- Joined
- 2 November 2012
- Posts
- 51
- Reactions
- 0
As a third voice, I'm with you both all the way and have voted accordingly.
LM Investment Management - Lack of confidence
- Thread starter dinga
- Start date
Let me be a 4th voice on this issue - I have also voted Yes to getting rid of LM/FTI and No to Trilogy.
But I too am worried that many investors will have been persuaded my the plausible-sounding but hollow arguments being out out by the two interested parties. And - as ASICK has pointed out - ASIC's passive role throughout the recent saga is a real concern.
Aren't there any Aussie journalists out there who are interested in putting out a story about all this - but a more probing and honest one than some of the stuff recently published ..?
Regards.
But I too am worried that many investors will have been persuaded my the plausible-sounding but hollow arguments being out out by the two interested parties. And - as ASICK has pointed out - ASIC's passive role throughout the recent saga is a real concern.
Aren't there any Aussie journalists out there who are interested in putting out a story about all this - but a more probing and honest one than some of the stuff recently published ..?
Regards.
TAJA, I also invested in LM Australia through a Financial Advisor in Bangkok. I invested in the MPF and like yourself gutted by the whole outcome. I am glad that our fund at least went from FTI to KordaMentha, I do believe we are in safer hands. I like yourself am a resident of Thailand and if you would like to make contact through e-mail or telephone to discuss any issues where we may be able to help each other let me know.
- Joined
- 17 January 2013
- Posts
- 12
- Reactions
- 0
YES to getting rid of LM.
NO to trilogy.
Many thanks to ASICK for the tremendous amount of work and time he has put into supporting the thread.
I suspect that there are alot of very elderly investors that read the thread but prefer not to contribute. Like many others, I was a complete neophyte when I was advised to invest with LM. Many, myself included, have no knowledge or technical expertise or ability to understand the complexities of court proceedings or financial reports so other than say "Go ASICK" it's difficult to add any value to the quality of discussion.
Please continue ASICK as this thread has become compulsory lunch time reading for many
.
NO to trilogy.
Many thanks to ASICK for the tremendous amount of work and time he has put into supporting the thread.
I suspect that there are alot of very elderly investors that read the thread but prefer not to contribute. Like many others, I was a complete neophyte when I was advised to invest with LM. Many, myself included, have no knowledge or technical expertise or ability to understand the complexities of court proceedings or financial reports so other than say "Go ASICK" it's difficult to add any value to the quality of discussion.
Please continue ASICK as this thread has become compulsory lunch time reading for many
.Thanks
Thank you Sht4branes, your words bring a tiny weeny tear to one of my eyes - It is my nature to be opinionated, but my motivation is not to see your fund suffer from Trilogy as the PFMF has. Yes, I know I'm repetitive about many things Trilogy, but I'm one who learned by rote and know its true value.
I guess I'll take a listen to those audio clips on LM : http://moneymagik.com/lm_investment_management.php and comment after I've put some land aflame (yes, I have other things to do).
I've been impressed by other posters on this thread - I've gained the impression that every one of you (that is, LM members) is earnestly seeking a better outcome for what's left of your respective investments by looking to the facts.
I don't believe there'll be any good outcome, but I do believe it's possible to have an outcome worse than others.
YES to getting rid of LM.
NO to trilogy.
Many thanks to ASICK for the tremendous amount of work and time he has put into supporting the thread.
I suspect that there are alot of very elderly investors that read the thread but prefer not to contribute. Like many others, I was a complete neophyte when I was advised to invest with LM. Many, myself included, have no knowledge or technical expertise or ability to understand the complexities of court proceedings or financial reports so other than say "Go ASICK" it's difficult to add any value to the quality of discussion.
Please continue ASICK as this thread has become compulsory lunch time reading for many
Thank you Sht4branes, your words bring a tiny weeny tear to one of my eyes - It is my nature to be opinionated, but my motivation is not to see your fund suffer from Trilogy as the PFMF has. Yes, I know I'm repetitive about many things Trilogy, but I'm one who learned by rote and know its true value.
I guess I'll take a listen to those audio clips on LM : http://moneymagik.com/lm_investment_management.php and comment after I've put some land aflame (yes, I have other things to do).
I've been impressed by other posters on this thread - I've gained the impression that every one of you (that is, LM members) is earnestly seeking a better outcome for what's left of your respective investments by looking to the facts.
I don't believe there'll be any good outcome, but I do believe it's possible to have an outcome worse than others.
I also invested in the MPF through a financial adviser from Bangkok who was in turn recommended by an established well known company. I went in thinking (and demanding) it was low risk, thought it was guaranteed/protected, and was told it 'was like a bank'. First and last time I'll ever use a fund, would have been better off putting my money in one of the big four in Australia. In retrospect I just cant believe how gullible I was. This whole experience has been upsetting to say the least, and the lack of concern from the financial adviser who placed us in the fund in the first place compounded the issue.
I am surprised that few MPF investors have said or done anything in regards to this whole debacle. Given that every investors email address was posted in one of the court documents, I had been expecting to be contacted to join an advice group/forum. That all is so quiet makes me wonder whether investors are afraid of making too much noise and upsetting the apple cart or whether the silent majority are just waiting and hoping that Korda Mentha does the right thing and recoups our money. I'm not expecting miracles and all my money back (most of our life savings btw), but I can only hope that Korda Mentha acts with decency and a moral compass.
I do wonder why no mention can be found on the director of LM- he seems to have just disappeared (though a cpl of articles on his house being sold), and I also wonder after all the negative publicity on LM by one Australian journo that he hasn't followed up on the story. Job done and move on?
I would encourage more investors to share any information they have on MPF. I don't know the first thing about Korda Mentha, nor what to expect either in the short or long term.
http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2013/05/28/452350_gold-coast-business.html
Judge rules against LM administrators
Judge rules against LM administrators
"An Agenda of Their Own"
yes ...
"While they sought the appointment of another independent trustee, they proposed a cooperative regime where they would retain the assets in LMIM. ... They were in that way pursuing an agenda of their own."
FTI just couldn't let go !
I look forward with bated breath for comment from the bench re: the LMFMIF Clayton's meeting (that is, the meeting you have when you're not having a meeting).
What a disaster for investors - a disaster even including Trilogy:
http://moneymagik.com/three_part_trilogy_funds_management_tragedy.php
In the end, it's all about $$$$$$$ ... and KordaMentha, it's on a winner ... a % of FUM ..
ah .. The Frozen Fund, A Manager's Delight !
I particularly like this excerpt:
"Justice de Jersey dismissed FTI Consulting's application and in ordering the firm to pay costs, said "the conclusion that (FTI) were pursuing their own agenda itself justifies indemnity costs"."
and when should fund members pay for the self-interest of those in control? NEVER !
yes ...
"While they sought the appointment of another independent trustee, they proposed a cooperative regime where they would retain the assets in LMIM. ... They were in that way pursuing an agenda of their own."
FTI just couldn't let go !
I look forward with bated breath for comment from the bench re: the LMFMIF Clayton's meeting (that is, the meeting you have when you're not having a meeting).
What a disaster for investors - a disaster even including Trilogy:
http://moneymagik.com/three_part_trilogy_funds_management_tragedy.php
In the end, it's all about $$$$$$$ ... and KordaMentha, it's on a winner ... a % of FUM ..
ah .. The Frozen Fund, A Manager's Delight !
I particularly like this excerpt:
"Justice de Jersey dismissed FTI Consulting's application and in ordering the firm to pay costs, said "the conclusion that (FTI) were pursuing their own agenda itself justifies indemnity costs"."
and when should fund members pay for the self-interest of those in control? NEVER !
The Frozen Fund - A Manager's Delight
I think that investors (collectively) in frozen funds do not realize how valuable such funds are to managers, receivers and the like - it's really quite a gold mine for them - it could be a one-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make a million (or two, or twenty, or more).
Even if there's not much for investors, there's heaps for others.
If the LMFMIF remains in the hands of a responsible entity, then keep in mind all those spruiks about double costs from Trilogy and FTI(LM), and see if receivers are appointed, or alternatively, see if extra fees are charged for receiving security assets. I can't imagine a responsible entity receiving assets for a management fee of 1.5%.
After all, where's the motivation? The 1.5% is for management, no need to do extra for free !
Remember, a management fee is paid for MANAGEMENT, nothing more. That's how LMIML was able to rack up fees for receiving various security assets - investors were already being charged twice (and of course, it was legal, otherwise the auditors wouldn't have permitted it).
The more some things seem to change, the more they stay the same.
I think that investors (collectively) in frozen funds do not realize how valuable such funds are to managers, receivers and the like - it's really quite a gold mine for them - it could be a one-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make a million (or two, or twenty, or more).
Even if there's not much for investors, there's heaps for others.
If the LMFMIF remains in the hands of a responsible entity, then keep in mind all those spruiks about double costs from Trilogy and FTI(LM), and see if receivers are appointed, or alternatively, see if extra fees are charged for receiving security assets. I can't imagine a responsible entity receiving assets for a management fee of 1.5%.
After all, where's the motivation? The 1.5% is for management, no need to do extra for free !
Remember, a management fee is paid for MANAGEMENT, nothing more. That's how LMIML was able to rack up fees for receiving various security assets - investors were already being charged twice (and of course, it was legal, otherwise the auditors wouldn't have permitted it).
The more some things seem to change, the more they stay the same.
Wellington Capital's PIF
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021727044.PDF
[as you'll all see, Wellington Capital isn't pleased with the outcome - but I'm guessing the pre-existing punters are pleased]
I most certainly hope that ASIC is as successful in the current LMFMIF matter as it's been with the PIF.
What's in the best interests of investors is coming up a lot of late - and it's about time !
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021727044.PDF
[as you'll all see, Wellington Capital isn't pleased with the outcome - but I'm guessing the pre-existing punters are pleased]
I most certainly hope that ASIC is as successful in the current LMFMIF matter as it's been with the PIF.
What's in the best interests of investors is coming up a lot of late - and it's about time !
Re: Wellington Capital's PIF
Just like you good folk in certain LM funds have been called to a, well, ... ehhh ... ummm... meeting? So have the good folk in Wellington Capital's PIF - WC says that despite the adverse outcome for WC (as PIF RE) in the Federal Court of Appeal, WC is pressing along with a meeting early in June for punters to give it the green light to transfer most of the remaining units to this entity named Asset Resolution Limited (ARL):
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021727045.PDF
Imagine all the costs piling up on PIF members.
With the original shares/units in PIF for shares in ARL trade in doubt (subject to the High Court), WC presses on, but this time it's not so cocky about just "doing the deed", this time, it's seeking investor approval - WC is seeking support from 75% of members voting to okay the transfer:
http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/pif/updates/2013/pif_notice_of_meeting.pdf
Still WC presses on .. ah ! aren't those punters lucky to have an entity working in their best interests?
note: at last call in with a PIF member, no info about the value of their shares in ARL, and no info about any of the properties transferred over along with the unit/shares from the PIF. Poor beggars seem to be mushroomed big time - and just to make the thing complete, WC, acting in investors' best interests, are asking investors to consent to transfer what's left (or most of what's left?) over to ARL.
I'll bet PIF/ARL investors will be pleased to get free of both WC and ARL - and we haven't even got around to speak about the IMF backed litigation - that's a whole other story where pre-existing PIF investors could just become more than a tad peeved.
Some PIF members hold a view that they'll lose 10% of any proceeds from litigation to new investors in the fund, although WC says otherwise - WC says the new investors in the fund will not be entitled to a share of the proceeds of any legal claim by the PIF. However, if the units/shares are compelled to stay in WC, then PIF investors will find out about the litigation issue sooner or later.
I think they'll lose 10% because the new investors will necessarily share in any litigation proceeds - investors must be treated equally after all, there's no way around it. [It's also my view that it'll be the same outcome as shareholders in ARL, because shareholders must also be treated equally - the directors can't say, "ok, more for you guys, less for the rest of you" - that is not going to happen.
And the news never stops :
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/8728056/Investors-stiffed-and-mums-the-word
Please, Please, Please - let them RIP:
PIF
PFMF
EIF
LM
(just to name a few)
Just like you good folk in certain LM funds have been called to a, well, ... ehhh ... ummm... meeting? So have the good folk in Wellington Capital's PIF - WC says that despite the adverse outcome for WC (as PIF RE) in the Federal Court of Appeal, WC is pressing along with a meeting early in June for punters to give it the green light to transfer most of the remaining units to this entity named Asset Resolution Limited (ARL):
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021727045.PDF
Imagine all the costs piling up on PIF members.
With the original shares/units in PIF for shares in ARL trade in doubt (subject to the High Court), WC presses on, but this time it's not so cocky about just "doing the deed", this time, it's seeking investor approval - WC is seeking support from 75% of members voting to okay the transfer:
http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/pif/updates/2013/pif_notice_of_meeting.pdf
Still WC presses on .. ah ! aren't those punters lucky to have an entity working in their best interests?
note: at last call in with a PIF member, no info about the value of their shares in ARL, and no info about any of the properties transferred over along with the unit/shares from the PIF. Poor beggars seem to be mushroomed big time - and just to make the thing complete, WC, acting in investors' best interests, are asking investors to consent to transfer what's left (or most of what's left?) over to ARL.
I'll bet PIF/ARL investors will be pleased to get free of both WC and ARL - and we haven't even got around to speak about the IMF backed litigation - that's a whole other story where pre-existing PIF investors could just become more than a tad peeved.
Some PIF members hold a view that they'll lose 10% of any proceeds from litigation to new investors in the fund, although WC says otherwise - WC says the new investors in the fund will not be entitled to a share of the proceeds of any legal claim by the PIF. However, if the units/shares are compelled to stay in WC, then PIF investors will find out about the litigation issue sooner or later.
I think they'll lose 10% because the new investors will necessarily share in any litigation proceeds - investors must be treated equally after all, there's no way around it. [It's also my view that it'll be the same outcome as shareholders in ARL, because shareholders must also be treated equally - the directors can't say, "ok, more for you guys, less for the rest of you" - that is not going to happen.
And the news never stops :
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/8728056/Investors-stiffed-and-mums-the-word
Please, Please, Please - let them RIP:
PIF
PFMF
EIF
LM
(just to name a few)
"The Narrowing"
Trilogy has just released a spruik which calls the discontinuance of a substantial claim against a number of ex-Citypac directors a "narrowing" and categorizes same as not being a win for the ex-directors. Of course, no mention of a costs award in favour of the ex-directors.
Read more: http://moneymagik.com/federal_court_litigation_comment.php
(the link to Trilogy's spruik is provided)
Trilogy has just released a spruik which calls the discontinuance of a substantial claim against a number of ex-Citypac directors a "narrowing" and categorizes same as not being a win for the ex-directors. Of course, no mention of a costs award in favour of the ex-directors.
Read more: http://moneymagik.com/federal_court_litigation_comment.php
(the link to Trilogy's spruik is provided)
Trilogy backs out so why the meeting ?
FTI/LM posted a Q&A notice under the FMIF page on their website the other day.
See Answer to Question 2:
""2. Has Trilogy consented to being appointed as responsible entity of FMIF?
As the notice of meeting was sent out after the application made to Court to have Trilogy
appointed as temporary responsible entity of FMIF, LM assumed that Trilogy would (if
members voted to appoint them) consent to be appointed as responsible entity of FMIF.
On 23 May 2013 (some 4 weeks after the notice of meeting was posted out) Trilogy has
advised LM that it does not consent to being appointed as responsible entity by members at
the meeting scheduled for 30 May 2013.
The reason that Trilogy has provided for not consenting is that they believe that the matter
should be determined by the Court. Trilogy states that each member of FMIF is entitled to turn
up to Court to make their views known to the Court and that this makes the Court the
appropriate forum to determine who should manage their fund.
It seems that Trilogy prefers to put both you (should you elect to put your views to the Court)
and your fund to the significant costs associated with the Court proceedings rather than allow
the matter to be determined in the more usual and democratic manner in a meeting of
members. This is particularly so given the Court adjourned the proceedings till 15 July 2013 in
part to allow the meeting to run its course.""
So the Investor meeting looks to be a waste of time and money. Or am I missing something ?
FTI/LM posted a Q&A notice under the FMIF page on their website the other day.
See Answer to Question 2:
""2. Has Trilogy consented to being appointed as responsible entity of FMIF?
As the notice of meeting was sent out after the application made to Court to have Trilogy
appointed as temporary responsible entity of FMIF, LM assumed that Trilogy would (if
members voted to appoint them) consent to be appointed as responsible entity of FMIF.
On 23 May 2013 (some 4 weeks after the notice of meeting was posted out) Trilogy has
advised LM that it does not consent to being appointed as responsible entity by members at
the meeting scheduled for 30 May 2013.
The reason that Trilogy has provided for not consenting is that they believe that the matter
should be determined by the Court. Trilogy states that each member of FMIF is entitled to turn
up to Court to make their views known to the Court and that this makes the Court the
appropriate forum to determine who should manage their fund.
It seems that Trilogy prefers to put both you (should you elect to put your views to the Court)
and your fund to the significant costs associated with the Court proceedings rather than allow
the matter to be determined in the more usual and democratic manner in a meeting of
members. This is particularly so given the Court adjourned the proceedings till 15 July 2013 in
part to allow the meeting to run its course.""
So the Investor meeting looks to be a waste of time and money. Or am I missing something ?
Re: Trilogy in Action
Sorry for the inconvenience, but as those of you who clicked on the Press Display links, the expected information wasn't immediately available. I've put an excerpt from one of the links here: http://www.moneymagik.com/
With Press Display, it's necessary to make a detailed selection (as shown at the link on moneymagik).
Here's what Trilogy's blunders in relation to JUST ONE PFMF SECURITY ASSET, "King Tide" (loan to "Bullish Bear") have cost PFMF investors:
(1) The legal costs of Perry & Hartnett in relation to the "Bullish Bear" claim in the Supreme Court, Sydney:
http://tinyurl.com/nfvoxv4
PLUS
(2) Sullivan's legal costs in relation to the "Bullish Bear" claim in the Federal Court, Brisbane.
http://moneymagik.com/P_NSD604_2012_340302.pdf
(as I understand it, Sullivan intends to claim HALF his legal costs to date)
PLUS
(3) The Fund's legal costs in relation to the "Bullish Bear" claim in the Supreme Court, Sydney.
PLUS
(4) The Fund's legal costs in relation to the "Bullish Bear" matter in the Federal Court, Brisbane
[estimated total cost of both claims (including the Saddleback matter), about $1m, about $500k spent up to February 2013]
PLUS
(5) The $260,684 LOSS (-62%) on initial investment of the so-called "investment" property.
TOTAL COST TO INVESTORS = $ ?
See: http://moneymagik.com/federal_court_litigation_comment.php
[links to PFMF financial documents in relation to the -62% loss on the purchase of a "King Tide" are provided]
Sorry for the inconvenience, but as those of you who clicked on the Press Display links, the expected information wasn't immediately available. I've put an excerpt from one of the links here: http://www.moneymagik.com/
With Press Display, it's necessary to make a detailed selection (as shown at the link on moneymagik).
Here's what Trilogy's blunders in relation to JUST ONE PFMF SECURITY ASSET, "King Tide" (loan to "Bullish Bear") have cost PFMF investors:
(1) The legal costs of Perry & Hartnett in relation to the "Bullish Bear" claim in the Supreme Court, Sydney:
http://tinyurl.com/nfvoxv4
PLUS
(2) Sullivan's legal costs in relation to the "Bullish Bear" claim in the Federal Court, Brisbane.
http://moneymagik.com/P_NSD604_2012_340302.pdf
(as I understand it, Sullivan intends to claim HALF his legal costs to date)
PLUS
(3) The Fund's legal costs in relation to the "Bullish Bear" claim in the Supreme Court, Sydney.
PLUS
(4) The Fund's legal costs in relation to the "Bullish Bear" matter in the Federal Court, Brisbane
[estimated total cost of both claims (including the Saddleback matter), about $1m, about $500k spent up to February 2013]
PLUS
(5) The $260,684 LOSS (-62%) on initial investment of the so-called "investment" property.
TOTAL COST TO INVESTORS = $ ?
See: http://moneymagik.com/federal_court_litigation_comment.php
[links to PFMF financial documents in relation to the -62% loss on the purchase of a "King Tide" are provided]
WC PIF
We shouldn't let the "66,666" counter go without a posting.
While everyone's waiting for the outcome of the meeting, here's another meeting in play:
http://moneymagik.com/well_cap_pif.php
These badly damaged managed funds sure give rise to heaps to new issues to learn about.
We shouldn't let the "66,666" counter go without a posting.
While everyone's waiting for the outcome of the meeting, here's another meeting in play:
http://moneymagik.com/well_cap_pif.php
These badly damaged managed funds sure give rise to heaps to new issues to learn about.
I'm another caught up in the MPF.
Most probably the advisers were none the wiser or the handsome commissions would have been enough for many to advise without due diligence or with clouded judgment.
I feel KM is doing a thorough job of keeping investors informed with progress, thankfully they've been able to continue.
I’m interested to know how others feel in regards to the 8th update from KM. As outlined in the update, would you be willing to add more capital?
As for me I'm not so sure! Have any discussed this with their advisors (could you trust their opinion!)?
P.S. would it be better for MPF related investors if a new thread was opened?
LMMPF - Up & Away (Again)?
It seems like it'd be the best thing to start up a new tread - I'm sure you guys have a lot to talk over.
It's interesting from the eighth update that Maddison has some merit after all - it just needs more $$$$$.
I don't blame KordaMentha for pushing the issue, I'm sure the fees would be very attractive.
I'm sure you're all aware of it, but I'll say it anyway, "debt is debt is debt" (it matters not where it comes from).
If your new investment is part of the debt, then it seems it'll have priority over your pre-existing investment - a nice edge for those with extra $$$$ - but, at what %? 10%? (that'd be nice).
It seems like it'd be the best thing to start up a new tread - I'm sure you guys have a lot to talk over.
It's interesting from the eighth update that Maddison has some merit after all - it just needs more $$$$$.
I don't blame KordaMentha for pushing the issue, I'm sure the fees would be very attractive.
I'm sure you're all aware of it, but I'll say it anyway, "debt is debt is debt" (it matters not where it comes from).
If your new investment is part of the debt, then it seems it'll have priority over your pre-existing investment - a nice edge for those with extra $$$$ - but, at what %? 10%? (that'd be nice).
Trilogy - in the news
http://journlaw.com/2013/06/04/repo...argeted-in-subpoena-served-direct-on-sources/
"The sources of at least three journalists investigating a collapsed fund manager have been ordered by the Queensland Supreme Court to hand over all correspondence with the reporters."
Yes, use the phone:
http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/06/06...&utm_content=24598190&utm_term=_225651_225658
http://journlaw.com/2013/06/04/repo...argeted-in-subpoena-served-direct-on-sources/
"The sources of at least three journalists investigating a collapsed fund manager have been ordered by the Queensland Supreme Court to hand over all correspondence with the reporters."
Yes, use the phone:
http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/06/06...&utm_content=24598190&utm_term=_225651_225658
Similar threads
