Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

LM Investment Management - Lack of confidence

Jump to new
Re: That Pesky Piper Alderman & Other Things

ASICK said:
A communication bloated with the first person, "we" and "our" (not relating to its client) - when one writes on behalf of a client, one uses the term "my client", or on behalf of a firm, "our client", this document from Piper Alderman is most certainly not merely one sent on behalf of its client, but rather from itself also.

Examples of Piper Alderman's content "We remain", "We think the approach is not appropriate", "It is also our firm view". Seems to me that Piper Alderman meddles too much, and it could very well be that investors might be getting sick and tired of that meddling.

"In Equititrust the RE remained with liquidators in control and receivers are in control of the assets with two sets of fees being incurred and sought to be recovered from that LMFMIF." - well, No Trust might comment on this little gem. A read of the "Equititrust" thread on ASF might be illuminating:
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19877&page=162 [see post 3230]

Also see:
http://equititrust.com.au/Pdfs/Receiver/Receivers Reports - 20130418 - 12th Report to Investors.pdf [para 2.3 on page 4]

Let's not forget, Piper Alderman is meddling in Equititrust too.

It's great to see investor participation and it's great to see documents posted by members.

It's refreshing to see ASIC take a more active (and positive) role - I only wish they'd acted for the PFMF back in 2009.
Click to expand...

ASICK, Mysterman, Taja others I too received the Piper Alderman communication, if that's what its called. As ASICK has written the words they have used in this communication piece can only be described as indicative of a company expressing a self interest, not solely the interest of the investors who they are supposed to represent!!

I have wriiten in the past to both FTI and Piper Alderman and basically told them to butt out. All investors want is for the funds to be would up ASAP
 
Dear all

Attached FYI and feedback? is an Excel Spreadsheet I have been playing around with. I dont have the skills that ASICK has in drawing pretty pictures but you may find it interesting

It contains selected data from the Audited returns for the LMFMIF and related feeder funds for 2011 F/Y(where available) and for 2012 F/Y

I did this in attempt to better understand the "Missing Distributions - Reinvestment of Distributions of Feeder funds issue " where distributions were clearly paid to FMIF Investors but not paid to Feeder feeder Investors.

As all may be aware Trilogy paid the most recent LM Capital Distribution to investors in the WFMIF as a partial Investor catch up payment covering the missing 8 months for May to Dec 2010, equivalent to about 62% of the outstanding laibility, with a further $1.2mil still to be paid.
View attachment Copy of LM Funds Summary data Fin Years 2011 -2012.xlsx

Sorry ASICK but yes I am still persuing this matter with LM, FTI, Trilogy and my Platform BT/Asgard
 
RODENT69 said:
... Sorry ASICK but yes I am still persuing this matter with LM, FTI, Trilogy and my Platform BT/Asgard
Click to expand...

Hi Rodent, you have to do what you have to do.
I remain perplexed by the goings-on (accounting) within the LMFMIF - I wonder if LM knew what was happening and I wonder if anyone else knows precisely what happened. It seems to me that there wasn't any 'rhyme nor reason' about the distributions to each class of unitholdings within the LMFMIF. Further it also seems a mess about how redemptions were made and then reinvested - I can't see fairness amongst any of the redemptions, reinvestments, and distributions . I really think it's a mess. There's nothing but what's left of investors' capital now - and at a guess, not too much of that either.
Rodent, you'll be pleased to know that spread-sheets are not my forte.
 
I endorse what Rodent69 is saying in 705. It may be true that there is nothing but capital left in the FMIF and precious little of that, due I am sure, to over valuations in the last few years, debt and general mismanagement. Distributions to feeder funds have been conveniently reinvested back into the FMIF for tax year 2012 and the second half of tax year 2011. This I suspect is in order to pay the ever increasing management fees and huge interest on debt with the Deutsche bank. For the WFMIF this amounts to $5,116,301 for 2012 and $2,459,271 for the second half of 2011.

However, what Rodent69 is writing about is the $2,379,264 that investors in the WFMIF are owed for unpaid, declared distributions for May to December 2010. This as far as I can perceive has not been reinvested in the FMIF. I note that the FMIF have received the equivalent distributions for May 2010 to October 2010 and are shortly due to be paid November and December 2010. If these are not being paid out of capital, I would like to know how LM/FTI is finding the money to pay them and not investors in the WFMIF. The fact that Trilogy is now the RE of WFMIF has no bearing on the unequal treatment of the two funds.

This issue has been taken up with LM and FTI on a number of occasions by various investors but we are being stonewalled with non answers. With an unwillingness to answer, one can't help feeling that they have something to hide.

Since, it has been mentioned several times here, that this forum is followed closely by LM, FTI, PA and Trilogy, it would be good for one of them to add their piece to this forum and offer some sort of an detailed explanation with regard to this inequality. Go on, feel free to have your say. After all, anonymity can be maintained and there is always the use of private email on this forum.
 
"In a Perfect World"

Mysteryman said:
... This issue has been taken up with LM and FTI on a number of occasions by various investors but we are being stonewalled with non answers. With an unwillingness to answer, one can't help feeling that they have something to hide. ...
Click to expand...

I'd maintain my guess that they're as confused as you are, and it could very well be that the answer they might tell you is an answer that you don't want to hear, that all future payments will be capital repayments.

Mysteryman said:
... Since, it has been mentioned several times here, that this forum is followed closely by LM, FTI, PA and Trilogy, it would be good for one of them to add their piece to this forum and offer some sort of an detailed explanation with regard to this inequality. Go on, feel free to have your say. After all, anonymity can be maintained and there is always the use of private email on this forum.
Click to expand...

"anonymity" - then there's no point - furthermore it's not permitted for FTI (as goes LM) and Trilogy (see ASIC notice (4) on the "Reply to Thread" dialogue box) - ASIC notice (2) requires a declaration of interest which would mean Piper Alderman could not post without disclosure.
"private email" - then use normal email/mail, have a meeting in person or by phone - have a beer together.

"good for one of them to add their piece to this forum" - I'd love to see that - full and frank conversation? I don't think that's on the table. I saw the result of Paul Stacks (of Stacks Finance) joining the PFMF UHAG forum to interact with investors - I'd say he regretted becoming a member - all the unanswered questions.

That's the problem for all of them, any unanswered questions are open for all to view - that's different to how it is now - you guys write emails to various entities and get answers or part answers, and for the most part you're the only ones who know - but bring them here and it's "open season" - it's cross-examination time. Even if allowed, I reckon they wouldn't dare.

Keep in mind that they have the resources to disclose information to investors via websites, the media, and/or direct email/mail - heck, they could even fire up a call centre - they have the $$$$ which gives each of them a clear advantage over investors - I'm sure they'd like to keep in that way. These entities need to control the flow of information, not be cross-examined.
 
A friend of mines put alot of money into his account in this bank, and it has gone bankrupt. Now the bank is not allowing him to take out his money , he has been trying to take this sum of money out for a good part of 2 years now but is still not able to. What options are there for him and what can he do in this situation?
 
A History Lesson - Co-lending in the PFMF: A Shell Game

http://www.colonialfirststate.com.au/prospects/CityPacific_update4_20080828.pdf [page 6]

"Co-lending arrangements - On 18 March 2008, City Pacific announced it had entered into a $100 million co-lending agreement with Fortress Credit Corporation (Australian) II Pty Ltd (Fortress). The agreement provides that Fortress will co-lend approximately $100 million with the Fund in a range of first mortgages currently held by the Fund.

The co-lending arrangement allowed the release of up to $100 million back to the Fund along with a reduction of the Fund’s investment in those mortgages, which was used to continue the investment objectives of the Fund.

The co-lending agreement provides Fortress with priority ahead of the Fund for the repayment of its principal in a manner similar to the existing bank facility referred to above under the heading ‘Finance Facility’.

City Pacific may enter into other co-lending arrangements where it considers it is in the best interests of investors. Any new arrangements will be advised to investors."

In 2008 when things when pear-shaped for the (then) City Pacific First Mortgage Fund (CPFMF), the CBA was pressuring City Pacific Limited to pay down the (then) $240m facility provided to the CPFMF - can you believe it, $240m?

Good ol' Fortress come along and co-lent with the CPFMF to the tune of $100m - believe it or not, many punters were relieved. Duh ! They actually thought that having Fortress as a co-lender was better than having a bank facility - Duh (again) ! What was the essential difference between a co-lending institutional lender and a bank facility? geez, nothing !

The reality was that both had their lendings secured by fund assets - both Fortress and the CBA were guaranteed return of their capital, then fund would cover the shortfall.

But many thought a co-lender took on risk, but it didn't - just like a bank, it protected its investment.

City Pacific didn't reduce the fund's obligations to guarantee debt, it simply shifted debt from the bank to the institutional lender. Heck, City Pacific actually foreshadowed that more such arrangements might be made. That's unbelievable given the fund was frozen at the time the statement containing the above excerpt was made.

Fortress bought out a number of mortgages and continued lending (just as Citypac would do), and just like the bank, the fund secured Fortress' lending (capital and interest) against loss.

See, from an accounting point of view, the fund's gross assets are assessed, and then any bank loan (and other liability) is subtracted from that amount to obtain net assets (which are attributable to unitholders). It doesn't matter to the bank how many assets are sold to pay back the facility (and interest), but it matters to unitholders.

In a falling market, more assets are necessarily sold in order to pay back a facility - this is exactly the same with co-lending arrangements. The only difference is that the bank facility value forms part of the accounting process while the co-lending value only rates a mention in a note in the accounts.

However, the effect of a debt, whether it's on or off balance sheet is identical, and for unitholders, the risk is also identical. But investors didn't seem to 'cotton on' to this fact. In fact, when spruiking about debt, Citypac didn't always mention the impact of Fortress' loan, rather it focused (to the delight of the ignorant) on the pay down of $100m of the CBA facility.

http://www.colonialfirststate.com.au/prospects/CPL0001AU_1.pdf (created 16 September 2009)

"The Fund’s finance facility has been reduced by half down to $120 million. This finance facility
represents a ratio of 12% of debt to assets in the Fund."

Why is this excerpt important? Well, because there's no mention of the fund's obligation to the institutional lender, Fortress for the $100m of co-lender Fortress engaged in. In truth, the level of obligation hadn't changed one iota - simply put, $100m had shifted off balance sheet but remained secure at the risk of the fund.

Just another event in the life of a managed investment scheme.

(Both documents disclose what investors in the CPFMF (now Trilogy's PFMF) were told back there in 2008)

And the devastation continues along with Trilogy: http://moneymagik.com/three_part_trilogy_funds_management_tragedy.php
 
Ah ! Trilogy ! You've Done it Again !

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

(re: Trilogy's PFMF - note to 11 April 2013 documents) "A copy of the Accounts will be emailed to Unitholders shortly, along with a Fund Update. In addition, a comprehensive Fund Update containing an Asset Review and litigation update will be uploaded to the website in April and mailed or emailed to Unitholders in accordance with their communication preferences."

oppps ... nope, nothing yet ... it's just impossible for me to believe anything they say !!!!!

http://www.moneymagik.com/imf_litigation.mp3
(Rodger Bacon speaks to a PFMF unitholder in November 2012)

off the record until we announce it officially? hahahah

Has it been announced officially all these months later? nope. ..

Ah ! Trilogy ! You've done it again !
 
FMIF - supreme court hearing

I am not sure if this has been made public yet or not, but just a note to say that for the 13th May Supreme Court hearing for FMIF, ASIC has now filed an affidavit for an independent receiver - and now even Piper Alderman have filed for an independent receiver as Plan B, if their original Plan A application to switch from FTI to Trilogy is not approved by the court !

Regards.
 
Re: FMIF - supreme court hearing

Taja said:
I am not sure if this has been made public yet or not, but just a note to say that for the 13th May Supreme Court hearing for FMIF, ASIC has now filed an affidavit for an independent receiver - and now even Piper Alderman have filed for an independent receiver as Plan B, if their original Plan A application to switch from FTI to Trilogy is not approved by the court !

Regards.
Click to expand...

From ASIC's site:
http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/LM+Investment+Management+Limited?openDocument
 
Today's Gold Coast Bulletin ASIC looking to now appoint PWC...

Looks like ASIC is intervening and taking the same action as it did with Equititrust and appointing someone independent to wind up the funds...
 
Duplication of Costs: Is it a Nonsense?

There's been talk from various parties about the appointment of a receiver to a managed investment scheme constituting a duplication of costs for fund members. That is, a fund would be liable for both the receiver's costs and the manager's (responsible entity's) costs.

I don't think it's possible for a responsible entity to continue claiming a fee once a receiver has been appointed - I think the appointment of a receiver invalidates the management contract due to frustration of that contract - the contract arising out of the PDS/constitution, pursuant to the relevant law. After all, with a receiver appointed, the manager is no long able to manage the fund and can no longer fulfil its obligations to members of the fund.

In the circumstances, it would be unjust for members of a fund to suffer duplication of costs in the event a receiver is appointed by a court to that fund.

"Frustration/Subsequent impossibility - A frustrating event is an extreme supervening event occurring after the formation of the contract which makes further performance impossible, or so radically different to that envisaged, that it would be unjust for the contract to continue."
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...woHoCA&usg=AFQjCNHh7T6VK4_-kOlSyc04hCnSvJPWeg [Page 6: 4. Other matters that may invalidate a contract - Frustration/Subsequent impossibility]
 
Re: Duplication of Costs: Is it a Nonsense?

I totally agree..


ASICK said:
There's been talk from various parties about the appointment of a receiver to a managed investment scheme constituting a duplication of costs for fund members. That is, a fund would be liable for both the receiver's costs and the manager's (responsible entity's) costs.

I don't think it's possible for a responsible entity to continue claiming a fee once a receiver has been appointed - I think the appointment of a receiver invalidates the management contract due to frustration of that contract - the contract arising out of the PDS/constitution, pursuant to the relevant law. After all, with a receiver appointed, the manager is no long able to manage the fund and can no longer fulfil its obligations to members of the fund.

In the circumstances, it would be unjust for members of a fund to suffer duplication of costs in the event a receiver is appointed by a court to that fund.

"Frustration/Subsequent impossibility - A frustrating event is an extreme supervening event occurring after the formation of the contract which makes further performance impossible, or so radically different to that envisaged, that it would be unjust for the contract to continue."
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...woHoCA&usg=AFQjCNHh7T6VK4_-kOlSyc04hCnSvJPWeg [Page 6: 4. Other matters that may invalidate a contract - Frustration/Subsequent impossibility]
Click to expand...
 
Pawns in the Game

I wonder which entity/entities is/are paying for the proposed meetings of members of the three LM funds?

If the funds are paying and the court appoints a receiver prior to the meetings, will be funds be recompensed by LMIML (administrator appointed)?

I wonder how much in court costs are being paid for by the FMFMIF?

Nothing like being kept in the dark, right?

Investors are pawns in the game, and there's really not much they can do about it.

Such is life as an investor in a failed managed investment scheme.

Remember, "A frozen fund is a manager's (or receiver's, whatever the case may be) delight"
 
Latest info on LM site - FTI Litigation -Affidavit Stephen Russell dated 6 May is very lengthy, but seems to say that FTI don't want a Receiver appointed, as well as other points.

God knows how the court will get through all this and other Material and make an informed decision
 
BDO's David Whyte

http://u.b5z.net/i/u/10199052/f/Affidavit_of_David_Whyte_sworn_29_04_13__TCS00510830_.pdf

Crikey, the $1m man from BDO is in the mix now !!!!!

http://equititrust.com.au/Updates.html

Receiver for the Equititrust Income Fund (EIF) is not enough for the $1m man?

Look to the last page of each report for his costs and disbursements - wow! Bucket loads of $$$$$ !

In the near 12 months since BDO took over, the average estimated return dropped from $0.24/unit to $0.14/unit - and not one cent of capital has been returned - but add up the costs - and look, he's out for more ..
http://moneymagik.com/equititrust.php

"Frozen funds are most certainly a receiver's delight"

Here's an interesting document:
http://equititrust.com.au/Pdfs/Rece...ter to Investors re Administrators Report.pdf
[see page 2 - "3. Potential Replacement of Responsible Entity"]

As receiver, in the abovementioned document, David Whyte spoke negatively to a number of prospective responsible entities put up by the administrator of Equititrust Limited (the previous RE for the EIF). But guess which prospective suitors weren't spoken to? Ah, did you guess it? Trilogy and Balmain !

oh .. by the way, BDO audits Trilogy funds like Trilogy's PFMF !

http://moneymagik.com/three_part_trilogy_funds_management_tragedy.php

And there's humour too:

http://u.b5z.net/i/u/10199052/f/Sec...__Russell_sworn_1_May_2013-01052013184638.pdf

"SCR14": Page 2 - JC - top of page - second paragraph

http://moneymagik.com/three_part_trilogy_funds_management_tragedy.php
 

Similar threads

M
Cooling Australian Property Market Signals Economic Trends
Replies
1
Views
850
Joe Blow
Joe Blow
Garpal Gumnut
Thoughts on Trading and Investing : Garpal Gumnut :
Replies
15
Views
2K
Garpal Gumnut
Garpal Gumnut
frugal.rock
AUDS - Strong Australian Dollar Fund (Hedge Fund)
Replies
1
Views
1K
BossMan.
BossMan.
divs4ever
ZYAU - S&P/ASX 300 High Yield Plus ETF
Replies
0
Views
1K
divs4ever
divs4ever
frugal.rock
BHYB - Betashares Australian Major Bank Hybrids Index ETF
Replies
5
Views
1K
divs4ever
divs4ever
Top