LM Investment Management - Lack of confidence

[RODENT69]

ASICK

Not sure what went wrong with my last post, it didn't post, so here I go again
The so called Report is very one sided, and certainly could not in any way be called Balanced. Given that Trilogy requested it and paid for it, its content is hardly surprising .

Much of what it says about LM is factual and freely available from their Website. Yes it can and has been used to paint a picture that LM is at FAULT - which of course it is.

The report has just selectively taken this information and presented it in a different way (and repeated the Bias against LM) over multiple pages.

Trilogy saw an opportunity, promoted by several investors and Master Trust Platforms to hone in on the weakness in the LM position over its Sell/Hold Option passed at the meeting on 16 May 2012.

I say weakness because LM and especially Drake NEVER understood that Investors really only wanted their money back, and the Sell/Hold option was not a way of delivering this when it could not be EASILY understood by Investors, and by its content explanation had too many down sides.

Drake only now, when his Funds are threatened, recognises that LM and himself did a very poor job of communicating with his investors, he has done TOO LITTLE TOO LATE!!

With Trilogy as our RE I cant see how investors in the WFMIF are going to receive any Money in the immediate future. Of course we are all STILL waiting for the Audited Financials for 2012 and other relevant info, updated
RG 45 etc, and all that, after we have digested it could start another round of Trilogy challanges, I'll bet that's the only thing holding them back at the moment.

QUESTION now that the WFMIF has Trilogy as RE who do I chase for my missing 6 X Monthly Distributions, small and all as it is-- do I chase LM or Trilogy?

 

[ASICK]

You chase Trilogy - make Trilogy earn just a small part of its $350k/annum managerment fee. LM is no longer the RE for the fund. Trilogy is RE and is now responsible for the investment into the LM FMIF. LM is no longer liable to any unit holder in the fund.

Good luck - no doubt about it, the blame will go to LM. Trilogy will (rightfully) say, there's nothing we can do about it.



UPDATE: Re: RG45 and accounts - my guess is that it's the only thing holding BOTH of them back.

What a dream income stream for Trilogy - only a single investment and only the least amount of administration. I'm sure they're more than pleased with you guys and gals - to be sure, to be sure.

I wonder if BDO will become the auditors? And will there be a change in custodian? Remember, Trilogy's fee and other expenses will be deducted from any returns to the fund BEFORE any $$$$ are returned to investors. If there's a slow feed of returns, the expenses and fees could take a big slice out of those returns.



FINAL UPDATE - there's been an update in the PFMF:
This link is being updated over time:
http://moneymagik.com/update_12_11_12.php

 

[ASICK]

Trilogy's Management of the PFMF: Good News

And the good news keeps on coming in for PFMF investors:-

http://www.moneymagik.com/

 

[ASICK]

Trilogy's PFMF asset - "Grande Pacific" and More !

"Grande Pacific" is a vertical retirement "village" on the broadwater at the Gold Coast. I've just had confirmation that NOT ONE UNIT has been sold in the three and one half years Trilogy has managed the PFMF. Extraordinary stuff - not one unit sold !!! Millions tied up - receivers, management, on-going costs - and heaps of management fees to Trilogy.

It's bad enough to see "Woodgrove" at Wakerley in such a mess.

Then there's the more than 74% suffered on the fund's assets at The Entrance in JUST SIX WEEKS !

and the extra $14.4m suffered on a SECOND MORTGAGE LOAN.

and the massive write-downs on Martha Cove assets.

It's a mess.

 

[Mysteryman]

ASICK


With Trilogy as our RE I cant see how investors in the WFMIF are going to receive any Money in the immediate future. Of course we are all STILL waiting for the Audited Financials for 2012 and other relevant info, updated
RG 45 etc, and all that, after we have digested it could start another round of Trilogy challanges, I'll bet that's the only thing holding them back at the moment.

QUESTION now that the WFMIF has Trilogy as RE who do I chase for my missing 6 X Monthly Distributions, small and all as it is-- do I chase LM or Trilogy?

Have just come back from holiday - greatly needed as a result of stress caused by LM and Trilogy. Unfortunately holidays don't make such problems go away!

The Atchison report makes interesting reading (thanks Rodent69) in that you are right Asick, it makes no mention of Trilogy's failures for PFMF. It makes Trilogy look like a knight in shining white armour, about to come to our rescue. Not surprising as report was paid for by Trilogy. Having money invested in the WFMIF now amounts to a stalemate at our expense. What really hurts is the disenpowerment of having no voting rights whatsoever as the money is invested through the BT platform, which voted, on our unsolicited behalf for Trilogy. Not surprising that Ken Atchison wrote a glowing report for Trilogy since he is chairman of BT's investor committee. BT is obviously disenchanted with LM. But what does BT get out of it by going with Trilogy? Do they really believe Trilogy will do a good job? No, there has to be some gain for them.

How is the present situation now meant to work. LM has the money invested and we have to try to deal through Trilogy. But I can't see much co-operation between the two of them. It would be better if total control of all funds were under LM or Trilogy, although hard to place any confidence in either.

Interesting that Rodent69 is owed 6 distributions through Asgard. I am owed 8 through BT, the last month I received was April 2010. Seems pretty discriminatory that although, as I believe, we are in the same fund, some have received more than others.

The big question is, Asick. Where do we go from here? How does the investor get any say or control? We can write to LM, Trilogy, BT, Asgard or even ASIC but the response is often evasive, misleading or unhelpful and so on an individual basis we are going nowhere. Unfortunately, I gather a lot of investors are very old or the investment forms part of a deceased estate or the investment is too small to waste a lot of effort in retrieval. But for the rest, who's investment is significant, there has to be a way we can unite to achieve some meaningful input and hence results.

 

[ASICK]

Mysteryman, I should point out that it seems to me that BT (Balmain Trilogy) is not your BT. You might resolve this issue. Perhaps I should use Balmain Trilogy (and not BT) in order to distinguish from your BT. When I used "BT" it was used to mean "Balmain Trilogy" (a construct of Balmain and Trilogy). Nevertheless, Atchison is the paid chairman of Balmain TRILOGY's selected ICC.

 

[Mysteryman]

Mysteryman, I should point out that it seems to me that BT (Balmain Trilogy) is not your BT. You might resolve this issue. Perhaps I should use Balmain Trilogy (and not BT) in order to distinguish from your BT. When I used "BT" it was used to mean "Balmain Trilogy" (a construct of Balmain and Trilogy). Nevertheless, Atchison is the paid chairman of Balmain TRILOGY's selected ICC.

OK, I stand corrected. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[ASICK]

Trilogy v. LM (mostly)

... How is the present situation now meant to work. LM has the money invested and we have to try to deal through Trilogy. But I can't see much co-operation between the two of them. It would be better if total control of all funds were under LM or Trilogy, although hard to place any confidence in either.

Interesting that Rodent69 is owed 6 distributions through Asgard. I am owed 8 through BT, the last month I received was April 2010. Seems pretty discriminatory that although, as I believe, we are in the same fund, some have received more than others.

The big question is, Asick. Where do we go from here? How does the investor get any say or control? We can write to LM, Trilogy, BT, Asgard or even ASIC but the response is often evasive, misleading or unhelpful and so on an individual basis we are going nowhere. Unfortunately, I gather a lot of investors are very old or the investment forms part of a deceased estate or the investment is too small to waste a lot of effort in retrieval. But for the rest, who's investment is significant, there has to be a way we can unite to achieve some meaningful input and hence results.

Anything I say, that is, my opinion, is based purely on my exprience as an investor in a frozen managed fund. Before any member changes an existing investment or makes a new investment, advice should be sought from a suitably qualified accountant, lawyer, or financial advisor (subject to the type of advice sought) [disclaimer].

Trilogy or LM?

In relation to the Trilogy / LM relationship - you're right, there'll be no love lost between the two of them. Since I have absolutely NO confidence in Trilogy, I'd say a receiver, or if not, then LM. I'm quite confident I've made my bias quite obvious - I'm sure there's no surprises.

I think LM is under a lot of pressure to wind the show up - but I also think LM has some very BIG losses to disclose - and that's going to be a shock for investors, who then might think Trilogy is better, well, they're entitled to think like that - I recall being in a similar position, and many of us thought like that.

The real difference between LM and Citypac (the previous manager of the PFMF) is that LM has "met the market" (that is, many investor demands), that's something Citypc didn't do - I think that decision was fatal for Citypac. Full, honest, warts and all disclosure is important, even when it's shocking. I don't have any doubt you're all going to lose heaps, so it's probably best if you accept what's going to happen, and that it's most likely Trilogy is unlikely to be able to give any better an outcome - do not think things couldn't be worse, because they can be.

Different Outcomes in the Same Fund

I formed the opinion that different funds seem to be treated differently, but I really haven't had the time to look closely at that matter - although, that was within the LM FMIF, not a feeder fund.

I don't know how your fund is structured - if you'd post more information about the fund perhaps someone might be able to help you.

What to do?

Your RE is now Triogy - it's earning .5% FUM (of about $350k according to LM). You, as unitholders, have invested in a fund. The fund has invested in LM's FMIF. Trilogy is your RE. Trilogy is responsible to you - but unfortunately, Trilogy has no more power with LM than you have with Trilogy.

So, if you feel helpless with Trilogy, so goes Trilogy with LM.

I think Trilogy won't make a move until the financials and RG45 are released - bad news will rile investors further, which in turn will give rise to disgruntled investors (ah! disgruntled investors), and disgruntled investors are more likely to seek a change in manager: heck, they might see Trilogy as a "white knight".

LM knows that - when LM finally discloses what I believe will be terrible news, Trilogy will make its move.

If Trilogy doesn't then I think it would make good economic sense to get rid of Trilogy - but good luck getting investors to get together - good luck indeed. I've often mused that an investor might demand a cashier at Woolies fix up $0.05 in change, yet disregard massive losses on a $100k investment - not much different to gamblers.

I think that if Trilogy doesn't make a run for the LM FMIF and if it doesn't hand over management of your fund to LM, then Trilogy will make hay while the sun shines (the .5% FUM management fee) doing very little indeed - and you'll never get rid of them - after all, it's not often anyone wants to admit to a mistake.

 

[ASICK]

OK, I stand corrected. Thanks for clearing that up.

I think it was my error in the circumstances and was just correcting it. No fault on your part.

 

[RODENT69]

I think it was my error in the circumstances and was just correcting it. No fault on your part.

For Info of all- just had a call from Trilogy man- they will not give me the other Report that was written in support of them. It did however go to all the Main Finincial Planners groups, so if any body has a planner that has it then maybe it could be published here?

The reason Trilogy wont give it to me is that it was commisioned out of NZ and was for Financial planners only, and quote "The reason we cannot provided it to you directly is that ASIC may view it as advisory in nature and the author of the document is not licensed to provide financial advice" unquote , what a lot of BS.

Also for info my letter to Asgard CEO was received and is being studied at length, and I have learned that Asgard ONLY voted for Trilogy on behalf of their Super Members, AND they commissioned their own report, which of course I am unlikely to ever see.

 

[ASICK]

Trilogy - the Impossible !

I really couldn't imagine it possible to write a well-researched report in support of Trilogy as a fund/s manager.

I wouldn't imagine they'd be pleased to see the other report ripped to pieces on this thread !

There's a lot of reasons Trilogy doesn't disclose much on its website - a whole lot of bad reasons why they don't.

 

[ASICK]

Ya Gotta Wonder

... Also for info my letter to Asgard CEO was received and is being studied at length, and I have learned that Asgard ONLY voted for Trilogy on behalf of their Super Members, AND they commissioned their own report, which of course I am unlikely to ever see.

I think Asgard has a duty to disclose the report to investors - after all, that report was the basis on which Asgard gave Trilogy a leg-up into you fund. Asgard should also explain the reasoning why Asgard supported the appointment of Trilogy and the payment of a .5% mangement fee (according to LM, $350k/pa) in circumstances whereby the appointment of Trilogy had no affect on your fund's members' ability to gain control over the fund's investment in the LM FMIF, and if Trilogy was not appointed, the fund would save the $350k (money out of YOUR pockets).

Asgard should also explain to its (affected) members whether it knew of Trilogy previous failures, Philip Asley Ryans's breach of trust, and the massive losses in the Trilogy PFMF.

http://moneymagik.com/trilogy_more_on_ryan.php
http://moneymagik.com/analysis_REIT.php
http://moneymagik.com/more_on_Trilogy_PMMMF.php
http://moneymagik.com/performance_PFMF_Trilogy_big.jpg
http://www.moneymagik.com/

It seems to me that Agard has a lot to explain (and disclose). Maybe Asgard might pick up Trilogy's tab? I think they should.

Ya gotta wonder at the workings of mice, and the minds of men (and women).

The lesson to be learnt is that every proposal has to carefully considered - always look to the beneficiaries - in Trilogy's proposal to your fund, there was only one beneficiary, Trilogy: a $350/pa fee for doing SFA.

Ya gotta wonder.

Asgard most certainly has a lot to explain (and disclose).

 

[ASICK]

The Internet

There was a time when mobs like Trilogy could decimate investors' lives and then move along to decimate other investors' lives with impunity. After all, who would know? ASIC didn't require managers to disclose failure. Heck, they didn't even require disclosure of prior bankruptcies and breaches of trust.

Mobs like Trilogy were free to hold themselves out as wonderful managers in colorful PDSs which lure yet more into highly disclaimed investments where risk falls squarely on the "shoulders" of the investors themselves.

It was last year when www.moneymagik.com pointed to Trilogy's Healtcare REIT and for investors to watch out for the 2011 return which was going to be a "doozy" -at that time, Trilogy disclosed the documents for that fund on its website. After less than a week, Trilogy pulled virtually all of the information in relation to that fund from its website. Here's the latest on that fund:
http://www.moneymagik.com/analysis_REIT.php

Go to CYRE Trilogy's website and you won't find anything there except self place. They took a number of funds off APG (a company which disclosed ALL information) and now those fund as "buried" for only investors to see. Seems there's no appetite down at CYRE Trilogy for disclosure to the general public either: http://www.cyretrilogy.com.au/

Trilogy's Cape Parks Fund is the same. It promotes payment of 8.5% (in 2011) with ONLY $30,000 of arms-length investment. (ditto for 2012, with only 1,000 * $1.00 on issue as at 30 June 2012), yet its accounts are not free for all to see (and have a chuckle) on Trilogy's website:
http://www.moneymagik.com/cape_parks_fund.php

Of course, there's nothing on Trilogy's website about the loss down at Dee Why:
http:http://moneymagik.com/more_on_Trilogy_PMMMF.php

There's no disclosure about a previous association with Laton Corporate Finance:
http:http://moneymagik.com/more_on_Trilogy_PMMMF.php
http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.ns...+involved+in+Henry+Kaye+seminars?openDocument

And no disclosure about a previous association with Laton Capital Group:
http:http://moneymagik.com/more_on_Trilogy_PMMMF.php
http://www.jenman.com.au/news_item.php?id=328

Even, the failures in the Trilogy Pacific First Mortgage Fund are shuffled off to Balmain Trilogy's website, where on has to shift along in time to find information:
http://www.balmaintrilogy.com.au/
unlike here:
http://www.moneymagik.com/general_information.php

But all the things they don't disclose for free are being disclosed for free - and those things will be continued to be disclosed, for as long as the interent persists - thru generation to generation. They cannot avoid the past - and all new investors have to do is conduct a Google search, and a more complete picture will emerge of a manager's performance - a picture which will provide the basis on which investors will make more informed decisions.

I'm sure Trilogy and Balmain Trilogy feel the "heat" of the interent. I'm sure LM does too. I understand LM management was upset about this thread even with only 20 look-ins a day!

And Equititrust too - just look at the Equititrust thread on ASF to see No Trust's magnificant efforts about McIvor's new adventure:
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19877&page=142

Do I care whether No Trust is really an investor in Equititrust? No, I do not - what I look to is his words and his words are those of support for investors and for the disclosure of truth.

And then comes Asgard - now that name will appear on Google searches, and they'll have to consider whether they do the right thing, or "Asgard" will appear yet again and again - is that what they really want?

Ok, I'm sure everyone who looks-in today knows the power of the internet - what the shame is, that perhaps hundreds of thousands of members in decimated MIFs/MISs haven't received the message yet.

Still, the internet IS powerful - even a lowly investor (PFMF) such as myself is able to publish today - there's no skill required - no printing press - no degree in journalism - no delivery service: WE have come of age - WE have the internet.

 

[ASICK]

The so-called "Jansen Report"

http://www.decisionmakers.co.nz/kiwi-investors-140m-revolt-against-aussie-fund-manager-nbr/
"David Jansen, a New Zealand-based financial consultant for Trilogy, says the New Zealand feeder fund, known as the LM Currency Protected Australian Income Fund, is now thought to be worth about $90 million."

http://nz.linkedin.com/pub/david-jansen/43/6b8/bab
"David Jansen's Overview
Current Consultant & Service Provider at Trilogy Funds Management Ltd (Self-employed)"

Wow - he ranges wide and free - but, at least to me, he seems pegged to Trilogy

now, where is the so-called "Jansen Report"?

http://www.decisionmakers.co.nz/kiwi-investors-140m-revolt-against-aussie-fund-manager-nbr/
Investment eroded by fees

"Trilogy’s Brisbane-based managing director Philip Ryan told NBR ONLINE LM’s investors want out and they do not want to see their money “effectively evaporate” because of LM’s fees.

“The only reason we’re involved is that investors in the major feeder funds have come to us and said we’re tired of the fees.

“When you aggregate the fees for the main fund and the fees for each feeder fund it comes close to 5%, which is well above the industry average, and that’s on an asset base that is actually declining,” Mr Ryan alleges.

“The final accounts for this year haven’t come out or haven’t been released yet and everyone, of course, is scared that there’s going to be further impairments.”

If successful, Trilogy stands to make millions of dollars from its 1.5% fee on the main fund, though Mr Ryan says it will be on a declining pot, as the intention is for an “orderly” wind-down.

Two Australian institutions – which Mr Ryan would not name – are leading the revolt in the wholesale fund, while a group of Kiwi investors in the currency fund are calling for LM’s replacement."

And, as a result of investors going to Trilogy because they're "tired of fees", they copped an extra .5% FUM ($350k p/a) from Trilogy - Good one Philip Asley Ryan: http://moneymagik.com/trilogy_more_on_ryan.php

Wonderful spruik from Trilogy's Philip Asley Ryan - darn, he forgot a few items of interest:

The Dee Why failure - http://moneymagik.com/more_on_Trilogy_PMMMF.php
The Crows Nest failure - http://moneymagik.com/analysis_REIT.php
The Trilogy Pacific First Mortgage Fund (PFMF) failure - http://moneymagik.com/performance_PFMF_Trilogy_big.jpg
The litigation fiasco (more than $300m --> hopeful $100m --> absolute utopian $100m --> $61 claim --> $20m - 50m --> $0m ? : http://www.moneymagik.com/litigation.php
(of course, let's not forget that they didn't even check to see if one respondent was even alive - in fact Mr. Trathen died TWO years BEFORE Trilogy lodged the claim - and who's in charge of the litigation? http://www.moneymagik.com/balmain_in_charge.mp3 (November 2011) - but IMF is NOT funding the current Federal Court Proceedings)
And last, but certainly not least, the latest PFMF update : http://moneymagik.com/update_12_11_12.php

 

[RODENT69]

Have just come back from holiday - greatly needed as a result of stress caused by LM and Trilogy. Unfortunately holidays don't make such problems go away!

The Atchison report makes interesting reading (thanks Rodent69) in that you are right Asick, it makes no mention of Trilogy's failures for PFMF. It makes Trilogy look like a knight in shining white armour, about to come to our rescue. Not surprising as report was paid for by Trilogy. Having money invested in the WFMIF now amounts to a stalemate at our expense. What really hurts is the disenpowerment of having no voting rights whatsoever as the money is invested through the BT platform, which voted, on our unsolicited behalf for Trilogy. Not surprising that Ken Atchison wrote a glowing report for Trilogy since he is chairman of BT's investor committee. BT is obviously disenchanted with LM. But what does BT get out of it by going with Trilogy? Do they really believe Trilogy will do a good job? No, there has to be some gain for them.

How is the present situation now meant to work. LM has the money invested and we have to try to deal through Trilogy. But I can't see much co-operation between the two of them. It would be better if total control of all funds were under LM or Trilogy, although hard to place any confidence in either.



Interesting that Rodent69 is owed 6 distributions through Asgard. I am owed 8 through BT, the last month I received was April 2010. Seems pretty discriminatory that although, as I believe, we are in the same fund, some have received more than others.

The big question is, Asick. Where do we go from here? How does the investor get any say or control? We can write to LM, Trilogy, BT, Asgard or even ASIC but the response is often evasive, misleading or unhelpful and so on an individual basis we are going nowhere. Unfortunately, I gather a lot of investors are very old or the investment forms part of a deceased estate or the investment is too small to waste a lot of effort in retrieval. But for the rest, who's investment is significant, there has to be a way we can unite to achieve some meaningful input and hence results.

Mysteryman

Just need to correct my earlier post after reading your comments
I was wrong, I have checked my records, it seems we are both owed 8 Distributions for the Months May 2010 throught to Dec 2010. I was paid the last three, and only catchup distributions, ho ho - for Feb, March, April 2010 in Sept 2011 (all in that month of Sept 2011) from Asgard. As you would be aware LM froze distributions from Jan 2011.
Given that LM told us all this was money they had accounted for and would be paid, I wonder If we will ever see it, from either LM or Trilogy- I really doubt it

 

[ASICK]

Trilogy Uses Registry to Spruik its Fund - Your turn now?

I received a gratuitous letter from Trilogy - I wasn't impressed.

Here's an amended copy of the letter - enjoy:

http://moneymagik.com/trilogy__funds_management_spruik_2012.jpg

 

[ASICK]

Re: Trilogy Uses Registry to Spruik its Fund - Your turn now?

I received a gratuitous letter from Trilogy - I wasn't impressed.

Here's an amended copy of the letter - enjoy:

http://moneymagik.com/trilogy__funds_management_spruik_2012.jpg

Now Trilogy has control of your fund, what's the chances you guy'll get a promo letter to invest with Trilogy?

Maybe things aren't going to well down at Trilogy? could using the names from the registry be an act of desperation? There wasn't one single dollar of new investment in Trilogy's Cape Parks Fund in 2012 - in fact, 30,000 unit were redeemed: http://www.moneymagik.com/cape_parks_fund.php - just 1000 * $1.00 units issued as at 30 June 2012, and that's after THREE YEARS OF OPERATION!!!!

Could it be that while you guys ran towards Trilogy, that others were running away?

Last time I looked at the Corporations Act, I came to the conclusion that one couldn't use the names from the registry for that sort of business - heck, that's only my opinion - but I know that I'll get a definitive (and learned) opinion in the near future and I'll be sure to post it here if I find out such use of the registry is permitted - and if it is, then watch out for the potential of self-praising ads from Trilogy.

Nothing amazes me with Trilogy - just when I think I've seen it all, there's more.

 

[ASICK]

Wait ! There's more !

Ok, Trathen is the disappeared man from Balmain Trilogy's site in relation to the litigation. BT haven't actually told investors that they'd sued a dead man - Andrew Griffin (and his experience team) in charge of the litigation? ho hum.
http://www.moneymagik.com/balmain_in_charge.mp3
http://www.moneymagik.com/litigation.php
(and of course, IMF didn't hang around to fund the touted "$60m" litigation - seems IMF didn't see any $$$$s in it)

Well, there's another disappearing act - The Great Disappeared Pollution (yes, pollution) :

Down at Martha Cove in April 2011, Griffin said that Lake View Industrial Estate, "as it turns out, is fairly heavily polluted":

http://www.moneymagik.com/fairly_heavily_polluted.mp3

and then on 12 November 2012 in the latest update, BT says: http://tinyurl.com/bjucrcu (Asset 20, on page 9)

"Environmental studies have revealed that the site is not adversely affected by contamination"

Now, how does a site go from "fairly heavily polluted" to "not adversely affected by contamination".

The local council knew nothing about it - a fund member phoned some time ago and again just recently and the council knew nothing about it.

and then, as if blessed by a miracle, and after years of little to no activity at the site, BT says, "which will enable the orderly realisation of the five unimproved lots in the coming months."

Great for fees for Trilogy - and so was "Woodgrove" at Wakerley and so was "Grande Pacific" at Broadbeach .. large value assets returning NOTHING to investors while the manager took a fee - while receiver's took fees - while the general crowd of beneficiaries fed off the assets, we got NOTHING (except for less than half of "Woodgrove" but I wonder whether investors made any headway even on that).
http://moneymagik.com/update_12_11_12.php

Ah .. good luck with Trilogy - you're going to need it.

 

[ASICK]

Re: The so-called "Jansen Report"

http://www.decisionmakers.co.nz/kiwi-investors-140m-revolt-against-aussie-fund-manager-nbr/
"David Jansen, a New Zealand-based financial consultant for Trilogy, says the New Zealand feeder fund, known as the LM Currency Protected Australian Income Fund, is now thought to be worth about $90 million."

http://nz.linkedin.com/pub/david-jansen/43/6b8/bab
"David Jansen's Overview
Current Consultant & Service Provider at Trilogy Funds Management Ltd (Self-employed)"

Wow - he ranges wide and free - but, at least to me, he seems pegged to Trilogy

now, where is the so-called "Jansen Report"?

I'm a little perplexed about this Jansen guy. He's disclosed as a "financial consultant for Trilogy"

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/kiwi-investors-140m-revolt-against-aussie-fund-manager-dw-13040
"David Jansen, a New Zealand-based financial consultant for Trilogy, says the New Zealand feeder fund, known as the LM Currency Protected Australian Income Fund, is now thought to be worth about $90 million."

http://nz.linkedin.com/pub/david-jansen/43/6b8/bab
"David Jansen's Overview - Current Consultant & Service Provider at Trilogy Funds Management Ltd (Self-employed)"

IMO, "financial consultant for Trilogy" and "consultant and service provider at Trilogy" are NOT the same thing (not, just the words, but what one might understand from the words).

For example, this fellow discloses in his Linkedin profile, among other things, that he's a "self-employed consultant at Trilogy".

He doesn't disclose being a mere "self-employed financial consultant" - to my mind, there is quite a difference between the words "at Trilogy" and "for Trilogy" - words which to my mind, very much limit the extent to which one might conclude Jansen ranges free of Trilogy.

I think the newspaper publications (and there are quite a few) seem to be quite misleading because readers might be led to believe that Jansen is not "at" Trilogy but rather speaks as a consultant "for" Trilogy.

Further, the news articles do not disclose that Jansen is a "service provider at Trilogy".

These are the words used, "David Jansen, a New Zealand-based financial consultant for Trilogy, says the New Zealand feeder fund, known as the LM Currency Protected Australian Income Fund, is now thought to be worth about $90 million." - to me, indicates comment from an arms-length consultant.

Had the news release used these words, ""David Jansen, a New Zealand-based financial consultant and service provider at Trilogy, says the New Zealand feeder fund, known as the LM Currency Protected Australian Income Fund, is now thought to be worth about $90 million." - to me, indicates comment for and on behalf of Trilogy.

 

[RODENT69]

I post this as information for others to form their own views.

Its an Email that I sent to LM and their reply today.
Note my references to dates, and the avoidance of a direct answer by LM.

My conclusion is that LM NEVER intended to abandon the Sell/Hold option, despite the words in the reply, UNTIL forced to by the Trilogy challenge effectively mounted on 28 Sept ONLY eight days after LM was saying to investors they were still proceeding with Sell/Hold option


Question to FM of LM- -- In the LM update dated 20 Sept 2012 it clearly indicates that LM was still proceeding with the Sell/Hold option, nothing later was sent to investors contradicting this UNTIL in the doc dated 19 Oct in response to Trilogy challenge LM said this

"The LM First will not be reopening.
• The assets of the Fund will not be split. This decision was made following our last rounds
of meetings with advisers and investors, wherein the strong feedback was a preference
not to see assets split, rather have all investors continue to benefit from the whole pool of
assets in the Fund".

The Atchison report for Trilogy is dated 5 October so when did LM actually make the decision to abandon the Sell / Hold was it before or after the date of the Atchison Report?

Second Point

I refer to the communication from LM dated 22 Oct – Re Super and Non Super Platform -----

That communication has a Proforma Doc?- prepared by LM and signed by multiple Asgard investors, which appears to indicate that it was sent to Asgard.

Is that true was it sent to Asgard?. And are you aware of any replies or acknowledgements by Asgard - reason Asgard has initially told me I am the ONLY person who has lodged a formal complaint of any type re Trustee decision to support Trilogy.

.....................................................................................................................................................
Reply by FM of LM

Following our May meeting, we continued meeting with advisors and investors and on the back of the strong theme for most investors to see a return of capital sooner rather than later, we came to the conclusion that the preference was for an orderly sale of remaining assets with all investors receiving capital distributions pro-rata.

We were tidying up the strategy ready to announce when Trilogy launched their attack.

Asgard did receive the correspondence you refer to. Perhaps from a legal and technical viewpoint it is not seen as a formal complaint.