Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Equititrust?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to new
Re: INVESTORS PAST PRESENT AND PROPOSED should re-visit this document

kostag said:
this is still current and on www.equititrust.com.au

http://www.equititrust.com.au/Pdfs/EIF_Pds_200902.pdf

look at the first few pages - and also looked at the stated policy re valuations; and what about the right to defer for 180days and then another 180days - aren't we well past 360days ????

good reading.
Click to expand...

Don't worry about the constitution, take the time to read the non-liquid provisions of the Corporations Act (Cth).
 
Re: INVESTORS PAST PRESENT AND PROPOSED should re-visit this document

does the ACT mean we are stuffed?

ASICK said:
Don't worry about the constitution, take the time to read the non-liquid provisions of the Corporations Act (Cth).
Click to expand...
 
Re: INVESTORS PAST PRESENT AND PROPOSED should re-visit this document

kostag said:
does the ACT mean we are stuffed?
Click to expand...

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s601kb.html

CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601KB
Non-liquid schemes--offers
(1) The responsible entity of a registered scheme that is not liquid may offer members an opportunity to withdraw, wholly or partly, from the scheme to the extent that particular assets are available and able to be converted to money in time to satisfy withdrawal requests that members may make in response to the offer.

(2) The withdrawal offer must be in writing and be made:

(a) if the constitution specifies procedures for making the offer--in accordance with those procedures; or

(b) otherwise--by giving a copy of the offer to all members of the scheme or to all members of a particular class.

(3) The withdrawal offer must specify:

(a) the period during which the offer will remain open (this period must last for at least 21 days after the offer is made); and

(b) the assets that will be used to satisfy withdrawal requests; and

(c) the amount of money that is expected to be available when those assets are converted to money; and

(d) the method for dealing with withdrawal requests if the money available is insufficient to satisfy all requests.

The method specified under paragraph (d) must comply with section 601KD.

(4) For joint members, a copy of the withdrawal offer need only be given to the joint member named first in the register of members.

(5) As soon as practicable after making the withdrawal offer, the responsible entity must lodge a copy of the offer with ASIC.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s601kd.html

CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601KD
Non-liquid schemes--how payments are to be made
The responsible entity of a registered scheme that is not liquid must ensure that withdrawal requests made in response to a withdrawal offer are satisfied within 21 days after the offer closes. No request made under the withdrawal offer may be satisfied while the offer is still open. If an insufficient amount of money is available from the assets specified in the offer to satisfy all requests, the requests are to be satisfied proportionately in accordance with the formula:

Amount of money available * Amount member requested to withdraw / Total of all amount members request to withdraw
 
SOLVENCY: transcript of recent Court case

anyone been able to get a copy of this - I suspect that there may be some good reading there......
 
Re: SOLVENCY: transcript of recent Court case

kostag said:
anyone been able to get a copy of this - I suspect that there may be some good reading there......
Click to expand...

Why dont you ring up the Court yourself and ask rather than asking in here.
 
Re: Equititrust: Court case judgement is out

look at para 29 and 30 in the judgment: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/512.html

the figures used are as at 30-6-10, and as we have all learned since that date, very material write downs have been admitted to by Equititrust Ltd in relation to Quinlivan and Resort in South Australia.

What is this further write down effect on the question of solvency? If that evidence had been raised by the parties, would this outcome have been the same?

I am not a lawyer. Who knows.
 
Re: Equititrust: Court case judgement is out

kostag said:
look at para 29 and 30 in the judgment: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/512.html

...
Click to expand...

Very interesting figures:-

At 29, "... In the consolidated statement of financial position in the annual financial report of 30 June 2010, the consolidated total current assets are shown as $152,847,347 as against total current liabilities of $332,670,750. However, the total current liabilities include an item for securitised unit-holders’ funds of $245,336,193. That represents the entitlements of unit-holders. ..." (emphasis added)

And any assets in Equititrust Limited are protected:-

At 27, "... Another matter, to which attention was drawn as possibly indicating insolvency, is that the annual financial report as at 30 June 2010 shows the Company’s total current liabilities as $18,663,729, as against total current assets of $13,804,048. One rule of thumb that sometimes applies in determining whether a company can pay its debts as and when they fall due involves determining whether or not its current assets exceed its current liabilities. However, the current liabilities included in the balance sheet include an item of $15,588,404, said to be interest bearing loans and borrowings. Mr Mark McIvor is the managing director of the Company. He is also the sole director and secretary of M. M. Holdings Pty Limited (MM Holdings), and is the controlling mind of MM Holdings. Mr McIvor says that from time to time MM Holdings has advanced funds to the Company for the purposes of providing the Company with what is, effectively, an overdraft facility. The terms of the loan are set out in a letter of 1 July 2008. That letter provides, relevantly, that all loans are to be repaid at times mutually agreed between the parties, and, if times cannot be agreed, upon demand by the lender. ..." (emphasis added)
 
Overdrafts to McIvor

Did investors know about these loans / overdrafts ?? If they didn't it makes my previous post on the financial background of McIvor even more pertinent as investors are effectively being asked to prop up his personal company whilst their money or a good chunk of it has been lost by Equititrust.
Investors are not that stupid...​
 
Just imagine IF:-

1. the manager could no longer earn a management fee from the fund.
2. MM demanded the recall of its loan.
3. Equititrust Limited could no longer function as responsible entity because in such circumstances it'd lose its AFSL.
4. Any residual subordinated debt converts to an ordinary unitholding.

Yep.. it's be a fun time.

Given that Equititrust Limited has consolidated the fund in Equititrust Limited's accounts (perhaps in order to share fund profits), does anyone think the fund would share in Equititrust Limited's asset pool with MM?

I guess it wouldn't be hard to get a sinking feeling..
 
Re: Equititrust: as per its own web site - what is the main asset?

Trust
The key asset in our business is our reputation. As they say, “Reputation comes on foot, but departs on horse.” A company’s response to the Global Financial Crisis provides an enduring litmus test by which corporate character and philosophy are measureable.

and we have all been hoping that the key asset may have been a quality mortgage book!

as a p.s - I don't know who the 'they' is that the quote refers to - but I respect that the horse has well and truly bolted, down at the old Chevron Corral!

Perhaps, the quote which is more applicable ought be 'reputation built on bull, disappears by horse'.....
 
QUINLIVIN: any news on state of this asset and or its recoverability?

as the largest loan and potentially the biggest write off by far, anyone heard anything on this train-wreck? A total exposure as I understand well over $50M (before write downs) - what is a block of land at Ipswich worth? this seems to be the key to our recovery ............
 
Equititrust: if there was $70M invested and now there is $15M - what happended?

back on 24-6-10, the very helpful BUFFETMAN posted on this web site: Mate I think you might be confused. I rang Equitytrust today and spoke to their investor guy (I think it was Ron or something) and he told me that they have no tourism business nor are they listed. He also said they owe no money to Royal Bank of Scotland.

Are you confusing them with someone else? He also said that the owner of the business has invested about $70m of his own money in the funds and that he has voluntarily subrogated it such that other investors get paid before him (for interest and capital).Now, I recently looked up the TRANSCRIPT of the recent Lazar led RSH Court case (link in this web site) - in that at paras 29 and 30, MM Holdings declares it is owed $15M! and that there was no agreement as to the repayment term of that..... now, either BUFFETMAN was not told the truth and there was not $70M invested; or, BUFFETMAN was making up stories (surely not!); or, there was $70M and $55M has been repaid between June 2010 and now; or else MM HOLDINGS has written off against moneys otherwise owing to it $55M of loan losses. Certainly, the later, would be MM doing the right thing. Anyone been able to glean what has occurred?
 
Re: Equititrust: if there was $70M invested and now there is $15M - what happended?

kostag said:
back on 24-6-10, the very helpful BUFFETMAN posted on this web site: Mate I think you might be confused. I rang Equitytrust today and spoke to their investor guy (I think it was Ron or something) and he told me that they have no tourism business nor are they listed. He also said they owe no money to Royal Bank of Scotland.

Are you confusing them with someone else? He also said that the owner of the business has invested about $70m of his own money in the funds and that he has voluntarily subrogated it such that other investors get paid before him (for interest and capital).Now, I recently looked up the TRANSCRIPT of the recent Lazar led RSH Court case (link in this web site) - in that at paras 29 and 30, MM Holdings declares it is owed $15M! and that there was no agreement as to the repayment term of that..... now, either BUFFETMAN was not told the truth and there was not $70M invested; or, BUFFETMAN was making up stories (surely not!); or, there was $70M and $55M has been repaid between June 2010 and now; or else MM HOLDINGS has written off against moneys otherwise owing to it $55M of loan losses. Certainly, the later, would be MM doing the right thing. Anyone been able to glean what has occurred?
Click to expand...

Buffetman was a username that came from within Equititrust, as reported in an earlier post by the site administrator. I think you can safely discount any info from that username.
 
Deceptive Posts by Equititrust

The site administrator actually stated that Buffeman and Equititrust were logged on from the same PC terminal. Equititrust's account was used by David Kennedy so one would assume he had a password on that PC. Noboby is fooled by the Equititrust spin that there were multiple users on the CEO's PC. It is incomprehensible that a CEO would share his PC with anyone else. A lot of people in the banking and finance industry as well as the media had a good laugh at this cowboy effort in trying to hide the truth......
 
Re: Equititrust: correct so when did a $70M investment drop to $15M

NOTRUST: I note your confirmation etc re BUFFETMAN etc - so was there ever a loan acocutn of $70M and IF there was, what happended to reduce it to $15M ??? Was money repaid to MM in priority to redemptions?
 
ALL SILENT AT CHEVRON ISLAND

we were promised some equity swap offer by end of May 2011
 
"... To facilitate a flexible structure that allows the development of assets to underpin the unit price, an offer will be made to all unit holders in both the EIF and EPF. The offer will consist of transitioning those investors that seek to accept the offer from a unit
holder in a mortgage fund to a shareholder in Trust Capital Group. ..."

http://equititrust.com.au/Pdfs/Investor_Summary_06May2011.pdf

Isn't that just dandy of Equititrust Limited?

To escape MFS, the investors in the Premium Income Fund (PIF) engaged a new manager Wellington Capital (WC). WC gave two options (1) wind up the fund and get SFA, or (2) list the fund and achieve the ability to achieve liquidity by way of sale on the NSX.

Well, out of fear of getting SFA in a windup, investors opted to list the fund. It trades on the NSX as PIN http://www.nsxa.com.au/prices_alpha.asp?nsxcode=PIN

You'll notice the trades are less than $0.09, yet the NTA per unit in the fund is $0.34.

What a break for investors, they got the opportunity to sell units on the NSX!! They may as well have called the NSX the "barber': investors are getting one hell of a haircut (if they sell).

Now, WC sought equity for the fund via a rights issue to attract institutional and 'sophisticated' investors at about the NSX price of $0.10 per unit, which, by my estimation will cause the NTA per unit to drop of about $0.03 to about $0.31, isn't that nice?

The members of the fund are now seeking to replace WC with Castlereagh Capital and today, the PIF action group has advised members they're about to commence legal action against WC (I presume in regard to the rights issue).

It might sound nice to become a shareholder in a company, but it's not as nice as being a unitholder in a trust/fund. It'll be difficult to sell the shares off market (in the dark, so to speak), so eventually you'll see the shares listed (brought into the light, so to speak), and when they're listed, the vultures will come in, and the prices will be low, low, low (eg. PIF nta $0.34, Listed price $0.088).

I just wanted to give you a bit of the background of the PIF - go to the 'Wellington Capital' thread and have a good read through it. Send a private message to some of the posters and ask them what they think about giving up your rights as a unitholder and transferring same into a shareholding.

Of course, investors are entitled to make their own mistakes - keep in mind ASIC is NOT a prudential regulator, so you'll get no protection if you jump from the 'frying pan' into the 'fire'.

One of the biggest changes you'll face if you accept a shareholding is that you are no longer entitled to a return of your capital - you HAVE to sell your shares - and that ain't gonna be a pleasant task.

More issues of discussion will arise when you see the scheme/plot/plan/strategy Equititrust Limited comes up with - but keep in mind, right now you own your fund, if you accept shareholdings, you'll only own shares in a structure that doesn't seem to be running very well at all.

Also keep in mind, the value of any shareholding will only be as good as the confidence the market has in the management team and the performance of the company - so, you can start thinking about how much you'd really get for your shares (if you accept a new structure).
 
"... Mark will leave you with a quote from Apple founder, Steve Jobs:
“Innovation is the ability to see change as an opportunity, not a threat.” ..."

Awesome, a quote from one of the most successful entrepreneurs in the world spruiked by a company that foreshadows up to a 20% loss of investors capital while suspending distributions.
 
Change of structure.

A change of structure to shareholdings will not add anything to the value (or lack of value) of the assets of the funds. The valuations of the assets will not magically increase by any such sleight-of-hand or change of name. ASICK's recent comments are very relevant to investors, and the record of other busted funds that are further down the same road as Equititust should be clanging the warning bells. The most prudent course is to wind up the funds, accept the losses and take what we can get, and the sooner the better.
 
A fool and his/her money are easily parted. We all did it once. Just watch how many investors in your fund will part with their ownship in the fund in order to take up shares: Investors in your fund don't seem to have an investor group able to contact those not on a forum: not having such a group is really quite a big disadvantage.

Investors will be hopeful and they'll mostly believe anything put to them by managers, whether it's in their best interests or not.

It's only after they pass thru the gate (as PIF investors did) that they'll realize they made a very big mistake that they won't be able to reverse. In fact, PIF are in a better position because they can delist the fund if they so vote - your deal WILL NOT allow a reversal of the deal.

Sorry to say, even if you oppose any deal put by your manager, there's probably not much you can do about it. You guys have no idea how naive investors in managed funds really are (again, sorry to say).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top