- Joined
- 28 August 2008
- Posts
- 9
- Reactions
- 0
When did BT announce that they are going to change the constitutional interpretation of the value of a unit from $1.00 to 'fair value'?
FMF [First Mortgage Fund]
- Thread starter mellifuous
- Start date
- Joined
- 8 July 2009
- Posts
- 465
- Reactions
- 0
"... The review of the Fund's assets will be complete by the middle of October 2009. We also believe that arrangements in respect of the Fund's indebtedness to its financiers should be finalised at about the same time. In the interim we will be establishing mechanisms for amending the Constitution to allow redemptions at the prevailing unit value. As most unitholders would understand the Fund currently has a fixed unit redemption price of $1.00. This is significantly greater than the current unit value and effectively prohibits any redemptions from occurring as this would have the effect of treating the remaining unitholders unfairly. ..."
http://http://www.balmaintrilogy.com.au/news_111009.aspx
- Joined
- 8 July 2009
- Posts
- 465
- Reactions
- 0
I refer to 'fair value' as 'the value of a unit calculated from time to time as a portion of the total unit holder equity in the fund', that is equity is 600m held by 1b units, then 'fair value' is $.60c.
Members of managed funds seem to fall into one of three camps at this time:-
1. The liquid fund - in its normal state distributions are paid and members are free (within limits of liquidity) to redeem and invest. In the FMF the unit price ($1.00) was set by the constitution and provided a stable base for investment and redemption: that is, a member could not gain an increase or decrease in the value of the unit in normal circumstances so unit price was neither a deterrent to redeem, nor a deterrent to invest.
2. The illiquid (frozen) fund which is managed pursuant to the corporations act (illiquid provisions) - the constitution does not apply to redemptions. A manager may make an offer from time to time which members may accept of reject. The needy will take offers if they are dire straits, and the rest will remain in the fund in the hope the unit 'fair value' will improve (I refer to this as being hooked).
3. The listed fund where members rely on the market to set the value - Take the MFS Octaviar fund - which is now listed. The unit value was $1.00, but now that its listed the value is determined by market forces - it can be seen empirically that about 2% of members have taken very low offers (about 9c) for their once $1.00 units - but, the bulk (about 98%) have remained in the fund (they are hooked). Those remaining have not received income of any kind for two years, and it seems their fund is dwindling in value rather than increasing. They complain that promises made by the manager have not been fulfilled.
I realise that 'fair value' no longer represents $1.00 and that is has not done so for some time.
My complaint about Trilogy unilaterally amending the constitution falls on the ground that I do not wich to invst in a fund with a variable unti price, that is ,a 'fair value' unit price as determined from time to time (and it can only be from time to time as all accounting is done - gee, looking at how long it's taken Trilogy to do the books this time, it would seem that it might be months between calculations of 'fair value').
The MFS experience shows that, when faced with lower offers than members perceive their units to be worth, members will not sell. In fact, 98% of members have not sold while those in dire straits were prepared to accept $.9c for their once $1.00 units. Promises from the manager seem to have been a strong inducement for members not to sell.
This will happen in the FMF too - when faced with a choice, then only those in dire staits will take any offer, because the remainder will stay in (be hooked), especially if the manager purports that the fund will be strong in the future.
So, how would the manager make the FMF liquid? Well, the first step would be to amend the constitution to 'fair value' so that the units could be traded on a fair basis, but of course the fund would have to be paying interest (distribution) in order to induce investment at any price - and that is unlikely.
The FMF's consitution provides that at the discretion of the manager (in consultation with the auditors) the manager may pay 'distirbutions' to captial - given the impairments, it would seem that the manager would duty bound to direct any 'income' to capital, and not to members in the form of distributions.
If we assume that it is possible for the fund could operate as liquid (which is unlikely given the fact that members want their money back), then how would unit 'fair value' be calculated? Clearly the time between valuations would not be short since the fund holds a range of assets and the assets would be sold at variyng times and for varying prices, and expenses would calculated and paid at different times, and valuations have to be made - and of course, audits have to be made.
Where would this leave members in the fund? Well, I believe in a similar position to being in a illquid fund, or being a member of a listed fund - in a very uncertain position - always being hooked into retaining money in the fund in the hope things will improve. One should also remember that valuing is not a science, it's really estimating - a guess - may be up to 20% out.
It might be that things might not improve and it might be that they will - where is the evidence one way or another? Look what the accruals accounting system and valuations did for us with City - just consider how much of our grief come from valuations. If it worked one way, then isn't it possible to work the other way?
MFS members won't sell and they've got nothing for two years, the FMF hasn't paid anything for about 15 months and won't see anything this side of smas 2009, so why would members want to live on promises for more time?
We always have to keep in mind that the manager's interests are not ours - the manager want's the cash cow to go on and on - so did City (and City said so). The manager has already pubicly expressed views about long term business ventures and given promises about tenure to occupants of Grande Pacific, yet has promised that it would be members who decide whether the fund should go on or wound up: the manager is at best, inconsistent.
The reality is that the $1.00 unit will stop the manager from even thinking about making the fund liquid because, with a unit value of $1.00, the fund IS illiquid because 'fair value' is less than $1.00.
In this way the onus is on the manager to (1) call a meeting of members to determine the future of the fund, (2) disclose a clear strategy for the future, and (3) provide members with a comprehensive report on all facits relevant in making a proper decision about the fund's future.
Now, after members have decided and if the evidence support the fund moving along, then an informed decision can be made and amendments made by consent.
On the other hand, the fund should be wound up in a sensible way.
The manager has already expressed the view that it would wind up the fund if that is what members desired (BRW spiel, per Mr. Griffin).
Amending the constitutional basis for calculating the unti price is not a mechanism that relates to redemptions, it relates more to an attempt to make the fund 'liquid' - to lock us up as if listed.
If members allow the manager to do what it has done (or is doing) wrtamending the unit price calculation , then we will end up no better off than if we had listed the fund.
In this world of equality (as envisaged by the manager) the needy will always be disadvantaged, and the remainder will always be hooked.
IMO.
- Joined
- 8 July 2009
- Posts
- 465
- Reactions
- 0
THE 'BLACKBOARD LISTING' -- that's how a poster refers to City's purported amendment of the calculation of unit price in the fund's consitution. I agree with it, same outcome, but no listing on the NSX (or elsewhere).
Again, posting number 3995 from the storm thread states (in part):-
"... When or if you come face to face with Cassamatis, you can ask him a couple of questions from me. I already asked him these questions on his website, but in his typically weak and cowardly way he didn't respond.
If you were managing your clients portfolios, why did you let them evaporate into thin air? Why did you let them sit through more than 12 months of one of the worst bear markets in history, without taking any defensive action that would have saved their portfolios from being decimated?
Well of course we all know the answer - selling clients out would have dried up his cash flow, firstly by eliminating Storm's ongoing management fees, secondly by effectively preventing new clients from coming on board with Storm. I mean, if word had got out that Storm were evacuating their clients from the stockmarket, then nobody in their right mind would have walked into Storm and asked to be put into the market. ..."
Clearly this poster sees the relationship between a manager's income, the value of a fund, and the length that a least one manager will go to maintain the value of a fund to secure a steady income.
Please look at the possible consequences of a manager's act and try to put aside the reasoning put forward by the manager, look to the effect of the act..
Remember how Mr. Ellis said the 'recent' impairments (over $300m) were only paper lossses, while Sullivan, when explaining why two months of distributions were put to capital, stated (in part) that impairments were actual losses - in the first case they wanted out vote, in the second case the wanted out money.
Remember also how City attempted to list the fund under the guise of an avenue for the needy to gain access to their funds, even thought goldcoast.com.au had published an article stating (among other things) that investors would be decimated by the listing (Aegis had been engaged by City to do a report - City knew what would happen to our investments). We also had the clear evidence that MFS's listing was a disaster.
None of this deterred City, because I believe the true aim of the listing was for their benefit, not ours.
Now this manager states that its amending the unit price as disclosed in the constitution based on 'fairness' - look at the consequences of their action and determine for yourselves if the reason they give really makes sense: work out for yourselves whether you believe the act to be fair.
If you're not happy with your investment tied up in a illiquid fund, and you're not happy with more of the same in a 'liquid' fund, and you don't want a listing, then contact the manager and ask them to provide comprehensive information on the state of the fund. Ask them to disclose a strategy about the future of the fund, and ask them to set down a meeting so members can decide the fund's future before the manager goes out an makes long term plans.
It's our fund, don't let your investment get wound up in a 'Blackboard Listing'.
Of course, if you're happy to sit back and trust the manager, then none of this matters.
Again, posting number 3995 from the storm thread states (in part):-
"... When or if you come face to face with Cassamatis, you can ask him a couple of questions from me. I already asked him these questions on his website, but in his typically weak and cowardly way he didn't respond.
If you were managing your clients portfolios, why did you let them evaporate into thin air? Why did you let them sit through more than 12 months of one of the worst bear markets in history, without taking any defensive action that would have saved their portfolios from being decimated?
Well of course we all know the answer - selling clients out would have dried up his cash flow, firstly by eliminating Storm's ongoing management fees, secondly by effectively preventing new clients from coming on board with Storm. I mean, if word had got out that Storm were evacuating their clients from the stockmarket, then nobody in their right mind would have walked into Storm and asked to be put into the market. ..."
Clearly this poster sees the relationship between a manager's income, the value of a fund, and the length that a least one manager will go to maintain the value of a fund to secure a steady income.
Please look at the possible consequences of a manager's act and try to put aside the reasoning put forward by the manager, look to the effect of the act..
Remember how Mr. Ellis said the 'recent' impairments (over $300m) were only paper lossses, while Sullivan, when explaining why two months of distributions were put to capital, stated (in part) that impairments were actual losses - in the first case they wanted out vote, in the second case the wanted out money.
Remember also how City attempted to list the fund under the guise of an avenue for the needy to gain access to their funds, even thought goldcoast.com.au had published an article stating (among other things) that investors would be decimated by the listing (Aegis had been engaged by City to do a report - City knew what would happen to our investments). We also had the clear evidence that MFS's listing was a disaster.
None of this deterred City, because I believe the true aim of the listing was for their benefit, not ours.
Now this manager states that its amending the unit price as disclosed in the constitution based on 'fairness' - look at the consequences of their action and determine for yourselves if the reason they give really makes sense: work out for yourselves whether you believe the act to be fair.
If you're not happy with your investment tied up in a illiquid fund, and you're not happy with more of the same in a 'liquid' fund, and you don't want a listing, then contact the manager and ask them to provide comprehensive information on the state of the fund. Ask them to disclose a strategy about the future of the fund, and ask them to set down a meeting so members can decide the fund's future before the manager goes out an makes long term plans.
It's our fund, don't let your investment get wound up in a 'Blackboard Listing'.
Of course, if you're happy to sit back and trust the manager, then none of this matters.
- Joined
- 8 July 2009
- Posts
- 465
- Reactions
- 0
http://www.moneymagik.com/unit_value.php
A frozen fund is a 'manager's delight' - the illiquidity provisions of the Corporatons Act put icing on a manager's 'cake'.
The 'offer' (pursuant to the Corp Act) is the hook that keeps most investors hangin' in.
A damaged fund with a variable unit price is no better than an illiquid fund.
Press the manager to (1) put forward a strategy, (2) give unit holders a comprehensive report on the state of the fund, and (3) call a meeting to determine the future of the fund.
A frozen fund is a 'manager's delight' - the illiquidity provisions of the Corporatons Act put icing on a manager's 'cake'.
The 'offer' (pursuant to the Corp Act) is the hook that keeps most investors hangin' in.
A damaged fund with a variable unit price is no better than an illiquid fund.
Press the manager to (1) put forward a strategy, (2) give unit holders a comprehensive report on the state of the fund, and (3) call a meeting to determine the future of the fund.
- Joined
- 8 July 2009
- Posts
- 465
- Reactions
- 0
I'll make this prediction about the future with a variable unit price, and the prediction is this:-
'that most investors in the FMF will not take out their investments for years because they will not be prepared to face the losses they will be presented with, and the only beneficiary will be the manager, investors will be caught, HOOK, LINE, AND SINKER. - they may as well have listed the FMF.'
If you're an investor in the FMF, then you'll have the pleasure of thinking about my prediction when you find that you cannot accept the first offer that comes from the manager.
You'll feel a sense of despair when you find that you can't redeem your units at the 'fair value' because the loss will simply be too much.
You'll be locked in for the long haul -- just remember my words.
'that most investors in the FMF will not take out their investments for years because they will not be prepared to face the losses they will be presented with, and the only beneficiary will be the manager, investors will be caught, HOOK, LINE, AND SINKER. - they may as well have listed the FMF.'
If you're an investor in the FMF, then you'll have the pleasure of thinking about my prediction when you find that you cannot accept the first offer that comes from the manager.
You'll feel a sense of despair when you find that you can't redeem your units at the 'fair value' because the loss will simply be too much.
You'll be locked in for the long haul -- just remember my words.
- Joined
- 8 July 2009
- Posts
- 465
- Reactions
- 0
Nah, I wasn't trying to play Nostradamus - the facts that follow on from a variable unit price in a non-liquid fund suffering such losses as the FMF are really quite obvious.
I don't recall Michael West making the comments he did back there in August 2007, but I wish I'd seen them and taken notice of him - if I did, then I would have saved most of my money.
I can remember most investors in the FMF attacked his comments, but even if City had sued him, and even if he's said nothing, the outcome would still have been the same - ASIC should have listened to him and all of us might have had a lot more of our respective investments in the FMF than we now have.
So, here again, I'm just warning investors of an outcome as I see it - I could be wrong, but on the other hand, I might be right.
I'd rather be heading into a meeting fully informed, than receiving an offer so low that I just can't accept it.
I'm stunned as to why investors aren't up in arms about the tardy nature of the manager's responses and the watering down of reports to summaries of reports.
Well, as I saw on 4 corners about the real estate bubble in L.A., a comment about lemmings following lemmings, all going in the same direction - sadly, it's not always the right direction.
Yes, I delude myself to think that there would be investors who would think they've been duped when they receive those offers too low to accept, but it's a nice dream to hold on to - in reality, they'll probably all be consumed by thoughts of just how 'strong the fund will be in the future' to give any thought to the fact that they won't be getting any money.
Still, a good dream.
I don't recall Michael West making the comments he did back there in August 2007, but I wish I'd seen them and taken notice of him - if I did, then I would have saved most of my money.
I can remember most investors in the FMF attacked his comments, but even if City had sued him, and even if he's said nothing, the outcome would still have been the same - ASIC should have listened to him and all of us might have had a lot more of our respective investments in the FMF than we now have.
So, here again, I'm just warning investors of an outcome as I see it - I could be wrong, but on the other hand, I might be right.
I'd rather be heading into a meeting fully informed, than receiving an offer so low that I just can't accept it.
I'm stunned as to why investors aren't up in arms about the tardy nature of the manager's responses and the watering down of reports to summaries of reports.
Well, as I saw on 4 corners about the real estate bubble in L.A., a comment about lemmings following lemmings, all going in the same direction - sadly, it's not always the right direction.
Yes, I delude myself to think that there would be investors who would think they've been duped when they receive those offers too low to accept, but it's a nice dream to hold on to - in reality, they'll probably all be consumed by thoughts of just how 'strong the fund will be in the future' to give any thought to the fact that they won't be getting any money.
Still, a good dream.
- Joined
- 8 July 2009
- Posts
- 465
- Reactions
- 0
Well, M. Baconne is doing it again.. off to the media without regard to unit holders.
http://www.investordaily.com.au/cps/rde/xchg/id/style/7699.htm?rdeCOQ=SID-0A3D9632-5781AE32
"... An asset review by responsible entity BalmainTRILOGY has found that there is no significant cash income being earned by Pacific First Mortgage Fund (PFMF), formerly known as the City Pacific First Mortgage Fund.
According to BalmainTRILOGY joint chief executive Andrew Griffin, the asset review has found that a substantial majority of the loans in the portfolio were in default. ..."
Well, there you go - "no significant cash income", so much for the accruals accounting system which deemed it great that no real cash was received, but in the non-liquid environment, cash is king - but I guess it means the facility providers and the manager will get their take, but as usual unit holders will get nothing - it's really about risk and reward.
"... As part of the ongoing work to restore investor value, managers have organised for tax statements relating to members' investments in the fund to be sent to all unit holders. ..."
Yes, nil income statements that took months - a great achievement.
But, there's more:-
http://www.watoday.com.au/business/new-broom-blames-old-one-20091025-herc.html
"... Two weeks ago, the group raised $80 million through the sale of a Gold Coast beachfront property. ..."
You'd be forgiven if you really thought that Trilogy did something 'raise the $80m", but they really didn't. As I understand it, the contract was entered into while City was still the manager - and in any event, the deal lost upward of $135m - no fire sale? Well, if Balmain wants to take credit for the sale, then they should take credit for the fire sale.
"... "As a consequence it is going to take time and a great deal of effort to get PFMF reworked in the interests of unitholders," Griffin said.
"We know that this is a difficult situation for unitholders who are keen to know the future of their fund and are wanting answers as soon as possible. ..."
Yes, of course - and of course you took the $1.00 value of a unit to 'fair value' just in prevent anyone who stayed in the fund with a $1.00 wouldn't be disadvantaged.
And, yes, one day the 'fund will be strong', but for 2 years it hasn't been able to pay anything to investors, but 'one day' it will be strong, just wait for a few years of no income, and then,, eh.. what? What will happen? How will the fund get income when we're so heavily impaired?
Did I misunderstand something? We can get income from losses? Now, that's an interesting concept - is it misleading to say something like that? Does he mean 'return of capital'? There is a really BIG difference between the two - one indicates profit before expenses, the other means limiting loss.
When will M. Baconne get the reality that unit holders should be told before the media?
Around the 12th of never?
http://www.investordaily.com.au/cps/rde/xchg/id/style/7699.htm?rdeCOQ=SID-0A3D9632-5781AE32
"... An asset review by responsible entity BalmainTRILOGY has found that there is no significant cash income being earned by Pacific First Mortgage Fund (PFMF), formerly known as the City Pacific First Mortgage Fund.
According to BalmainTRILOGY joint chief executive Andrew Griffin, the asset review has found that a substantial majority of the loans in the portfolio were in default. ..."
Well, there you go - "no significant cash income", so much for the accruals accounting system which deemed it great that no real cash was received, but in the non-liquid environment, cash is king - but I guess it means the facility providers and the manager will get their take, but as usual unit holders will get nothing - it's really about risk and reward.
"... As part of the ongoing work to restore investor value, managers have organised for tax statements relating to members' investments in the fund to be sent to all unit holders. ..."
Yes, nil income statements that took months - a great achievement.
But, there's more:-
http://www.watoday.com.au/business/new-broom-blames-old-one-20091025-herc.html
"... Two weeks ago, the group raised $80 million through the sale of a Gold Coast beachfront property. ..."
You'd be forgiven if you really thought that Trilogy did something 'raise the $80m", but they really didn't. As I understand it, the contract was entered into while City was still the manager - and in any event, the deal lost upward of $135m - no fire sale? Well, if Balmain wants to take credit for the sale, then they should take credit for the fire sale.
"... "As a consequence it is going to take time and a great deal of effort to get PFMF reworked in the interests of unitholders," Griffin said.
"We know that this is a difficult situation for unitholders who are keen to know the future of their fund and are wanting answers as soon as possible. ..."
Yes, of course - and of course you took the $1.00 value of a unit to 'fair value' just in prevent anyone who stayed in the fund with a $1.00 wouldn't be disadvantaged.
And, yes, one day the 'fund will be strong', but for 2 years it hasn't been able to pay anything to investors, but 'one day' it will be strong, just wait for a few years of no income, and then,, eh.. what? What will happen? How will the fund get income when we're so heavily impaired?
Did I misunderstand something? We can get income from losses? Now, that's an interesting concept - is it misleading to say something like that? Does he mean 'return of capital'? There is a really BIG difference between the two - one indicates profit before expenses, the other means limiting loss.
When will M. Baconne get the reality that unit holders should be told before the media?
Around the 12th of never?
- Joined
- 8 July 2009
- Posts
- 465
- Reactions
- 0
http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/10/26/151631_gold-coast-business.html
"... In a brief statement, the funds manager said the asset review of Gold Coast financier City Pacific's former flagship fund was nearly completed and a legal review would follow soon with news of how Balmain Trilogy proposed to recover delinquent loans from developers.
"As a result of the review, it is clear that a substantial majority of the loans in the portfolio are in default and there is no significant cash income being earned," said Balmain Trilogy joint chief executive Andrew Griffin. ..."
'income', an interesting word to use when referring to meager returns of impaired capital. eg. $600m of impairments, $600m unimpaired, $200m debt, $12 'income', more impairments likely - (figures not correct, example only). How could the $12m be declared as 'income'?
What Trilogy means is return of capital ('income') will be used to pay off facility provides and the manager - there is no money for investors -- but, interestingly, 'the fund will be strong again'.
"... It is likely there will be further writedowns after the review. ..."
Interesting use of the word 'likely' - I would have guessed they'd either know now or they'd never know - why can't they just say the words 'there will be further write downs'?
"... As a consequence, it is going to take time and a great deal of effort to get Pacific First Mortgage Fund reworked in the interests of unit holders. ..."
And how about money? So far over $4m + costs of reviews.
What does 'reworked' mean? Down the unit price to 'fair value' to enact a 'blackboard listing'? Give 'occupants' in Grande Pacific tenure assurance? Declare running Grande Pacific as a business (that's the project City got it's money back from in March 2008 - the business at that time was described as 'ailing').
Well, we never know, but we may hear of Trilogy organising helicopter trips to 'its' Mornington Peninsula playground at Martha's Cove.
"We know that this is a difficult time for unit holders who are keen to know the future of their fund and wanting answers as soon as possible.
Well, why shouldn't they? Why does it seem that so many believe that Trilogy is able to pay them distributions when Trilogy won't get back half of the lost capital? If Trilogy can't get back the capital, what there is no income - IMO there will NEVER be income from the fund because the capital losses will be NEVER be made up.
IMO income will only come when the FMF's unit price is fixed and losses are accepted - no acceptance of losses will mean no income, and shouldn't all monies received be repaid to capital? Why pay tax on distributions while suffering losses that haven't been crystalised?
"We are confident that the thick veil that previously shrouded the affairs of the fund will be removed once and for all in the very near future."
Yes, and if that 'thick veil' is lifted, what will unit holders get to see?
I wonder why Trilogy doesn't put all these tidbits on the front page of their site - low level of 'income', the 'fund will be strong again'.
A great way to hear about things, through the media gatekeepers.
"... In a brief statement, the funds manager said the asset review of Gold Coast financier City Pacific's former flagship fund was nearly completed and a legal review would follow soon with news of how Balmain Trilogy proposed to recover delinquent loans from developers.
"As a result of the review, it is clear that a substantial majority of the loans in the portfolio are in default and there is no significant cash income being earned," said Balmain Trilogy joint chief executive Andrew Griffin. ..."
'income', an interesting word to use when referring to meager returns of impaired capital. eg. $600m of impairments, $600m unimpaired, $200m debt, $12 'income', more impairments likely - (figures not correct, example only). How could the $12m be declared as 'income'?
What Trilogy means is return of capital ('income') will be used to pay off facility provides and the manager - there is no money for investors -- but, interestingly, 'the fund will be strong again'.
"... It is likely there will be further writedowns after the review. ..."
Interesting use of the word 'likely' - I would have guessed they'd either know now or they'd never know - why can't they just say the words 'there will be further write downs'?
"... As a consequence, it is going to take time and a great deal of effort to get Pacific First Mortgage Fund reworked in the interests of unit holders. ..."
And how about money? So far over $4m + costs of reviews.
What does 'reworked' mean? Down the unit price to 'fair value' to enact a 'blackboard listing'? Give 'occupants' in Grande Pacific tenure assurance? Declare running Grande Pacific as a business (that's the project City got it's money back from in March 2008 - the business at that time was described as 'ailing').
Well, we never know, but we may hear of Trilogy organising helicopter trips to 'its' Mornington Peninsula playground at Martha's Cove.
"We know that this is a difficult time for unit holders who are keen to know the future of their fund and wanting answers as soon as possible.
Well, why shouldn't they? Why does it seem that so many believe that Trilogy is able to pay them distributions when Trilogy won't get back half of the lost capital? If Trilogy can't get back the capital, what there is no income - IMO there will NEVER be income from the fund because the capital losses will be NEVER be made up.
IMO income will only come when the FMF's unit price is fixed and losses are accepted - no acceptance of losses will mean no income, and shouldn't all monies received be repaid to capital? Why pay tax on distributions while suffering losses that haven't been crystalised?
"We are confident that the thick veil that previously shrouded the affairs of the fund will be removed once and for all in the very near future."
Yes, and if that 'thick veil' is lifted, what will unit holders get to see?
I wonder why Trilogy doesn't put all these tidbits on the front page of their site - low level of 'income', the 'fund will be strong again'.
A great way to hear about things, through the media gatekeepers.
- Joined
- 8 July 2009
- Posts
- 465
- Reactions
- 0
http://www.watoday.com.au/business/new-broom-blames-old-one-20091025-herc.html
"... Two weeks ago, the group raised $80 million through the sale of a Gold Coast beachfront property. ..."
Okay, you're read the press release from Trilogy, now read the history, you'd be forgiven if you thought they'd done something good, but have they? -- was it them or someone else, like Fortress? and was it a good thing, or a bad thing? :-
The property in question is called 'Pacific Beach' at Broadbeach.
http://www.moneymagik.com/broadbeach.php
http://www.moneymagik.com/broadbeach_again.php
09 May 2009 " ... FORTRESS Credit appears to have stepped up the pressure on City Pacific to sell a huge development site at the southern end of Surfers Paradise after the collapse of a $205 million deal struck this time last year. ..." http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/05/09/77215_gold-coast-business.html
Now, the sale brought about $80m, but Fortress is supposed to be owed at least $35m+, so the FMF would get less than $45m, which would be shipped straight to the CBA (as most free cash is).
Q. Did Trilogy 'raise' $80m from the sale - that is, did Trilogy make the sale when they otherwise did not have to? With a potential loss of about $135m, wouldn't that be considered a fire sale - and wasn't there a promise of no fire sales?
Further, it seems the news is totally one sided, suggesting a great win for the fund, when in fact, the truth is that it was one hell of a loss for the fund. Sort of wrapping up bad news like a present.
Seems also that City seemed to be able to make deals with the CBA a lot quicker than Trilogy seems able to do - 3 months and about $40m (from Broadbeach) hasn't seen settlement between the two.
And they say they 'won' an extension in filing the fund's returns - gee, that's great - maybe they'll get a little trophy or something - what do we get?
"... Two weeks ago, the group raised $80 million through the sale of a Gold Coast beachfront property. ..."
Okay, you're read the press release from Trilogy, now read the history, you'd be forgiven if you thought they'd done something good, but have they? -- was it them or someone else, like Fortress? and was it a good thing, or a bad thing? :-
The property in question is called 'Pacific Beach' at Broadbeach.
http://www.moneymagik.com/broadbeach.php
http://www.moneymagik.com/broadbeach_again.php
09 May 2009 " ... FORTRESS Credit appears to have stepped up the pressure on City Pacific to sell a huge development site at the southern end of Surfers Paradise after the collapse of a $205 million deal struck this time last year. ..." http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/05/09/77215_gold-coast-business.html
Now, the sale brought about $80m, but Fortress is supposed to be owed at least $35m+, so the FMF would get less than $45m, which would be shipped straight to the CBA (as most free cash is).
Q. Did Trilogy 'raise' $80m from the sale - that is, did Trilogy make the sale when they otherwise did not have to? With a potential loss of about $135m, wouldn't that be considered a fire sale - and wasn't there a promise of no fire sales?
Further, it seems the news is totally one sided, suggesting a great win for the fund, when in fact, the truth is that it was one hell of a loss for the fund. Sort of wrapping up bad news like a present.
Seems also that City seemed to be able to make deals with the CBA a lot quicker than Trilogy seems able to do - 3 months and about $40m (from Broadbeach) hasn't seen settlement between the two.
And they say they 'won' an extension in filing the fund's returns - gee, that's great - maybe they'll get a little trophy or something - what do we get?
- Joined
- 8 July 2009
- Posts
- 465
- Reactions
- 0
http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/pdflib.nsf/LookupByFileName/property_trust_speech_180504.pdf/$file/property_trust_speech_180504.pdf
"... Representations about future financial performance
ASIC considers all representations made about future financial performance in the context of whether there are reasonable grounds for those representations.
Material assumptions on which future representations are made must be adequately disclosed. So must:
the expected time period for the expected returns to be realised;
the risks that they will not be realised, or not realised within the expected
time frame; and
the method by which the prospective information was calculated.
Investors must also be warned about the limited reliability of prospective financial information. ..."
Then how about Mr. Griffin's statement in his BRW spiel that the 'fund would be strong again'?
1. what is the expected time period?
2. the risks?
3. the method of calculation?
4. the warning about the limited reliability of the statement?
Come on Mr. Griffin, give us the details, not just a statement devoid of evidence to support it.
"... Representations about future financial performance
ASIC considers all representations made about future financial performance in the context of whether there are reasonable grounds for those representations.
Material assumptions on which future representations are made must be adequately disclosed. So must:
the expected time period for the expected returns to be realised;
the risks that they will not be realised, or not realised within the expected
time frame; and
the method by which the prospective information was calculated.
Investors must also be warned about the limited reliability of prospective financial information. ..."
Then how about Mr. Griffin's statement in his BRW spiel that the 'fund would be strong again'?
1. what is the expected time period?
2. the risks?
3. the method of calculation?
4. the warning about the limited reliability of the statement?
Come on Mr. Griffin, give us the details, not just a statement devoid of evidence to support it.
And come on ASIC, is BT's statement fair to unitholders...?
From BT Webpage, under FAQ..
http://www.balmaintrilogy.com.au/qa.aspx
"....Our proposed fee is approximately half that currently charged by CPL but yes we are doing this to make money. Where Balmain and Trilogy make money is from cleaning up the industry and leading the charge in re-opening the mortgage fund sector to investment. We both want to be managers of multi-billion dollar mortgage trusts that operate within a visible and fully accountable environment.
We are strong believers that, absent the government guarantee of bank deposits which forced even well managed mortgage trusts to freeze, the current environment is a perfect time for mortgage trusts to raise money....."
"....Investors' alternatives are limited but we need to clean up the image of mortgage funds that is so heavily influenced by the failures of certain managers before we can promote mortgage trusts again..........."
These statements seem imo, to suggest that BT is trying to portray an imagine to unitholders that they are the "new dawn" of the mortgage fund industry.As we are paying them to look after our best interests will they give us all the "investors' alternatives" even if they are not in the managements best interests? Will unitholders be advised, for instance, that by accepting a variable unit price they risk facing losses which may lock them into the fund for a very long time?
in post 103 Mellifuous wrote(quote)"....The MFS experience shows that, when faced with lower offers than members perceive their units to be worth, members will not sell. In fact, 98% of members have not sold while those in dire straits were prepared to accept $.9c for their once $1.00 units. Promises from the manager seem to have been a strong inducement for members not to sell.
This will happen in the FMF too - when faced with a choice, then only those in dire staits will take any offer, because the remainder will stay in (be hooked), especially if the manager purports that the fund will be strong in the future...."
or will unitholders feel so comfortable that BT are "leading the charge" in reopening the mortgage fund sector to investment" that they will not press BT to disclose ALL our" limited "alternatives...???
Will ASIC take any interest?
http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/pdflib.nsf/LookupByFileName/property_trust_speech_180504.pdf/$file/property_trust_speech_180504.pdf
".......Failure to explain, as a significant feature of the product, the possible dilution
of investors' interests by future transactions...."
http://www.balmaintrilogy.com.au/qa.aspx
"....Our proposed fee is approximately half that currently charged by CPL but yes we are doing this to make money. Where Balmain and Trilogy make money is from cleaning up the industry and leading the charge in re-opening the mortgage fund sector to investment. We both want to be managers of multi-billion dollar mortgage trusts that operate within a visible and fully accountable environment.
We are strong believers that, absent the government guarantee of bank deposits which forced even well managed mortgage trusts to freeze, the current environment is a perfect time for mortgage trusts to raise money....."
"....Investors' alternatives are limited but we need to clean up the image of mortgage funds that is so heavily influenced by the failures of certain managers before we can promote mortgage trusts again..........."
These statements seem imo, to suggest that BT is trying to portray an imagine to unitholders that they are the "new dawn" of the mortgage fund industry.As we are paying them to look after our best interests will they give us all the "investors' alternatives" even if they are not in the managements best interests? Will unitholders be advised, for instance, that by accepting a variable unit price they risk facing losses which may lock them into the fund for a very long time?
in post 103 Mellifuous wrote(quote)"....The MFS experience shows that, when faced with lower offers than members perceive their units to be worth, members will not sell. In fact, 98% of members have not sold while those in dire straits were prepared to accept $.9c for their once $1.00 units. Promises from the manager seem to have been a strong inducement for members not to sell.
This will happen in the FMF too - when faced with a choice, then only those in dire staits will take any offer, because the remainder will stay in (be hooked), especially if the manager purports that the fund will be strong in the future...."
or will unitholders feel so comfortable that BT are "leading the charge" in reopening the mortgage fund sector to investment" that they will not press BT to disclose ALL our" limited "alternatives...???
Will ASIC take any interest?
http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/pdflib.nsf/LookupByFileName/property_trust_speech_180504.pdf/$file/property_trust_speech_180504.pdf
".......Failure to explain, as a significant feature of the product, the possible dilution
of investors' interests by future transactions...."
- Joined
- 8 July 2009
- Posts
- 465
- Reactions
- 0
Now, take into account the statement by Mr. Griffin in the BRW Spiel, "... Griffin is confident the fund will have a future. I think there will be some sort of distribution and redemption (of funds) and I think with proper management there is every chance the fund will even reopen ..."
Now, that's an interesting statement from Mr. Griffin - maybe it just slipped his mind that the fund has been impaired to the extend of about 40% with more to come (Griffin's inference, especially since City didn't impair its related party loans - of course, it also depends on how much of the $135m odd loss has already been accounted for).
So, lets assume the fund's units have a 'fair value' of $.40c each - so, how is is possible to get a distribution? Wouldn't it be called a return of capital? I mean, shouldn't we all realise now that there is no such thing as 'distributions' any more? We're scratching to get some of our investment (capital) back.
So, how is Griffin going to do it? pay back capital and call it a distribution? Any offer has to be capital, not distribution - members may as well forget the word 'distribution', it does not exist in the FMF anymore.
Open the fund? How? How does the manager propose to start up 'distributions' when we can't get back our capital? Why doesn't the manager admit (as we've now realised) that the FMF will never pay distributions again.
What about the idea of new investment? New investment into the fund would necessarily share in any increase of our current assets, which in turn would reduce the level of recovery of the money owing by borrowers from the FMF.
So, what's the future - massive capital losses (some recoverable), and not a snow flakes in hell's chances of distributions - do you still want to leave your money in once an asset has been disposed of by the manager and there's spare cash?
The fire sale of Pacific Beach for $80m left the fund with an loss of at least $135, and after fortress takes its $35m+, then the fund will be left with about $40m which will go directly to the CBA's coffers.
And where is the transparency? There isn't much at all - City was compelled to make announcements to the ASX, but Trilogy is not - Apart from the tidbits sent out on media releases, Trilogy has given unit holders virtually no information - very disappointing given their self-serving statement on their site and in the media.
So, Mr. Griffin, how do you propose to pay distributions when there is no way that we'll recover our capital losses?
If you can't support your statements, then you should retract them.
And the weekend statements about 'income', perhaps that should be changed to a 'meager level of capital return'.
Yes, unit holders like to think they'll get 'distributions' when 'income' increases, but the days of 'income' in the FMF are done with - it's all about trying to get capital back now, and nothing more.
- Joined
- 8 July 2009
- Posts
- 465
- Reactions
- 0
(from Ocv thread)
http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=Business_News&subsection=market+news&month=October2009&file=Business_News200910250351.xml
"... And all eyes are on the first case due to come before courts in America, where KPMG is being sued for $1bn (£690m) in damages by the trustee of a collapsed US sub-prime lender, New Century Financial. KPMG is accused of conducting "reckless and grossly negligent audits" that failed to show the lender's financial problems. The auditing firm has denied any wrongdoing. .."
Of course let's not forget MFS PIF's claim against KPMG for a billion aussie dollars.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25348988-643,00.html
"... A SYDNEY law firm yesterday filed an action seeking $1 billion from auditor KPMG and the old MFS Investment Management, on behalf of about 10,000 unitholders. ..."
KPMG even got a special mention with Madoff:-
"... "The complaint alleges Bernard Madoff's fraud was not accomplished in isolation," the law firm's statement said. "The sheer size and scope of the fraud make it impossible for Madoff to have acted alone. The complaint alleges JP Morgan and the Bank of New York as well as powerhouse accounting firm KPMG LLP and their international counterparts, KPMG UK and KPMG International were primary players necessary to accomplish the fraud." ..."
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1115216/Madoff-investors-sue-KPMG
And with all this uncertainly, and all the losses we suffered in the FMF to date, our grandiose M. Bacon engaged KPMG to again audit the fund at the very time an 'objective' assessment was being made of the fund.
I wonder if KPMG has been supplying accounting services as well as auditing services - now, that wouldn't seem to be constructive for us if they were.
Of course, so did the CBA (that friendly banker who gave the fund another $90m when it couldn't even pay off the first $150m, and then forced out in the cold when things went bad), and some of the folk from City (you know, the guys who dealt with those messy loans) - so, it would just seem silly to leave out KPMG if you really wanted to keep the whole gang together.
Objectivity? Blah!
PS. I wonder what is name of the leading law firm doing the legal review?
PPS. How's Trilogy's senior executive Mr. Ryan going? (remember him, he's the guy who was found by the Supreme Court of Qld. to have breached his client's trust).
Thinking about it, isn't it strange that those folk who say they would have never invested in the FMF if they'd known that Sullivan was a discharged bankrupt seem to be content with Mr. Ryan as a senior executive with the manager of their fund. Surely they can't be serious about what they said about Sullivan, or perhaps they just have double standards.
Very interesting.
http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=Business_News&subsection=market+news&month=October2009&file=Business_News200910250351.xml
"... And all eyes are on the first case due to come before courts in America, where KPMG is being sued for $1bn (£690m) in damages by the trustee of a collapsed US sub-prime lender, New Century Financial. KPMG is accused of conducting "reckless and grossly negligent audits" that failed to show the lender's financial problems. The auditing firm has denied any wrongdoing. .."
Of course let's not forget MFS PIF's claim against KPMG for a billion aussie dollars.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25348988-643,00.html
"... A SYDNEY law firm yesterday filed an action seeking $1 billion from auditor KPMG and the old MFS Investment Management, on behalf of about 10,000 unitholders. ..."
KPMG even got a special mention with Madoff:-
"... "The complaint alleges Bernard Madoff's fraud was not accomplished in isolation," the law firm's statement said. "The sheer size and scope of the fraud make it impossible for Madoff to have acted alone. The complaint alleges JP Morgan and the Bank of New York as well as powerhouse accounting firm KPMG LLP and their international counterparts, KPMG UK and KPMG International were primary players necessary to accomplish the fraud." ..."
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1115216/Madoff-investors-sue-KPMG
And with all this uncertainly, and all the losses we suffered in the FMF to date, our grandiose M. Bacon engaged KPMG to again audit the fund at the very time an 'objective' assessment was being made of the fund.
I wonder if KPMG has been supplying accounting services as well as auditing services - now, that wouldn't seem to be constructive for us if they were.
Of course, so did the CBA (that friendly banker who gave the fund another $90m when it couldn't even pay off the first $150m, and then forced out in the cold when things went bad), and some of the folk from City (you know, the guys who dealt with those messy loans) - so, it would just seem silly to leave out KPMG if you really wanted to keep the whole gang together.
Objectivity? Blah!
PS. I wonder what is name of the leading law firm doing the legal review?
PPS. How's Trilogy's senior executive Mr. Ryan going? (remember him, he's the guy who was found by the Supreme Court of Qld. to have breached his client's trust).
Thinking about it, isn't it strange that those folk who say they would have never invested in the FMF if they'd known that Sullivan was a discharged bankrupt seem to be content with Mr. Ryan as a senior executive with the manager of their fund. Surely they can't be serious about what they said about Sullivan, or perhaps they just have double standards.
Very interesting.
- Joined
- 8 July 2009
- Posts
- 465
- Reactions
- 0
SURPLUS CASH IN THE FUND
A fundamental question that we have to grapple with is 'what to do with surplus cash arising out of the sale of assets?'.
It seems to me that no one is going to get anything until the facility providers are repaid, or at least assured that they will be repaid, and there is sufficient spare cash in the fund to pay the manager's fees and other fund expenses on a properly accounted-for budget.
IMO some assets will recover more quickly than others, while others would require more time. One might take the view that if we left all the assets there, then they might all recover to some extent - we could also take the view that we would be capable of investing our money in more secure ventures than leaving money in the fund.
But, what do we want to do with the surplus cash?
I want the manager to pay that money to investors - not as an offer, but as a payment - and if the manager has a good deal to offer, then that should be made by way of a PDS, not by way of hopeful statements.
If the PDS and its accompanying disclosures are not possible, then why retain money in the fund?
A PROPOSED SHAREHOLDERS' LETTER
The first draft of the contents of a letter the Senate Inquiry, Finance Minister, and media is available on the 'Managed Fund Co-operation Group' thread here at ASF.
There is a copy of the draft available at : http://www.moneymagik.com/investors_letter.php
Please feel free to comment on the 'Managed Fund Co-operation Group' thread with respect to the proposed letter.
Thanks.
A fundamental question that we have to grapple with is 'what to do with surplus cash arising out of the sale of assets?'.
It seems to me that no one is going to get anything until the facility providers are repaid, or at least assured that they will be repaid, and there is sufficient spare cash in the fund to pay the manager's fees and other fund expenses on a properly accounted-for budget.
IMO some assets will recover more quickly than others, while others would require more time. One might take the view that if we left all the assets there, then they might all recover to some extent - we could also take the view that we would be capable of investing our money in more secure ventures than leaving money in the fund.
But, what do we want to do with the surplus cash?
I want the manager to pay that money to investors - not as an offer, but as a payment - and if the manager has a good deal to offer, then that should be made by way of a PDS, not by way of hopeful statements.
If the PDS and its accompanying disclosures are not possible, then why retain money in the fund?
A PROPOSED SHAREHOLDERS' LETTER
The first draft of the contents of a letter the Senate Inquiry, Finance Minister, and media is available on the 'Managed Fund Co-operation Group' thread here at ASF.
There is a copy of the draft available at : http://www.moneymagik.com/investors_letter.php
Please feel free to comment on the 'Managed Fund Co-operation Group' thread with respect to the proposed letter.
Thanks.
- Joined
- 8 July 2009
- Posts
- 465
- Reactions
- 0
I know unit holders think I go on about City's deconsolidation of the FMF. I'm sure that most will remember Daniel Loeb's comment:-
"... "It smells like the company is doing everything possible to makethings look like they are OK," trader Daniel Loeb said. "But off balance sheet vehicles and a cash loss/accounting profit do not make for investor comfort.
"The reality is that their mortgage funds are likely to be hidingbad debts and this is the real reason for the deconsolidation. Why would you go to this hassle if there wasn't a loss pending? All they donow is charge hefty management fees from the fund – and for what?" ..."
Daniel Loeb sees it right on 29 February 2008
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23298694-3122,00.html
"... "City Pacific's culture and style of businesses are totally different to MFS," he said. Mr Sullivan said talk about a cash flow crisis and potential collapse are "total and absolute rubbish". ..."
Now, one has to take Mr. Loeb's comment in context, and that at some time before City deconsolidated the funds, before 1 December 2007 - because what Mr. Loeb is saying is that at early as some time before 1 December 2007 knew that the FMF was hiding bad debts.
To bring that into context, consider this statement released in a media report today (re: Timbercorp):-
"... The class action coincides with a directions hearing in the Victorian Supreme Court today in related proceedings by Timbercorp Finance against some ''defaulting borrowers''.
The three directors, Gary Lidell, Robert Hance and Sol Rabinowicz, have been targeted in the class action, brought by Timbercorp investors who borrowed or used their own money to buy into the company's investment schemes between February 2007 and April 2009.
The investors, who now face ongoing repayments on their investments, allege the true state of the company's finances was not fully disclosed in those years, and if it had been, they would not have borrowed or put more money into the projects. ..."
http://www.smh.com.au/business/explosive-claims-against-timbercorp-20091029-hno1.html
We all know that fund was in big trouble at such time as the CBA extended the facility and sent us to our doom - so, does anyone think that we were in any different position to those investors at Timbercorp?
The investors in Timbercorp say "... they would not have borrowed or put more money into the projects ..." if the company's finances were fully disclosed.
Would you have invested in the CPFMF (or CPIF) if you knew what City knew - that is, about undisclosed debts in the FMF that were causing City to run? City run to protect itself, while leaving us the lurch.
I believe the investors in Timbercorp are doing what we should also be doing.
Good luck to them for having to gonads to do it.
"... "It smells like the company is doing everything possible to makethings look like they are OK," trader Daniel Loeb said. "But off balance sheet vehicles and a cash loss/accounting profit do not make for investor comfort.
"The reality is that their mortgage funds are likely to be hidingbad debts and this is the real reason for the deconsolidation. Why would you go to this hassle if there wasn't a loss pending? All they donow is charge hefty management fees from the fund – and for what?" ..."
Daniel Loeb sees it right on 29 February 2008
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23298694-3122,00.html
"... "City Pacific's culture and style of businesses are totally different to MFS," he said. Mr Sullivan said talk about a cash flow crisis and potential collapse are "total and absolute rubbish". ..."
Now, one has to take Mr. Loeb's comment in context, and that at some time before City deconsolidated the funds, before 1 December 2007 - because what Mr. Loeb is saying is that at early as some time before 1 December 2007 knew that the FMF was hiding bad debts.
To bring that into context, consider this statement released in a media report today (re: Timbercorp):-
"... The class action coincides with a directions hearing in the Victorian Supreme Court today in related proceedings by Timbercorp Finance against some ''defaulting borrowers''.
The three directors, Gary Lidell, Robert Hance and Sol Rabinowicz, have been targeted in the class action, brought by Timbercorp investors who borrowed or used their own money to buy into the company's investment schemes between February 2007 and April 2009.
The investors, who now face ongoing repayments on their investments, allege the true state of the company's finances was not fully disclosed in those years, and if it had been, they would not have borrowed or put more money into the projects. ..."
http://www.smh.com.au/business/explosive-claims-against-timbercorp-20091029-hno1.html
We all know that fund was in big trouble at such time as the CBA extended the facility and sent us to our doom - so, does anyone think that we were in any different position to those investors at Timbercorp?
The investors in Timbercorp say "... they would not have borrowed or put more money into the projects ..." if the company's finances were fully disclosed.
Would you have invested in the CPFMF (or CPIF) if you knew what City knew - that is, about undisclosed debts in the FMF that were causing City to run? City run to protect itself, while leaving us the lurch.
I believe the investors in Timbercorp are doing what we should also be doing.
Good luck to them for having to gonads to do it.
- Joined
- 8 July 2009
- Posts
- 465
- Reactions
- 0
http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/10/31/153831_gold-coast-business.html
"... THE corporate watchdog has finally moved on failed financial services giant MFS, launching a $147.5 million action against former directors, including chief executive Michael King.
The claim, which makes sensational allegations of falsified documents, is dwarfed by the $2.3 billion owed to creditors, but it is the first tangible move by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission against the Gold Coast company since its implosion almost two years ago.
It also comes a week after ASIC launched action against directors of Centro Properties Group over alleged failings in the company's accounts.
ASIC yesterday filed the claim in the Supreme Court of Queensland to recover money from a number of former MFS directors, as well as a senior manager, after an 18-month investigation. ..."
This is great news - I'd guess we might be more hopeful that something might come along for us...
Let's dream of an appropriate headline for the directors of the past manager of the CP FMF & CP IF, and let's see it can come true before Christmas?
Let's have the Christmas all of us (including the directors) deserve.
"... THE corporate watchdog has finally moved on failed financial services giant MFS, launching a $147.5 million action against former directors, including chief executive Michael King.
The claim, which makes sensational allegations of falsified documents, is dwarfed by the $2.3 billion owed to creditors, but it is the first tangible move by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission against the Gold Coast company since its implosion almost two years ago.
It also comes a week after ASIC launched action against directors of Centro Properties Group over alleged failings in the company's accounts.
ASIC yesterday filed the claim in the Supreme Court of Queensland to recover money from a number of former MFS directors, as well as a senior manager, after an 18-month investigation. ..."
This is great news - I'd guess we might be more hopeful that something might come along for us...
Let's dream of an appropriate headline for the directors of the past manager of the CP FMF & CP IF, and let's see it can come true before Christmas?
Let's have the Christmas all of us (including the directors) deserve.
- Joined
- 8 July 2009
- Posts
- 465
- Reactions
- 0
If you're interested in participating in the construction of a letter, then please check out the Managed Fund Co-operation Group thread on ASF.
The document (under construction) is at http://www.moneymagik.com/managed_fund_co-operation_group.pdf
Thanks.
The document (under construction) is at http://www.moneymagik.com/managed_fund_co-operation_group.pdf
Thanks.
- Joined
- 8 July 2009
- Posts
- 465
- Reactions
- 0
http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/09-214AD+ASIC+commences+civil+proceedings+against+former+officers+of+MFS+Group?openDocument
"...
In taking this action,
ASIC is addressing
the core obligations
of a responsible entity
and its directors
and officers
to operate the fund
with care
and diligence,
and in the best interest of the fund’s members. ..."
"...
In taking this action,
ASIC is addressing
the core obligations
of a responsible entity
and its directors
and officers
to operate the fund
with care
and diligence,
and in the best interest of the fund’s members. ..."
Similar threads
- Poll
