You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
LM Investment Management - Lack of confidence
- Thread starter dinga
- Start date
All readers. I wrote to LM, and was advised the following
"The Jansen report issued for financial advisors only and as such, unfortunately, I am unable to provide it to you. I am looking into posting a full rebuttal of same on our website, so stay tuned there".
There is however a back door source that may come good, I will post IF I get it
My question about the 237 investor number was answered. There are actually 237 Investors listed for the WFMIF
My individual investment, and all other investors with this fund through Asgard is counted as ONLY 1 of this investor number. Of course as we know it was the $ amount of the investors that was counted , not the actual Investor numbers
"The Jansen report issued for financial advisors only and as such, unfortunately, I am unable to provide it to you. I am looking into posting a full rebuttal of same on our website, so stay tuned there".
There is however a back door source that may come good, I will post IF I get it
My question about the 237 investor number was answered. There are actually 237 Investors listed for the WFMIF
My individual investment, and all other investors with this fund through Asgard is counted as ONLY 1 of this investor number. Of course as we know it was the $ amount of the investors that was counted , not the actual Investor numbers
Jansen Report
Mysteryman, I"ve had a copy for a wee while now. I'm astounded that the following notice appears on the front cover: "Private & Confidential, Prepared for NZ Financial Advisors Only, Not Intended For Advisor Clients".
I really haven't had time to look over the document in great detail.
The document is dated September 2012.
The document makes no effort to disclose Trilogy's past management disasters. For example, this excerpt on page 9, "Trilogy is well known to the Convening Members as an experienced Australian property asset manager that has first-hand experience in replacing an RE of a frozen mortgage fund." - I reckon this statement says a lot about the whole deal. The Convening Member knew Trilogy well - interesting.
and this on page 10/11:
"Who is Trilogy:
Trilogy is an Australian mortgage fund management Company.
Trilogy currently acts as RE for a number of mortgage funds and property syndicates. Trilogy currently has funds under management of approximately A$300m spread across Queensland, NSW and Victoria.
Trilogy has a record of managing one of the few mortgage trusts in Australia that remained open through the GFC and continued to make regular income distributions whilst meeting all redemption payments when requested.
Trilogy has first-hand experience in replacing an incumbent RE for a frozen mortgage fund. In June, 2009, in joint venture with Balmain Corporation Ltd, the Members of City Pacific First Mortgage Fund voted at an extraordinary meeting to appoint Trilogy as the new RE of the Fund.
The City Pacific First Mortgage Fund had a degree of similarity with the LM First Mortgage Income Fund, specifically:
• It invested in higher yielding, higher risk construction and development mortgage loans in Australian. [Trilogy made a massive loss on the simple purchase of a single unit in an apartment block on the Gold Coast - extrapolate that]• The fund was leveraged. [and, after three and a half years of Trilogy remains leveraged]• The fund took on second mortgage positions. [Under Trilogy's management, the fund lost a further $14.4m on a second mortgage]• The fund was frozen.
• The majority of loans were in arrears. [and Trilogy didn't stop racking up accruals (interest receivables)]
• Fees were very high. [Trilogy took fees of $16.6m while returning members only $0.0875/unit and while losing 56% of the fund's value]
Once in place as RE, Balmain Trilogy put in place a strategy designed to improve Fund performance, start the payment of capital distributions and increase the transparency around the assets in the Fund. Management fees were dropped (from in excess of 3% to 1.5%) and a legal review was conducted to review the past conduct of the Fund with particular focus on related party lending. [see http://www.litigation.php (updated)]
More recently, Trilogy has been appointed the new RE for two property syndicates previously managed by APGF Management Limited. This follows the appointment of Trilogy over three syndicates and three unit trusts in May 2011, also managed by APGF." - and guess what? those APGF funds financial information is not visible on CYRE Trilogy's website - now, at least to me, that's not a surprise.
The document seems to crticize LM for doing in the LM FMIF that which Trilogy is doing in the PFMF.
Jansen says, "Disclosure: David Jansen is not involved in FMIF or any of its feeder funds and has no connection with LM or Trilogy other than as set out herein. Certain Fund Members have approached Trilogy and requested that a research document be prepared, the main purpose of this document being to provide a third party’s view of the quality of this Fund to financial advisors, to explore the issues around LM’s continued involvement in the Fund as the incumbent Manager and review the option available to members to change management of the Fund. David Jansen has entered into an agreement with Trilogy to provide this third party review and to thereafter meet with investment advisors to discuss the contents of this report. The agreement is on normal commercial terms and conditions. . This assessment has been undertaken by David Jansen on an independent basis and is not an investment or other recommendation."
I remind readers of Mr. Jansen's Linkedin profile which states, "Consultant & Service Provider at Trilogy Funds Management Ltd (Self-employed) "
Mysteryman, I"ve had a copy for a wee while now. I'm astounded that the following notice appears on the front cover: "Private & Confidential, Prepared for NZ Financial Advisors Only, Not Intended For Advisor Clients".
I really haven't had time to look over the document in great detail.
The document is dated September 2012.
The document makes no effort to disclose Trilogy's past management disasters. For example, this excerpt on page 9, "Trilogy is well known to the Convening Members as an experienced Australian property asset manager that has first-hand experience in replacing an RE of a frozen mortgage fund." - I reckon this statement says a lot about the whole deal. The Convening Member knew Trilogy well - interesting.
and this on page 10/11:
"Who is Trilogy:
Trilogy is an Australian mortgage fund management Company.
Trilogy currently acts as RE for a number of mortgage funds and property syndicates. Trilogy currently has funds under management of approximately A$300m spread across Queensland, NSW and Victoria.
Trilogy has a record of managing one of the few mortgage trusts in Australia that remained open through the GFC and continued to make regular income distributions whilst meeting all redemption payments when requested.
Trilogy has first-hand experience in replacing an incumbent RE for a frozen mortgage fund. In June, 2009, in joint venture with Balmain Corporation Ltd, the Members of City Pacific First Mortgage Fund voted at an extraordinary meeting to appoint Trilogy as the new RE of the Fund.
The City Pacific First Mortgage Fund had a degree of similarity with the LM First Mortgage Income Fund, specifically:
• It invested in higher yielding, higher risk construction and development mortgage loans in Australian. [Trilogy made a massive loss on the simple purchase of a single unit in an apartment block on the Gold Coast - extrapolate that]• The fund was leveraged. [and, after three and a half years of Trilogy remains leveraged]• The fund took on second mortgage positions. [Under Trilogy's management, the fund lost a further $14.4m on a second mortgage]• The fund was frozen.
• The majority of loans were in arrears. [and Trilogy didn't stop racking up accruals (interest receivables)]
• Fees were very high. [Trilogy took fees of $16.6m while returning members only $0.0875/unit and while losing 56% of the fund's value]
Once in place as RE, Balmain Trilogy put in place a strategy designed to improve Fund performance, start the payment of capital distributions and increase the transparency around the assets in the Fund. Management fees were dropped (from in excess of 3% to 1.5%) and a legal review was conducted to review the past conduct of the Fund with particular focus on related party lending. [see http://www.litigation.php (updated)]
More recently, Trilogy has been appointed the new RE for two property syndicates previously managed by APGF Management Limited. This follows the appointment of Trilogy over three syndicates and three unit trusts in May 2011, also managed by APGF." - and guess what? those APGF funds financial information is not visible on CYRE Trilogy's website - now, at least to me, that's not a surprise.
The document seems to crticize LM for doing in the LM FMIF that which Trilogy is doing in the PFMF.
Jansen says, "Disclosure: David Jansen is not involved in FMIF or any of its feeder funds and has no connection with LM or Trilogy other than as set out herein. Certain Fund Members have approached Trilogy and requested that a research document be prepared, the main purpose of this document being to provide a third party’s view of the quality of this Fund to financial advisors, to explore the issues around LM’s continued involvement in the Fund as the incumbent Manager and review the option available to members to change management of the Fund. David Jansen has entered into an agreement with Trilogy to provide this third party review and to thereafter meet with investment advisors to discuss the contents of this report. The agreement is on normal commercial terms and conditions. . This assessment has been undertaken by David Jansen on an independent basis and is not an investment or other recommendation."
I remind readers of Mr. Jansen's Linkedin profile which states, "Consultant & Service Provider at Trilogy Funds Management Ltd (Self-employed) "
Jansen Report
The reason I'm not posting the report is that I'm not sure about a number of the facts contained in the report (about the location of properties and the like). If someone else publishes the report, then good and well - that'll save me the bother.
However, I'll stick to what I do know and make maybe a couple of postings about some issues where Jansen seems to criticize LM for doing something, and yet, it seems to me, Trilogy is doing likewise in the PFMF.
Apart from lower management fees (which is now a moot point), I can't see where the report discloses how Trilogy could give investors a better outcome.
"The Convening Members’ Agent (i.e. Trilogy) believes that the replacement of LM with Trilogy will have the following benefits to Members in the Fund, including:
• Major reduction in management fees. [no longer applicable]• Accelerated capital distributions to Members. [this cannot be guaranteed - in 3.5 years, Trilogy returned only $0.0875/unit to PFMF Members, with only $0.0075/unit from 1 July 2012 and no certainty about a further payment this year]• Regular information and increased transparency around the loan portfolio. [good luck on this one - http://www.moneymagik.com/ ]• Implementation of new strategies designed to enhance member value and deliver liquidity. [like this? http://tinyurl.com/auhgylu ]• Independence to review related party lending. [yes, true - but the deal's already done]"
Key elements of Trilogy’s strategy for the FMIF include:
These include:
• Reduced management fees.[not any more]• Undertake a review of all assets and report findings to members. [big bucks - in the PFMF, fund assets were devalued massively after the review - in my view, a lot of money for nothing]• Engage other investment and project managers to assist in the completion and realisation of certain assets.
• Conduct a legal review of the Fund’s previous dealings, lending protocols and disclosure material. [oh boy .. this can drag on for years and years and years - http://www.moneymagik.com/litigation.php - and the stories they can tell you .. the carrot they'll dangle - you'll be on the end of your seats, literally ]
• To make capital distributions as expeditiously as possible. [http://www.moneymagik.com/yardy_yardy_yah.php - the representations, the targets, and the disappointments - it can drag on for years, and years, and years]• To repay or refinance the Deutsche Bank facility as soon as possible. [oh boy .. good luck on this one too .. in the 3.5 years that Trilogy managed the PFMF, the debt was repaid behind investors until the CBA pulled Trilogy up by its corporate "jock straps" - good luck indeed ]"
I should point out that all information in this (and my last posting) which is highlighted in red and contained within square backets are my comments.
Trouble is, the convening member (which knows Trilogy well) didn't call for "Jansen Mark II" to incorporate the LM updates.
The reason I'm not posting the report is that I'm not sure about a number of the facts contained in the report (about the location of properties and the like). If someone else publishes the report, then good and well - that'll save me the bother.
However, I'll stick to what I do know and make maybe a couple of postings about some issues where Jansen seems to criticize LM for doing something, and yet, it seems to me, Trilogy is doing likewise in the PFMF.
Apart from lower management fees (which is now a moot point), I can't see where the report discloses how Trilogy could give investors a better outcome.
"The Convening Members’ Agent (i.e. Trilogy) believes that the replacement of LM with Trilogy will have the following benefits to Members in the Fund, including:
• Major reduction in management fees. [no longer applicable]• Accelerated capital distributions to Members. [this cannot be guaranteed - in 3.5 years, Trilogy returned only $0.0875/unit to PFMF Members, with only $0.0075/unit from 1 July 2012 and no certainty about a further payment this year]• Regular information and increased transparency around the loan portfolio. [good luck on this one - http://www.moneymagik.com/ ]• Implementation of new strategies designed to enhance member value and deliver liquidity. [like this? http://tinyurl.com/auhgylu ]• Independence to review related party lending. [yes, true - but the deal's already done]"
Key elements of Trilogy’s strategy for the FMIF include:
These include:
• Reduced management fees.[not any more]• Undertake a review of all assets and report findings to members. [big bucks - in the PFMF, fund assets were devalued massively after the review - in my view, a lot of money for nothing]• Engage other investment and project managers to assist in the completion and realisation of certain assets.
• Conduct a legal review of the Fund’s previous dealings, lending protocols and disclosure material. [oh boy .. this can drag on for years and years and years - http://www.moneymagik.com/litigation.php - and the stories they can tell you .. the carrot they'll dangle - you'll be on the end of your seats, literally ]
• To make capital distributions as expeditiously as possible. [http://www.moneymagik.com/yardy_yardy_yah.php - the representations, the targets, and the disappointments - it can drag on for years, and years, and years]• To repay or refinance the Deutsche Bank facility as soon as possible. [oh boy .. good luck on this one too .. in the 3.5 years that Trilogy managed the PFMF, the debt was repaid behind investors until the CBA pulled Trilogy up by its corporate "jock straps" - good luck indeed ]"
I should point out that all information in this (and my last posting) which is highlighted in red and contained within square backets are my comments.
Trouble is, the convening member (which knows Trilogy well) didn't call for "Jansen Mark II" to incorporate the LM updates.
LM - update / Asset Report
http://lmaustralia.com/Investment-P...s-Attach-on-Corporate-Fund-Raider-Trilog.aspx
For those who haven't seen the documents.
I forgot to deal with this issue in my previous post, "Engage other investment and project managers to assist in the completion and realisation of certain assets." - there's heaps to talk about on this one - I'll leave it for a rainy day.
http://lmaustralia.com/Investment-P...s-Attach-on-Corporate-Fund-Raider-Trilog.aspx
For those who haven't seen the documents.
I forgot to deal with this issue in my previous post, "Engage other investment and project managers to assist in the completion and realisation of certain assets." - there's heaps to talk about on this one - I'll leave it for a rainy day.
Attachments
Judging by phone call to Ernst and Young, financials and audit are well and truly complete and have been provided to LM.
Auditor Paula McClusky is in Newcastle so couldn't ask directly of her.
Obviously her staff could not discuss specifics of financials (nor did I ask them to) but it would appear that LM have them.
Clearly they do not want to publish them...
Auditor Paula McClusky is in Newcastle so couldn't ask directly of her.
Obviously her staff could not discuss specifics of financials (nor did I ask them to) but it would appear that LM have them.
Clearly they do not want to publish them...
- Joined
- 2 November 2012
- Posts
- 51
- Reactions
- 0
Judging by phone call to Ernst and Young, financials and audit are well and truly complete and have been provided to LM.
Auditor Paula McClusky is in Newcastle so couldn't ask directly of her.
Obviously her staff could not discuss specifics of financials (nor did I ask them to) but it would appear that LM have them.
Clearly they do not want to publish them...
Any idea when they were sent to LM?
LM financials & RG45
A little birdie told me to look for a release this month - but you know birds, they twirp.
www.moneymagik.com has been rearranged (for those who might like to read more about Trilogy)
Any idea when they were sent to LM?
A little birdie told me to look for a release this month - but you know birds, they twirp.
www.moneymagik.com has been rearranged (for those who might like to read more about Trilogy)
Trilogy Hype
In November 2010, Andrew Griffin told PFMF members at the Sydney Info Session about the directors' liability insurance: http://www.moneymagik.com/only_20_million_insurance.mp (the extra audio (after the break) is from the Fund's Martha Cove Info Session in April 2011)
On 27 April 2012 Trilogy sued the former Citypac directors for $60m: http://tinyurl.com/c2627lb
In early November 2012 Rodger Bacon said that $20m was possible : http://www.moneymagik.com/bacon_nail_em.mp3
There was never a snow flakes' chance in hell of anything greater than $20m.
It's fine to spruik the value of a claim, but what's actually possible to recover is something very different altogether - Punters must have been elated with the $60m claim - but now it's down to $20m (claim maximum), and perhaps even to ZERO if Sullivan's allegations hold up about there being no insurance because Trilogy didn't make the necessary insurance premiums.
In November 2010, Andrew Griffin told PFMF members at the Sydney Info Session about the directors' liability insurance: http://www.moneymagik.com/only_20_million_insurance.mp (the extra audio (after the break) is from the Fund's Martha Cove Info Session in April 2011)
On 27 April 2012 Trilogy sued the former Citypac directors for $60m: http://tinyurl.com/c2627lb
In early November 2012 Rodger Bacon said that $20m was possible : http://www.moneymagik.com/bacon_nail_em.mp3
There was never a snow flakes' chance in hell of anything greater than $20m.
It's fine to spruik the value of a claim, but what's actually possible to recover is something very different altogether - Punters must have been elated with the $60m claim - but now it's down to $20m (claim maximum), and perhaps even to ZERO if Sullivan's allegations hold up about there being no insurance because Trilogy didn't make the necessary insurance premiums.
Financials appeared over the weekend.
Dismal reading but not unexpected.
Signed off on by EY on the 16th November so took a week to release to unitholders.
Unit price deterioration to 59c with a qualifying statement that accurate price will only be determined after sale of remaining assets
Auditor has also put some qualifying statements in their report.
Another 9m in management fees and over 4.8m in "loan management fees" . $13.8m for managing a capital loss of investors funds that currently stands at 41% and is likely to go further
Equates to a fee gouge of 4.77%
Dismal reading but not unexpected.
Signed off on by EY on the 16th November so took a week to release to unitholders.
Unit price deterioration to 59c with a qualifying statement that accurate price will only be determined after sale of remaining assets
Auditor has also put some qualifying statements in their report.
Another 9m in management fees and over 4.8m in "loan management fees" . $13.8m for managing a capital loss of investors funds that currently stands at 41% and is likely to go further
Equates to a fee gouge of 4.77%
What a Wonderful Reward for Failure
to be sure .. to be sure .. good times for LM, that's for sure.
I agree about the unit price - I don't believe it for a second - if anyone has the RG45, could it be posted on the forum? and true, the only price that should interest investors is the sale price, but for the rich and famous, it's the assessed value (to calculate the fees) - and look at those fees for taking over from receivers - it very well might have been cheaper to appoint receivers, and those guys and gals (the receivers) are the new "million dollar" men (and women). What a wonderful reward to LM for failure.
Who in their right minds would invest in an MIS ever again?
It's terrible that a manager is able to take millions of dollars for losing - what a joke to have to rely on mobs like LM and Trilogy - the government should be ashamed of itself for allowing these schemes to even exist in the form they've allowed them to exist.
Financials appeared over the weekend.
Dismal reading but not unexpected.
Signed off on by EY on the 16th November so took a week to release to unitholders.
Unit price deterioration to 59c with a qualifying statement that accurate price will only be determined after sale of remaining assets
Auditor has also put some qualifying statements in their report.
Another 9m in management fees and over 4.8m in "loan management fees" . $13.8m for managing a capital loss of investors funds that currently stands at 41% and is likely to go further
Equates to a fee gouge of 4.77%
to be sure .. to be sure .. good times for LM, that's for sure.
I agree about the unit price - I don't believe it for a second - if anyone has the RG45, could it be posted on the forum? and true, the only price that should interest investors is the sale price, but for the rich and famous, it's the assessed value (to calculate the fees) - and look at those fees for taking over from receivers - it very well might have been cheaper to appoint receivers, and those guys and gals (the receivers) are the new "million dollar" men (and women). What a wonderful reward to LM for failure.
Who in their right minds would invest in an MIS ever again?
It's terrible that a manager is able to take millions of dollars for losing - what a joke to have to rely on mobs like LM and Trilogy - the government should be ashamed of itself for allowing these schemes to even exist in the form they've allowed them to exist.
So Asick is there nothing we as investers can do about this ? do we just sit back and watch our money disappear ? .
I was told only last week by our FA (who we go through if we have any questions about LM) that we should still come out with about 70% of our money , what BS that was .
We where miss sold this fund by a FA , which i stated to in e mails to that i did not want anything risky and we where not prepared to loose the money . It would be more easier to accept if we had put it in something high risk or even medium risk then i could say well we took the risk so it is the price we pay , but this was not the case we where just niave mum and dad investers who have lost a great deal of our hard earned money, which could have been for our kids future .The whold thing makes us sick to the stomache.
I was told only last week by our FA (who we go through if we have any questions about LM) that we should still come out with about 70% of our money , what BS that was .
We where miss sold this fund by a FA , which i stated to in e mails to that i did not want anything risky and we where not prepared to loose the money . It would be more easier to accept if we had put it in something high risk or even medium risk then i could say well we took the risk so it is the price we pay , but this was not the case we where just niave mum and dad investers who have lost a great deal of our hard earned money, which could have been for our kids future .The whold thing makes us sick to the stomache.
Where to turn?
A Viable Alternative
I still think that Stacks is a reliable manager - a better alternative than LM. Shame is that you're got a mob like Trilogy in the game. Trilogy with a proven track record of failure in taking over a damaged managed fund, the PFMF. Like LM, Trilogy has been well rewared for failure in the PFMF.
Stacks took over the damaged Kingsway fund which now seems to be travelling well:
http://tinyurl.com/c7nlyzb
I think that a group of you should approach Stacks and see if they're interested - you really need a manager you'll have confidence in. Stacks seems to be able to get a grip on things - good or bad, I think you'll get it straight from Stacks.
LM: re: receivers
Receivers may be appointed, or the manager may take over the loans. When managers take over loans, it normally means that such an action saves investors' money, but in the case of LM it seems to me that the exercise has been a boom for LM with no savings for investors - as I see it, it's a grab for more fund dollars. I'll say it again, LM is being doubly rewarded for FAILURE.
Trilogy is out for More Too
Don't kid yourselves about Trilogy either. Trilogy's out for more too:
"Project Management - Where appropriate, CYRE Trilogy will engage project managers on behalf of the
FMIF, including Knight Frank and Avive Asset Management Pty Ltd (a related party of CYRE Trilogy) and other specialists, to assist in the completion and realisation of certain assets. Knight Frank, an international property advisory group, has agreed to work with CYRE Trilogy on a project by project basis as agreed between the two parties. Fees charged by such specialists will be charged to the FMIF."
http://tinyurl.com/csozm3z
Avive Asset Management Pty. Ltd. was registered on 20 April 2012:
http://tinyurl.com/c62al55
The Role of a Manager
I may be wrong, but I think most investors have NO idea of the constitutionally defined role of a manager. It's quite a shame, because managers manage, and that's it - no more, no less. Everything else is costed on top, that is, contracted out at the fund's sole expense - and if work can be contracted out to a relative (or even taken over by the manager (as in LM's case, work normally done by receivers)), then that gives the manager a bigger share of the pie (and more $$$ - what it's all about - business).
Managers really have a simple "job description" but, I guess because of the fees these mobs charge, investors mistakenly believe that managers do much more, but managers do not do any more than manage, a singular and simple role (except if they wish to expand that role at no cost to investors - the exception rather than the rule).
The shame of it all is that detailed particulars of expenditure are never disclosed to investors so investors have no idea which entity does what work (and gets the $$$$$).
A manager might say that it's doing this or that, even if all the work was contracted out at the fund's sole expense - in such a case, the manager has done no more than manage, but takes the credit for all the work - how would LM investors know what work is being paid for by the fund and by the manager? well, they wouldn't have a clue.
Appointing a Receiver
That's a good option, but I have no idea how to do it. I'm sure ASIC won't step in - ASIC isn't a prudential regulator, so merely losing capital value will not motivate ASIC to act.
Maybe a proposal at a meeting to direct the manager to apply to the court for the appointment of a receiver might work - you'd need to get legal advice on whether its possible. Of course the manager has the $$$ and could make such an application fraught with danger - eg. "Your Honour, yes, we're following investors' wishes, but we think ..."
A Viable Alternative
I still think that Stacks is a reliable manager - a better alternative than LM. Shame is that you're got a mob like Trilogy in the game. Trilogy with a proven track record of failure in taking over a damaged managed fund, the PFMF. Like LM, Trilogy has been well rewared for failure in the PFMF.
Stacks took over the damaged Kingsway fund which now seems to be travelling well:
http://tinyurl.com/c7nlyzb
I think that a group of you should approach Stacks and see if they're interested - you really need a manager you'll have confidence in. Stacks seems to be able to get a grip on things - good or bad, I think you'll get it straight from Stacks.
LM: re: receivers
Receivers may be appointed, or the manager may take over the loans. When managers take over loans, it normally means that such an action saves investors' money, but in the case of LM it seems to me that the exercise has been a boom for LM with no savings for investors - as I see it, it's a grab for more fund dollars. I'll say it again, LM is being doubly rewarded for FAILURE.
Trilogy is out for More Too
Don't kid yourselves about Trilogy either. Trilogy's out for more too:
"Project Management - Where appropriate, CYRE Trilogy will engage project managers on behalf of the
FMIF, including Knight Frank and Avive Asset Management Pty Ltd (a related party of CYRE Trilogy) and other specialists, to assist in the completion and realisation of certain assets. Knight Frank, an international property advisory group, has agreed to work with CYRE Trilogy on a project by project basis as agreed between the two parties. Fees charged by such specialists will be charged to the FMIF."
http://tinyurl.com/csozm3z
Avive Asset Management Pty. Ltd. was registered on 20 April 2012:
http://tinyurl.com/c62al55
The Role of a Manager
I may be wrong, but I think most investors have NO idea of the constitutionally defined role of a manager. It's quite a shame, because managers manage, and that's it - no more, no less. Everything else is costed on top, that is, contracted out at the fund's sole expense - and if work can be contracted out to a relative (or even taken over by the manager (as in LM's case, work normally done by receivers)), then that gives the manager a bigger share of the pie (and more $$$ - what it's all about - business).
Managers really have a simple "job description" but, I guess because of the fees these mobs charge, investors mistakenly believe that managers do much more, but managers do not do any more than manage, a singular and simple role (except if they wish to expand that role at no cost to investors - the exception rather than the rule).
The shame of it all is that detailed particulars of expenditure are never disclosed to investors so investors have no idea which entity does what work (and gets the $$$$$).
A manager might say that it's doing this or that, even if all the work was contracted out at the fund's sole expense - in such a case, the manager has done no more than manage, but takes the credit for all the work - how would LM investors know what work is being paid for by the fund and by the manager? well, they wouldn't have a clue.
Appointing a Receiver
That's a good option, but I have no idea how to do it. I'm sure ASIC won't step in - ASIC isn't a prudential regulator, so merely losing capital value will not motivate ASIC to act.
Maybe a proposal at a meeting to direct the manager to apply to the court for the appointment of a receiver might work - you'd need to get legal advice on whether its possible. Of course the manager has the $$$ and could make such an application fraught with danger - eg. "Your Honour, yes, we're following investors' wishes, but we think ..."
So Asick is there nothing we as investers can do about this ? do we just sit back and watch our money disappear ? .
I was told only last week by our FA (who we go through if we have any questions about LM) that we should still come out with about 70% of our money , what BS that was .
We where miss sold this fund by a FA , which i stated to in e mails to that i did not want anything risky and we where not prepared to loose the money . It would be more easier to accept if we had put it in something high risk or even medium risk then i could say well we took the risk so it is the price we pay , but this was not the case we where just niave mum and dad investers who have lost a great deal of our hard earned money, which could have been for our kids future .The whold thing makes us sick to the stomache.
Hi Edgen,
the Financial Ombudsman Service may well be able to assist you depending on how much your loss is. They recently found against an adviser for recommending basis capital to a client without explaining the extent of borrowings/gearing internal to the fund. If you were not explained the extent of the borrowings in the fund and the inherent risk involved you may well have a case against your FA. IN the basis capital case the adviser argued that because the investment was on their recommended list they had no reason to doubt its suitability but FOS found that the adviser also has a responsibility to conduct their own research as well.
Remember in the early days LM were actually blaming CBA for their woes because CBA got nervous about the debt. LM then refinanced to Deutsche at ridiculous interest rates to basically protect their own cashflow.
FOS Decision
http://forms.fos.org.au/dapweb/CaseFiles/ILIS/18959.pdf
Hi Edgen,
the Financial Ombudsman Service may well be able to assist you depending on how much your loss is. They recently found against an adviser for recommending basis capital to a client without explaining the extent of borrowings/gearing internal to the fund. If you were not explained the extent of the borrowings in the fund and the inherent risk involved you may well have a case against your FA. IN the basis capital case the adviser argued that because the investment was on their recommended list they had no reason to doubt its suitability but FOS found that the adviser also has a responsibility to conduct their own research as well.
Remember in the early days LM were actually blaming CBA for their woes because CBA got nervous about the debt. LM then refinanced to Deutsche at ridiculous interest rates to basically protect their own cashflow.
http://forms.fos.org.au/dapweb/CaseFiles/ILIS/18959.pdf
For General Info
Trilogy has just posted on its website a doc about the LMFMIF dated 23 Nov, I was sent this doc yesterday, but ONLY got it because I asked for an update. The Doc may be of interest to all fellow investors
I attach these Email EXTRACTS to and from Trilogy for information of others
Q to Trilogy - are you posting the Audited Financial Report for WFMIF Answer From Trilogy - The accounts for LM were lodged recently (I believe today) although LM was still the RE post the lodgement date for the accounts for the LM Wholesale Fund...Trilogy has made contact with the external auditor and also LM. Once we have all the files and documentation we will expedite the lodgement of the accounts.
To Trilogy
I thank you for this info, HOWEVER how would I have ever seen it UNLESS I had asked these questions?
As I have said more than once I have no Financial Planner, I sit on the **** end of the Asgard Platform and even if they got this, I would never see it
I ask again that if you are managing distribution of information I request that you please include me in all future distribution, AND formally acknowledge that this will be ongoing as far as the WSFMIF is concerned please.
Last point about the Jansen Report, LM is about to publish a rebuttal of its content on their Website,
Trilogy and LM are hiding behind the B…S… about it only being for Advisors – so even if I read the LM rebuttal I may not be able to relate it to a content I have not had an opportunity to read. I am advised that on the cover of the report it says -Private and Confidential , prepared for NZ Financial Planners only- not intended for Advisor Clients!!!- END of subject
PS the Unit Price for the fund is 0.59c as from 16 Nov !!!!
Regards in more pain
.....................................................................................................................................................
From Trilogy - I note your comments regarding being kept in the loop...apologies for not including you in the latest update. I will make sure this does not happen again.
Yes a unit price of 59 cents causes some pain....
......................................................................................................................................................
Again for information although the Unit Price is quoted @ 0.59c as from 16 Nov the LM Historical data re Unit Prices as at YESTERDAY still showed 0.73c
Trilogy has just posted on its website a doc about the LMFMIF dated 23 Nov, I was sent this doc yesterday, but ONLY got it because I asked for an update. The Doc may be of interest to all fellow investors
I attach these Email EXTRACTS to and from Trilogy for information of others
Q to Trilogy - are you posting the Audited Financial Report for WFMIF Answer From Trilogy - The accounts for LM were lodged recently (I believe today) although LM was still the RE post the lodgement date for the accounts for the LM Wholesale Fund...Trilogy has made contact with the external auditor and also LM. Once we have all the files and documentation we will expedite the lodgement of the accounts.
To Trilogy
I thank you for this info, HOWEVER how would I have ever seen it UNLESS I had asked these questions?
As I have said more than once I have no Financial Planner, I sit on the **** end of the Asgard Platform and even if they got this, I would never see it
I ask again that if you are managing distribution of information I request that you please include me in all future distribution, AND formally acknowledge that this will be ongoing as far as the WSFMIF is concerned please.
Last point about the Jansen Report, LM is about to publish a rebuttal of its content on their Website,
Trilogy and LM are hiding behind the B…S… about it only being for Advisors – so even if I read the LM rebuttal I may not be able to relate it to a content I have not had an opportunity to read. I am advised that on the cover of the report it says -Private and Confidential , prepared for NZ Financial Planners only- not intended for Advisor Clients!!!- END of subject
PS the Unit Price for the fund is 0.59c as from 16 Nov !!!!
Regards in more pain
.....................................................................................................................................................
From Trilogy - I note your comments regarding being kept in the loop...apologies for not including you in the latest update. I will make sure this does not happen again.
Yes a unit price of 59 cents causes some pain....
......................................................................................................................................................
Again for information although the Unit Price is quoted @ 0.59c as from 16 Nov the LM Historical data re Unit Prices as at YESTERDAY still showed 0.73c
...
From Trilogy - I note your comments regarding being kept in the loop...apologies for not including you in the latest update. I will make sure this does not happen again.
Yes a unit price of 59 cents causes some pain. ...
but, rest assured, a Trilogy inflicted pain of $0.15/unit in just twelve months inflicts more.
http://moneymagik.com/PFMF_letter_11_October_2012.pdf
Thanks guys for the advice much apreciated. I think i will contact the Financial Ombudsman and see what they say, They might have a hard time tracking down the FA as he left the company just after the fund closed .
Approaching Stacks sounds like a good idea , but its just a matter of getting hold of more investers who want to do something about it, as there only seems like there are a handfull of them on here .
Approaching Stacks sounds like a good idea , but its just a matter of getting hold of more investers who want to do something about it, as there only seems like there are a handfull of them on here .
- Joined
- 2 November 2012
- Posts
- 51
- Reactions
- 0
Approaching Stacks sounds like a good idea , but its just a matter of getting hold of more investers who want to do something about it, as there only seems like there are a handfull of them on here .
Not very likely to happen. Don't forget you would have to persuade the likes of the BT Financial group, who carry a large portion of the votes, to change their allegiance from Trilogy in order to be sure of voting in another RE.
Does BT have any idea of the real word
Yes, that's probably true, they seem like the mobs which'd see no point looking for a manager which has a proven track record of a good outcome after taking over a damaged fund.
I can only summize that they took a trip to Wakerley, or perhaps down to Grande Pacific. Geez, then they'd have been impressed with the more than 74% loss in just six weeks down at The Entrance. Ah.. the cincher would have been the loss of $0.15/unit in just twelve months in the PFMF - Seems like BT (not Balmain Trilogy) just loves those sorts of failures.
Does BT have any idea of the real world? Perhaps a rename to "Ostrich Enterprises"?
http://www.moneymagik.com/
Not very likely to happen. Don't forget you would have to persuade the likes of the BT Financial group, who carry a large portion of the votes, to change their allegiance from Trilogy in order to be sure of voting in another RE.
Yes, that's probably true, they seem like the mobs which'd see no point looking for a manager which has a proven track record of a good outcome after taking over a damaged fund.
I can only summize that they took a trip to Wakerley, or perhaps down to Grande Pacific. Geez, then they'd have been impressed with the more than 74% loss in just six weeks down at The Entrance. Ah.. the cincher would have been the loss of $0.15/unit in just twelve months in the PFMF - Seems like BT (not Balmain Trilogy) just loves those sorts of failures.
Does BT have any idea of the real world? Perhaps a rename to "Ostrich Enterprises"?
http://www.moneymagik.com/
Similar threads
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 850
- Replies
- 15
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 1K
