LM Investment Management - Lack of confidence

[ASICK]

BDO and a Trilogy Failure

BDO is the auditor to the failed Trilogy Healthcare REIT
http://moneymagik.com/trilogy_healthcare_reit_dec_2012.pdf

where the fund's asset which cost about $8.1m was sold for $2.5m !
Investors lost all their capital.

Ah .. Trilogy .. You've Done it Again !

 

[Taja]

I looked and looked, and found it:
http://www.lminvestmentadministration.com/litigation

Thanks ASICK for alerting us to this. Indeed, the various documents make for very interesting reading - a lot to be mined there. As you had noted, the attachment to the 2nd Affidavit by Stephen Russell (arguing to retain FTI) includes a record of an exchange in November 2012 between Michael Welter (of the Bangkok-based Financial Adviser firm TopNotch) and Joe Christie of Trilogy. Two quite striking things:

J.C.: So you are not coming to the LM training for advisors ?
M.W.: No, I am not going there.

If it was regular practice for international financial advisers to go (invited? expenses paid?) to "LM training sessions", one can only wonder at the degree of complicity engendered - and at the extent to which the advisers were persuaded to relax their critical faculties in regard to LM goings-on. And "training" on what exactly ..?

J.C.: No, we are investigating a lot and also investigating the Maddison Project. Do you know the Maddison Project ?
M.W.: Yes I know the Maddison Project.
J.C.: You know the financial situation in relation to the Maddison Project ?
M.W.: I know the MPF is doing well.
J.C.: Yes, but they had a lot of problems.
M.W.: I know they had some problems with the redemption fee but you know the Fund is going well.
J.C.: But do you know how much money is spent on the Maddison Project?
M.W.: No, I don't.
J.C.: It's about $ 25 m mortgage from Suncorp and $ 220 m from the MPF. Have you seen the Project?
M.W.: No, I haven't seen the Project.
J.C.: There is nothing there.

Despite these whisperings from Trilogy (whatever one may think of that outfit) I know that this same firm of financial advisers was recommending MPF to investors right through until March 2013.

Regards.

 

[ASICK]

The 'Dash for Cash'

Good morning Taja, I wasn't aware of the "litigation" link until I expanded my search for the documents Rodent posted about yesterday. Normally I'd look on the LMFMIF link on the LM website - I couldn't find the documents there or on any of the other links I'd normally haunt.

Mr. Welter's recollection of conversations is detailed - to me, that suggests reliable contemporaneous records. I guess when one has such records, it's worth considering the other side has too, so, any excerpt has to disclose context, which it seems to me, Mr. Welter does.

I note a website heavily criticizing Mr. Welter/Topnotch and LM (easily found by a Google search), but that aside, Mr. Welter's evidence stands alone regardless. I spend a lot of time in Thailand, so would I go to seek advice from a financial advisor in Thailand? no, I wouldn't - would I ever had, no.

Interestingly JC agrees with MW that the MPF is doing well - it is MW that raises the issue of problems with redemptions, not MW.

I guess many things look clearer in hindsight - when one's in business, it's sometimes difficult to resist 'bagging the competition' - During the period MW speaks to, Trilogy was out to take over the LM funds, and so (at least to me), anything Trilogy said could well have been interpreted by MW as 'bagging LM' or even an embellishment of the facts to advance Trilogy's case (to take over the fund).

I wonder how many investors took earlier media concerns about LM as having merit? From my own experiences, I didn't want to believe that the City Pacific fund in which I'd invested was unstable. I sensed that even my earlier quite negative postings about the LMFMIF (not long after the forum was started) were taken with scepticism by readers - reality takes time to settle in.

One should keep in mind that even the "4 Corners" program qualified its report about Maddison to the extent that it might just turn out well: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/03/04/3700673.htm

(a little after 00:37) "If the Gold Coast economy booms, Maddison Estate could be a winner, but it's not without risk"

Further, the program disclosed (at about 00:36), that (1) loans are capitalized, and (2) interest paid to investors is sourced from (i) cash reserves, (ii) income from other loans, (iii) new investment.

Surprise Surprise, precisely the same as Trilogy's Monthly Income Trust:
http://moneymagik.com/trilogy_monthly_income_trust_alternative_comment.php



I think the more interesting issue is any disclosed relationship between Trilogy and Piper Alderman. It seems to me that FTI is beginning to focus quite strongly on Piper Alderman.

This is now becoming 'bigger than "Ben Hur"' - and it may be the case that it's all being played out with investors' hard-earned. Look at it all, from an outsider's perspective, it looks like a free-for-all, a big grab for the $$$$$$.

Like I'll continue to say, "A frozen fund is a manager's or receiver's (whatever the case may) delight" - If the PFMF is any indicator, there's a bag full of $$$$ in fees for the lucky winner of the 'Dash for Cash'.

Participants in the 'Dash for Cash':

1. Trilogy - see http://moneymagik.com/three_part_trilogy_funds_management_tragedy.php
2. FTI - administrator of LMIML
3. BDO's David Whyte - see http://moneymagik.com/equititrust.php
4. ASIC's nomination

 

[ASICK]

It's All Theatre

Unit Price, the orderly sale of assets, and the avoidance of the dreaded fire sale.

As investors in the PFMF, we've heard all the spruiks. Acting in our best interests, Trilogy managed to lose about 56% of the PFMF's value in three and a half years of managing the fund (until 30 June 2012). While spruiking "no fire sales", Trilogy managed to dispose of assets at very low prices (which according to Trilogy, were not fire sales).

http://moneymagik.com/info_letter_re_pacific_first_mortgage_fund.pdf
(see bottom page 4 "Fire sales" and page 5 "Wakerley")

Generally a "fire sale" is sale of an asset at a very low price, but as you'll find out, the sale of an asset for a very low price is not a fire sale if it's sold in the current market to satisfy fund expenses. In any event, you'll all find out, a manager/receiver who promises "no fire sales" will decry accusations of fire sales merely because fire sales were promised to be avoided, therefore there's no fire sales, even if asset sale prices are very low indeed.

Generally speaking, I've noted that investors concern themselves about three (1) a sustained unit price, and (2) avoidance of fire sales, and (3) a professional approach is taken to managing a fund's assets.

Sustained Unit Price

Unit price is very important to investors, even if that price is not able to achieved. From experience, I would say that investors should regard unit prices in damaged funds as no more than indicative of value - further, investors should consider the strength of that indication in light of the most recent RG45 Table "H" (LVR in ranges). Unit price is 'pie in the sky' unless it's able to be converted to cash. Investors will only get what they'll actually get, and as far as I'm concerned, the path to completion is loaded up with no more than pure theatre.

Avoidance of Fire Sales

I think a manager has no choice other than to sell assets at the price buyers are willing to pay - yes, it's obvious, but many investors think that by holding on, potential buyers will offer more and more and more - but, that doesn't seem to be the experience - in the PFMF, holding onto assets has increased costs to fund members while not producing anything other than low value sales (or increased security asset impairments).

I'm sure the definition of fire sale presupposes that the item being sold has a general attraction to a wide group of potential buyers, and therefore by holding off, and offering the item for a reasonable period of time, the item is able to be sold for a higher price. I guess a fire sale is said to take place if the item is immediately offered and sold to the market.

In many cases, the assets securing loans made by damaged managed funds are attractive to a narrower group of savvy potential buyers, so for these assets, it's a buyer's market - these limited buyers will simply bide their time and either move onto something else, or alternatively, buy when the manager/receiver has no other choice but to sell.

To my mind, fire sales cannot be avoided because assets have to be disposed of in order to pay fund expenses - assets certainly have to be disposed of if members are to be repaid capital. I'm of the view that fire sales (that is, sales of assets at low prices) will be the norm rather than the exception.

Professional Approach

The "orderly sell down" - I think it's no more than making organized fire sales - what else can be done?

Investors want to believe that by doing things in an organized way that the outcome will be better, but I don't think it's possible - the buyer decides the price - whether something is neat and organized (or not) will not motivate the buyer to pay more.

The orderly non-firesale of assets sounds attractive to investors, but in the end, it's the market which will determine the price.


It's all theatre - $$$ in hand is reality.

Some doses of reality:

http://moneymagik.com/equititrust.php
http://moneymagik.com/yardy_yardy_yah.php
http://moneymagik.com/litigation.php
http://moneymagik.com/lm_investment_management.php

 

[ASICK]

WInd up the Fund?: Seems Not to be on Trilogy's Mind

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2013/05/09/451591_gold-coast-business.html

"But Rodger Bacon, deputy chairman of Trilogy Capital Group, which is seeking to be made responsible entity for the fund, said the delay would hurt unitholders.

"The most important factor here should be the unitholders, who do not want to see the fund wound up and assets destroyed," he said. "They are disappointed at continued adjournments, which we believe are a distraction. "Unitholders can rest assured we will not be distracted from our goal, which is to see the best return for them.""

Ah .. Trilogy doesn't seem to want to wind the fund up --- all those $$$$$$ in management fees ... and receivers to the assets .. oh .. $$$$$$$

See Trilogy in the PFMF:
http://moneymagik.com/three_part_trilogy_funds_management_tragedy.php

ASIC wants the fund wound up, but that's not on Trilogy's mind.

In my view ASIC should have acted promptly - it should have appointed independent receivers promptly - by delaying, ASIC let the whole thing get out of hand.

It's a mess, and investors (including Mr. Bruce) are paying.

 

[Mysteryman]

If anyone needs any convincing that the FMIF is moribund and should be wound up by a receiver, do read Roger Shotten's submission of applicant to be found on the LM/FTI website, under Litigation. It is on pages 106 to 125 of the Affidavit of Stephen Charles Russell 6 May 2013. Well worth reading.

 

[ASICK]

$$$$$$

If anyone needs any convincing that the FMIF is moribund and should be wound up by a receiver, do read Roger Shotten's submission of applicant to be found on the LM/FTI website, under Litigation. It is on pages 106 to 125 of the Affidavit of Stephen Charles Russell 6 May 2013. Well worth reading.

I certainly don't disagree with the tenor of Mr. Shotten's submission, but I'd query some of the particulars:

1. on page 110, (l), that the fund has stopped trading - trading? It's most certainly stopped income distributions to investors, but the fund is still engaged in the business of lending money - however, it is not making new loans except to existing lenders (via receivers).
2. on page 111, (iii), that redemptions are due and payable? I don't think there's any such case. Redemptions (capital repayments) are now subject to the relevant provisions of the Corporations Act (and constitution).
3. on page 112, (3), LMIML is a debtor of the fund - is LMIML a debtor of the fund? I didn't think that was the case (at this point).

As an aside, shouldn't the affidavit of David Whyte (of wind up Equititrust IF fame - $$$$ in fees, no return to investors, average estimated unit price dropped from $0.24/unit to $0.14/unit) be listed in the Bruce column? http://www.lminvestmentadministration.com/litigation

I'm so used to seeing Trilogy and BDO in the same document that I'd be surprised if they aren't.

I can't find that Shotten is putting David Whyte up for anything?
(or have I missed it?)

 

[ASICK]

"emissary authority"

The news has now gone over the seas:
http://www.ahipcup.net/latest-twist-in-lm-court-row/

 

[ASICK]

Trailing Commissions

and there's more:
http://u.b5z.net/i/u/10199052/f/_Oth_Mem__Affidavit_of_Shane_Roberts_sworn_7_May_2013_.pdf

" ... Mr. Simon Lister ... and a partner of Magellan Tresidder Tuohy Ltd a financial planning company that advises over 200 individual investors in the LM funds accounting for approximately $30 million worth of investment in the MPF, CPAIF, and the LM First Mortgage Income Fund ("FMIF")."

no to Trilogy
no to a receiver

yes to LM (FTI appointed as administrator)

I guess that'd be yes to the income stream continuing in to LMIML .. and $$$ for creditors (which includes advisors?)

I didn't note in the affidavit whether Mr. Lister stands to gain a benefit (or not) if LMIML (administrators appointed) remains manager, or alternatively, what benefits Mr. Lister stands to lose (if any) if LMIML is ousted.

As I understand it, certain advisors are paid a trailing commission from LMIML.

Seems the issue of trailing fees hasn't poked it head up yet - perhaps it should?

 

[ASICK]

A Public Relations Disaster?

http://u.b5z.net/i/u/10199052/f/_1st_Resp__Fifth_Affidavit_of_Stephen_Russell_7_May_2013.pdf

It seems Deutsche Bank will likely appoint its own receiver if the applications to appoint a receiver remain on foot.

Great news everybody .. let them do it .. and then .. Deutsche Bank will cop the investor backlash if investor equity is decimated.

Poor darling got its corporate nose out of joint because no one took any notice of it.

dittims.

Maybe Deutsche Bank ought to think ahead a few moves?

 

[No Trust]

If der dumb Germans thoughts a heads ze little, zey wud never lend ze money to ze LM... IDIOTS what did they expect...

 

[ASICK]

The "Dash for Cash"

Let's see Deutsche Bank appoint a receiver. I'd guess in such circumstances the responsible entity would be still able to draw a management fee.

ASIC can then amend its application to have LMIML removed as manager.

Can it be so simple?

 

[ASICK]

The "Dash for Cash"

http://u.b5z.net/i/u/10199052/f/_1st_Resp__Fourth_Affidavit_of_Stephen_Russell_7_May_2013.pdf

I just wonder how many investors out there think it's better to pay back capital distributions while leaving a debt facility costing 15%(soon to be 18%?)?

FTI speaks to a regular distributions of capital to investors until the fund is wound down. sure .. all the while paying the bank at least 15% on the debt facility. Does anyone out there seriously believe that distributions of capital will be regular? This is one that I really want to see.

Costs - remember, LMIML will be drawing a fee of 1.5% FUM, which will not include the costs of receiving the assets. LMIML made millions out of receiving assets, it seems FTI will carry on the tradition. Administration of LMIML (as manager for the LMFMIF and other funds) is really a BIG $$$$$ earner - worth fighting for, both for FTI, the creditors, and of course, the advisors.

Ah ! The Investor Advisory Committee (IAC) - will "review the FMIF strategy (as updated by the administrators from time to time) and provide recommendations and suggestions to the administrators on that strategy" - yes, professionals need recommendations and suggestions from punters - perhaps a box with a label, "Suggestions/Recommendations" - but there's no word on whether FTI will take any notice of them.

"It is also proposed any compromise in relation to the amount owing to FMIF under any loan (including where an asset is sold which will result in a loss on the outstanding balance of the original loan advance) will be discussed with the IAC before any decision is made." - yes, that's a great out for FTI on a low sale "We checked in with the IAC first, and they thought it was okay" - oh dear, won't all the members of the IAC be bound by non-disclosure agreements?

"It is proposed where possible that meetings will be conducted by phone to minimize costs" - and if not by phone, then costs will be incurred by the fund?

Of course, members should know that if the IAC is not created by virtue of the fund's constitution, then it really has nothing to do with the fund.

Will any disclosure by the IAC constitute investment advice? Will members of the IAC be indemnified by LM (administrators appointed)?

Are these IAC type constructs of value?

In the PFMF it wasn't (at least for investors it wasn't):
http://moneymagik.com/icc.php

but never mind, when it's all over, there's nothing anyone can do anyway.

 

[ASICK]

The Proposed IAC

I've been reminded that ASIC will not deal with any complaints about an investor committee. If LM (in administration) remains in the fund, or if Trilogy takes over, and as a result of either, an ICC/IAC is constructed, members of the fund will not be able to complain to ASIC about the ICC/IAC - okay, you can make a complaint, but ASIC will simply write back and tell you that it's got nothing to do with them. (from experience).

Members of such constructs are generally bound by non-disclosure agreements and generally desist from communications about the fund with ordinary investors (yes, mere investors).

If you think an ICC/IAC is of value, I think you'll be surprised to discover quite the contrary if an IAC is put together for your fund.

 

[ASICK]

The "Dash For Cash"

http://u.b5z.net/i/u/10199052/f/_Appl__Affidavit_of_Paul_Wood_sworn_6_May_2013.pdf

Paragraphs 4 - 5 re: Trilogy managing funds - surprise, surprise --- no mention of an association with Balmain, and no mention of the PFMF - no mention of the TOTAL loss of investor capital in the Trilogy Healthcare REIT - and no mention of the losses in the PMMFF !
http://moneymagik.com/three_part_trilogy_funds_management_tragedy.php
Yes, the healthcare fund has not wound up yet.
https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/R...rilogy healthcare reit&searchType=OrgAndBusNm
Latest return: http://moneymagik.com/trilogy_healthcare_reit_dec_2012.pdf

paragraph 51(a) re: fund dropping from $783.3m to $328.8m, or - 58%
Compare with Trilogy in the PFMF - from about $426m (30 June 2009) to about $181m ( 31 December 2012), or -about 58%

Crikey, LM's performance (-58%) matches Trilogy's !!!!!

But Trilogy outperforms with the total loss of capital in the totally failed Trilogy Healthcare REIT (-100%)

 

[ASICK]

The "Dash For Cash"

Geez guys, there's heaps to post about - this litigation is really growing - my guess is that it's not the end.
Surely LM members have a lot to opine about?

http://u.b5z.net/i/u/10199052/f/_Appl__Affidavit_of_Michael_James_Baltins_sworn_3_May_2013.pdf

It seems Trilogy's side is attempting to convince the court by presenting a one-sided "clayton's" meeting - that is, a meeting Trilogy has, when it's not having a meeting, all without opposition.
http://u.b5z.net/i/u/10199052/f/_Ap...orn_3_May_2013_Exhibit_MJB1__part_1_of_3_.pdf
http://u.b5z.net/i/u/10199052/f/_Ap...orn_3_May_2013_Exhibit_MJB1__part_2_of_3_.pdf
http://u.b5z.net/i/u/10199052/f/_Ap...orn_3_May_2013_Exhibit_MJB1__part_3_of_3_.pdf

There's no doubt that investors in LM funds aren't happy, but before making a decision about whether an investor would support a prospective manager (or not), then surely investors should be permitted to make an informed decision.

It doesn't appear (at least to me) that the investors disclosed in Mr. Baltins' affidavit as supporting Trilogy could, to any extent, be regarded as well informed.

 

[Loiner]

Their Dash For Our Cash

It doesn't appear (at least to me) that the investors disclosed in Mr. Baltins' affidavit as supporting Trilogy could, to any extent, be regarded as well informed.

Hi Asick, I don't think the voters in Mr Baltin's affidavit were well informed either. They obviously haven't read this forum or heard your warnings. Where did they get those Piper Alderman pro formas from and why did they think an RE change to Trilogy was a good idea? I am a CPIAF investor and I have never seen that form, nor was I invited to participate in Mr Baltin's vote. I can see my name in there and I'm down as a "No Reply Received".
Where you suggest some LM Investors should opine, well my opinion is that the vote in his affidavit was rigged!

Something smells very fishy for there to be no CPAIF votes at all against Trilogy. This is especially as in early April I had spoken on the phone with Amanda Banton, his senior at Pipers, and told her that although definately in favour of an RE change, I wouldn't support Trilogy. I confirmed to her in an email that there must be somebody else. I also know of a similar tale from another investor.

Are Piper Alderman and Trilogy in cahoots together here? They are all looking very untrustworthy now. There is too much litigation being initiated by outside parties and too many vested interests wanting to get a slice of the action. How can we investors protect ourselves from this and bring about an efficient and quicker end to this whole sorry shooting match? The real ASIC don't seem to be doing very much really. What is wrong with what appears to be the only regulatory body in this mess?

 

[ASICK]

LM Funds: Piper Alderman / Trilogy

Hi Loiner, I guess that FTI is providing all the information so investors are able to judge for themselves.

FTI (as LM administrators) raised concerns about Piper Alderman:
http://u.b5z.net/i/u/10199052/f/8974r11.pdf (see page 2)

The alleged conversation between Welter & Ryan:
http://u.b5z.net/i/u/10199052/f/Sec...__Russell_sworn_1_May_2013-01052013184638.pdf
(see page 7: PR's alleged penultimate and final paragraphs)

Then there's that letter to investors from Piper Alderman where the author wobbles in and out of the first person.

and of course, Piper Alderman's proposed class action requires evidence (inside information).

I also wonder why anyone would want Trilogy to replace LM (-58% performance) when Trilogy's performance in the PFMF has been somewhat identical (about -58%)? (and in the Trilogy Healthcare REIT, -100%).

If the intent was to give LM investors a better chance, why even consider an entity such as Trilogy whose track record in taking over the damaged PFMF has been no better than LMIML with the LMFMIF?

Why consider David Whyte of BDO? average unit price after one year in the Equititrust Income Fund (in receivership) dropped from $0.24/unit to $0.14/unit with BIG $$$$ fees and not cent returned to investors.
http://moneymagik.com/equititrust.php

Remember BDO audits a number of Trilogy funds including the PFMF and failed Trilogy Healthcare REIT. BDO also receives a number of PFMF security assets (more info coming soon).

I've already opined that ASIC acted too late - this mess may well have been avoided if ASIC was more decisive.

Maybe the judge will determine that the whole thing has become a mess and to avoid a prolonged court battle, simply grant ASIC's interlocutory application and appoint a receiver to the LMFMIF.

The list of material is growing, as are the facts and allegations, and so are the responses to those facts and allegations, and so will the replies to those responses, and on it will go, tit-for-tat.

The "Dash For Cash" is in full swing.

Maybe some might take stock and say, "What the hell is going on?".

If they don't, I'm hopeful the court will.

 

[ASICK]

The "Dash For Cash"

http://u.b5z.net/i/u/10199052/f/_Appl__Affidavit_of_Paul_Wood_sworn_6_May_2013.pdf

"17. ... Trilogy as the new responsible entity would seek to ... (b) Obtain appropriate finance (either by external borrowings or the sale of assets) to enable the development of other assets of the LMFMIF to be completed (including upgrading the zoning of these developments) so that they can be sold for a greater price than they would otherwise sell for if sold in an incomplete state" (emphasis added)

From Wiki, "seek" = 2. Attempt or desire to obtain or achieve (something)

Now, I've heard this all before from Trilogy:
http://moneymagik.com/update_12_11_12.php (see heading "Assets")

http://www.moneymagik.com/bacon_mc_wak_1.mp3
(Rodger Bacon speaking to an investor in November 2012)

but what happened within about one month/two months respectively? Wakerley was sold (as a firesale*) and MC has been offered for sale (as a firesale*)

* firesale as defined by Andrew Griffin at Martha Cove in April 2011: http://www.moneymagik.com/fire_sale_defined.mp3

I'm curious as to where Trilogy actually did carry out staged developments?

"Life With Trilogy":http://moneymagik.com/info_letter_re_pacific_first_mortgage_fund.pdf

 

[ASICK]

The "Dash For Cash": History

http://balmaintrilogy.com.au/pdf/BTI 5033 PFMF RG45 FEB12.pdf

This RG45 (correct at 29 February 2012) was released to investors on 1 May 2012 (http://www.balmaintrilogy.com.au)

It discloses (Table "H") that about $162m (of $210.5m total assets) could lie between 90% - 100% LVR. $190.5m (of $210.5m total) could lie between 80% - 100% LVR. [The more value in high LVR (expressed as a percentage) ranges, the more risk, and the more likelihood of loss/impairments]

Here's the 2012 return for the PFMF (as at 30 June 2012):
http://balmaintrilogy.com.au/pdf/BTI 5033 PFMF RG45 FEB12.pdf

Consistent with the indications in the RG45, in 2012 unitholders lost $128,785,463 (see page 8), the 2011 unitholders lost $63,910,239 !

BDO audits the PFMF (see page 34)
BDO in the Equititrust EIF: http://moneymagik.com/equititrust.php [big fees, no return to investors, average unit value estimate dropped from $0.24/unit to $0.14/unit)

See Note 8 on page 19 for the fiasco headed "Investment Property" - Trilogy went ahead and bought a unit in "King Tide" on the Gold Coast. Trilogy put a deposit on the management rights and another unit - Trilogy did not proceed the second unit purchase and it did not proceed with acquiring the management rights. The purchases were post-GFC, and boy did they make a mess of it with a massive loss (%-wise) of $256k to the fund for a mere $511k investment. It's worth another post to get the full picture on this one - see just what Trilogy is capable of. For those who support Trilogy and who read this, at least you've been warned.

Here's the accompanying letter to the 2012 return:
http://balmaintrilogy.com.au/pdf/BTI 5033 PFMF RG45 FEB12.pdf

Among other things, the letter discloses:

1. Members lost $0.15/unit of equity ($0.03/unit capital repaid)
2. $0.08/unit of loss was caused by impairments at Martha Cove
3. $0.07/unit loss due to asset value drops

So, with $0.03/unit paid back, $0.12/unit remaining, and $0.15/unit lost, that equates to a 50% loss of unitholder equity in ONE YEAR ! And some LM investors see Trilogy as a better option to LM?

Members of LM funds receive spruiks from Trilogy about losses in the LM funds, but the spruiks are coming from an entity that's capable of massive losses, both in terms of $$$ and %.

Remember, the Trilogy Healthcare REIT - investors lost ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of their capital !
http://moneymagik.com/analysis_REIT.php

Trilogy has not released the February 2013 PFMF RG45 at this time.

From Trilogy on 11 April 2013, "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."

Well, here we are at 12 May 2013, and, yes, you guessed it, nothing. Maybe the litigation update (if we get one) might include the "off the record" information foreshadowed to be released in this conversation between Rodger Bacon (of Trilogy) and a PFMF unitholder in November 2012 (SIX MONTHS AGO):
http://www.moneymagik.com/imf_litigation.mp3

Normally the selected ICC (you might call it an IAC) would have a spruik, but nothing now for over a YEAR - not a peep. The ICC was supposed to have 10 members, but look at the reality:

http://moneymagik.com/icc.php (all information verifiable on the links to Trilogy/BT)

Trilogy came into the PFMF in July 2009 and consequently re-valued the fund in about November 2009 from the $630m as valued by Citypac to about $426m, and $426m was declared as the value at 30 June 2009 - so let's be clear, the losses in investor equity suffered by members of the PFMF are calculated by reference to the value assessed by Trilogy, not as assessed by the previous manager.

This is why I say that disclosures in these damaged managed funds are pure theatre - the values are meaningless to investors - if the fund was really worth $426m, then why wasn't it all sold up? Well, because, as history has shown, it wasn't worth that at all, at least not to investors, but it was great for the manager to crank out a multi-million dollar fee (as a % of FUM) - all legit.

When your fund is valued, don't delude yourselves into thinking that it's really worth that much to you, because, if history is an indicator, it won't be, it'll be much less. If there's a fee for the taking based on % of FUM, the value of the fund will be real for that calculation, but investors shouldn't get too excited, unit price does not mean cash in the hand.

If history is ignored, then it's possible that it just might be repeated.