This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

LM Investment Management - Lack of confidence

Jump to new
If Drake turns his hand to stand up comedy I'd go and watch because the latest page on the LM website would be a real laugh if not for the fact that investors have lost at least 41% of their funds

He's got a testimonials page now (copied below) and it appears he has been flying in advisers from all over the place for one of his adviser information days.(read JUNKET. IN the past he has flown the entire staff of firms to the Goldie for these days to do "DUE DILIGENCE" in one case I know of, even the receptionist went!! No doubt falls into the marketing budget for the funds and ultimately paid for by investors. Great Southern plantations used to do the same thing...I bet they all got an autographed pair of shiny white shoes whne they flew out as well...

Of course there are no testimonials from Australian advisers or clients and of course no names..


[I]We have done our due diligence on LM Australia and asked some deep questions about the company, its structure and ownership. All our questions have been answered more than satisfactorily and we are very happy for LM Australia to manage parts of our clients’ portfolios where appropriate and really appreciate your integrity and openness.

Read full testimonial »

Financial Adviser, Gibraltar, Supporter of LM for One Year




Two days of openness, transparency, enlightenment and confidence building for those that appreciate the LM business model. Maddison Estates represents a genuine and unique opportunity to capitalise on a patient investment, but worth the wait. The LM team are proud of their country, construct and achievements to date and rightly so. Going forward with their ambitions will see remarkable sustained returns for investors willing to stay the course.
Read full testimonial »

Financial Adviser, Bangkok, Supporter of LM for Five Years





Many thanks for your hospitality and for that of your staff during my recent due diligence visit to LM, Australia. As financial advisors, funds are often presented to clients based upon global trends and heresay from other advisors, but seldom from an in depth knowledge of the fund or the fund company itself.

Read full testimonial »

Financial Adviser, Dubai, Supporter of LM for Five Years





The presentations we attended were informative and interesting, but I must say the visit to the Maddison was most significant to me as an Advisor. I was overwhelmed by the size of the project and amazed at the celebrities LM has lined up to not only lend their names and develop their own business, but also to help market and promote the project. I have spoken to several clients since my return and without exception they are enthusiastic to invest and be part of this.

Read full testimonial »

Financial Adviser, Dubai, Supporter of LM for Three Years





The recent due diligence trip to LM Head Office was very enlightening and extremely informative, it enabled me and I’m sure the other attendees, the chance to understand more clearly the objectives of LM, the Funds and the Assets under management. Every question that was put forward to the LM team was answered clearly and concisely and went a long way in allaying any fears or worries that anyone may have had.

Read full testimonial »

Financial Adviser, Bangkok, Prospect [/I]
 
The Dessicated Carrot

Avoided a fire sale? Investors would never be able to judge for themselves.

Seems LM's spruiking machine is locked into "Full Steam Ahead". I'm always amazed when I see these mobs citing the spruiker of their own media releases rather than making the statements themselves from their own corporate "lips".

Already the dessicated carrot of capital distributions (NOT income distributions as spruiked not so long ago) even while the facility sits at $17m at one hell of an interest rate.

http://www.lmaustralia.com/Investme...trategies-Avoid-Fire-Sale-of-Fund-Assets.aspx

"The company told the stock exchange yesterday asset sales had already reduced the debt and the fund's current $29 million facility balance is forecast to further reduce to $17 million by month end"."

http://www.lmaustralia.com/Investme...s-Capital-Distributions-Soon-as-it-Updat.aspx

"According to a director’s report audited by Ernest & Young, since the fund was closed in 2009, the “Responsible Entity’s (LM) prime focus has been to see the repayment of all loans to create the cash flow required to effect the progressive repayment of the fund’s line of credit facility and to realise distribution of capital for investors.”"

IrishDan, could you please post a link to the so-called "testimonials"?
 
Hey Asick, I just searched the archives of the gold coast bulletin for that article you posted about LM avoiding a firesale and could find no reference to it being published. There is a PDf on the LM site that is on LM Letterhead and refers to GCB page 98.

I don't think it was published. I think it is doctored up to look as though it was an article to somehow give it credibility or to paint the picture that LM is an effective and responsible fund manager.

I believe it is there to mislead overseas investors. The article refers to "the company telling the Stock Exchange...."

Why would Drake tell the Stock exchange anything. LM is not listed

http://www.lmaustralia.com/Downloads/News/LM-strategies-avoid-fire-sale-gcb-24-11-12.pdf


Would anyone have a copy of the GC Bulletin from the 24th November to confirm my suspicions
 
I am not an investor in LM but have followed this thread with interest. In answer to your query re GCB articles, I do remember reading an article similar to the one on the LM website in last Saturday's 24th Nov GCB. I am not sure if it was exactly the same or a cut down version. From memory it was tucked away on a left hand page, could have been easily missed.
 
It's how things go in a damaged MIS.

Irishdan said:
This was in the NZ press

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/auditors-doubts-over-a344m-mortgage-funds-accounts-dw-133001
Click to expand...

IrishDan, you tempt me yet again with a spruik from the famour Philip Ashley Ryan aka the man who was found by the Supreme Court of Queensland to have breached a client's trust, and also known as the man who signs the PFMF's annual returns, each of which has contained a likewise statement. http://moneymagik.com/trilogy_more_on_ryan.php

Such as, "Material uncertainty regarding continuation as a going concern - Without qualification of the above opinion, we draw attention to note 3(I) to the consolidated financial report which indicates that the ability of the Group to continue as a going concern is dependent upon the Group realising sufficient cash funding from the repayment or refinancing of existing mortgage loans of the Group, to repay debt funding, provide funding for the ongoing business operations including the completion of security properties to enable realisation, recommence the payment of distributions and make periodic redemption offers and/or capital distributions to investors. Due to the matters set out in note 3(I), a material uncertainty exists which casts significant doubt about the Group’s ability to continue as a going concern and therefore whether it will realise its assets and extinguish its liabilities in the normal course of business and at the amounts stated in the consolidated financial report."
http://moneymagik.com/PFMF_return_jun_2010.pdf

But it didn't stop Trilogy drawing $16.6m in fees in the first three years (while returning only $0.08/unit to investors).

Even if another manager took over your fund, the auditor would still spruik the same qualification - after all, your fund is damaged.

This statement from Ryan is mind-numbing, "Trilogy managing director Philip Ryan says the accounts leave questions over the unit price's true value. "It's so speculative in a mortgage fund to turn around and say, we've actually got to complete this project to get the value but we don't know where we're going to get the money from.""

And I guess the boys at Trilogy'd know all about what constitutes an unsustainable unit price - after all, under Trilogy's management of the PFMF, the fund lost FIFTY-SIX percent in three years - unit price dropped $0.15/unit in the last TWELVE MONTHS!

Investors in LM schemes should get used to the auditor's remarks - such comments are standard spruik in damaged funds - just ask Philip Ashley Ryan about the Pacific First Mortgage Fund.

And how about Trilogy's Healthcare REIT? http://moneymagik.com/analysis_REIT.php
of Trilogy PMMMF? http://moneymagik.com/more_on_Trilogy_PMMMF.php

I wonder who signed those accounts? Could it have been Mr. Philip Ashley Ryan, the man who the Supreme Court of Queensland found had breached a client's trust? Well, he signed the Healthcare REIT's accounts (all full year accounts are available at the link) - and he signed all of the PFMF's.

If I was an investor in the LM FMIF, I wouldn't worry if the debt facility isn't renewed - it'd mean that the facility would be paid down first, and that, as far as I'm concerned, could only be a good thing. Something Trilogy didn't do in the PFMF, and now the CBA is pulling the strings in the PFMF anyway.

Have a look at the PFMF's returns and see the auditors remarks about a "going concern" in every one of them: http://www.moneymagik.com/general_information.php

Ah, Trilogy knows well.

PS. for a good read, read about the disappeared pollution (Pollution? What Pollution?), and Grande, What? See recent pics of the PFMF's asset at Wakerley. Trilogy's management is a real treat.
http://moneymagik.com/pollution_what_pollution.php
http://moneymagik.com/grande_what.php
http://moneymagik.com/wakerley_pictures_01_11_12.php
 
Trilogy - Spruiks & Disappointements

sorry - I forgot to add the following (in relation to speculative statements).

http://www.moneymagik.com/yardy_yardy_yah.php
http://www.moneymagik.com/litigation.php

Just in case anyone out there thinks that Trilogy isn't in the business of speculative statements (BIG TIME).

Now, I can understand Mr. Philip Ashley Ryan not wanting to talk about his breach of a client's trust, but I would have thought he'd have mentioned the PFMF's auditors' (yes, plural, good ol' BDO took over from KPMG - who I get the impression BalmainTrilogy didn't get along with) comments about "a going concern" in relation to the PFMF - heck, he might have mentioned a few of Trilogy's own spruiks and how so many of them had no "legs".

Again, notice the man from Trilogy in NZ - Philip Ashley Ryan.
http://www.moneymagik.com/trilogy1.php

Oh, did I tell you? Trilogy sued a dead man?
http://moneymagik.com/trathen_the_disappearing_man.php
 

Thanks for that.
 
LM are holding a teleconference tomorrow for advisers with clients who have exposure to LM First Mortgage income fund through BT Wrap. (I suspect a similar one will be held for other platforms as well)

Topics covered in this call will include:
• Recap on LM First Mortgage Income Fund Audited Financials;
• Deutsche Bank Facility;
• Timeframe expected before investors will receive a pro rata return on investment.

If you hold investments in the fund through BT, Asgard, Macquarie or Colonial First State or any other platform for that matter it is likely your adviser has been asked to attend one of these teleconferences.

If you have invested in LM through an overseas platform (eg Onepath in NZ) I would check with your adviser whether a similar conference call has been planned.

I will attend and report on this forum following the end of the teleconference
 
Trilogy Offers "Woodgrove" in One Line

IrishDan, words are cheap, it's actions that count - and speaking of words and actions, after nearly three and a half years of spruiking and making fees for themselves and the receivers (PKF, now part of the fund's auditor, BDO), Trilogy is offering "Woodgrove" at Wakerley (a PFMF fund asset) for "in one line" sale via an EOI campaign.

http://moneymagik.com/moss_road_information_memorandum.pdf

Andrew Griffin (of BT) defined a fire sale at Martha Cove in April 2011:
http://www.moneymagik.com/fire_sale_defined.mp3

Griffin also made the following comments at a PFMF Information Session:
"... sold as is, akin to a fire sale"
"We will complete developments to enable the sale of completed product rather than seling assets to developers for them to make their development profits from your fund"
http://pfmf.com.au/watch.aspx?id=31

Now, the remainder of "Woodgrove" is offered "as is" (akin to a fire sale), "all in one line" (being defined as a fire sale), and being offered for sale "to developers for them to make their development profits".

As it unfolds:
http://www.moneymagik.com/
http://moneymagik.com/wakerley_2_sep_2009.php
http://moneymagik.com/wakerley_1_may_2010.php
http://moneymagik.com/wakerley_pictures_01_11_12.php
 
Irishdan You are exactly correct in your recent post. I to am aware of the LM hook up for Friday 14th.

Through my Platform Management I have requested that they ask about these two issues of concern.
First is the Unit Price @ 0.59C this needs much more detailed explanation.

Heaven knows the missing RG45 may even appear tomorrow, and perhaps the promised BIS Shrapnel reports soon after? Remember all that reading we were promised before Trilogy put their hand up, (opp's sorry somebody put them up)?

The second issue is that LM say that they may be able to make Capital Distributions in the near future, while this is important, also of importance is the missing 8 x Monthly Distributions for May 2010 to Dec 2010

Yes it was really 2010!!

These were promised by LM and claimed to be accounted for in the books that were signed of in previous years, so if by some miracle LM has some cash they should address this issue first, as small pittance to long suffering Investors!!

ASICK don't fret about Trilogy lying quite, I am sure there still there and are clearly very much after the other feeder funds, and the FMIF. My guess is that what LM has said about having investors being tied to them, when push comes to shove in 2013 LM may find they are very wrong about the support they actually have.
 

Re: [A]: Ah! The unit price - the meaningless value - what does it really matter? If it was $0.30/unit? or $0.80/unit? Does anyone out there seriously believe that it matters? I think the unit price is a load of nonsense, because it's a value that cannot be transacted upon by members of the fund. The manager's the only one who gets REAL value in the form of a management fee calculated from value assessments - but punters, nah! it doesn't matter.

It's all "feel good" - look! $0.59/unit - wow! sleep well tonight. But the reality is that is that it doesn't matter. What matters is how much you get back, and my guess is $0.59/unit will fade into the mists of time. I haven't seen one single fund hold it's value once assets start to hit the market - and I'd be surprised if LM is any different.

Let's hope you don't see images like these in three years time:
http://www.moneymagik.com/wakerley_7.jpg
http://www.moneymagik.com/wakerley_8.jpg
http://www.moneymagik.com/wakerley_9.jpg

Take a look at the rolled-over loans and the tens of millions in accruals - lucky it's Xmas - "Oh what fun"! Crickey, LM even made $$$$ ($112k) on rolling over the loans - not bad, make loans which go bad and then profit - also make millions ($4.8m) by way of taking over the receiverships on those same loans. There you go, reward for failure. I'm bemused by the statement in relation to the $4.8m "receivership" fees that "These fees are charged directly to the borrowers to facilitate possible future recovery" - ho hum - now, that's an optimistic view given the sad state of the loans, but maybe there's some out there who take such statements seriously.

It seems to me that many investors still haven't cottoned-on to the fact that the management fee provides for no more than mere management - everything else comes at a cost - EVERYTHING!

(as an aside, I'm quite surprised by the enormous legal costs borne by the fund over the past two years - 2012, $523k and 2011, $407k - also by the auditor 2012, $560k and 2011, $416k)

Re: : Interest distributions? Pray tell, where from? I wonder why you feel the "8 x monthly distributions" are important (with fund value = $0.59/unit)? Lay back, relax - don't think too much - don't think about the legal costs, receivership fees, management fees, auditors fees .. etc .. etc .. etc .. (said like Yul Brenner in "The King & I").

Trilogy took a $630m fund and ... well, you know .. $0.0875/unit returned ... etc .. etc .. etc ..

Forget about income distributions, and forget about capital distributions, there's nothing you can do - which ever the manager - forget the unit price - just hold your hand out and hope for some of your capital back.

Interestingly "Kostag" spoke to these issues on the "Equititrust" thread - I think he's right on all points. It's a hopeless situation.

Dear Rodent, 'fret'? fear not - I do not fret, I merely jest. Janus is said to be the God of beginnings & transition, and Janus-like figures adorn many a gate or door - However, I struggle to see any Janus-like visage wafting in the aura surrounding LM's funds - the visage I see at the beginning resembles the one I see in transition - while the earthly beings surely cannot be the same, my vision of the fund's future discloses the outcome for investors will be very much the same - to me, it seems there is no benefit to have one, and there is no benefit to have the other.

Trilogy have drawn about $17m in fees in over three years, and have only returned $0.0875/unit in that time. If you think Trilogy's performance has been good down at "Woodgrove" or at "Grande Pacific", then you'll just love what they're capable of doing with your fund.
http://moneymagik.com/wakerley_2_sep_2009.php
http://moneymagik.com/grande_what.php

Geez, you'll be lucky if you get some disappearing pollution:
http://moneymagik.com/pollution_what_pollution.php

And there'll probably be spruiks about litigation:
http://www.moneymagik.com/litigation.php

And there'll probably be spruiks about capital repayments:
http://www.moneymagik.com/yardy_yardy_yah.php

But fear yea not, I'll enjoy keeping a watchful eye on Trilogy's performance in your fund (if they take it over) - yes, and I do look forward to saying that I told you so - I enjoy being right.
 
ASICK I really do find the way you write to be most enjoyable, even funny at times, even when the issue is serious. I certainly cant hope to be as amusing

I was not saying the Unit price of 0.59c was either, good, bad or anything else, I agree as a number its almost pointless UNLESS you are on a Centrelink Age Pension where all these Frozen Assets are still counted as Assets, in the Asset Test, irrespective of whether they are earning money or not. The 0.59c multiplied by Units held equals the Asset Value counted by Centrelink - so as specific number its very important.

Yes I know full well its meaningless in relation to what we will eventually receive back from LM, if ever? As an age pensioner the lower LM Unit price the better for me, at the moment.

Of course you are right about why my concerns re the missing Distributions when so many other $ are going west. To my simple mind its a matter of principle and goes to the heart of LM's total lack of credibility, and transparency on that simple issue, (and many others). They said they had the money and would pay. When challenged often they did not actually have the money, but continued to say they would pay. I am just trying again to remind them.

Re Trilogy and lying low, your yawn comment #271

Just trying to say that LM should not sit back and assume they have investors on side, my informed sources clearly are indicating the Trilogy will get control of the the feeder funds and the Main fund in early 2013.

Nobody with an LM investment likes any of this. Most of us would not have wanted Trilogy, however several important Institutional Investors with bulk $ ie votes supported Trilogy, in the informed belief, after doing both internal and external due diligence on Trilogy and its people, that Trilogy will actually get the numbers to gain full control of the main and feeder funds.

I am reliably informed that LM was given multiple chances to review its fee structure and improve its transparency to the Platforms, they never did, and only ever reacted to reduce its fees when forced to do so by Trilogy being involved.
 

Rodent, well, I couldn't imagine that LM would be sitting back assuming anything - I think they've had one hell of shock. I note you speak to the lack of stated distributions as going to the "heart of LM's total lack of credibility, and transparency on that simple issue" - you seem to have some sensitivity on what you regard as a simple issue.

However, you don't seem too bothered that in August 2010, Trilogy (as RE of the PFMF) represented a target of $295m to be returned by October 2012 and failed miserably in its efforts. In fact, as late as August 2011, Trilogy still spruiked the $295m. The spruik was $0.33/unit returned by October 2012 with Martha Cove remaining (about $0.10/unit), resulting in a total value of $0.43/unit.

As at 30 June 2012, Trilogy had returned only $0.08/unit with about $0.13/unit remaining in the fund. That's a total of $0.21/unit - a loss of $0.21/unit - that's a 50% loss on the spruik. Now, Trilogy released a fund update, the 2012 return, an accompanying letter, and the fund's RG45, and believe it or not, every document is completely silent to the $295m.

What do you think about that? Have you formed a view about Trilogy's credibility and transparency on which might be regarded as quite an important issue - Trilogy didn't spruik a mere few months of distributions, Trilogy spruiked $295m + $89m - yipes!

Then there's the litigation - I know I've been over this ground many times before - but after spruiking more than $300m on 1 September 2010, the final claim lodged in April 2012 was for $60m - but there's only $20m in insurance to cover it (and that's if there is insurance).

So, you're looking for credibility and transparency, and you choose Trilogy? I guess it's true, we can see anything if we choose to close our eyes to reality.

Then there's the matter of the unit price down at Centrelink - as a pensioner, that's important to you, but how do you know that Trilogy will reduce the unit price? and even if they do, how long would it take?

Did you look at the links to "Grande Pacific", "Woodgrove", and the disappearing pollution? Do any of these strike you as an ernest effort by Trilogy to repay investors' capital? Did you see the loss at The Entrance? More than 74% of value in just SIX weeks!

I understand the helplessness you guys feel with LM - and I'm with you, LM should go - but do you really think, that with Trilogy's track record in the PFMF, Heathcare REIT, and PMMMF, that Trilogy would be a better performer in the LM FMIF than LM?

Trilogy issued $3.555m units at $1.00 in 2009 when the current value for a unit as at 30 June 2008 was only $0.63 - that's an immediate loss of $0.37/unit for every one of those units. Is this the manager you think has a better record of transparency and credibility? http://moneymagik.com/analysis_REIT.php

How about Trilogy's PMMMF? http://moneymagik.com/more_on_Trilogy_PMMMF.php Maybe the investors in the Healthcare REIT figured that about the losses in the PMMMF (if they knew about them), and maybe that's what the steering group thought about the losses in Trilogy's Healthcare REIT (if they knew about them), but ... it didn't help investors in the PFMF - about 56% of value lost since Trilogy took over the PFMF, and I reckon there's much more to come.

I guess you guys must figure that what's happening to you is caused by LM, and what Triogy did happened to others - so, it'll be different to you, right? Well, good luck on that one.

To take on Trilogy, in my opinion, you have to keep your eyes wide open when assessing LM, and keep your eyes wide shut when assessing Trilogy - then it'll be all right, but ..
 
Trilogy Comes Calling: Been There - Done That!

I've seen it all before:

http://www.balmaintrilogy.com.au/pdf/bti3751_stop_the_rot.pdf

Trilogy said (of City Pacific Limited),
"City Pacific Limited (CP) must be removed as manager of your investment in the City Pacific First Mortgage Fund.
Why?
• Your distributions are frozen
• They are telling you very little about the state of your investment
• They have lent money to related companies which has not been repaid
• According to their auditor there is a material uncertainty regarding continuation of City Pacific Limited as a going concern
• Up until now CP have continued to charge significant fees for acting as Responsible Entity
• They are seriously conflicted."

Were distributions frozen? Yes - after a number of seriously negative articles by Michael West (SMH), investment in the fund dried up while a substantial number of existing investors sought redemption from the fund. Of course, Trilogy did not speak to the negative market sentiment about the fund, nor did it speak to the affect on the value of the fund's assets borne by the GFC - Bacon admitted to a fund member that fund's major asset, "Martha Cove", was unfortunately "hit" by the GFC : http://www.moneymagik.com/bacon_visionary_asset.mp3
Did City Pacific tell us much about the state of investments? No
Was money lent to related companies which had not been repaid? Yes - but money lent to non-related parties was also not repaid - such was the market at that time. It's interesting to note the number of City Pacific related entity loans which remain in the fund today - Bacon said that Martha Cove was a "visionary" asset:
http://www.moneymagik.com/bacon_visionary_asset.mp3
Was there a material uncertainty about the fund being a going concern? Yes - of course, once the fund suffered certain impairments, that was the case, and unless the fund regained value, it would continue to be the case. Of course Trilogy has not criticized itself for the fund continuing to remain with such an uncertainty.
Did CP charge signficant fees? Yes. CP made a big mistake by not dropping its fees to match Trilogy. I'm of the view that if CP had dropped its fees, Trilogy would not have gained management of the (then) CPFMF.
Was CP seriously conflicted? I find that question difficult to answer - even to this day there is no concluded proceedings which answers this question in the affirmative.

Trilogy said (of themselves),
"If BalmainTRILOGY is appointed as the new manager of
Your Fund you will have a manager:
• committed to restarting distributions as soon as possible and rebuilding the fund
• committed to recovering your money and not presiding over a firesale
• who does not have any conflicts of interest
• committed to providing you full and frank information on the state of your investment
• committed to slashing fees"

Definitions:
A fire sale - selling assets in-one-line to a developer (Investor Sessions)
http://www.moneymagik.com/fire_sale_defined.mp3
Akin to a fire sale - selling unimproved/unfinished assets (Investor Sessions)
http://pfmf.com.au/watch.aspx?id=31
The fund was valued at $630m (about $0.71/unit) [about 887m units on issue]
http://www.balmaintrilogy.com.au/pdf/BRW_Aug20.pdf

Were distributions started? No.
Was the fund rebuilt? No.
Were investments recovered? As at 30 June 2012, $0.08/unit recovered, spruiked value remaining $0.13/unit.
Were fire sales conducted? Using the above definitions, make your own mind up:
http://moneymagik.com/martha_cove_ad.php
http://moneymagik.com/the_entrance_in_one_line.php [over 74% loss in just six weeks]
http://moneymagik.com/wakerley_2_sep_2009.php
Were there conflicts of interests? There is a matter before the FOS on this issue at this time.
Also, there's PSA (which resides/resided at the same address as BT): http://moneymagik.com/PSA.php
and AMAL in which Balmain (of BT) is a major shareholder : http://moneymagik.com/amal.php
Was full and frank disclosure made in relation to investments made? I'd guess that'd depend on what one settles on as the definition for "full and frank disclosure" - personally, I think Trilogy fell way short - others might think differently.
No disclosure about NIL sales in over three years at "Grande Pacific" : http://moneymagik.com/grande_what.php
No disclosure about Wakerley being a mess : http://moneymagik.com/wakerley_pictures_01_11_12.php
No disclosure about more than 74% loss in six weeks at The Entrance : http://moneymagik.com/the_entrance_in_one_line.php
Representations of pollution at Braeside when there wasn't any : http://moneymagik.com/pollution_what_pollution.php
Were fees cut? Yes. However, I'd question whether the cut in fees (in itself) has been of value to fund members since the value of the fund fell by at least 56% under Trilogy's management.

Yesterday I noted in my previous post that Trilogy didn't mention the spuriked $295m in any document since August 2011 - this is what Bacon told a fund member earlier this month:
http://www.moneymagik.com/295_gone_and_thats_that.mp3
This is what Griffin said in April 2011 at the Martha Cove Information Session:
http://www.moneymagik.com/MCIS_re_295.mp3

So, how did things turn out?

1. No distributions.
2. $0.0875/unit distributed after nearly three and a half years.
3. A $60m claim which, at best, has potential of only $20m
4. Major assets rendering up fees to Trilogy at members' expense ("Grande Pacific", "Carrara", "Woodgrove", "Martha Cove", and "River Views Industrial Estate")
5. Substanitally unmet targets:
http://www.moneymagik.com/yardy_yardy_yah.php
http://www.moneymagik.com/litigation.php
6. An asset review which proved to be a waste of time.
7. A legal review that proved to be a waste of time.
8. Work parcelled out to benefit a related entity of Balmain:
http://moneymagik.com/amal.php
9. A material uncertainty continues to exist about the PFMF being a "going concern".
10. Trilogy's fees = $17m, returns to investors = $77.6m, value remaining (estimated) = $98m
11. Overall loss from 1 July 2009 (as revalued by Trilogy) to 30 June 2012 = 56%

In the LM funds, regardless of the manager, IMO:

1. There will be NO distributions (of profit/income)
2. Material uncertainty WILL remain as to the fund being a going concern.
3. Distributions of Capital will be SLOW.
4. Any legal review WILL be a waste of time and money.
5. Any asset review WILL be a waste of time and money.
6. Related entities WILL engage in one form or another.
7. Unit price will largely be determined by the market.
8. Full and Frank disclosure will be no more than a "pipe dream".
9. There'll be more than a pretty penny to be made by many a party (but, not investors).

In the LM funds, if Trilogy becomes manager, IMO:

1. Items 1 - 9 above
2. There's always LM to blame.
3. There's a chance that the LM funds will fall in line behind the PFMF:
http://moneymagik.com/three_part_trilogy_funds_management_tragedy.php

With LM, members have the continum of blame - with Trilogy, that doesn't change. Do you see it? the more things change, the more they seem to stay the same?
 
Teleconference was a non event.

Drake didn't front, but the other directors and some former directors(who are now consulting to LM) were there.

There was some discussion about the unit price and whether they saw any further deterioration. They are actually due to be revalued now (December) for the 6monthly update so in theory we should know by March

Refinanced with DBcapped at 25m ( they currently owe 29.5m) and will be fixed for 2.5years

When asked about interest rate, despite falling rates they said it will still be in the order of 14 -15%.!!!

RG45 will be released in Early January

BIS SCHrapnel report will be released at same time(they are waiting on one piece of info apparently)

2x income catch up payments will happen shortly and will advise in early January about capital distributions schedule but said first capital distribution will be in March


They expect the sales programme to take 3 years!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MA1 - MA Credit Income Trust
Replies
3
Views
588
Dona Ferentes
US Election 2024 : Stock and Economic Comment
7 8 9
Replies
171
Views
11K
divs4ever
M
WEF corrupts countries
Replies
6
Views
414
SirRumpole
M
Cooling Australian Property Market Signals Economic Trends
Replies
1
Views
1K
Joe Blow
Automatic Investment Management Redux
Replies
5
Views
2K
wayneL
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...