanding with Foresight, and Foresight alleges (among other things) that the FMF needs to advance more money Foresight's way to complete the development.

If the media reports are correct that there's over $200m owing, then the big question of the day is 'where has all the money gone?'  The site remains untouched.

A 'Chinese' buyer has supposedly signed up on the land, but it seems Foresight has lodged a caveat which would prevent the sale until such time as the resolution of 7778/09.

I think it's a matter that unit holders and share holders should keep an eye on.


----------



## k.smith (27 August 2009)

http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/money/planning/regulators-backflip/2009/08/24/1251001856329.html
...Some people say ASIC is culpable for not using its already-considerable powers to better protect investors and there is truth in that.

The regulator has never fully tested the limits of its power, which is more considerable than it lets on. In time, when a full account is made of how billions of dollars were lost and the lives of many thousands of retirees devastated, ASIC will be judged in a harsher light than today..........."

....When we were saying help ! help ! help ! a year ago, ASIC did nothing.
If ASIC had heeded our cries for help, and adopted a proactive stance some of our loses could have been mitigated, imo.
But it didn't "test the limits of it's power" and now our loses could be near total.
We anticipated that ASIC would act as a regulator, but it didn't. We then thought it would act as an enforcer, but they didn't.


----------



## k.smith (27 August 2009)

I am posting some links here of submissions to the parliamentary inquiry that cover all the relevant issues


http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/submissions/sub182.pdf

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/submissions/supsub182a.pdf

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/submissions/supsub182b.pdf

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/submissions/sub355.pdf


----------



## k.smith (27 August 2009)

I am also posting the link to the Inquiry
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/submissions/sublist.htm

Storm investors seem to have a strong representation in these submissions.
There is a lot of reading...
There is a lot of information....


----------



## mellifuous (28 August 2009)

I guess there just doesn't seem to be any sense in grumbling in the wilderness.

Time to simply ask the questions.

Copy of text sent to Trilogy via their website
Today, Friday, 28 August 2009.

Dear Sir/Madam,
Please advise me of the following:-
1. Wrt to 'Pacific Beach', how much has been loaned by the FMF to Foresight? How much by Fortress? What other costs will be added to these debts (legals etc.)?
2. What is the impaired value held for this loan?
3. Why didn't the development proceed?
4. will Balmain/Trilogy be charging lenders from the FMF any 'direct' fees? If so, what are the fees, and the rate of each fee?
5. Restatement of Qs 1 & 2, but wrt Grande Pacific & Teak and/or other co-investors.
I look forward to your early reply.
Thank you.

The following is a copy of text also sent by Trilogy's website
this morning, Friday, 28 August 2009.

1. When will Balmain inform members of the FMF that Mr. Ryan (a senior member of Trilogy management) has been found by a court to have breached a client's trust?
2. Why was KPMG retained when there is clearly a number of members who are not happy with KPMG's performance?
3. Why wasn't another facility provider obtained when there is clearly a number of members who are not happy with the FMF's relationship with the CBA?
4. Why was City Pacific staff encouraged to join Balmain/Trilogy when there is clearly a number of members who are not happy with the staff of City Pacific?
5. Why did Mr. Bacon think that Mr. Ellis was 'tenacious' when Ellis was using our money to fight? I think we'd all agree that everyone could be tenacious using other peoples money, and in circumstances such as City causing members to lose so much of their investments - doesn't Mr. Bacon have any sensitivities to the feelings of the members of the FMF?
6. How is it possible to conduct an objective evaluation of the legal issues when so many of the original 'mob' have been coupled up to the the new train (Balmain/Trilogy)
7. Why was it possible to tell the CBA (and BRW) the future of the FMF, but not tell members of the FMF first?
8. Why haven't members been given a clear and concise plan as to Balmain/Trilogy's vision of the future (or end) of the FMF?
9. What is EXACT position of the FMF with respect to its obligations to the CBA, Fortress, and Teak Capital? (This information must be straight forward and easy to explain to members, why haven't we been told?)


----------



## fleetz (28 August 2009)

k.smith said:


> I am posting some links here of submissions to the parliamentary inquiry that cover all the relevant issues




I commend Mr K Smith and his efforts to date on flushing out the culprits in the CPL FMF debarcle. I too share the frustrations with ASIC the toothless tiger total inaction in this whole affair. ASIC our "watchdog" completly failed all investors. I too sent a total of 3 emails directly to the appropriate people at ASIC flagging concerns probably starting 18 months ago. I recieved reply to I as I rememebr which pretty much only acknowlegded my email to them. I know a large number of investors did like wise to no avail. I was one of many CPFMF forum members who actively tried to wake the ASIC up to the goings on at CPL.....again our collective efforts to get them into the game failed.

I also called them once and asked what would it take ASIC to take interest in our complaints, their response was typically if we get a number of complaints we will look into those complaints.....a number of more than 3 was suggested when I pushed them on what constitutes "a number". Well there must have been hundreds (if not more) of complaints directed to ASIC that I am aware of. They obviuosly didn't read the newspapers either.

It is interesting that more than 50% FMF unit holders voted to replace CPL as the responsible entity of the FMF I believe a first here in Australia......One wonders if ASIC had taken an active watchdog role in the other mortage funds that failed over the last few years here in Australia wether they would have been able to stop this collapse? 

If there is a classic example of a regulator failing investors (both shareholders and unitholders) then I believe this is it. Shame on you ASIC! It was on your watch!!

I hold CPL shares and funds in the FMF......and no respect for ASIC! 

Fleetz


----------



## mellifuous (28 August 2009)

Lets hope Balmain is all we hoped it would be.

I look forward to this new age of transparency.

I look forward to the 'renewal' of my investment.

I don't want to live in hope, merely to perish in mire.


----------



## mellifuous (28 August 2009)

THE BEGINNING OF THE END?  Seems strange that things are moving so quickly now.  I guess now it'll move at a dizzying speed.


City Pacific sell-up set to startVanda Carson
August 29, 2009 - 12:04PM
The Federal Court has appointed a liquidator to wind-up the failed Gold Coast financier City Pacific.

Registrar Jenny Hedge this morning ordered that liquidator Andrew Wily and David Hurst of Sydney insolvency firm Armstrong Wily wind up the company.

The application to have him appointed was made by creditor Hlbc Commercial on August 7, just four days after Ian Carson and Daniel Bryant from PPB in Melbourne were appointed as receiver by the Commonwealth Bank.

Hlbc Commercial is understood to be owed millions by City Pacific.


The Commonwealth Bank is owed $100 million and has a charge over the City Pacific head office in Broadbeach Waters on the Gold Coast, as well as charges over other assets.

City Pacific, which managed a $630 million First Mortgage Fund, has had its shares suspended from trading since July.

Management fees on the $630 million fund generated the bulk of City Pacific's income.

City Pacific, until this year, siphoned $30 million in annual fees from the fund. It also used to reap an additional $20 million a year in loan origination fees from developers borrowing from the fund.

"It is early days at the moment and we still need to work with ASIC (the Australian Securities and Investments Commission) and the receiver to start the investigation," Mr Wily said.


----------



## mellifuous (29 August 2009)

*'Never before have so many lost so much to so few'*​
A small collage of memorable statements for the memory of those of us who have lost so much.


----------



## fleetz (29 August 2009)

I just hope that Trilogy Balmain legal audit leads to some proceedings against those who are well know but remain nameless and the full measure of the corporate law applied.


----------



## mellifuous (29 August 2009)

Well, I'll be happy to eat humble pie if Balmain pursues issues like (1) breaches of TPA, (2) Breaches of Corp Act 601FC, (3) negligence causing economic loss.

My guess is that hell will freeze over before they do for items (1) and (3), especially since they've brought the CBA and KPMG with them.  Balmain also hired ex-city employees.

I'd be surprised if the full extent of breaches of s.601FC are pursued.

What is Balmain's motivation? Let's see who gets the legal work - MDRN?

What's the old political saying 'jobs for the boys'?

Hard to be objective with a  new head (balmain) on the the old body (FMF).

Nothing more than a head job.


----------



## mellifuous (29 August 2009)

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/hearings/index.htm

Here's a link to the transcripts of the senate inquiry as they move along.

(thanks to the storm thread).


----------



## mellifuous (30 August 2009)

Well, the folk who got diddled in the Storm fiasco have done a great job getting together.  Hundreds of them wrote to the Senate Inquiry. Now ASIC is spending $450k on a hearing in Brisbane and the banks are summonsed.

The folk from MFS are very active. Nearly 300,000 postings on Aussie Stock Forums.

But, the folk from FMF, well, nothing ---  what's up - happy to lose money?

No activity at all - only two investors (as far as I know) made submissions to the senate inquiry.

The Pot forum has less than 200 members out of 14,000 investors.  

I'd guess these people would fight more for a dollar coin not given in change than they would for their tens and hundreds of thousands at risk in the fund.

We are our own worst enemies.


----------



## k.smith (30 August 2009)

This is yet another issue that should be discussed by the Parliamentary Inquiry...the difficulties that unitholders have in contacting each other when the necessity arises. While unitholders collectively have their legal rights, and are deemed equal within the PDS, the Constitution and under the Corporations Law, the flow of information to all unitholders is far from "equal", and most unitholders form their opinions on news reports, which are often sketchy, and sometimes completely inaccurate, and from the information that is given by the identities that have their own vested interests.


----------



## k.smith (31 August 2009)

http://business.theage.com.au/business/timbercorp-directors-targets-of-action-20090830-f3zd.html

In the meantime, however, Macpherson Kelley said it was poised to launch its class action.

Macpherson Kelley lawyer Ron Williamson said Mr Lidell, Mr Hance and Mr Rabinowicz would have known since 2007 that the company was struggling and investors who put money into the company after 2007 could sue for ''non-disclosure of material information about the financial viability of Timbercorp Group of companies''.

''And misleading or deceptive conduct by maintaining silence about the company being on the verge of collapse,'' Mr Williamson said.

''And all of this was happening while Timbercorp was still collecting money from investors,'' he said. ''They should have informed investors that the future of the company looked most uncertain, instead of taking money from investors.''

City Pacific as the responsible entity of the FMF increased the CBA bank facility by a massive $90million in Sept,07, at a time when redemptions had increased markedly, when new investments were on the downturn, and when borrowers were defaulting, all things that City Pacific knew about but we unitholders  didn't. Against this backdrop, they deconsolidated the fund in December, 07. All the while they told us the fund was strong, and profits forecasts were impressive, so this is the information WE knew....


----------



## fleetz (31 August 2009)

Would happily be in any class action against City Pacific...... I think it would have some serious legs!

fleetz


----------



## k.smith (31 August 2009)

fleetz said:


> Would happily be in any class action against City Pacific...... I think it would have some serious legs!
> 
> fleetz




I have investments in three property funds...CPFMF, MFSPIF(now Wellington Capital) and a fund in Melbourne, where to date I have not lost a cent of my capital, and just a very small amount of interest. I believe the difference is due to the very much "hands-on" approach of the management, who is conversant on ALL 300+ loans in this company, and has proved in these "difficult times" that he is what he is supposed to be....a "Responsible Entity"...
Different story with CPFMF and MFS, though...
City Pacific sent our money from the fund to complete developments at all costs.. when we had a chance for money to come back into the fund, we ended up with a second mortgage.  The pleas of the family of a terminally ill man who desperately needed financial support for Health Care  were ignored.Unitholders have been frozen out of the equation...it really is a very poor scenario, imo


----------



## grossrealisation (1 September 2009)

hi all
I won't double up the information.
I have posted in fmf and those interested can email me
this is the first board that has said my post is to small
it has to be over 100 letters
I am interested in anyone that has invested 20k or more into cp cp1 and fmf
you can email me at grossrealisation and I will come back to you direct


----------



## k.smith (3 September 2009)

May 21, 2007 (The Australian Financial Review - ABIX via COMTEX) -- Plans for a $A1bn harbourfront redevelopment in Queensland have been significantly redesigned to reduce cost and risk. Listed company City Pacific Limited (CPL) has scaled back the residential and land components of the Townsville harbour project, near Jupiter's Casino. One of five planned "fingers" of reclaimed land jutting into the water will be replaced instead with 350 extra marina berths. CPL said the changes were designed to overcome possible ... 

Just found this article in the archives...Does this infer CPL were already running low on funds as early as May?


----------



## k.smith (3 September 2009)

http://www.smh.com.au/news/business...d-to-redemption/2009/09/02/1251570744233.html

"......While investors in mortgage trusts are enjoying the benefit of a concerted effort by the investment management industry and the corporate watchdog to get liquidity back into their funds and get redemption payments back on track, investors in most unlisted property trusts remain in limbo, with no idea when they will see their money.

But from the point of view of many unitholders, the property trust managers are not keeping faith with the commitment they made to investors in their product disclosure statements to provide timely redemptions.

No investor puts their money into a unit trust expecting that it could take years to get it back.

Mortgage trust managers appear to have taken this commitment a lot more seriously. Recognising that investors in mortgage trusts treat them as a form of at-call cash fund, they have worked through the industry body, the Investment and Financial Services Association (IFSA), to lobby the Government to use a bit of stimulus money to put liquidity into the funds.

Asked whether property fund managers had taken action along similar lines, the chief executive of IFSA, Richard Gilbert, says: "They have not approached us........."


Makes me wonder, Why?
But then, I wonder about a lot of issues regarding funds such as ours...
Why is it that although we hold the first mortgages,and that it is our money that is invested in these companies, and our money that pays for these companies ,that we struggle for answers from them? Is it not our right to know exactly what fees are paid from the funds that effect our investments, and what fees are paid by the borrowers THAT EFFECT OUR INVESTMENTS?
Lets face it...reality, that is...if we are faced with the choice of leaving our already impaired investments in these funds every dollar that feeds from these investments, whether through the fund, such as management fees and admin. costs, or in fees paid directly by the borrower to the company, such as loan establishment fees and loan origination fees....don't they all come from that  impaired asset we are clinging onto....?


----------

