LM Investment Management - Lack of confidence
- Thread starter dinga
- Start date
Dear Dudd - I have just sent you a personal message with the name and contact of the Brisbane solicitor. (He does not want the details posted onto this public Forum.) I am happy to share these details with anyone else.
I also had a Skype chat with him about LM and specifically about the FMIF and its feeder funds. He seems to be well-versed in the issues around this saga, and - echoing ASICK - expressed grave doubts about Trilogy, and also quite serious reservations about FTI and their inherent conflicts of interest (as well as about their less than impressive record in communicating to investors in recent weeks). He feels that the best solution for investors is - as I believe ASICK has recommended - for an independent liquidator to be appointed, and one which is remunerated on a fee-per-time-worked basis rather than on a percentage raked off the funds. He says that his own firm has experience in this ...
He is prepared to go to Court Monday - on spec. - to try and block the Trilogy take-over if investors ask him to.
"The cost structure of FMIF is governed by its constitution. The only costs faced by FMIF are management fees at 1.5% pa of assets and certain prescribed recoverable costs." - ah! the allure of the BIG $$$$$$.
Keep in mind Trilogy returned about $79m to investors while pocketing about $20m.
It seems FTI is in this to repay creditors of LM.
and he wants to do what Trilogy has done with PA?
Doesn't anyone think it'd be better for members of the forum to vet the newcomer? .. remember, it's NOT about investors, it's about $$$$$$ for the receiver/liquidator/RE.
but, in the end, it's investors' risk, not outsiders such as myself.
However, I do think it's better to have an independent receiver in the LMFMIF, a receiver not operating on a % of FUM.
FTI hasn't spoken to the receiver role that LM had adopted to earn more millions of $$$$.
I think FTI is making a mistake if it fights - only my opinion - but for the same money, it's simple to get full independence - even with Trilogy at the helm. For a better deal, appoint a receiver.
I don't like secret "investors' business" - but that's just my opinion.
- Joined
- 2 November 2012
- Posts
- 51
- Reactions
- 0
ASICK, I very much appreciate your opinions on latest circulars etc, but please could you elaborate on the quote regarding 'simple to get full independence - even with Trilogy at the helm'. I don't understand what you mean.
Also, a naive question: How would one go about appointing a receiver for the fund?
It's All a Bit Too Late
Well, if you want independence (from FTI (as administrator of LMIML)) then it's just a simple matter of appointing an alternative RE, say, Trilogy (for example) - but really, if investors' have learnt anything, not Trilogy. But to minimize the costs, a receiver should be appointed in lieu of an Responsible Entity.
Maybe this mystery solicitor fits the bill (as receiver)? - of course, I'm sure the solicitor has both eyes firmly on the $$$$ too - investors should never lose sight of the motivation that drives the likes of PA, the mystery solicitor, KordaMentha, FTI, and Trilogy.
I posted previously about what FTI might do, and it seems that its chosen not to fight Trilogy, but rather defend it's own position and "juggle all the balls" (so to speak) - that is, keep on as administrator of LMIML and keep LMIML firmly tapped into the "honey pot" (that is, a percentage of the LMFMIF's FUM (which includes the facility debt)). I think this is the risky path, and if unsuccessful, the court will hand the fund to Trilogy (in the absence of an application from the mystery solicitor (or other alternative)).
We all make (what we hope are somewhat educated) guesses, and my guess is that if FTI take the path they seem to have chosen, then they'll lose the fund to Trilogy. Judges do like to see independence, and if there's nothing in the material about Trilogy's failures, Trilogy will look good to the judge.
FTI won't be the first to learn hard lessons - and I'm sure they won't be the last.
Again, you could try Bentleys (as receiver), but methinks it's all a bit too late since the matter will go to court next Monday.
Well, if you want independence (from FTI (as administrator of LMIML)) then it's just a simple matter of appointing an alternative RE, say, Trilogy (for example) - but really, if investors' have learnt anything, not Trilogy. But to minimize the costs, a receiver should be appointed in lieu of an Responsible Entity.
Maybe this mystery solicitor fits the bill (as receiver)? - of course, I'm sure the solicitor has both eyes firmly on the $$$$ too - investors should never lose sight of the motivation that drives the likes of PA, the mystery solicitor, KordaMentha, FTI, and Trilogy.
I posted previously about what FTI might do, and it seems that its chosen not to fight Trilogy, but rather defend it's own position and "juggle all the balls" (so to speak) - that is, keep on as administrator of LMIML and keep LMIML firmly tapped into the "honey pot" (that is, a percentage of the LMFMIF's FUM (which includes the facility debt)). I think this is the risky path, and if unsuccessful, the court will hand the fund to Trilogy (in the absence of an application from the mystery solicitor (or other alternative)).
We all make (what we hope are somewhat educated) guesses, and my guess is that if FTI take the path they seem to have chosen, then they'll lose the fund to Trilogy. Judges do like to see independence, and if there's nothing in the material about Trilogy's failures, Trilogy will look good to the judge.
FTI won't be the first to learn hard lessons - and I'm sure they won't be the last.
Again, you could try Bentleys (as receiver), but methinks it's all a bit too late since the matter will go to court next Monday.
I'm with you on this Mysteryman: How do we bring about the appointment of a receiver?
I presume LM putting themselves into Voluntary Administration was a move to protect themselves from actual receivership, but it doesn't appear to help the investors. Can anyone advise the mechanism or process that will take this show from the vultures fighting over the carcass to a wind down of assets?
We were told by Drake that a firesale wouldn't happen, but it now seems preferable to a long drawn out milking of the funds.
Any ideas or advice out there about how to do this?
http://u.b5z.net/i/u/10199052/f/8978r1_Response_to_Trilogy_Corres_of_17_April_2013_FINAL.pdf
comments which concern me:
"Thus if the administrators uncover any improper actions by LM’s directors and officers prior to the appointment of voluntary administrators, they will rigorously investigate and if warranted take action to gain compensation for FMIF and its members."
A comment by Stacks Finance in relation to "viable litigation" caused a number of PFMF members to wrongly conclude that Stacks was not genuine about pursuing litigation against former City Pacific Limited directors.
Use of the qualifying words "if warranted" or "viable" tend to make me think that the authors are somewhat concerned about what investors expect - that is, investors want litigation, "come hell or high water" (so to speak) and as such, investors wishes need to be so qualified by "if warranted".
But such qualifying words as "if warranted" might give FMIF investors the impression that FTI would not pursue litigation as robustly as PA might. I think it might have boded better for FTI if those qualifying words weren't included in the letter at all.
"No receiver has been appointed tor FMIF. There will be no “receiver driven” sale of assets by FMIF." - spoken just like a responsible entity on the drip feed from a % of FUM. However, the reality is that the plan is to sell off the fund in the market at the time of each sale - it doesn't matter what one calls it, a fire sale, a receiver's sale, or just a plain old sale, the sale price will probably be just the same.
I think FTI are attempting to convey to investors that they're able to somehow do a better job than a receiver could do - it could work, just as the words "fire sales" scare the pants off punters - but, as stated above, a sale is a sale, no matter what one calls. If investors want money, then assets have to be sold off apace - there's no other way about it.
"A switch is not clearly in the interests of members. So, whilst ensuring that any conflicts that may arise are properly managed, LM will be resisting the attempt to switch the RE, as it is not in the interest of members."
Conflicts "properly managed"? Why take the risk when independent alternatives are available?
I don't read that FTI has presented a case for a switch "not being in the interests of members", rather, I see the case as one that a switch is "not being in the interests of FTI".
I guess the measure of FTI's concern for FMIF investors will be whether it presents a receiver (or even manager) as an alternative to themselves in the case FTI is unable to resist Mr. Bruce's application for Trilogy to take over the FMIF. If FTI's case is merely to resist Trilogy, then FTI's failure will result in Trilogy taking over the FMIF.
It seems to me that FTI aren't the right ones for the FMIF, and that an investor or two should go to court with a receiver and just ask the judge to have the fund wound up without the grand expense of a responsible entity pocketing millions from a % of FUM (which includes debt).
comments which concern me:
"Thus if the administrators uncover any improper actions by LM’s directors and officers prior to the appointment of voluntary administrators, they will rigorously investigate and if warranted take action to gain compensation for FMIF and its members."
A comment by Stacks Finance in relation to "viable litigation" caused a number of PFMF members to wrongly conclude that Stacks was not genuine about pursuing litigation against former City Pacific Limited directors.
Use of the qualifying words "if warranted" or "viable" tend to make me think that the authors are somewhat concerned about what investors expect - that is, investors want litigation, "come hell or high water" (so to speak) and as such, investors wishes need to be so qualified by "if warranted".
But such qualifying words as "if warranted" might give FMIF investors the impression that FTI would not pursue litigation as robustly as PA might. I think it might have boded better for FTI if those qualifying words weren't included in the letter at all.
"No receiver has been appointed tor FMIF. There will be no “receiver driven” sale of assets by FMIF." - spoken just like a responsible entity on the drip feed from a % of FUM. However, the reality is that the plan is to sell off the fund in the market at the time of each sale - it doesn't matter what one calls it, a fire sale, a receiver's sale, or just a plain old sale, the sale price will probably be just the same.
I think FTI are attempting to convey to investors that they're able to somehow do a better job than a receiver could do - it could work, just as the words "fire sales" scare the pants off punters - but, as stated above, a sale is a sale, no matter what one calls. If investors want money, then assets have to be sold off apace - there's no other way about it.
"A switch is not clearly in the interests of members. So, whilst ensuring that any conflicts that may arise are properly managed, LM will be resisting the attempt to switch the RE, as it is not in the interest of members."
Conflicts "properly managed"? Why take the risk when independent alternatives are available?
I don't read that FTI has presented a case for a switch "not being in the interests of members", rather, I see the case as one that a switch is "not being in the interests of FTI".
I guess the measure of FTI's concern for FMIF investors will be whether it presents a receiver (or even manager) as an alternative to themselves in the case FTI is unable to resist Mr. Bruce's application for Trilogy to take over the FMIF. If FTI's case is merely to resist Trilogy, then FTI's failure will result in Trilogy taking over the FMIF.
It seems to me that FTI aren't the right ones for the FMIF, and that an investor or two should go to court with a receiver and just ask the judge to have the fund wound up without the grand expense of a responsible entity pocketing millions from a % of FUM (which includes debt).
Oh! My Beating Heart
"Earlier this week, Ms. Ballard referred questions about LM's managed performance fund being labelled a potential ponzi scheme to the fund's new trustees, KordaMentha and Calibre Capital" - I guess this is because LM admitted in the "4 Corners" program that it used new investments to pay interest to existing investors.
What? is that it? Then how many managed funds might be labelled a Ponzi scheme? How about Banks?
but especially, how about Trilogy's Monthly Income Trust?
"As the interest on most of its mortgage loans are typically capitalized, distributions income will be sourced from a variety of different streams, other than current interest payments from borrowers, such as ... APPLICATION MONIES ... ." [QSM Independent Assessment (page 15)]
http://moneymagik.com/trilogy_monthly_income_trust_alternative_comment.p hp
and, all that talk about Ms. Ballard:
and, "since then (when LM went into voluntary administration), Ms. Ballard's mobile phone number has been removed from her email signature"
Wow ! what a mind-numbing article - so much writing about getting in contact with Ms. Ballard who probably, along with many other employees, lost her job - and given that administrators had taken over, it's not unreasonable that business was no longer "as usual".
"People close to LM in the property business tell NBR ONLINE they're heartened to see New Zealand's record of jailing those behind finance companies collapses"
Really, "jailing those behind finance companies (sic) collapses" - wow, lucky Trilogy's Healthcare REIT collapsed in Australia: http://moneymagik.com/analysis_REIT.php
"However, that faith does not extend to its own regulator, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, which has been told that LM's managed performance fund is a potential ponzi scheme."
No, of course it doesn't, in Australia, there has to be a "wrongdoing" - really? yes, that's what NBR Online reports:
"ASIC still has time to restore faith, if it finds any wrongdoing" - so, is it supported to find a wrongdoing when one doesn't exist? Then it'd be able to "restore faith"? So, if it doesn't, then?
Of course, that's different to NZ where it seems there doesn't have to be a wrongdoing (according to "people close to LM in the property business") - I think it's got something to do with what's in the water over there !
Maybe David Williams might do better in a gossip column somewhere.
Oh .. be still my beating heart:
"Earlier this week, Ms. Ballard referred questions about LM's managed performance fund being labelled a potential ponzi scheme to the fund's new trustees, KordaMentha and Calibre Capital" - I guess this is because LM admitted in the "4 Corners" program that it used new investments to pay interest to existing investors.
What? is that it? Then how many managed funds might be labelled a Ponzi scheme? How about Banks?
but especially, how about Trilogy's Monthly Income Trust?
"As the interest on most of its mortgage loans are typically capitalized, distributions income will be sourced from a variety of different streams, other than current interest payments from borrowers, such as ... APPLICATION MONIES ... ." [QSM Independent Assessment (page 15)]
http://moneymagik.com/trilogy_monthly_income_trust_alternative_comment.p hp
and, all that talk about Ms. Ballard:
and, "since then (when LM went into voluntary administration), Ms. Ballard's mobile phone number has been removed from her email signature"
Wow ! what a mind-numbing article - so much writing about getting in contact with Ms. Ballard who probably, along with many other employees, lost her job - and given that administrators had taken over, it's not unreasonable that business was no longer "as usual".
"People close to LM in the property business tell NBR ONLINE they're heartened to see New Zealand's record of jailing those behind finance companies collapses"
Really, "jailing those behind finance companies (sic) collapses" - wow, lucky Trilogy's Healthcare REIT collapsed in Australia: http://moneymagik.com/analysis_REIT.php
"However, that faith does not extend to its own regulator, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, which has been told that LM's managed performance fund is a potential ponzi scheme."
No, of course it doesn't, in Australia, there has to be a "wrongdoing" - really? yes, that's what NBR Online reports:
"ASIC still has time to restore faith, if it finds any wrongdoing" - so, is it supported to find a wrongdoing when one doesn't exist? Then it'd be able to "restore faith"? So, if it doesn't, then?
Of course, that's different to NZ where it seems there doesn't have to be a wrongdoing (according to "people close to LM in the property business") - I think it's got something to do with what's in the water over there !
Maybe David Williams might do better in a gossip column somewhere.
Oh .. be still my beating heart:
Last edited by a moderator:
A Rush Job?
http://u.b5z.net/i/u/10199052/f/FMIF_Meeting_documents.pdf
IMO FTI doesn't seem to have confidence in winning at court. While it seems to have convinced itself that it's able to be independent, I doubt whether it'll be able to convince a judge. In order to avoid that outcome and control the process, FTI has called the meeting.
Trilogy said if it was appointed by the court, it would pay for a meeting - which entity is paying for FTI's meeting?
If the meeting is an attempt to avoid costs to the fund, is the fund paying for this meeting?
Issues:
Licence - it seems an inappropriate licence isn't an impediment to taking over a fund - Trilogy's recent takeover of an LM fund is clear proof of that.
Changeover Costs - not stated - might be not too much at all.
Time to Complete Windup - Nothing to stop Trilogy employing LM staff members - they did it with ex-Citypac staff members when they took over the PFMF.
Impact on Borrowers - I don't see this as a drama, after all, Trilogy are only a month or so behind, and if they employ LM staff, they're where FTI is.
Finance Consequences - always a great spruik - but the reality is that the bank has its $$$ secured by fund assets - as in the past with other funds, it doesn't seem much of a drama for a bank to give the nod to a prospective manager.
Claw-back - possible. What's possible worth? I'd say, not too much value at all.
And the issue that FTI hasn't mentioned, INDEPENDENCE. I guess this issue will come high on Trilogy's response. IMO, there is simply no way that FTI will be able to avoid dealing with the subject of independence.
FTI says, "LM expects that if it remains as manager investors will recover capital distributions faster and in a greater amount."
Yes, I'm sure it does - that is, expects wonderful things from itself. But, that's a forward looking statement and as such, should be either (1) substantiated, or (2) disclaimed. Seems FTI hasn't chosen either path.
It seems FTI has not provided a disclaimer in its Explanatory Memorandum (EM).
IMO, FTI shouldn't be supported due to the issue of independence - and Trilogy shouldn't be supported because of its poor track record.
Vote - (1) NO, (2) NO.
go to court and have a receiver appointed.
It seems to me that the call for a meeting has been a rush job.
Just my opinion.
http://u.b5z.net/i/u/10199052/f/FMIF_Meeting_documents.pdf
IMO FTI doesn't seem to have confidence in winning at court. While it seems to have convinced itself that it's able to be independent, I doubt whether it'll be able to convince a judge. In order to avoid that outcome and control the process, FTI has called the meeting.
Trilogy said if it was appointed by the court, it would pay for a meeting - which entity is paying for FTI's meeting?
If the meeting is an attempt to avoid costs to the fund, is the fund paying for this meeting?
Issues:
Licence - it seems an inappropriate licence isn't an impediment to taking over a fund - Trilogy's recent takeover of an LM fund is clear proof of that.
Changeover Costs - not stated - might be not too much at all.
Time to Complete Windup - Nothing to stop Trilogy employing LM staff members - they did it with ex-Citypac staff members when they took over the PFMF.
Impact on Borrowers - I don't see this as a drama, after all, Trilogy are only a month or so behind, and if they employ LM staff, they're where FTI is.
Finance Consequences - always a great spruik - but the reality is that the bank has its $$$ secured by fund assets - as in the past with other funds, it doesn't seem much of a drama for a bank to give the nod to a prospective manager.
Claw-back - possible. What's possible worth? I'd say, not too much value at all.
And the issue that FTI hasn't mentioned, INDEPENDENCE. I guess this issue will come high on Trilogy's response. IMO, there is simply no way that FTI will be able to avoid dealing with the subject of independence.
FTI says, "LM expects that if it remains as manager investors will recover capital distributions faster and in a greater amount."
Yes, I'm sure it does - that is, expects wonderful things from itself. But, that's a forward looking statement and as such, should be either (1) substantiated, or (2) disclaimed. Seems FTI hasn't chosen either path.
It seems FTI has not provided a disclaimer in its Explanatory Memorandum (EM).
IMO, FTI shouldn't be supported due to the issue of independence - and Trilogy shouldn't be supported because of its poor track record.
Vote - (1) NO, (2) NO.
go to court and have a receiver appointed.
It seems to me that the call for a meeting has been a rush job.
Just my opinion.
"No Fires Sales"
As far as I'm concerned, there's no bigger BS story than the old "no fire sales" spruik.
http://moneymagik.com/martha_cove_ad.php
http://moneymagik.com/the_entrance_in_one_line.php
http://moneymagik.com/info_letter_re_pacific_first_mortgage_fund.pdf (life with Trilogy)
February 2013 - http://moneymagik.com/Martha Cove Portfolio - IM 2013-4.pdf - see page 25, "The opportunity on offer affords prospective purchasers the flexibility to buy the entire portfolio “in one line”, acquire individual or multiple components or joint venture with the existing owners." (emphasis added)
Trilogy's Healthcare REIT is in the process of being wound up:
Punters lost all their capital
The ANZ bank forgave (lost) $871,003 !
The security asset cost Trilogy's Healthcare REIT over $8.1m with Gross proceeds of sale $2,350,000
$6,681,447 of investors' money LOST = 71% loss on the fund asset !
Fire Sales? nah .. they'll say it's the market .. even when an asset is sold over 60% BELOW a value determined just months before, they'll say that's not a fire sale, they'll say it's the market !
Investors really have to get spruikers of the old "fire sale" mantra to define exactly what they believe a fire sale to be - for example, if the fund needs money to pay expenses, is the sale of a fund asset at a massive reduction a fire sale?
If assets are sold at a massive reduction to pay investor capital repayments, are such sales fire sales? Investors shouldn't kid themselves, if money's needed, then an asset/s will be sold - whatever price the market gives up, that's the sale price - and the amount of loss will not even be a consideration - it won't be otherwise.
In fact, the spruiker should state whether assets will be sold by way of fire sales to meet fund expenses and/or capital repayments.
But don't expect managers to disclose the variance from holding price to sale price - that makes it easy to spruik "no fire sales" without having to prove there was actually no fire sales.
Anyway, what exactly is a fire sale?
No Fire Sales? Phooey !!!!
As far as I'm concerned, there's no bigger BS story than the old "no fire sales" spruik.
http://moneymagik.com/martha_cove_ad.php
http://moneymagik.com/the_entrance_in_one_line.php
http://moneymagik.com/info_letter_re_pacific_first_mortgage_fund.pdf (life with Trilogy)
February 2013 - http://moneymagik.com/Martha Cove Portfolio - IM 2013-4.pdf - see page 25, "The opportunity on offer affords prospective purchasers the flexibility to buy the entire portfolio “in one line”, acquire individual or multiple components or joint venture with the existing owners." (emphasis added)
Trilogy's Healthcare REIT is in the process of being wound up:
Punters lost all their capital
The ANZ bank forgave (lost) $871,003 !
The security asset cost Trilogy's Healthcare REIT over $8.1m with Gross proceeds of sale $2,350,000
$6,681,447 of investors' money LOST = 71% loss on the fund asset !
Fire Sales? nah .. they'll say it's the market .. even when an asset is sold over 60% BELOW a value determined just months before, they'll say that's not a fire sale, they'll say it's the market !
Investors really have to get spruikers of the old "fire sale" mantra to define exactly what they believe a fire sale to be - for example, if the fund needs money to pay expenses, is the sale of a fund asset at a massive reduction a fire sale?
If assets are sold at a massive reduction to pay investor capital repayments, are such sales fire sales? Investors shouldn't kid themselves, if money's needed, then an asset/s will be sold - whatever price the market gives up, that's the sale price - and the amount of loss will not even be a consideration - it won't be otherwise.
In fact, the spruiker should state whether assets will be sold by way of fire sales to meet fund expenses and/or capital repayments.
But don't expect managers to disclose the variance from holding price to sale price - that makes it easy to spruik "no fire sales" without having to prove there was actually no fire sales.
Anyway, what exactly is a fire sale?
No Fire Sales? Phooey !!!!
Where Did He Get the Time ?
"Records held by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission reveal Queensland financier Peter Drake, the founder and co-director of LM, is listed as the director, secretary and sole shareholder of Aalto Apartments Pty Ltd."
Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act...tment-block-20130430-2irhf.html#ixzz2RzyN1k1w
"Records held by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission reveal Queensland financier Peter Drake, the founder and co-director of LM, is listed as the director, secretary and sole shareholder of Aalto Apartments Pty Ltd."
Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act...tment-block-20130430-2irhf.html#ixzz2RzyN1k1w
Last edited by a moderator:
It's All So Easy With Trilogy
http://www.moneymagik.com/yardy_yardy_yah.php
Trilogy took over the PFMF in July 2009 - City Pacific had the fund valued at $630m - In about November 2009 Trilogy revalued the fund at about $426m ($0.48/unit) and retrospectively applied that value to 30 June 2009.
Trilogy has repaid $0.0875/unit (about $77.5) to investors in the near FOUR YEARS while racking up over $17m in fees. Under Trilogy's management investors lost 56% of the value Trilogy revalued the fund at.
Now we find (from an investor who spoke to Balmain Trilogy) that there's no more capital repayments, until MAYBE, the end of 2013.
In the PFMF: A foreshadowed update hasn't appeared yet - the fund's RG45 for February 2013 hasn't been released to investors yet.
Yet Trilogy continues to rake in the millions $$$$$.
And how about the litigation? http://www.moneymagik.com/litigation.php
And the deal between Trilogy and Maurice Blackburn? Not disclosed to investors. It was in November 2012 when Rodger Bacon told an investor "off the record" information that would be released to investors:
http://www.moneymagik.com/imf_litigation.mp3
Well, it's May 2013, and still, the information has not been released.
Ah ! Trilogy ! You've done it again.
But wait ! There's more !!
Here's two excerpts, the first is from Andrew Griffin (Sydney, November, 2010), the second (which follows on) from Rodger Bacon (November 2012): http://www.moneymagik.com/griffin_bacon_pie_in_the_sky.mp3
Isn't it so easy? Just make a representation, and when all fails, then just dismiss it out of hand.
It's so easy for investors to be fed any sort of nonsense - and they "drink" it all, just like nectar from the gods.
All the while, the manager makes the BIG $$$$ ... in the end, punters get SFA.
It's all so easy.
http://www.moneymagik.com/yardy_yardy_yah.php
Trilogy took over the PFMF in July 2009 - City Pacific had the fund valued at $630m - In about November 2009 Trilogy revalued the fund at about $426m ($0.48/unit) and retrospectively applied that value to 30 June 2009.
Trilogy has repaid $0.0875/unit (about $77.5) to investors in the near FOUR YEARS while racking up over $17m in fees. Under Trilogy's management investors lost 56% of the value Trilogy revalued the fund at.
Now we find (from an investor who spoke to Balmain Trilogy) that there's no more capital repayments, until MAYBE, the end of 2013.
In the PFMF: A foreshadowed update hasn't appeared yet - the fund's RG45 for February 2013 hasn't been released to investors yet.
Yet Trilogy continues to rake in the millions $$$$$.
And how about the litigation? http://www.moneymagik.com/litigation.php
And the deal between Trilogy and Maurice Blackburn? Not disclosed to investors. It was in November 2012 when Rodger Bacon told an investor "off the record" information that would be released to investors:
http://www.moneymagik.com/imf_litigation.mp3
Well, it's May 2013, and still, the information has not been released.
Ah ! Trilogy ! You've done it again.
But wait ! There's more !!
Here's two excerpts, the first is from Andrew Griffin (Sydney, November, 2010), the second (which follows on) from Rodger Bacon (November 2012): http://www.moneymagik.com/griffin_bacon_pie_in_the_sky.mp3
Isn't it so easy? Just make a representation, and when all fails, then just dismiss it out of hand.
It's so easy for investors to be fed any sort of nonsense - and they "drink" it all, just like nectar from the gods.
All the while, the manager makes the BIG $$$$ ... in the end, punters get SFA.
It's all so easy.
No Trust
JUSTICE IS COMING...
- Joined
- 22 November 2010
- Posts
- 4,495
- Reactions
- 3,566
No Trust
JUSTICE IS COMING...
- Joined
- 22 November 2010
- Posts
- 4,495
- Reactions
- 3,566
What's disappointing is the lack of interaction on this thread by other investors... ASICK I know you are not an investor but you seem to be doing all the work... I feel the same on the Equititrust thread... Are Australian's this apathetic ??? Its their money at stake...
In any event, full credit to you ASICK for all your hard work...
To LM Investors, this thread is closely monitored by all parties involved and if you want your voice to be heard make a stance don't sit on the fence...
The Equititrust thread was read by all and sundry, including the bankers and the regulatory authorities... It made a difference. Don't underestimate the power of this tool...
In any event, full credit to you ASICK for all your hard work...
To LM Investors, this thread is closely monitored by all parties involved and if you want your voice to be heard make a stance don't sit on the fence...
The Equititrust thread was read by all and sundry, including the bankers and the regulatory authorities... It made a difference. Don't underestimate the power of this tool...
Similar threads
