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
ASICK I am reliably informed this morning, that Trilogy is looking very closely at the issue of this Distribution reinvestment, or whatever it really was.
This action was taken by LM as an in house decision, and it was before Trilogy became RE.
Question could it happen again this Year now that Trilogy is RE of the WFMIF Answer I cant see why not- what is your view. I am looking at all the PDS info and Constitution re payment of Distributions. I seem to remember seeing something that said Distributions must be paid, and nothing about Reinvestment, or what they call their 'arguable position" and I think something similar happened last FY? will check that also
This action was taken by LM as an in house decision, and it was before Trilogy became RE.
Question could it happen again this Year now that Trilogy is RE of the WFMIF Answer I cant see why not- what is your view. I am looking at all the PDS info and Constitution re payment of Distributions. I seem to remember seeing something that said Distributions must be paid, and nothing about Reinvestment, or what they call their 'arguable position" and I think something similar happened last FY? will check that also
The Numbers Simply Don't Crunch
http://www.moneymagik.com/LMFMIF_at_a_glance.jpg
I've now amended the graphic to include both LM's disclosed figures and what I think they should be.
My reasoning:
Class B (feeder funds) total interests on page 22 was 224.86m units.
There were a total of 488.79m units on issue as at 30 June 2012 with $288.98m total equity.
Unit price is therefore ($288.98m / 488.79m) = $0.59
So, the total equity for the feeder funds would be 224.86 m * $0.59 = $132.66m
but that didn't reconcile with the fund total equity (page 31) of $166.33m
I wondered what was happening, so when I worked back each of the values from page 31, I noticed that 100% was about $353m (eg. the total, $166.33m is about 47.07% of $353m, not the $288.98m as disclosed as the 100% (net assets attributable to unit holders)).
If a feeder fund manager mulitplied the number of units invested by the fund into the LMFMIF, the result would not align with the value as disclosed on page 31. That might lead the fund manager to conclude there's a problem with the number of unit held by its fund - especially if that fund manager was a new manager of that fund and the registry was confusing.
I'm quite sure that LM"s annual return for 2012 is defective with regard to the disclosed equity for the feeder funds on page 31 of the return. I don't know how LM will correct this, or whether it's necessary to make any corrections, but I would have thought it should be corrected.
Just my opinion.
http://www.moneymagik.com/LMFMIF_at_a_glance.jpg
I've now amended the graphic to include both LM's disclosed figures and what I think they should be.
My reasoning:
Class B (feeder funds) total interests on page 22 was 224.86m units.
There were a total of 488.79m units on issue as at 30 June 2012 with $288.98m total equity.
Unit price is therefore ($288.98m / 488.79m) = $0.59
So, the total equity for the feeder funds would be 224.86 m * $0.59 = $132.66m
but that didn't reconcile with the fund total equity (page 31) of $166.33m
I wondered what was happening, so when I worked back each of the values from page 31, I noticed that 100% was about $353m (eg. the total, $166.33m is about 47.07% of $353m, not the $288.98m as disclosed as the 100% (net assets attributable to unit holders)).
If a feeder fund manager mulitplied the number of units invested by the fund into the LMFMIF, the result would not align with the value as disclosed on page 31. That might lead the fund manager to conclude there's a problem with the number of unit held by its fund - especially if that fund manager was a new manager of that fund and the registry was confusing.
I'm quite sure that LM"s annual return for 2012 is defective with regard to the disclosed equity for the feeder funds on page 31 of the return. I don't know how LM will correct this, or whether it's necessary to make any corrections, but I would have thought it should be corrected.
Just my opinion.
Distributions & Reinvestments
If I was Trilogy, I'd be doing likewise. Yes, the decisions were made prior to Trilogy: it's all disclosed in the 30 June 2012 return.
But the arguable position was not about reinvesting the money, it was about making the distribution in the first place, and it's a matter that class A and class C investors should get some advice on - after all, Class B (the feeder funds) seem to have got a leg up on that one (as I see it).
However, if the arguable position LM has in regard to the $17m distribution to Class B members is not tested by Trilogy (or Class A & C members, or indeed by LM itself), then Trilogy is free to test the reinvestment.
By way of argument only : even if the $17m distribution was found to be illegal (I'm not suggesting it is, in fact, illegal), it still might be the case that the distribution might not be able to be reversed. Then Class A & C members could seek to recover any losses from LM itself for beach of Corporations Act s. 601FC(1).
These are cases that ASIC should test, after all, it's unlikely investors would have the resources to do so.
What raised my eyelid about the Class B reinvestment was the fact that LM ceased doing likewise for members in Classes A & C - that's something I'm sure Trilogy is looking into.
In the end, it's the ones with the resources that'll get into a stouch if they need too: "Punch, Weave, Duck"
ASICK I am reliably informed this morning, that Trilogy is looking very closely at the issue of this Distribution reinvestment, or whatever it really was.
This action was taken by LM as an in house decision, and it was before Trilogy became RE.
Question could it happen again this Year now that Trilogy is RE of the WFMIF Answer I cant see why not- what is your view. I am looking at all the PDS info and Constitution re payment of Distributions. I seem to remember seeing something that said Distributions must be paid, and nothing about Reinvestment, or what they call their 'arguable position" and I think something similar happened last FY? will check that also
If I was Trilogy, I'd be doing likewise. Yes, the decisions were made prior to Trilogy: it's all disclosed in the 30 June 2012 return.
But the arguable position was not about reinvesting the money, it was about making the distribution in the first place, and it's a matter that class A and class C investors should get some advice on - after all, Class B (the feeder funds) seem to have got a leg up on that one (as I see it).
However, if the arguable position LM has in regard to the $17m distribution to Class B members is not tested by Trilogy (or Class A & C members, or indeed by LM itself), then Trilogy is free to test the reinvestment.
By way of argument only : even if the $17m distribution was found to be illegal (I'm not suggesting it is, in fact, illegal), it still might be the case that the distribution might not be able to be reversed. Then Class A & C members could seek to recover any losses from LM itself for beach of Corporations Act s. 601FC(1).
These are cases that ASIC should test, after all, it's unlikely investors would have the resources to do so.
What raised my eyelid about the Class B reinvestment was the fact that LM ceased doing likewise for members in Classes A & C - that's something I'm sure Trilogy is looking into.
In the end, it's the ones with the resources that'll get into a stouch if they need too: "Punch, Weave, Duck"
Distiribution / Reinvestment
I think they won't be able to make such distributions because the fund is effectively in wind-up. If they did make such a distribution then it would never be reinvested.
As I see it, the payment was made to ensure the feeder funds could pay their way, but it also shifted a sway of equity away from Class A & C members (direct investors in AUD & NZ currencies) to Class B members (feeder funds). IMO, the state of the feeder funds is not the responsibilty of the FMIF and such payments should not be made to the feeder funds on any other basis that pro-rata with all other unit holders (according to their respective unitholdings).
[keeping in mind that the $17m distribution and $16m reivestment relates to ALL feeder funds, not just the Wholesale fund]
ASICK I am reliably informed this morning, that Trilogy is looking very closely at the issue of this Distribution reinvestment, or whatever it really was.
This action was taken by LM as an in house decision, and it was before Trilogy became RE.
Question could it happen again this Year now that Trilogy is RE of the WFMIF Answer I cant see why not- what is your view. I am looking at all the PDS info and Constitution re payment of Distributions. I seem to remember seeing something that said Distributions must be paid, and nothing about Reinvestment, or what they call their 'arguable position" and I think something similar happened last FY? will check that also
I think they won't be able to make such distributions because the fund is effectively in wind-up. If they did make such a distribution then it would never be reinvested.
As I see it, the payment was made to ensure the feeder funds could pay their way, but it also shifted a sway of equity away from Class A & C members (direct investors in AUD & NZ currencies) to Class B members (feeder funds). IMO, the state of the feeder funds is not the responsibilty of the FMIF and such payments should not be made to the feeder funds on any other basis that pro-rata with all other unit holders (according to their respective unitholdings).
[keeping in mind that the $17m distribution and $16m reivestment relates to ALL feeder funds, not just the Wholesale fund]
Unreliable Crystal Balls?
http://www.lmaustralia.com/Investme...trategies-Avoid-Fire-Sale-of-Fund-Assets.aspx
(published 24 November 2012)
"GOLD Coast based LM Investment Management expects debts of its LM Mortgage Fund to fall to $17 million within days and has forecast that capital distributions will occur soon.
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."
Seems LM is struggling to forecast even one week ahead - five weeks later the facility still wasn't paid down:-
"As at December 2012 the amount owing to DB has been reduced to the drawn amount of approximately $29.4m." (LM FMIF RG45 December 2012)
"The funds manager said the sale of assets of the fund, which closed in 2009, was continuing and the price of units had been revised to 59 as at November 16.", yep, and all LM had to do was push LVRs to 100%.
http://www.lmaustralia.com/Investme...trategies-Avoid-Fire-Sale-of-Fund-Assets.aspx
(published 24 November 2012)
"GOLD Coast based LM Investment Management expects debts of its LM Mortgage Fund to fall to $17 million within days and has forecast that capital distributions will occur soon.
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."
Seems LM is struggling to forecast even one week ahead - five weeks later the facility still wasn't paid down:-
"As at December 2012 the amount owing to DB has been reduced to the drawn amount of approximately $29.4m." (LM FMIF RG45 December 2012)
"The funds manager said the sale of assets of the fund, which closed in 2009, was continuing and the price of units had been revised to 59 as at November 16.", yep, and all LM had to do was push LVRs to 100%.
"Theme Park Ride"
www.moneymagik.com/ was down until this morning due to admin changes.
I've updated the front page in relation to Trilogy's latest efforts re: PFMF asset at Martha Cove.
You guys are just stepping on your "theme park ride", I get the impression our horrifying ride is about to come to a griding halt - with SFA back to investors. So far from $630m, only $0.0875/unit with only $0.0075/unit in the last seven months.
Listen to what both BT and Trilogy said about how they'd manage the assets, see the reality.
Take a read of the Equititrust thread on ASF - the EIF's forecast is down to as low at $0.11/unit (down from $0.15/unit last november).
Read the EIF receiver's reports at http://www.equititrust.com.au
www.moneymagik.com/ was down until this morning due to admin changes.
I've updated the front page in relation to Trilogy's latest efforts re: PFMF asset at Martha Cove.
You guys are just stepping on your "theme park ride", I get the impression our horrifying ride is about to come to a griding halt - with SFA back to investors. So far from $630m, only $0.0875/unit with only $0.0075/unit in the last seven months.
Listen to what both BT and Trilogy said about how they'd manage the assets, see the reality.
Take a read of the Equititrust thread on ASF - the EIF's forecast is down to as low at $0.11/unit (down from $0.15/unit last november).
Read the EIF receiver's reports at http://www.equititrust.com.au
A Bloody Disaster
My, what a difference a few months makes:-
15 November 2012 - Trilogy's and Balmain Trilogy's "Fund Update & Asset Schedule"
http://www.balmaintrilogy.com.au/pdf/BTI 5125 Asset Review Letter.pdf
"As such, we have embarked on a targeted realisation program focusing on the various precincts. This approach aims to avoid saturating the local market by undertaking a staggered asset release. We will keep you informed of this process as it unfolds in the coming months."
Rodger Bacon (of Trilogy Funds Management Limited and Balmain Trilogy Investment Management Pty. Ltd.) told an investor: http://www.moneymagik.com/bacon_mc_wak_1.mp3
and then, just one month into 2013:
"MUST BE SOLD"
http://www.moneymagik.com/martha_cove_must_be_sold.jpg
It's worthwhile to recall what Andrew Griffin said at the investor meetings:
"Andrew Griffin, "So I guess we now come to the final part which is the future of your fund. There are only limited strategies available in relation to the assets of your fund. Leaving aside Martha Cove for a moment, in respect of the other remaining assets of the fund, they can either be sold as is, which is akin to a fire sale, which we've undertaken not to, or they can be improved in value, by us, to the maximum extent possible prior to a sale to an investor or a developer. I've already discussed the types of work we do to maximize value, but let me summarise again by saying that we will improve these assets right up to the point where an investor or developer will pay the maximum possible price for each asset which returns the greatest capital value to you, the investor. Specifically, we will procure valuable rezoning or development approvals prior to the sale of vacant unimproved vacant land. We will complete developments to enable the sale of completed product rather than selling assets to developers for them to make their development profits from your fund. And finally, once complete, we will sell the finished stock to individual owners occupiers and investors to try and maximize returns to unitholders. Perhaps this slide will explain a little better what we're doing. We are taking the current assets of the fund and trying to improve them to the greatest extent possible before development would commence on the site. We are not taking them beyond that level, but as soon as we've managed to increase the value from .. rezoning or development consent. Once we've maximized the value, we will then sell the site to the open market. We are of the firm view that this is the best strategy in respect of these assets to recover the greatest value for you while minimizing additional expenses""
Now, Martha Cove, a fund asset that's lost about $109m (or 70% of its value when Trilogy took over the fund) "MUST BE SOLD" - down from about $156m to about $47m - Trilogy made about $7.5m in management fees (up to 31 December 2012) on this one asset alone, BDO (as receiver) also did well - but punters, nope .. a bloody disaster.
http://www.moneymagik.com/
I'll bet you guys are hoping that your "Maddison" is not your version of our "Martha Cove", right?
My, what a difference a few months makes:-
15 November 2012 - Trilogy's and Balmain Trilogy's "Fund Update & Asset Schedule"
http://www.balmaintrilogy.com.au/pdf/BTI 5125 Asset Review Letter.pdf
"As such, we have embarked on a targeted realisation program focusing on the various precincts. This approach aims to avoid saturating the local market by undertaking a staggered asset release. We will keep you informed of this process as it unfolds in the coming months."
Rodger Bacon (of Trilogy Funds Management Limited and Balmain Trilogy Investment Management Pty. Ltd.) told an investor: http://www.moneymagik.com/bacon_mc_wak_1.mp3
and then, just one month into 2013:
"MUST BE SOLD"
http://www.moneymagik.com/martha_cove_must_be_sold.jpg
It's worthwhile to recall what Andrew Griffin said at the investor meetings:
"Andrew Griffin, "So I guess we now come to the final part which is the future of your fund. There are only limited strategies available in relation to the assets of your fund. Leaving aside Martha Cove for a moment, in respect of the other remaining assets of the fund, they can either be sold as is, which is akin to a fire sale, which we've undertaken not to, or they can be improved in value, by us, to the maximum extent possible prior to a sale to an investor or a developer. I've already discussed the types of work we do to maximize value, but let me summarise again by saying that we will improve these assets right up to the point where an investor or developer will pay the maximum possible price for each asset which returns the greatest capital value to you, the investor. Specifically, we will procure valuable rezoning or development approvals prior to the sale of vacant unimproved vacant land. We will complete developments to enable the sale of completed product rather than selling assets to developers for them to make their development profits from your fund. And finally, once complete, we will sell the finished stock to individual owners occupiers and investors to try and maximize returns to unitholders. Perhaps this slide will explain a little better what we're doing. We are taking the current assets of the fund and trying to improve them to the greatest extent possible before development would commence on the site. We are not taking them beyond that level, but as soon as we've managed to increase the value from .. rezoning or development consent. Once we've maximized the value, we will then sell the site to the open market. We are of the firm view that this is the best strategy in respect of these assets to recover the greatest value for you while minimizing additional expenses""
Now, Martha Cove, a fund asset that's lost about $109m (or 70% of its value when Trilogy took over the fund) "MUST BE SOLD" - down from about $156m to about $47m - Trilogy made about $7.5m in management fees (up to 31 December 2012) on this one asset alone, BDO (as receiver) also did well - but punters, nope .. a bloody disaster.
http://www.moneymagik.com/
I'll bet you guys are hoping that your "Maddison" is not your version of our "Martha Cove", right?
- Joined
- 2 November 2012
- Posts
- 51
- Reactions
- 0
Re: A Bloody Disaster
Oh ASICK, I feel so sorry for the pain you are going through with your fund. I hope things will pick up for you this year, but you know what they say about life - 'What goes around, comes around', so hopefully Trilogy will reap their just reward eventually!! Why does no one else from your fund add to this thread? Have they all given up and put it in the too hard basket?
I have been looking at your latest emails concerning the payment of $17m in distribution to the wholesale fund and then reinvesting $16m back in the main fund for financial year 2012. Having no real accounting skills, I fail to see the purpose of them taking this step. If the wholesale fund needed finance to pay expenses, why not transfer only the $1m. What, in your opinion, would be the purpose of making these large transfers? I note the audit by Ernst and Young states 'This area is of significant judgement and accordingly, we bring it to your attention'. Obviously, as you have said yourself, this is a very grey area and one can only hope Trilogy is taking it up with ASIC.
Oh ASICK, I feel so sorry for the pain you are going through with your fund. I hope things will pick up for you this year, but you know what they say about life - 'What goes around, comes around', so hopefully Trilogy will reap their just reward eventually!! Why does no one else from your fund add to this thread? Have they all given up and put it in the too hard basket?
I have been looking at your latest emails concerning the payment of $17m in distribution to the wholesale fund and then reinvesting $16m back in the main fund for financial year 2012. Having no real accounting skills, I fail to see the purpose of them taking this step. If the wholesale fund needed finance to pay expenses, why not transfer only the $1m. What, in your opinion, would be the purpose of making these large transfers? I note the audit by Ernst and Young states 'This area is of significant judgement and accordingly, we bring it to your attention'. Obviously, as you have said yourself, this is a very grey area and one can only hope Trilogy is taking it up with ASIC.
Re: A Bloody Disaster
"Oh ASICK, I feel so sorry for the pain you are going through with your fund. I hope things will pick up for you this year, but you know what they say about life - 'What goes around, comes around', so hopefully Trilogy will reap their just reward eventually!! Why does no one else from your fund add to this thread? Have they all given up and put it in the too hard basket?"
I'm actually trying to help you guys - but you're welcome to make your own mistakes - there's no skin off my nose if you knock yourselves out blundering from pillar to post.
I can't answer for other PFMF members, but at a guess, it could be that they care less about your fund than they do their own - as you'll doubtlessly find out that LM investors won't do too much caring either -If I were you, I wouldn't worry too much about my "pain" (as you put it), I'd be more concerned about your investment's future.
"I have been looking at your latest emails concerning the payment of $17m in distribution to the wholesale fund and then reinvesting $16m back in the main fund for financial year 2012. Having no real accounting skills, I fail to see the purpose of them taking this step. If the wholesale fund needed finance to pay expenses, why not transfer only the $1m. What, in your opinion, would be the purpose of making these large transfers? I note the audit by Ernst and Young states 'This area is of significant judgement and accordingly, we bring it to your attention'. Obviously, as you have said yourself, this is a very grey area and one can only hope Trilogy is taking it up with ASIC."
Well, back to your investment, and the $17m out / $16m in.
Class B (feeder funds) had a rise in equity at the expense of Class A & C (direct investors).
Let's assume you take $17m from the whole fund and then give it to half the fund (actually, Class B is less than 50% of the fund, but let's assume it's 50%). then Class A & C equity is reduced by $8.5m and Class B equity is increased by $8.5m. Is that a fair transaction?
The question is "Is taking $8.5m from Class A & C and giving it to Class B treating Class A & C fairly" (Corporations Act 601FC(1) requires that a manager treat members of different classes fairly (not equally)).
So, if the answer is that it's okay to take $8.5m from group of investors and give it to another, then the second question arises "Is it acting in the best interests of Class B investors by reinvesting $16m in a non-liquid fund (LMFMIF)?"
If I was a Class A or Class C investor, then I'd be asking ASIC to have a look at the transaction - that's only my opinion - Why should Class A & C investors give up $8.5m in favour of Class B investors?
If I was a Class B investor, I'd be asking ASIC to look into the reinvestment of the $16m. Why should the manager put the $16m at risk?
Trilogy is the manager of a feeder fund, so I couldn't see Trilogy arguing that the $17m distribution wasn't proper - who's going to query the $17m distribution, LM?
The good Lord only helps those who help themselves - as it would go for direct investors in the LMFMIF.
Again, the legal argument held by LM related to the distribution, not to the reinvestment. My guess is that the legal basis was necessary because, as it seems to me, there is an inequity in the transaction - as stated above, a question would arise as to whether that inequity is fair (s. 601FC(1)). The manager is permitted to treat members of different classes unequally providing they are treated fairly.
Remember: members of the same class must be treated equally. members of the different classes must be treated fairly.
To directly answer your question - IMO, as well as covering the feeder funds' ongoing costs, it's also increased the equity in the feeder funds at the expense of direct investors.
"Oh ASICK, I feel so sorry for the pain you are going through with your fund. I hope things will pick up for you this year, but you know what they say about life - 'What goes around, comes around', so hopefully Trilogy will reap their just reward eventually!! Why does no one else from your fund add to this thread? Have they all given up and put it in the too hard basket?"
I'm actually trying to help you guys - but you're welcome to make your own mistakes - there's no skin off my nose if you knock yourselves out blundering from pillar to post.
I can't answer for other PFMF members, but at a guess, it could be that they care less about your fund than they do their own - as you'll doubtlessly find out that LM investors won't do too much caring either -If I were you, I wouldn't worry too much about my "pain" (as you put it), I'd be more concerned about your investment's future.
"I have been looking at your latest emails concerning the payment of $17m in distribution to the wholesale fund and then reinvesting $16m back in the main fund for financial year 2012. Having no real accounting skills, I fail to see the purpose of them taking this step. If the wholesale fund needed finance to pay expenses, why not transfer only the $1m. What, in your opinion, would be the purpose of making these large transfers? I note the audit by Ernst and Young states 'This area is of significant judgement and accordingly, we bring it to your attention'. Obviously, as you have said yourself, this is a very grey area and one can only hope Trilogy is taking it up with ASIC."
Well, back to your investment, and the $17m out / $16m in.
Class B (feeder funds) had a rise in equity at the expense of Class A & C (direct investors).
Let's assume you take $17m from the whole fund and then give it to half the fund (actually, Class B is less than 50% of the fund, but let's assume it's 50%). then Class A & C equity is reduced by $8.5m and Class B equity is increased by $8.5m. Is that a fair transaction?
The question is "Is taking $8.5m from Class A & C and giving it to Class B treating Class A & C fairly" (Corporations Act 601FC(1) requires that a manager treat members of different classes fairly (not equally)).
So, if the answer is that it's okay to take $8.5m from group of investors and give it to another, then the second question arises "Is it acting in the best interests of Class B investors by reinvesting $16m in a non-liquid fund (LMFMIF)?"
If I was a Class A or Class C investor, then I'd be asking ASIC to have a look at the transaction - that's only my opinion - Why should Class A & C investors give up $8.5m in favour of Class B investors?
If I was a Class B investor, I'd be asking ASIC to look into the reinvestment of the $16m. Why should the manager put the $16m at risk?
Trilogy is the manager of a feeder fund, so I couldn't see Trilogy arguing that the $17m distribution wasn't proper - who's going to query the $17m distribution, LM?
The good Lord only helps those who help themselves - as it would go for direct investors in the LMFMIF.
Again, the legal argument held by LM related to the distribution, not to the reinvestment. My guess is that the legal basis was necessary because, as it seems to me, there is an inequity in the transaction - as stated above, a question would arise as to whether that inequity is fair (s. 601FC(1)). The manager is permitted to treat members of different classes unequally providing they are treated fairly.
Remember: members of the same class must be treated equally. members of the different classes must be treated fairly.
To directly answer your question - IMO, as well as covering the feeder funds' ongoing costs, it's also increased the equity in the feeder funds at the expense of direct investors.
External Input
Mysterman,
I feel comfort in your concern for me, but really, while I did a bag of dough in the PFMF, financially I'm probably better off than most good folk caught up in these messes.
You might find it difficult to believe, but many of these funds follow a similar path to failure. For example, Equititrust started to fail a long time after the PFMF did, yet the outcome for those investors is dire.
IMO, LM has only maintained the unit price in the LMFMIF by progressively "pumping" the loans with accrued interest and permitting progressively higher LVRs to permit the increased accruals. Most investors have no idea of what's happening - so, it seems the right thing to do to try to disclose this information to them.
At a guess, the facility lender probably has a 10% LVR over the assets of the FMIF - yet the FMIF is lending out at 100% - even a loan to an entity to which Mr. Drake is guarantor is at 100% LVR and in default by 90 days or more.
Trilogy has been become more relevant on this thread because (1) it is now a manager of one of the feeder funds and (2) Trilogy's spruiked an intention to take over the FMIF - what Trilogy says and does elsewhere has become very important to LM investors - I think it's just as relevant as what LM says and does.
When Trilogy ran for the PFMF, fund members weren't told about Trilogy's failures - I think that if fund members knew, and given the slim margin with which Trilogy took over the fund, Trilogy's run would have failed.
I think you guys should be grateful for external input - but then that's only what I think.
Thinking "inside the box" may lead to intellectual hypoxia.
Mysterman,
I feel comfort in your concern for me, but really, while I did a bag of dough in the PFMF, financially I'm probably better off than most good folk caught up in these messes.
You might find it difficult to believe, but many of these funds follow a similar path to failure. For example, Equititrust started to fail a long time after the PFMF did, yet the outcome for those investors is dire.
IMO, LM has only maintained the unit price in the LMFMIF by progressively "pumping" the loans with accrued interest and permitting progressively higher LVRs to permit the increased accruals. Most investors have no idea of what's happening - so, it seems the right thing to do to try to disclose this information to them.
At a guess, the facility lender probably has a 10% LVR over the assets of the FMIF - yet the FMIF is lending out at 100% - even a loan to an entity to which Mr. Drake is guarantor is at 100% LVR and in default by 90 days or more.
Trilogy has been become more relevant on this thread because (1) it is now a manager of one of the feeder funds and (2) Trilogy's spruiked an intention to take over the FMIF - what Trilogy says and does elsewhere has become very important to LM investors - I think it's just as relevant as what LM says and does.
When Trilogy ran for the PFMF, fund members weren't told about Trilogy's failures - I think that if fund members knew, and given the slim margin with which Trilogy took over the fund, Trilogy's run would have failed.
I think you guys should be grateful for external input - but then that's only what I think.
Thinking "inside the box" may lead to intellectual hypoxia.
Mystery Man -ASICK and others reading this
I have made several direct representations to both BT/Asgard and to Trilogy on the subjects of
2012 FMIF Audited Return, the RG45 and the issue of Distribution and Reinvestment of Funds.
I have also again asked Trilogy where is the WFMIF Audited Return
I do not expect to be able to write in this forum about these matters for at least a week, HOWEVER I do expect I will receive some specific answers to the questions I have raised. I am aware that both BT/Asgard and Trilogy are exerting pressure a lot of pressure on LM for answers.
MysteryMan I am advised that as investors the best way for us to raise and issue may be with the FOS - Financial Ombudsman Service.
More later re all this.
I have made several direct representations to both BT/Asgard and to Trilogy on the subjects of
2012 FMIF Audited Return, the RG45 and the issue of Distribution and Reinvestment of Funds.
I have also again asked Trilogy where is the WFMIF Audited Return
I do not expect to be able to write in this forum about these matters for at least a week, HOWEVER I do expect I will receive some specific answers to the questions I have raised. I am aware that both BT/Asgard and Trilogy are exerting pressure a lot of pressure on LM for answers.
MysteryMan I am advised that as investors the best way for us to raise and issue may be with the FOS - Financial Ombudsman Service.
More later re all this.
Mystery Man -ASICK and others reading this
I have made several direct representations to both BT/Asgard and to Trilogy on the subjects of
2012 FMIF Audited Return, the RG45 and the issue of Distribution and Reinvestment of Funds.
I have also again asked Trilogy where is the WFMIF Audited Return
I do not expect to be able to write in this forum about these matters for at least a week, HOWEVER I do expect I will receive some specific answers to the questions I have raised. I am aware that both BT/Asgard and Trilogy are exerting pressure a lot of pressure on LM for answers.
MysteryMan I am advised that as investors the best way for us to raise and issue may be with the FOS - Financial Ombudsman Service.
More later re all this.
Hi Rodent,
Are you able to give particulars of the issues raised?
Be assured that a complaint to the FOS cannot relate to the management of a MIS/MIF - I know that from experience - such complaints must be directed to ASIC - if you're dissatisifed with ASIC's response, then I believe you're entitled to appeal to the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
Apart from a claim not relating to fund management, the entity complained about must be a member of the FOS. Please take a look at this link:-
http://www.fos.org.au/centric/home_page/members/participating_financial_services_providers.jsp
Hi Rodent,
Are you able to give particulars of the issues raised?
Be assured that a complaint to the FOS cannot relate to the management of a MIS/MIF - I know that from experience - such complaints must be directed to ASIC - if you're dissatisifed with ASIC's response, then I believe you're entitled to appeal to the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
Apart from a claim not relating to fund management, the entity complained about must be a member of the FOS. Please take a look at this link:-
http://www.fos.org.au/centric/home_page/members/participating_financial_services_providers.jsp
ASICK I am not at liberty to expand on the points raised at this stage, however nothing I have written,or provided would be of a surprise to readers of this forum, remember LM, Trilogy, and other "interested parties" read these comments.
While your comments about FOS may be correct? later this week I will pursue the company that indicated to me FOS was the way to go.
At this stage I have had no reply to my initial sounding out Email to ASIC
FOS
My comments about the FOS are correct - but you should check everything out. Don't believe me, and don't believe the company that indicated the FOS is the way to go, phone/email/write the FOS. I've had the experience of two claims failing because the claims related to the management of a fund.
Get the info from the "horse's mouth" (so to speak).
ASICK I am not at liberty to expand on the points raised at this stage, however nothing I have written,or provided would be of a surprise to readers of this forum, remember LM, Trilogy, and other "interested parties" read these comments.
While your comments about FOS may be correct? later this week I will pursue the company that indicated to me FOS was the way to go.
At this stage I have had no reply to my initial sounding out Email to ASIC
My comments about the FOS are correct - but you should check everything out. Don't believe me, and don't believe the company that indicated the FOS is the way to go, phone/email/write the FOS. I've had the experience of two claims failing because the claims related to the management of a fund.
Get the info from the "horse's mouth" (so to speak).
To Keep the Thread Alive
http://www.bransgroves.com.au/banking-and-finance/the-trust-company-v-perry-2012-nswsc-604.html
another gallant effort from Trilogy - more costs for the fund.
See, suing a dead guy isn't all Trilogy's capable of ..
http://www.bransgroves.com.au/banking-and-finance/the-trust-company-v-perry-2012-nswsc-604.html
another gallant effort from Trilogy - more costs for the fund.
See, suing a dead guy isn't all Trilogy's capable of ..
Re: To Keep the Thread Alive
Some updates members might like to read about in the absence of anything else being posted on this forum:
http://moneymagik.com/
http://www.bransgroves.com.au/banking-and-finance/the-trust-company-v-perry-2012-nswsc-604.html
another gallant effort from Trilogy - more costs for the fund.
See, suing a dead guy isn't all Trilogy's capable of ..
Some updates members might like to read about in the absence of anything else being posted on this forum:
http://moneymagik.com/
Trilogy Offers PFMF Property For Sale "IN ONE LINE" (yet again)
Thanks Rodent, that's very kind of you.
Are you able to take copy of the ad and post it here (or email it to me)?
What's the selling agents name?
BT's Andrew Griffin defined a fire sale (April 2011):
http://www.moneymagik.com/fire_sale_defined.mp3
Seems BT didn't have much luck selling the whole shooting match, so they're knocking it off one precinct at a time .. late last year Roger Bacon (of Rojacan Pty. Ltd. fame) said Trilogy'd be developing one precinct at a time !
http://www.moneymagik.com/bacon_mc_wak_1.mp3
Oh.. he said they'd be developing "Woodgrove" at Wakerley too .. but Trilogy didn't - it too was sold off, yes, you guessed it, IN ONE LINE !
I get the impression the PFMF"s run out of money - just going on sales of about (at least) $4m, it all seems to have gone on expenses - also, the debt seems to have only been paid down by about $2.5m since September 2012 (until last week). Given the pressure from the bank, I'd say there's a big squeeze going on within the PFMF right now. That's extradionary for a fund which supposedly had assets valued at over $100m as at 30 June 2012.
Still only $0.0075/unit in near seven months - despite this spruik from April 2011:
http://www.moneymagik.com/keep_on_turning_in.mp3
and despite this spruik from November 2010 about the litigation:
http://www.moneymagik.com/litigation.mp3
Contrary to the spruik, we now find that the fund has already outlaid about $500k out of an expected $1m -- all with IMF well and truly gone from the scene.
Good luck with believing anything Trilogy's got to say.
A real good idea from the get-go is to ask Trilogy to define "fire sale" - perhaps it's worthwhile to ask Trilogy if they agree with Andrew Griffin's definition (April 2011):
http://www.moneymagik.com/fire_sale_defined.mp3
ASICK for your info- not LM related In todays Melb Age -Business sect is an Ad for Martha Cove , lots S22 to S24
For sale to be sold in one line -expressions of interest -Under instructions from Korda/Mentha
Thanks Rodent, that's very kind of you.
Are you able to take copy of the ad and post it here (or email it to me)?
What's the selling agents name?
BT's Andrew Griffin defined a fire sale (April 2011):
http://www.moneymagik.com/fire_sale_defined.mp3
Seems BT didn't have much luck selling the whole shooting match, so they're knocking it off one precinct at a time .. late last year Roger Bacon (of Rojacan Pty. Ltd. fame) said Trilogy'd be developing one precinct at a time !
http://www.moneymagik.com/bacon_mc_wak_1.mp3
Oh.. he said they'd be developing "Woodgrove" at Wakerley too .. but Trilogy didn't - it too was sold off, yes, you guessed it, IN ONE LINE !
I get the impression the PFMF"s run out of money - just going on sales of about (at least) $4m, it all seems to have gone on expenses - also, the debt seems to have only been paid down by about $2.5m since September 2012 (until last week). Given the pressure from the bank, I'd say there's a big squeeze going on within the PFMF right now. That's extradionary for a fund which supposedly had assets valued at over $100m as at 30 June 2012.
Still only $0.0075/unit in near seven months - despite this spruik from April 2011:
http://www.moneymagik.com/keep_on_turning_in.mp3
and despite this spruik from November 2010 about the litigation:
http://www.moneymagik.com/litigation.mp3
Contrary to the spruik, we now find that the fund has already outlaid about $500k out of an expected $1m -- all with IMF well and truly gone from the scene.
Good luck with believing anything Trilogy's got to say.
A real good idea from the get-go is to ask Trilogy to define "fire sale" - perhaps it's worthwhile to ask Trilogy if they agree with Andrew Griffin's definition (April 2011):
http://www.moneymagik.com/fire_sale_defined.mp3
Re: Trilogy Offers PFMF Property For Sale "IN ONE LINE" (yet again)
ASICK best I can do is this - on ad it says Scott Gray-Spencer 0400 222 226,
Level 32 Rialto Tower 525 Collins st Melb - Scott Callow - Mobile 0418153606 the add is under a heading , with other property's CBRE is the Estate Agent -their web site is - cbre.com.au EOI close 13 March 2013
Thanks Rodent, that's very kind of you.
Are you able to take copy of the ad and post it here (or email it to me)?
What's the selling agents name?
BT's Andrew Griffin defined a fire sale (April 2011):
http://www.moneymagik.com/fire_sale_defined.mp3
Seems BT didn't have much luck selling the whole shooting match, so they're knocking it off one precinct at a time .. late last year Roger Bacon (of Rojacan Pty. Ltd. fame) said Trilogy'd be developing one precinct at a time !
http://www.moneymagik.com/bacon_mc_wak_1.mp3
Oh.. he said they'd be developing "Woodgrove" at Wakerley too .. but Trilogy didn't - it too was sold off, yes, you guessed it, IN ONE LINE !
I get the impression the PFMF"s run out of money - just going on sales of about (at least) $4m, it all seems to have gone on expenses - also, the debt seems to have only been paid down by about $2.5m since September 2012 (until last week). Given the pressure from the bank, I'd say there's a big squeeze going on within the PFMF right now. That's extradionary for a fund which supposedly had assets valued at over $100m as at 30 June 2012.
Still only $0.0075/unit in near seven months - despite this spruik from April 2011:
http://www.moneymagik.com/keep_on_turning_in.mp3
and despite this spruik from November 2010 about the litigation:
http://www.moneymagik.com/litigation.mp3
Contrary to the spruik, we now find that the fund has already outlaid about $500k out of an expected $1m -- all with IMF well and truly gone from the scene.
Good luck with believing anything Trilogy's got to say.
A real good idea from the get-go is to ask Trilogy to define "fire sale" - perhaps it's worthwhile to ask Trilogy if they agree with Andrew Griffin's definition (April 2011):
http://www.moneymagik.com/fire_sale_defined.mp3
ASICK best I can do is this - on ad it says Scott Gray-Spencer 0400 222 226,
Level 32 Rialto Tower 525 Collins st Melb - Scott Callow - Mobile 0418153606 the add is under a heading , with other property's CBRE is the Estate Agent -their web site is - cbre.com.au EOI close 13 March 2013
Similar threads
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 850
- Replies
- 15
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 1K
