Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

FMF [First Mortgage Fund]

b/t informed a unit holder that the RG45 (the following benchmarks) are contained on pages 4 and 5 of the Asset Report.

Your task, should you choose to acccept it, is to find the benchmarks interwoven into the colorful pages of the Asset Report.

Good Luck!



This is from ASICs' site.

It is the list of 8 benchmarks that BT say they have disclosed on pages 4-5 within the Asset Review
http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/pdflib.nsf/LookupByFileName/rg45.pdf/$file/rg45.pdf

Benchmark 1: Liquidity

RG 45.38 The responsible entity of an unlisted mortgage scheme (other than a contributory mortgage scheme) should:

(a) have cash flow estimates for the scheme for the next 3 months; and

(b) ensure that at all times the scheme has cash or cash equivalents (but not including undrawn amounts under bank overdraft or lending facilities)sufficient to meet its projected cash needs over the next 3 months.

Benchmark 2: Scheme borrowing

RG 45.47 If an unlisted mortgage scheme has borrowed funds (whether on or off balance sheet), the responsible entity should disclose:

(a) for each borrowing that will mature in 5 years or less—the amount owing and the maturity profile in increments of not more than 12 months;

Note: For borrowings that will mature within 12 months, the responsible entity should exercise judgment to determine whether it would be appropriate to disclose aggregate amounts for time bands within 12 months.

(b) for borrowings that mature in more than 5 years—the aggregate amount owing;

(c) for each credit facility—the aggregate undrawn amount and the
maturity profile in increments of no more than 12 months;

(d) the fact that amounts owing to lenders and other creditors of the scheme rank before an investor's interests in the scheme; and

(e) the purpose for which the funds have been borrowed, including whether they will be used to fund distributions or withdrawal amounts.

Benchmark 3: Portfolio diversification

RG 45.53 A responsible entity of an unlisted mortgage scheme (other than a contributory mortgage scheme) should disclose the current nature of the mortgage scheme's investment portfolio, including:

(a) by number and value, loans by class of activity (e.g. development
projects, industrial, commercial, retail, residential, specialised property,reverse mortgages);

(b) by number and value, loans by geographic region;

(c) by number and value, what proportion of loans are in default or arrears;

Benchmark 4: Related party transactions

RG 45.61 A responsible entity of an unlisted mortgage scheme who transacts with related parties of the scheme, including lending or investing scheme funds with related parties should disclose their approach to these transactions,including:

(a) details of any loans, investments and transactions they have made to or with any related party;

(b) their policy on related party transactions, including the assessment and approval process for related party lending and arrangements to manage conflicts of interest; and

(c) how the processes and arrangements are monitored to ensure their
policy is followed

Benchmark 5: Valuation policy

RG 45.64 A responsible entity of an unlisted mortgage scheme should take the following approach to valuations of properties over which it has taken security:

(a) Properties (i.e. real estate) should be valued on an `as is' and (for development property) also on an `as if complete' basis.

Note: See `Key terms' for definition of `as is' and `as if complete' valuations.

(b) The responsible entity should have a clear policy on how often they obtain valuations, including how recent a valuation has to be when they make a new loan.

(c) The responsible entity should establish a panel of valuers and ensure that no one valuer conducts more than 1/3 of the responsible entity's valuation work for the scheme, calculated by value of properties (other than for contributory mortgage schemes).

Benchmark 6: Lending principles—loan-to-valuation ratios

RG 45.70 A responsible entity of an unlisted mortgage scheme should maintain the following loan-to-valuation ratios for loans made by the scheme:

(a) where the loan relates to property development—70% on the basis of
the latest `as if complete' valuation; and

(b) in all other cases—80% on the basis of the latest market valuation.

Note 1: The loan-to-valuation ratio should be based on the unencumbered value of the property.

Note 2: The responsible entity of a contributory mortgage scheme will meet this benchmark for a particular investor if the loan in which the investor has an interest satisfies the above ratios.

Benchmark 7: Distribution practices

RG 45.75 If an unlisted mortgage scheme is making or forecasts making distributions to members, the responsible entity should disclose:

(a) the source of the current distribution (e.g. from income earned in the relevant distribution period, financing facility, application monies);

(b) the source of any forecast distribution;

(c) if the current or forecast distribution is not solely sourced from income received in the relevant distribution period, the reasons for making those distributions; and

(d) if the current distribution or forecast distribution is sourced other than from income, whether this is sustainable over the next 12 months.

Note 1: Any forward-looking statements should comply with s769C and RG 170. If a responsible entity does not have reasonable grounds for disclosing whether current or forecast distributions sourced other than from realised income are sustainable, it should explain this to investors: see RG 170.91.

Benchmark 8: Withdrawal arrangements

RG 45.81 A responsible entity of an unlisted mortgage scheme should provide details of whether investors will be able to withdraw from a scheme. If investors are given the right to withdraw from a scheme, the responsible entity should clearly disclose:

(a) the maximum withdrawal period allowed under the constitution for the scheme (this disclosure should be at least as prominent as any shorter withdrawal period promoted to investors);

REGULATORY GUIDE 45: Mortgage schemes—improving disclosure for retail investors

© Australian Securities and Investments Commission September 2008 Page 24

(b) any significant risk factors or limitations that may affect the ability of investors to withdraw from the scheme (including risk factors that may affect the ability of the responsible entity to meet a promoted withdrawal period);

(c) the approach to rollovers, including whether the `default' is that
investments in the scheme are automatically rolled over; and

(d) if withdrawals from the scheme are to be funded from an external
liquidity facility, the material terms of this facility, including any rights the provider has to suspend or cancel the facility.

RG 45.82 If the scheme promotes a fixed redemption unit price for investments (e.g. $1 per unit), the responsible entity should clearly disclose details of the circumstances in which a lower amount may be payable, together with details of how that amount will be determined.

Note: The responsible entity of a contributory mortgage scheme will meet this benchmark for a particular investor if the responsible entity discloses the above information to the investor as it relates to the investor's ability to withdraw.
 
Re: Asset Report

Promised within 6 months of taking the fund.

This was received today by a member of the FMF Coffee Club:-
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/FMF_coffee_club/join

"...Our solicitors have been examining certain records of the fund and this has been an ongoing process. If it is deemed that legal proceedings should occur (and this has not been decided as yet) it would only be untaken if it was financially beneficial to the fund. Also any criminal proceedings would only be dealt with by ASIC with whom the Fund would cooperate fully...."


Another one bites the dust - another one bites the dust - another one.. !!
 
I consider that the main focus of unitholders is the ultimate fate of their investments and we should draw on each others strengths and the information they bring to the forum to make the best of our situation.

I believe it is important that we really understand what a VUP will mean, and why we must fight to maintain the $1.00 unit value.

Under a VUP, unitholders would be given "offers" to redeem. A good example of an "offer" is in the letter to unitholders such as this one...
http://www.avivagroup.com.au/files/...ome_Fund_-_December_2009_Redemption_Offer.pdf

If I received an offer to redeem 4% of a unitholding of say, 120,000 units, my
FIRST thought would be the memory of those units having been worth $120,000.

I would then calculate that 4% of my unitholding would be worth 4,800 units,an amount that in my memory would still equate to an amount of $4,800.

Because the manager is making the offer at the VUP of say, 48cents (the last
price that Balmain Trilogy gave us), I would calculate that 4,800 units at
48cents would return me a cash amount of $2304.00

I would consider that amount to be not worth accepting....not only for the loss that I would incur ($4,800 - $2304 = a loss of $2496) but that the small return is of little use...BUT I would think of all the people who would NEED to take this offer, and the LOSS that they would accept by doing so.

But by not accepting the offer I face another dilemma..

The fate of my investments would be revealed to me twice a year, in the form of an annual and half yearly report..(or at times when the manager wants to communicate other offers.) This will cause an ongoing stress...will the VUP go up or down..?? Should I accept the next round of offers if the VUP goes down, in case it goes down even further??

What will the manager do with the 43% of our fund that is vacant land, and
what will the manager do with the "long term" assets to make the VUP increase in value ? Will holding on to these assets long term actually return more of unitholders investments, and should I keep pressing the manager to give me information to support his view? What if he doesn't tell me? Should I believe him...I trusted a manager once before.

And then I would think about how it would work if the $1.00 unit price were to
be maintained.

The manager would focus on managing the assets so that they could be sold within a reasonable time frame of say, five years.

Once assets were sold in suitable market conditions, an amount would be sent to ALL unitholders as a percentage of their $1.00 investment....if it were 4%, say, in my example it would mean a return of $4800.00.The balance of this investment would remain in the fund until further assets are sold, and further payments made to unitholders, until all the assets have been sold and there are no more assets, and as big a percentage of our $1.00 unit has been returned as the sales of the assets brings over time.

The rate of appreciation by which the properties would increase in value in an
improving market would increase my chances of some recovery of the balance of my $1.00 units in the fund...the manager says the units are worth 48cents now, but with appreciation over the time it takes to sell the assets, this COULD increase.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/property/property-market-continues-its-redhot-run-20100228-pb9v.html

All the payments that I receive back would not be subject to tax, as I would
just be getting back the capital that I had originally invested.People who need
their money back now are not disadvantaged. I would take my $4800 and put it in the best bank term deposit, where I am guaranteed growth of up to 7.85% on that portion of capital returned to me.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/busin...n-term-deposits/2010/02/23/1266687064283.html

I would certainly keep reading all the property news reports, but I would be
relieved that the burden of making decisions regarding the ongoing VUP would not apply... the properties are only worth what they are worth , and the total sum of the assets sold within the windup period is what percentage of my $1.00 I will ultimately recover....and so will it be for every other unitholder in the fund under the $1.00 unit value.

.I believe we should be pressing the manager to elaborate on keeping the $1.00 unit value , and that information regarding this option must be made available to ALL unitholders

I believe that we are approaching D-Day...that is, Decision Day..

Everyone should get as much advice as possible, and this is my opinion, and
everyones situation is their own.

Danielle.
 
I am pretty tired of chasing these FMF Forums.

I was told yesterday by BT that we will be getting an offer of two options in June. I am sure you all know about them.

He said that he thought (from speaking to many investors), that about 50% of investors would choose to withdraw their $$ in two chunks, and 50% would leave them to grow. He said that all should be paid out within a few years, with people choosing option no.1 being paid out in a couple of chunks about 6 mths apart..the first payment being made before the end of this year.

The FMF as a trading interest is winding up.

He said the people who left their $$ with them for the longer haul would stand to gain from court cases yielding payouts into the fund. (Today's (4/3)article throws a bit of a query over that hope though).
 
Re: Pacific FMF proxy vote 1st September 2010

Hello fellow investors in this terrible mess.

If you are wondering what to do, join the large mass that are voting against all of BT's horrid proposals.

Vote against BT's 20% performance fee and all their other cash grabs.

You have probably already sent in your proxy to Computershare, but it you go to the meeting in Bribane tomorrow, you automatically go to extinguish your original vote and cast a new proxy.

Do not follow BT's example. We unitholders who want a fair go have all voted:-

Resolution 1: Against
Resolution 2: Issue Price
Resolution 3: For

BT are running around making desperat phone calls now, they know we only need 25.1 percent of the vote to squash resolution 1.

If you've changed your mind join the millions of units/unitholders that have voted as above. Its not too late to change your proxy at the meeting tomorrow.

lightlystrung
 
THANK YOU to all those who saw the light and voted against Resolution 1.

We now have a much better and fairer way forward.

AND Balmain Trilogy can see we are a force of collective informed unitholders.

There is a new RE out there about to make a run for the management of our fund and this too will keep BT on their toes.

Unitholders need to keep fully informed and work together.
 
Top