Equititrust?

[kostag]

Re: Does Equititrust Have Exposure To Quinlivan?

I am yet to verify BUT I am told that Quinlivin was called in by EQUITITRUST as an expert and put in charge of managaing some other major EQUITITRUST default loans. In other words, on some basis, QUINLIVIN was not only a serious defaulting borrower of EQUITITRUST (with a very colourful and let's say questionable past) but was also paid by EQUITITRUST to manage some its larger defaulting LOAN assets. I will not get names until sometime MONDAY.

It seems that QUINLIVIN was another desperate attempt at the failed LANDSOLVE model.

In terms of categorising the assets and potential loan book realisations, a Borrower Profile report should be provided to the investor’s and stakeholders.

If Quinlivan or his companies form a component of the delinquent loans then it should be disclosed given the current situation facing Quinlivan and his companies.

A contact in Queensland has stated that Quinlivan and or his companies at some stage in the past, leased space in the Equititrust Building on Chevron Island.

If this is the case, it seems the relationship may have existed for some time.


If there are loans supporting Quinlivan developments, it would be interesting to see who the properties were marketed to and whether the old 2 tiered marketing scam was perpetrated again on unsuspecting investors.


Further inquiries are currently being made to confirm this. Others on this thread may be able to shed further light on the past relationship if any.

It is important, as it begins to show a pattern of lending practices which may have led to the current crisis..

 

[kostag]

Re: Equititrust: QUESTIONS THAT INVESTORS OUGHT BE ABLE TO GET ANSWERS TO

These questions posted since 17-2-11:-

Q1: Operational cash for 3 months was predicted on the basis that Equititrust managed to grab $50M of new money (capital raising now frozen by ASIC) . Yes or No?

Q2: On the basis that they have had that money grab attempt frozen by ASIC, what operational cash is left and how long will it last?

Q3: If A2: was modelled on the basis that the NAB was repaid out of the $50M 'trousering' by the EQUITITRUST boys - then is the 3 months of NAB payments of $3M per month covered or not covered from existing cash NOT reliant on the $50M grab?

Q4: I presume that the '3 month' 'survival' estimate was made as at say 1-1-11 (it was reported in financial press in early January 2011) - does this mean, there is now less than 6 weeks operational cash to go (as at 17-2-11)?

Q5: National Bank: were they paid $3M in January and $3M for February 2011? or do they too have to make an application through ASIC under 'hardship relief' provisions to get repaid? I guess they aren't kept waiting, as they hold the secuirty that we are all meant to hold. In other words, is Equititrust now in breach of loan covenants to National Bank?

Q6: In terms of cash grab, Landsolve is still out there trying to grab $10M for the Meridien Marina group. Of the amoutn raised, a big chunk is slated to go the existing senior provider. Is that senior debt provider any entity related to Equititrust? In other words and simply, is Equititrust loading up another of 'our security assets' to grab some extra cash?

Q7: Does the Quinlivin Group or any entity associated with Dudley Quinlivin owe Equititrust an amount circa $50million?

Q8: Did Equititrust take a complete write off of loan principal in the recent published (SMH: front page Sat 19-2-11) sale of house at Anglo Road Woolwich NSW owned by Hakem family to O'Beid family? Today 02:08 PMkostag

The second lot from the 14-2-11:-

Q1: Why did Equititrust borrow and therein grant FIRST RANKING security (ahead of our interests, ie: investors) to National Bank, Commonwealth Bank and Bank of Scotland, over $150MILLION pushing all investors into second ranking security, at one stage behind a mountain of debt exceeding $150Million, and , as at today, still some $50Million in default loans to Banks?

Q2: Acceptiing that 'gearing' the loan book and allowing it to grow and make more interest margin and fees etc for Equititrust,was a profitable move for McIvor, how was such a policy in any way in the interests of investors, who simply stood to get the same agreed interest on their investments, such investments were meant to be secured against prime mortagge securities, over which 'we' held first mortgage?

Q3: When the Banks asked for their money back (which despite Equititrust rants, they were entitled to do), why did Equititrust de-nude cash reserves by fully paying out the Commonwealth Bank and substantially paying down the National Bank? How did this policy help investors or put their interests first and foremost? I accept that it ensured the survival of Equititrust for the benefit of Equititrust shareholders and managament, yet how did it assist investors interests?

Q4: We hear much about Equititrust's sub-ordination investment of $40million and how we should draw some obscure comfort from it. ( I say obscure because it hasn't helped many of us get paid back after 2 years) Did McIvor or Equititrust ever actually invest by way of advancing and investing $40Million of real money? I mean 'real money' in the same way as investors advanced their real money, or was the investment some paper 'journal entry' accounting, in the same vein as Allco, MFS.

Q5: Equititrust pays itself a very high interest rate (I recall something in the order of 24% (3 times what we get) ) on its own 'investment' (assuming that as per Q4: it is an actual investment) and a very large amount (I dont recall the exact amount) of managment fees. I think a total of about $15Million a year. With in excess of $40Million of investors having to plead hardship to get some repayment of their own capital (and still not getting it!), how does the payment of $15million from one's left hand to one's right hand, when investors are 'begging' for their money to be paid back, possibly align with McIvor's comment :- our interests ahead of investors. I can assure each and every investor that this is not the case. Every decision we make puts the interests of investors first.

Q6: How did the recent PDS (banned by ASIC and had to be withdrawn) which sought to raise $50Million of new money (when there is over $40M of old investors that can't be paid back right now , for last 2 years) , which as we now all understand was to repay the National Bank, and plonk some new (presumably higher rate lender) into first ranking security position ahead of all existing and legitimate investors, possibly benefit existing investors and align with McIvor comment about investor's interests being considered first and foremost.

IN SOME formal capacity WOULDN'T A factual and comprehensive SERIES OF REPLIES BE REFRESHING?

 

[Armslength]

Re: Equititrust: QUESTIONS THAT INVESTORS OUGHT BE ABLE TO GET ANSWERS TO

I am not an investor, employee or borrower of Equititrust.

I do however personally know many of the people working there and I can assure any genuine investor that the Equititrust staff are working their butts off to ensure that investor's interests are protected and that the fund returns to liquidity ASAP. I also know that they are always willing to talk to investors if they have any concerns, the questions below should really be addressed to the appropriate people at Equititrust, surely this is the appropriate way to address concerns rather than faceless and anonymous postings on sites like this.

I am in the financial services industry and have several clients in the funds management industry. There are numerous legal restrictions in Equititrust addressing some of the matters repeatedly raised by some of the users of this site. There are also many fundamental errors/assumptions made by some users which they state as fact. Just one example is the repeated emphasis on the 3 month cashflow question. The disclosure by Equititrust does not mean that they only have 3 months cash left. What it says is they have enough for 3 months which is the requirement under the quarterly Benchmark disclosure requirements (ie they are 3 monthly statements). It's a bit like a company saying in their annual accounts they have enough cash to keep them going for the next 12 months - that doesn't mean that's all they have - it's what they are required to confirm.

I certainly would not get too hung up about multiple user accounts.
It may well be that a staff member posted some comments to counteract the vitriol appearing on this site. As long as they didn't breach any disclosure laws (and looking at the comments it is clear this has not
happened)

Finally, one cannot help but comment on the nature of the attacks on Equititrust and their staff. Many of the attacks are very personal and ignore the monumental efforts being put in by these people to ensure the future viability of the company. Hardly seems like the sort of damaging comments a true investor would want to make. Many of the competitors of equititrust have fallen by the wayside, however through careful managment, the team at equititrust seem to be moving forward with the investors interests at heart.

anyway just some thoughts.

These questions posted since 17-2-11:-

Q1: Operational cash for 3 months was predicted on the basis that Equititrust managed to grab $50M of new money (capital raising now frozen by ASIC) . Yes or No?

Q2: On the basis that they have had that money grab attempt frozen by ASIC, what operational cash is left and how long will it last?

Q3: If A2: was modelled on the basis that the NAB was repaid out of the $50M 'trousering' by the EQUITITRUST boys - then is the 3 months of NAB payments of $3M per month covered or not covered from existing cash NOT reliant on the $50M grab?

Q4: I presume that the '3 month' 'survival' estimate was made as at say 1-1-11 (it was reported in financial press in early January 2011) - does this mean, there is now less than 6 weeks operational cash to go (as at 17-2-11)?

Q5: National Bank: were they paid $3M in January and $3M for February 2011? or do they too have to make an application through ASIC under 'hardship relief' provisions to get repaid? I guess they aren't kept waiting, as they hold the secuirty that we are all meant to hold. In other words, is Equititrust now in breach of loan covenants to National Bank?

Q6: In terms of cash grab, Landsolve is still out there trying to grab $10M for the Meridien Marina group. Of the amoutn raised, a big chunk is slated to go the existing senior provider. Is that senior debt provider any entity related to Equititrust? In other words and simply, is Equititrust loading up another of 'our security assets' to grab some extra cash?

Q7: Does the Quinlivin Group or any entity associated with Dudley Quinlivin owe Equititrust an amount circa $50million?

Q8: Did Equititrust take a complete write off of loan principal in the recent published (SMH: front page Sat 19-2-11) sale of house at Anglo Road Woolwich NSW owned by Hakem family to O'Beid family? Today 02:08 PMkostag

The second lot from the 14-2-11:-

Q1: Why did Equititrust borrow and therein grant FIRST RANKING security (ahead of our interests, ie: investors) to National Bank, Commonwealth Bank and Bank of Scotland, over $150MILLION pushing all investors into second ranking security, at one stage behind a mountain of debt exceeding $150Million, and , as at today, still some $50Million in default loans to Banks?

Q2: Acceptiing that 'gearing' the loan book and allowing it to grow and make more interest margin and fees etc for Equititrust,was a profitable move for McIvor, how was such a policy in any way in the interests of investors, who simply stood to get the same agreed interest on their investments, such investments were meant to be secured against prime mortagge securities, over which 'we' held first mortgage?

Q3: When the Banks asked for their money back (which despite Equititrust rants, they were entitled to do), why did Equititrust de-nude cash reserves by fully paying out the Commonwealth Bank and substantially paying down the National Bank? How did this policy help investors or put their interests first and foremost? I accept that it ensured the survival of Equititrust for the benefit of Equititrust shareholders and managament, yet how did it assist investors interests?

Q4: We hear much about Equititrust's sub-ordination investment of $40million and how we should draw some obscure comfort from it. ( I say obscure because it hasn't helped many of us get paid back after 2 years) Did McIvor or Equititrust ever actually invest by way of advancing and investing $40Million of real money? I mean 'real money' in the same way as investors advanced their real money, or was the investment some paper 'journal entry' accounting, in the same vein as Allco, MFS.

Q5: Equititrust pays itself a very high interest rate (I recall something in the order of 24% (3 times what we get) ) on its own 'investment' (assuming that as per Q4: it is an actual investment) and a very large amount (I dont recall the exact amount) of managment fees. I think a total of about $15Million a year. With in excess of $40Million of investors having to plead hardship to get some repayment of their own capital (and still not getting it!), how does the payment of $15million from one's left hand to one's right hand, when investors are 'begging' for their money to be paid back, possibly align with McIvor's comment :- our interests ahead of investors. I can assure each and every investor that this is not the case. Every decision we make puts the interests of investors first.

Q6: How did the recent PDS (banned by ASIC and had to be withdrawn) which sought to raise $50Million of new money (when there is over $40M of old investors that can't be paid back right now , for last 2 years) , which as we now all understand was to repay the National Bank, and plonk some new (presumably higher rate lender) into first ranking security position ahead of all existing and legitimate investors, possibly benefit existing investors and align with McIvor comment about investor's interests being considered first and foremost.

IN SOME formal capacity WOULDN'T A factual and comprehensive SERIES OF REPLIES BE REFRESHING?

 

[kostag]

Re: Equititrust: QUESTIONS THAT INVESTORS OUGHT BE ABLE TO GET ANSWERS TO

THANKS ARMSLENGTH:

HOW COME YOU KNOW SO MUCH.

DOES QUINLIVIN OWE EQUITITRUST $50M ??? - IT IS PROBABLY A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD, SO YOU ARE NOT DIVULGING ANY SECRETS. THIS QUESTION SEEMS TO HAVE HIT THE 'CONE OF SILENCE'

NOT INTERESTED IN VAGUARIES SUCH AS "ALL WORKING THEIR BUTTS OFF" - WHATEVER THAT MEANS. LETS START TO GET SOME FACTS OUT THERE IN THE MARKET PLACE - NOT ANOTHER SYCOPHANT. ANYWAY, THAT'S WHAT THEY TAKE $15M A YEAR TO DO, I IMAGINE.

PLEASE DONT INSULT ALL OUT INTELLIGENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE PC USED BY DAVID KENNEDY TO REPLY TO THIS FORUM HAS JUST HAPPENED TO BE USED BY SOME OTHER STAFF MEMBER DEFENDING AGAINST 'VITRIOL'. WHAT THE CEO'S PC IS ALSO OPEN ACCESS TO ALL AND SUNDRY IN THE OFFICE?

FINALLY, MOST INVESTORS (ATLEAST $40M+ OF THEM ) - ARE NOT INTERESTED IN THEFUTURE VIABILITY OF THE FUND - THEY WANT IT WOUND UP PROFESSIONALLY AND THE CAPITAL REPAID - THE ONLY PEOPLE INTERESTED IN THE LONG TERM VIABILITY ARE THE PEOPLE TAKING THE $15M A YEAR. ITS NOT A BLAME GAME BUT A PROJECTED 80% DEFAULT LOANS WITH 37% CONFIRMED AS DEFAULT NOW, DOES NOT ENGENDER ANY CONFIDENCE, NOR DOES IT BESTOW ANY RIGHT FOR EQUITITRUST TO CONTINUE TO MANAGE PUBLIC FUNDS.

FRANKLY, THE FALSE POSTINGS UNDER NUMEROUS NAMES - REPORTING DRIVEL LIKE "I JUST SPOKE TO SID SUPER AND HE TOLD ME ALL ETC ETC.... IS A DISGRACE, MISLEADING AND DEISIGNED TO CREATE A FALSE IMPRESSION IN THE MINDS OF THE PUBLIC, SOME OF WHOM MAY HAVE BEEN BEGUILED BY THE NEXT "OFFERRING" OF $50M. SO SORRY, ARM'SLENGTH, THE RAMNIFICATIONS OF FALSE POSTINGS IS A SERIOUS ISSUE. NOT AS EASILY DISMISSED AS YOU ATTEMPT TO DO.

LOYALTY IS ADMIRABLE, NAIVETE (IF THAT'S WHAT IT IS) IS DOWNRIGHT DANGEROUS WHEN DEALING WITH $200M OF PUBLIC MONEY..

I am not an investor, employee or borrower of Equititrust.

I do however personally know many of the people working there and I can assure any genuine investor that the Equititrust staff are working their butts off to ensure that investor's interests are protected and that the fund returns to liquidity ASAP. I also know that they are always willing to talk to investors if they have any concerns, the questions below should really be addressed to the appropriate people at Equititrust, surely this is the appropriate way to address concerns rather than faceless and anonymous postings on sites like this.

I am in the financial services industry and have several clients in the funds management industry. There are numerous legal restrictions in Equititrust addressing some of the matters repeatedly raised by some of the users of this site. There are also many fundamental errors/assumptions made by some users which they state as fact. Just one example is the repeated emphasis on the 3 month cashflow question. The disclosure by Equititrust does not mean that they only have 3 months cash left. What it says is they have enough for 3 months which is the requirement under the quarterly Benchmark disclosure requirements (ie they are 3 monthly statements). It's a bit like a company saying in their annual accounts they have enough cash to keep them going for the next 12 months - that doesn't mean that's all they have - it's what they are required to confirm.

I certainly would not get too hung up about multiple user accounts.
It may well be that a staff member posted some comments to counteract the vitriol appearing on this site. As long as they didn't breach any disclosure laws (and looking at the comments it is clear this has not
happened)

Finally, one cannot help but comment on the nature of the attacks on Equititrust and their staff. Many of the attacks are very personal and ignore the monumental efforts being put in by these people to ensure the future viability of the company. Hardly seems like the sort of damaging comments a true investor would want to make. Many of the competitors of equititrust have fallen by the wayside, however through careful managment, the team at equititrust seem to be moving forward with the investors interests at heart.

anyway just some thoughts.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Re: Equititrust Deception Caught Out

All posts under the Equititrust Banner were signed off from David Kennedy except for the last post, so if the other two deceptive posts were from the same PC then it looks like the culprit is the one who sits at this computer.

As CEO of Equititrust David Kennedy has serious obligations’, in part being the custodian of retirees money. For the company to engage in this type of conduct and pose as someone else over the internet is outrageous and totally out of the bounds of what investors would expect from the company as well as its CEO..

Trying to hijack a forum under false pretences is indicative of a company fighting for its life..

As CEO he is also answerable to the regulator in terms of the information that is put into the public domain on behalf of the company. This conduct is a serious breach of the law, no matter how innocuous olman etc want to make it.

It is against the law to pose as someone else on the internet .


What is the Chairman of Equititrust saying about this, surely he does not want his name sullied by this behaviour..

If this is true, it would be more worrying to me than any amount of financial reports or audits, as these are dry information capable of being fiddled, shaded, changed or otherwise altered, to the benefit of the author.

Matters of governance predominate in my assessment of any company, board or executive.

gg

 

[katie534]

I remain so surprised that some people on this blog are so intent on bagging Equititrust yet leave themselves open to serious questions about their own morality.
You have asked Equititrust to divulge confidential client information to you - an unknown and vitriolic collection.
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the current Privacy Laws of your State.
To divulge client information is against all the standards I was trained in.
What would you say if some unknown person started hounding your solicitor, accountant or doctor for information about you?
You go on with threats about ASIC but what would they say to a company that divulged private corporate information on a blog? Unbelievable.
When you call for all these outrageous matters to be dealt with by breeching any client or investors confidentiality, it shows more about you than anyone else. You are very naive. Or a bully?
Do you know what business principles are involved in breeching client confidentiality?
I trust Equititrust with my private information.
I would never trust some people who post here.
I look forward to ASIC following this blog. Not for the reasons you think though.
All businesses can make mistakes. They then have the opportunity to trade out.
Time is a great healer of all things and Equititrust and its employees have the same rights to privacy and respect as anyone.
You can call them anytime - the same as I do.
I have chosen not to withdraw or use hardship withdrawal.
My choice because I am a calm, rational person.

 

[zencorp]

This does not derogate from the fact D Kennedy posed himself as an investor on this forum, lied about his status and while doing so accusing others of being failed developers. It is obvious that he intended to sway and influence others by being dishonest to the public. If I decided to call him, would I ask for Buffettman - the investor - Ozab the avid Equititrust supporter - or David Kennedy the CEO? Hmm.. given this level of dishonesty - could I trust anything that managed to come out of his mouth?! He might even try to tell me he is still an investor (depending on which persona he decided to take on).

I remain so surprised that some people on this blog are so intent on bagging Equititrust yet leave themselves open to serious questions about their own morality.
You have asked Equititrust to divulge confidential client information to you - an unknown and vitriolic collection.
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the current Privacy Laws of your State.
To divulge client information is against all the standards I was trained in.
What would you say if some unknown person started hounding your solicitor, accountant or doctor for information about you?
You go on with threats about ASIC but what would they say to a company that divulged private corporate information on a blog? Unbelievable.
When you call for all these outrageous matters to be dealt with by breeching any client or investors confidentiality, it shows more about you than anyone else. You are very naive. Or a bully?
Do you know what business principles are involved in breeching client confidentiality?
I trust Equititrust with my private information.
I would never trust some people who post here.
I look forward to ASIC following this blog. Not for the reasons you think though.
All businesses can make mistakes. They then have the opportunity to trade out.
Time is a great healer of all things and Equititrust and its employees have the same rights to privacy and respect as anyone.
You can call them anytime - the same as I do.
I have chosen not to withdraw or use hardship withdrawal.
My choice because I am a calm, rational person.

 

[kostag]

Re: Equititrust: its a public money raiser

Katie Katie Katie

the point that you and Equititrust both seem to miss is that this is public money that they hold and they are out in the market place soliciting new money.

Katie, you are correct. No-one can ought or should ask you to divulge your private details. Thats a 'given'. However EQUITITRUST has an open website and by law they are obliged to make certain statements available to the PUBLIC. They hold and take money from the public - so you cant have it both ways and hide behind some veil of privacy when it suits.

Now, in circumstances where they a) cannot pay back people who are asking for their money , and b) at the same time out there trying to raise $50m; and c) at the same time making rapidly detioriating admissions about the business; its cash flow; its assets and viability - well, sorry, Katie - they do have an obligation to answer.

Now, as to your 'vote of confidence' that you will be leaving your investment with them - well, sorry to upset you, you have no choice. They are not paying redemptions.

If you are/were a true investor, the questions that I posed in my recent posting would alarm you, surely. If you are not an investor, well, ofcourse you dont care.

I remain so surprised that some people on this blog are so intent on bagging Equititrust yet leave themselves open to serious questions about their own morality.
You have asked Equititrust to divulge confidential client information to you - an unknown and vitriolic collection.
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the current Privacy Laws of your State.
To divulge client information is against all the standards I was trained in.
What would you say if some unknown person started hounding your solicitor, accountant or doctor for information about you?
You go on with threats about ASIC but what would they say to a company that divulged private corporate information on a blog? Unbelievable.
When you call for all these outrageous matters to be dealt with by breeching any client or investors confidentiality, it shows more about you than anyone else. You are very naive. Or a bully?
Do you know what business principles are involved in breeching client confidentiality?
I trust Equititrust with my private information.
I would never trust some people who post here.
I look forward to ASIC following this blog. Not for the reasons you think though.
All businesses can make mistakes. They then have the opportunity to trade out.
Time is a great healer of all things and Equititrust and its employees have the same rights to privacy and respect as anyone.
You can call them anytime - the same as I do.
I have chosen not to withdraw or use hardship withdrawal.
My choice because I am a calm, rational person.

 

[kmint]

I don't normally follow Aussie Stock Forums - I just came here from a Google search on “Equititrust”. Amongst other things I am a part time computer geek and my attention was drawn to Equititrust because of an email I received earlier this week. The email (copied below) was purportedly sent by a David Kennedy from Equitilost@gmail.com and it referred me to several links of articles recently appearing in the Sydney Morning Herald.

------------



From: David Kennedy [mailto:equitilost@gmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, 15 February 2011 5:27 PM

To:

Subject: Equititrust





Seems Equititrust has been busy over the last week:





http://www.smh.com.au/business/prop...ow-35m-in-impairments-20110213-1as0d.html




http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/bus...fault-at-equititrust-fund-20110209-1an0h.html




http://www.smh.com.au/business/putting-profits-into-perspective-20110209-1an0e.html



---------

I can see from the thread that there has been a lot of discussion to identify each posters relationship with Equititrust, so I'll let you know up front that I'm not a borrower, investor or employee of Equititrust. My interest is with how the internet can be used to make anonymous viral attacks on someone. I don't have anything to add to the debate about what's going on with money people have invested, etc. but I do have some thoughts about some of the things that are happening in your discussion.

As has been mentioned in the thread, there are some posts and comments which seem to be purely personal and designed to incur damage without regard for the truth. When you defame someone by saying something that isn’t true then there can be consequences by way of monetary judgement, apology etc. When defamation is a deliberate intent to cause damage then it becomes criminal defamation with far greater consequences. The way that things are progressing in this thread, I think some posters should be starting to get a little nervous right now. I wouldn't be surprised if Equititrust started a defamation process for some of the things being written - they probably should.

I am surprised ASF would allow this sort of vilification. It is akin to a conviction without a fair trial. They may well also have liability given they have allowed the postings to be published.

I have read the attacks in recent days about Equititrust’s alleged multiple accounts with some bemusement. There is an old legal phrase which says “He who seeks equity must come with clean hands”. Given that people have now started doctoring email accounts (Equititlost@gmail.com posing as "David Kennedy"), it leaves some question mark about whether or not the multiple accounts are all Equititrust’s. Having read the posts associated with the alleged multiple accounts it does appear as if they may at least be associated but that may be as work colleagues, spouse, child, parent, friend etc. I wouldn’t be jumping to any conclusions in that regard – particularly if you don’t have clean hands.

 

[katie534]

http://www.articlesnatch.com/Article/Cyber-Bullying-Against-Corporations/1786679

I strongly suggest any readers of this blog to investigate cyber bullying against corporations.

It is easy to search for more.

Clean hands on this thread?

 

[No Trust]

Equititrust Deception Caught Out

Trying to divert the fact that Equititrust was using 3 accounts on this web site won’t work..

I believe Equititrust's old account is still open and they can make a statement on this web site as to why they were operating 3 accounts.

The excuses that are now being thrown around about other staff members, children, friend etc using the computer and making comments is a joke.

In the same vein, when someone seeks Equity they must come with clean hands, more importantly when a party seeks to raise Equity they must come with cleans hands too.


Unfortunately for all the poor suffering investors of Equititrust this web site has revealed what immature individuals are managing their money. Equititrust has clearly been caught with its hands glued to the keyboard. No way around it..


In regard to this, they will squarely have to answer to the Regulator. I have discussed their actions with a senior barrister in Sydney who specialises in Banking and Finance Law. His assessment is what they have done is illegal and a clear breach of their duties as directors in charge of a responsible entity.

His comments were that even in the face of a barrage of comments on a forum, a corporation and its directors ought to take the high road and not get involved under assumed names. He went on further, to say that after he had read the thread that he could not believe that Equititrust had even responded to the thread in the first place. His example was that the four major banks have many things said about them on the internet and that it would be unthinkable that NAB, COMMONWEALTH, or WESPAC etc would participate in forums on these websites.

Further he said that if one of the major banks was caught posing as an investor or someone that they were not that this would be a breach of the highest order due to the fact that the financial institution has obligations under a code of conduct as well as the fact that the company is licensed to raise money from the public. More importantly he said that if the CEO was behind the deceptive postings that this would take the breach to another level in that it is incomprehensible that a CEO of a company with a financial services licence would engage in such conduct over the internet.


What is occurring now is an attempt at damage control, in that Equititrust’s own legal advice will confirm the same. So the blame is now trying to be shifted to anyone, friends, work colleagues, parents, etc etc.. This won’t work as Garpal Gumnut correctly said the person can be traced by other sophisticated means.



Posting under other assumed names here such as Armslengh or Kmint won’t make it go away...

 

[kostag]

Lets get back to serious debate about a serious issue and that is public disclosure by a corpoation which seems to have some serious problems and which has custodianship of $200M of public money. Legitimate questions have been raised and frankly repeatedly mocked.

Lets just face reality, 'we' won't get answers. ASIC might,

I cant however overlook this - someone called ARMSLENGTH joins this FORUM is Feb 2011 and starts with " I am not an investor, employee or borrower of Equititrust."

then this POST by KMINT - another new member - he/she says:- " so I'll let you know up front that I'm not a borrower, investor or employee of Equititrust"

Got a familiar ring?

KMINT , I agree if someone is sending GMAILS around under the name EQUITILOST and under the name 'David Kennedy' etc - is certainly wrong. No-one would give that tactic any credence. However, I suggest to you that any recipient would not have taken any such email seriously - what David Kennedy berating his own company? You didn't take it seirously, did you? I dont. So, it is a joke - in very poor taste - yes, but a joke. More than likely some poor attempt at satire. However (and not by justification) David Kennedy passed himself as BUFFETMAN, OZAB and who knows Katie and maybe even you, Kmint. So maybe someone was simply sending up the hypocrisy of it all. If CEO David Kennedy addressed legitimite issues and concerns with resorting to bunker mentality - this whole tawdry exchange of email postings may have simply gone away.

However, the facts remain - despite all of this diversion by the "staff of Equititrust" there are a number of serious questions posed on this site which are continuously ignored.

I guess, we have all formed a strong view as to why they are ignored.

I don't normally follow Aussie Stock Forums - I just came here from a Google search on “Equititrust”. Amongst other things I am a part time computer geek and my attention was drawn to Equititrust because of an email I received earlier this week. The email (copied below) was purportedly sent by a David Kennedy from Equitilost@gmail.com and it referred me to several links of articles recently appearing in the Sydney Morning Herald.

------------



From: David Kennedy [mailto:equitilost@gmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, 15 February 2011 5:27 PM

To:

Subject: Equititrust





Seems Equititrust has been busy over the last week:





http://www.smh.com.au/business/prop...ow-35m-in-impairments-20110213-1as0d.html




http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/bus...fault-at-equititrust-fund-20110209-1an0h.html




http://www.smh.com.au/business/putting-profits-into-perspective-20110209-1an0e.html



---------

I can see from the thread that there has been a lot of discussion to identify each posters relationship with Equititrust, so I'll let you know up front that I'm not a borrower, investor or employee of Equititrust. My interest is with how the internet can be used to make anonymous viral attacks on someone. I don't have anything to add to the debate about what's going on with money people have invested, etc. but I do have some thoughts about some of the things that are happening in your discussion.

As has been mentioned in the thread, there are some posts and comments which seem to be purely personal and designed to incur damage without regard for the truth. When you defame someone by saying something that isn’t true then there can be consequences by way of monetary judgement, apology etc. When defamation is a deliberate intent to cause damage then it becomes criminal defamation with far greater consequences. The way that things are progressing in this thread, I think some posters should be starting to get a little nervous right now. I wouldn't be surprised if Equititrust started a defamation process for some of the things being written - they probably should.

I am surprised ASF would allow this sort of vilification. It is akin to a conviction without a fair trial. They may well also have liability given they have allowed the postings to be published.

I have read the attacks in recent days about Equititrust’s alleged multiple accounts with some bemusement. There is an old legal phrase which says “He who seeks equity must come with clean hands”. Given that people have now started doctoring email accounts (Equititlost@gmail.com posing as "David Kennedy"), it leaves some question mark about whether or not the multiple accounts are all Equititrust’s. Having read the posts associated with the alleged multiple accounts it does appear as if they may at least be associated but that may be as work colleagues, spouse, child, parent, friend etc. I wouldn’t be jumping to any conclusions in that regard – particularly if you don’t have clean hands.

 

[zencorp]

Does any one know when the interim finincials are due - ie for December?

Kmint - if we were using multiple accounts we would have already been outed by ASF. Let's just deal with facts shall we - David K used his work computer to log these posts. Whether it was David or a collegue doesn't matter - according to their financials - mm holdings pty ltd is the only related party with an investment in the scheme. The posts which came from David's computer claimed (buffettman) was an investor and was really happy with the scheme. Missleading in it's finest form!

 

[ASICK]

... I can see from the thread that there has been a lot of discussion to identify each posters relationship with Equititrust, so I'll let you know up front that I'm not a borrower, investor or employee of Equititrust. My interest is with how the internet can be used to make anonymous viral attacks on someone. I don't have anything to add to the debate about what's going on with money people have invested, etc. but I do have some thoughts about some of the things that are happening in your discussion. ...

I'm not an investor in Equititurst either - I've been suckered elsewhere. Apart from your despair, among other things, four issues always rise to the surface in these dud managed fund threads: Debt, Mistrust, ASIC and Doubtful Identities in Forums.

A managed fund incurring debt seems as natural as expecting the sun to rise each morning - if fees are calculated on FUM, then debt increases management fees while increasing investor risk. There are most incentives for a manager to incur debt than not to.

The failure of trust in a managed fund typically means the start of the end for that trust and the freezing of assets - there aren't too many circumstances where mistrust is a good thing, but a manager of a frozen fund is in a unique position of not having to work hard to encourage investment simply because investors cannot leave the fund - a good situation for the manager, but a terrible one for investors. Add debt and the freeze is entrenched for perhaps years and years.

Many investors look to ASIC to open up the 'can of worms' and save the day, but it won't - ASIC, like the US SEC, waits until the 'accident', looks around for 'victims' and then MAY try to sort out what happened.

'Doubtful Identities' always seem to come up in these forums - normally not much can be done about it. In most cases their postings are subtle but sometimes they run so hard against the truth of the matter (to the utter disbelief of embattled investors) that they are obvious - most times they are not. Members have to be careful when reading postings.

It's cold comfort, but many funds have gone before you (Westpoint, Timbercorp, City Pacific, Octaviar (PIF)), and I'm sure many will pass after you.

One thing is for sure, you have to work hard and fight for the return of what's left of your money, no one else is going to do it for you.

 

[kostag]

Re: Equititrust: a balanced view

Thanks ASICK - in balance, a good posting. I think that we could all learn from that. Irrespective of whether you are EQUITITRUST, an INVESTOR, an EMPLOYEE, a TWISTED VINDICTIVE FAILED DEVELOPER/BORROWER.... the facts are the facts

I'm not an investor in Equititurst either - I've been suckered elsewhere. Apart from your despair, among other things, four issues always rise to the surface in these dud managed fund threads: Debt, Mistrust, ASIC and Doubtful Identities in Forums.

A managed fund incurring debt seems as natural as expecting the sun to rise each morning - if fees are calculated on FUM, then debt increases management fees while increasing investor risk. There are most incentives for a manager to incur debt than not to.

The failure of trust in a managed fund typically means the start of the end for that trust and the freezing of assets - there aren't too many circumstances where mistrust is a good thing, but a manager of a frozen fund is in a unique position of not having to work hard to encourage investment simply because investors cannot leave the fund - a good situation for the manager, but a terrible one for investors. Add debt and the freeze is entrenched for perhaps years and years.

Many investors look to ASIC to open up the 'can of worms' and save the day, but it won't - ASIC, like the US SEC, waits until the 'accident', looks around for 'victims' and then MAY try to sort out what happened.

'Doubtful Identities' always seem to come up in these forums - normally not much can be done about it. In most cases their postings are subtle but sometimes they run so hard against the truth of the matter (to the utter disbelief of embattled investors) that they are obvious - most times they are not. Members have to be careful when reading postings.

It's cold comfort, but many funds have gone before you (Westpoint, Timbercorp, City Pacific, Octaviar (PIF)), and I'm sure many will pass after you.

One thing is for sure, you have to work hard and fight for the return of what's left of your money, no one else is going to do it for you.

 

[kostag]

Re: Equititrust: QUINLIVIN

this is from the DEC 2010 DISCLOSURE

Borrowers Borrowers' % of Total
By Size Total Loans Loans
Borrower 1 $52,213,753 20.8%

Is this LOAN , QUINLIVIN ????

 

[No Trust]

Cash Position

Does Anybody / Investor know what Equititrust's actual cash position is ??

It seems that the cash projection has not been revealed to the investors to date. Hopefully the Interim Financials will clearly outline remaining cash.

 

[kostag]

Re: Equititrust: MEDIA BEING INCORRECT OR DAMAGING

On 14-2-2011: the EQUITITRUST website published this comment:-

"We are particularly distressed at the insinuations that we have put our interests ahead of investors. I can assure each and every investor that this is not the case. Every decision we make puts the interests of investors first."

This comment gave rise to these questions. If FAIRFAX MEDIA was not correct, then the answers to these questions would deal with any inaccuracy:-

Q1: Why did Equititrust borrow and therein grant FIRST RANKING security (ahead of our interests, ie: investors) to National Bank, Commonwealth Bank and Bank of Scotland, over $150MILLION pushing all investors into second ranking security, at one stage behind a mountain of debt exceeding $150Million, and , as at today, still some $50Million in default loans to Banks?

Q2: Acceptiing that 'gearing' the loan book and allowing it to grow and make more interest margin and fees etc for Equititrust,was a profitable move for McIvor, how was such a policy in any way in the interests of investors, who simply stood to get the same agreed interest on their investments, such investments were meant to be secured against prime mortagge securities, over which 'we' held first mortgage?

Q3: When the Banks asked for their money back (which despite Equititrust rants, they were entitled to do), why did Equititrust de-nude cash reserves by fully paying out the Commonwealth Bank and substantially paying down the National Bank? How did this policy help investors or put their interests first and foremost? I accept that it ensured the survival of Equititrust for the benefit of Equititrust shareholders and managament, yet how did it assist investors interests?

Q4: We hear much about Equititrust's sub-ordination investment of $40million and how we should draw some obscure comfort from it. ( I say obscure because it hasn't helped many of us get paid back after 2 years) Did McIvor or Equititrust ever actually invest by way of advancing and investing $40Million of real money? I mean 'real money' in the same way as investors advanced their real money, or was the investment some paper 'journal entry' accounting, in the same vein as Allco, MFS.

Q5: Equititrust pays itself a very high interest rate (I recall something in the order of 24% (3 times what we get) ) on its own 'investment' (assuming that as per Q4: it is an actual investment) and a very large amount (I dont recall the exact amount) of managment fees. I think a total of about $15Million a year. With in excess of $40Million of investors having to plead hardship to get some repayment of their own capital (and still not getting it!), how does the payment of $15million from one's left hand to one's right hand, when investors are 'begging' for their money to be paid back, possibly align with McIvor's comment :- our interests ahead of investors. I can assure each and every investor that this is not the case. Every decision we make puts the interests of investors first.

Q6: How did the recent PDS (banned by ASIC and had to be withdrawn) which sought to raise $50Million of new money (when there is over $40M of old investors that can't be paid back right now , for last 2 years) , which as we now all understand was to repay the National Bank, and plonk some new (presumably higher rate lender) into first ranking security position ahead of all existing and legitimate investors, possibly benefit existing investors and align with McIvor comment about investor's interests being considered first and foremost.

 

[ASICK]

Some casual observations (from a non-investor):

http://www.equititrust.com.au/Pdfs/FinReport062010.pdf

Page 15 - "... Note 4 Net Assets Attributable to Investors - Liability
...
The distribution paid on subordinated units is the surplus that remains after the payment of:
• expenses of the Scheme
• benchmark returns to members; and
• management fees of the Responsible Entity.
This payment was equivalent to an annual distribution rate of 39.04% (2009: 27.66%) on the Responsible Entity’s investment, which is reflective of the rate associated with the subordinated nature of units. ..." - just more debt - It must be fun to base fees on valuations a manager can believe in. Are the subordinate units really subordinate at these sort of interest rates? I don't think so.

Paying tax? What if you don't get all your capital back? How will you get income tax back if you incur capital losses? Income tax cannot be offset against capital losses.

http://www.equititrust.com.au/Pdfs/Benchmark_Update_Dec_2010.pdf

Page 5 - "... Loan Covenants
Equititrust, as the Responsible Entity for the Fund, has breached several minor covenants with respect to the NAB facility. ..." Cash flow problems?

Page 6 - "... LVR Table
> 90.0% 7 $39,673,887 15.8% ..." Potential losses here? The security could be worth as much the loan, or it could be worth substantially less.

Page 6 - "... Loans with Interest in Arrears
60 - 90 days 7 $29,286,244 $763,540 11.6%
90 - 120 days 4 $19,846,283 $815,912 7.9%
120+ days 11 $74,573,392 $4,332,315 29.7%
Total 22 $123,705,919 $5,911,767 49.2% ..." (edited to fit table) - Potential losses here too?

 

[kostag]

THIS IS THE SORT OF RIGOROUS ANALYSIS CEO KENNEDY OUGHT BE PROVIDING TO THE MEDIA, PUBLIC AND INVESTORS.

WELL DONE ASICK (sic)

Some casual observations (from a non-investor):

http://www.equititrust.com.au/Pdfs/FinReport062010.pdf

Page 15 - "... Note 4 Net Assets Attributable to Investors - Liability
...
The distribution paid on subordinated units is the surplus that remains after the payment of:
• expenses of the Scheme
• benchmark returns to members; and
• management fees of the Responsible Entity.
This payment was equivalent to an annual distribution rate of 39.04% (2009: 27.66%) on the Responsible Entity’s investment, which is reflective of the rate associated with the subordinated nature of units. ..." - just more debt - It must be fun to base fees on valuations a manager can believe in. Are the subordinate units really subordinate at these sort of interest rates? I don't think so.

Paying tax? What if you don't get all your capital back? How will you get income tax back if you incur capital losses? Income tax cannot be offset against capital losses.

http://www.equititrust.com.au/Pdfs/Benchmark_Update_Dec_2010.pdf

Page 5 - "... Loan Covenants
Equititrust, as the Responsible Entity for the Fund, has breached several minor covenants with respect to the NAB facility. ..." Cash flow problems?

Page 6 - "... LVR Table
> 90.0% 7 $39,673,887 15.8% ..." Potential losses here? The security could be worth as much the loan, or it could be worth substantially less.

Page 6 - "... Loans with Interest in Arrears
60 - 90 days 7 $29,286,244 $763,540 11.6%
90 - 120 days 4 $19,846,283 $815,912 7.9%
120+ days 11 $74,573,392 $4,332,315 29.7%
Total 22 $123,705,919 $5,911,767 49.2% ..." (edited to fit table) - Potential losses here too?