Trilogy: A Perspective Gained From Experience
Hi Guys,
as an investor in the long frozen LM CPAIF I was stirred by your recommendations for Georgiannawadi to take legal advice. Although a first time poster, I have been following your thread with great interest since the early days and found it very informative, even if a bit soul destroying. I do appreciate the time and effort that you guys have been putting into research and making posts. ASICK has obviously had a long and bitter experience with a similar bunch of charatans, which I'd like to avoid if possible.
Some of the earlier posts referred to Piper-Alderman and their potential Class Action, plus another mention of Selbourne Chambers as possible barristers. I have contacted both of these firms, but cannot see very much happening so far. Do any of the other thread readers know what the current status is regarding any sort of possible legal action? I provided some details requested by Piper-Alderman but their wheels of justice are grinding far too slowly. Are there other law firms out there doing anything or making any progress at all?
With my fund now having only a provisioned unit value of 59 cents, and reducing rapidly, I am looking for any alternatives to recouping some of my losses. (Or LM's losses on my behalf, thankyou.) My confidence in LM ran out long ago, but from the financial details you have been digging up it's clear that their mismanagement of the funds is much more than just a bit of bad luck due to the GFC, or whatever else they try to blame on the market values. The threat from Trilogy eventually squeezed some action out of LM regarding their fees, and I'm convinced that more pressure to clear up their mess must be brought upon them from whatever source available.
Any ideas?
Hi Loiner, I'm pleased to see yet another fund member join the forum. While it's fine for outsiders like myself to post, it's fund members' money at risk, and in the end, their decision about what's to be done about how the fund is managed.
Members of the PFMF had a choice back in 2009 and, by a slight majority, Trilogy was voted in as manager. City Pacific Limited (the then manager) had a choice too, and it chose not to lower its fees and speak openly to investors - that was a big mistake for City Pacific, and I think, in the end, it caused investors to make a bad decision by voting in Trilogy - a very bad decision indeed.
Investors in LM's funds are in no different a position, except that LM (as you rightly point out) had made substantial movement in the right direction by giving up the idiotic "asset split" proposition, undertaking to wind up the fund, and reduction of its fee. From my experience, I think it's better to keep the "devil" you know, and more importantly, it's important to keep the one you know you can blame for things going wrong.
I'm sure you'll note how Trilogy tries to undermine LM at every turn, re: the accounts, and re: the Cairns assets. Yet, as manager of the PFMF, Trilogy has resided over massive (actually, MASSIVE) fund losses.
It seems LM has fared much better with the LM FMIF than Trilogy has with the PFMF:
http://www.moneymagik.com/general_information.php
(see the table headed "The PFMF is Going Down")
One might say, "Well I don't trust LM's figures", well I would say, "Take a look at Trilogy's figures in the PFMF".
I wouldn't hold out too much hope for recovery by way of litigation - first there's got to be a course of action, and that's a lot more difficult to find that one might think. On face value, members think that losses (per se) are recoverable because they're losses - but the manager isn't obligated to make a profit - ASIC also isn't bothered about mere loss, even the loss of all of one's investment (ASIC is not a prudential regulator), unless of course, such loss is caused by fraud or by non-compliance.
So, I wouldn't be getting too excited about a meddling "ambulance chaser" in circumstances where there's no evidence to support a course of action.
Litigation had been held out as a carrot for members of the PFMF:
http://www.moneymagik.com/litigation.php
IMF (a litigation funder) funded public examinations of a number of former City Pacific directors (and others) in the Supreme Court (NSW) tp tune of $2m, yet did not fund the current proceeds against a number of former City Pacific directors in the Federal Court - one has to ask the very serious question "Why?" - the claim was for $60m, yet there's only $20m in insurance available (that's if there is insurance) - my guess is that there isn't, otherwise IMF would have been in there "boots and all" to gain 26% of that $20m - but it didn't. Still, many members of the PFMF hold out hope of recovery thru litigation (I'm not one of them).
Members in damaged funds are vulnerable - many are still suffering from shock - I'm bet there are many out there still coming to the grips with the reality that it hasn't just happened to others, it's happened to themselves. IN what other circumstances could an entity with Trilogy's history be even considered as an alternative manager?
Try and get a successful manager with a really good management history to take over the fund and see how difficult it is - it's bloody hard - for them, it's not about the money - why? because they're concerned about how the losses in the fund would impact on their reputations.
In my view, if Trilogy performed in the LM as it has in the PFMF, your fund will be decimated, and there will be nothing you'll be able to do about it. Trilogy would rake in the fees and you'd be watching your unit price plummet - and the blame would be either the market or LM.
Trilogy has never disclosed the sale price of even one PFMF fund asset - not one. Neither has Trilogy disclosed the value of loss suffered by the fund on any one asset as a result of a sale. I think you'd all be deluding yourselves to think that Trilogy would bring on a new age of transparency.
You say that I've had a "long and better experience" - yes, I have, and believe me when I tell you, I would really hate to see you guys suffer likewise. "Blind Freddy" could see that if I was pleased (or even slighly displeased) with Trilogy that I wouldn't waste my time with this stuff, but it's much much worse than that. Even at just 1.62% management fee (including fund expenses), $17m went to Trilogy and about $80m to investors - out of a fund valued at $630m by City Pacific when Trilogy took over in July 2009.
How do you think you'd feel if you'd found out that not one unit in a Broadwater highrise had been sold in over three years since Trilogy took the fund?
http://moneymagik.com/grande_what.php
How do you think you'd feel if you visited a fund asset after over three years with Trilogy as manager and found this?
http://moneymagik.com/wakerley_pictures_01_11_12.php
How do you think you'd feel if you were told in 2011 that a site was "fairly heavily" polluted and then told in 2012 there was none?
http://moneymagik.com/pollution_what_pollution.php
I could go on, it's all been posted before.
In the end it will be your membership's collective decision, but don't ever think that things can't get worse than having LM as manager - even if you don't think so, it really is possible to "cut off your nose to spite your face" (so to speak) - I continue to say, "be careful, you might get what you wish for".
If you appoint Trilogy and suffer in your fund as we have in the PFMF, then you'll look back at these postings and I guarantee that you'll see them in an altogether different light, and there'll be nothing you can do about it. Then you'll know what a "long and bitter experience" really feels like.
(
http://www.moneymagik.com/yardy_yardy_yah.php)