LM Investment Management - Lack of confidence

[ASICK]

Fine effort Dinga. At least now LM Investment management will be able to have its say on this thread (after you post any reply you might receive). I'm not surprised you're the ONLY member of your fund doggedly posting here, after all, in any group there is always only a handful who see reality while the rest remain in numbnuts land, living in hope while sinking into the mire, sometimes slowly, sometimes apace.

I sincerely hope that more members of your fund might be motived to contribute, but alas, that's also probably living in hope.

I'm aware that LM Investment Management is concerned about this thread and in particular about links to the SMH article since a simple search for "LM Investment Management" in Goolge discloses that ASF sometimes appears right next to LM's home site. However, what I'm surprised about is that LM hasn't commenced proceedings against SMH to have the article struck from public view.

Still, if LM Investment Management does reply to your letter, I'm sure such reply will make good reading and provide fertile grounds for further contributions in relation to it. I'm sure LM Investment Management will be acutely aware of all of these things.

Again, fine effort. Let's sit back for a few days and wait for LM Investment Management to reply.

 

[Irishdan]

IThe reality with this mob is that they will do anything to prolong the existence of the FMIF because that is where they are paid from. On My calculations based on the size of their other funds, FMIF accounts for circa 75% of their total topline revenue. If it were to be liquidated in its entirety which it should have been over three years ago that cashflow stops for LM. This is one of the key points where the RE I believe has breached the corporations act in that it has put its own interest ahaed of those of its investors

I would be suggesting to you all to work on a Zero return from FMIF. The debt to asset ratio of as you know is now north of 70% based on rubbery valuations. This is largely because most of the borrowers/loans are in default and interest owing has been capitalised to the point that there is areally big chance of negative equity situation. 18 months ago I was advised that they had identified properties to sell and were vigorously marketing them. I asked to see the marketing advertisements etc and who they were listed with and they would not provide that information.

Only last week they were to commence adviser briefings with more this week. None went ahead last week, would be interesting to see whether they went ahead this week.

 

[ASICK]

From one of LM's spruiks (in part) " As Fund Manager, LM has identified and proposed a well-supported strategy to bring liquidity to the Fund. Naturally, with our extensive in-house property and funds management expertise, we have identified assets that are suitable for each of the “hold” and “sale” pools of the strategy.

Importantly however, the hold and sale pools will be weighted according to investor elections and not as predetermined by LM. LM does not have a vested interest in the weighting of assets to each pool. The strategy recognises the fact that investors have this personal interest and need. The weighting will be determined objectively and according to the investment allocations received from all investors. Clearly liquidity is required by some investors and so assets must be sold to satisfy that need. As well, there are investors who prefer to remain in the fund, commence earning income once again, and await improvement and potential market upside. The liquidity mechanism aims to fairly address the needs of all investors."

LM says (in part)

1. LM allocates assets to the "hold" and "sale" pools.
2. LM (Naturally, with its extensive in-house property and funds management expertise) has identified assets that are suitable for each of the “hold” and “sale” pools of the strategy.
3. The assets are weighted according to investor elections
4. LM has no vested invest in the weighting of assets to each pool.

I'm a little confused by LM's proposal. This is how I read it: LM allocates the assets after having identified them - the assets in each pool are then weighted. LM has no vested interest in the weighting.

My first question is: "What does weighting mean?"
My second question: "Where is an example of how the weighting process works"
My third question: "As to vested interest, how about the loan behind which LM has caused another fund to lend as second mortgagee, is the security asset for the LM FMIF loan up for sale? and if not, why not?"
My fourth question: "Since the second mortgage lent by the fund can't be sold, is it fair to leave the risk to the "hold' pool?"

I look forward to seeing examples from LM disclosing how fund security assets of varying LVRs are dealt with.

I also look forward to reading LM's explanation as to why the proposed scheme complies with the Corporations Act (s. 601FC(1)(d)).

As far as I read it, LM hasn't given any reasonable explanation as to the proposed scheme's operation: weighting is not explained - a second mortgage is in the mix - a FMIF loan in front (as first mortgage) of a loan from another LM fund (as second mortgage) - loan LVRs vary - Corporations Act 601FC(1)(d) compliance.

If LM has been unsuccessfuly attempting to sell assets, how will those assets now sell to satisfy those who want to leave unless further discounting takes place? In other words, would those who wish to leave find themselves at a higher degree of risk than they might have imagined?

The real drama for sellers is that they cannot find fault with the manager for investor losses (see the disclaimer) - so, if an example indicates a loss is 10% and the actual loss is 40%, then so be it.

I wonder (in the circumstances) why any related party loans aren't repaid immediately and that the money be returned to investors without delay.

And there's more - but, for another day.

 

[dinga]

Sadly, you're right. I think most investors do not take sufficient care and scrutinize all of the available information prior to making investments. Also, I'm one of the investors who is now suffering because of the over reliance placed upon fund managers and IFA's - and the misplaced assumptions that:
* the best interests of both fund managers and investors must be the same, so therefore all actions by the managers must therefore be in the best interests of the investors
* on-going advice provided by the same financial advisors who introduced investors to the funds, and who continue to receive trailing commissions, must be independent and balanced - and in the best interests of the investor

These misplaced assumptions remind me of the oft repeated saying by an old work colleague that "in the race of life, always back self-interest because you know it's having a fair dinkum go".

However naive, I expect that information should be presented in a way that is clear and accurate. LM's advice dated 22 June 2012 included a table entitled "Retail Performance Comparison of $10,000 investment since inception" in which performance of FMIF is compared against two funds which LM considers 'comparable', and taking into consideration full performance and any unit price movements over time ie. Challenger Howard Mortgage Fund and Colonial First State Mortgage Income Fund

Putting aside for the moment a detailed comparison, this table shows the FMIF as having 0.00%; 2.50% and 4.83% performance over the last 1 year, 3 year and 5 year periods respectively.

HOW CAN THIS BE SO?????????, given:
* the unit value has fallen 27% (to 73 cents) in the last 2 years
* no income has accrued since 1/1/2010

LM provided the following response to my query about FMIF 'performance'

"I confirm that the unit value of the fund is currently 0.73cents. The Fund declared zero distributions from 1st January, 2011. Further information was provided in the letter sent to investors with the 2011 Taxation Statements which is copied below for your information.


In relation to your comments on the table, I advise that the performance percentages are provided on the same basis across the three funds and the full result incorporating unit value is summarised in the dollar column.




Dear Investor,



RE: Taxation Statement


Please find attached your Taxation Statement for 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011.


We report that the LM First Mortgage Income Fund will record an accounting and tax loss for the year ended 30 June 2011, due to the write down in mortgage security values.


Payments and Accruals for the period 1 July 2010 to 31 December 2010 are of a capital nature and will NOT need to be included in the assessable income on an investor's tax return for the current year.


Accordingly, as LM First Mortgage Income Fund has no income to distribute, the ordinary monthly cash and accrued payments received by investors, including the feeder funds (LM Wholesale First Mortgage Income Fund, LM Currency Protected Australian Income Fund and the LM Institutional Currency Protected Australian Income Fund) in the period 1 July 2010 to 31 December 2010 (once we catch up) are all partial repayments of capital and not income, and therefore will not need to be included in the assessable income in an investor's tax return for the current year.


Please note that you should speak with your accountant regarding the distributions of capital, as they usually need to be taken into account when calculating any capital loss realised on the disposal of your investment in LM First Mortgage Income Fund."

Now I understand - the table displays FMIF 'performance' in two ways ie. 'income' shown as a percentage return over 1/3/5/7 and 10 Year periods; and "full performance" over a 12 Year period, expressed in $terms and which presumably represents the total of 'growth' (or in the FMIF case, reduction in Unit Value) and 'income' in that time period.

Of course it would be much clearer if the FMIF 'full performance' for each of the 1/3/5/7/10 Year periods was shown as a percentage incorporating BOTH 'income' and 'growth' elements. In my case, the 'full performance' of my investments are to date (and no doubt the eventual results will be far worse):

* FMIF (investment made in August 2006): LOSS 12.7% in almost 6 years

* CPAIF (investment made in June 2007): LOSS 15.28% in 5 years

* CPAIF (investment made in October 2008): LOSS 21.7% in 3.5 years

For me at least, this presents the stark reality better than the LM table.

 

[ASICK]

The "Three-legged Race"

Hi Dinga. I took a look at the table you refer to and note that LM cites investing $10,000 in November 1999 which ends up as $16,943 on 30 April 2012. LM compares that to a Challenger Fund and Colonial First State with outcomes of $23,292 and $16,804 respectively. I assume that all capital losses and interest returns have been treated the same for the same period as the LM fund. The table lacks detail, so it's impossible to check the validity of the outcome. I also assume that investors have (for the most part) reinvested the interest into the fund.

To my mind, it's like comparing a three-legged racer to other three-legged race contestants and saying "well, we performed well" - but, there's no comparison against someone able to run without hindrance. The LM FMIF is a frozen fund which is substantially impaired: The fund is no longer able to the compared to well performing liquid funds (the runners), it can only be compared to impaired funds (those in the three-legged race).

It doesn't matter which way LM presents the data, the $16,943 comprises $7,300 ($10,000 - $2,700 (27%)) of capital and $9,643 which remains of $13,210 of reinvested interest (discounted at 27%). The table takes no account of inflation: $1.00 in 2012 is worth far less than $1.00 in 1999.

If one would have taken the interest out of the fund and put it in the bank, one would have much more money than $13,210 since bank rates have performed much better than LM, and of course no losses would have occured. No tax implications have been considered.

Equity = All invested in LM $7,300 capital + $9,643 reinvestment
Cash equity = 0
Amount at risk = $16,943

Equity = Invested in LM $7,300 capital + > $13,210 if interest placed in a bank
Cash equity = > $13,210
Amount at risk = $7,300

Clearly reinvestment with LM would have been quite a mistake.

Yes, LM is running a "three-legged race", and perhaps it's not losing, and it's not winning either, but it's not in the race comprising those "running" without losses while making decent returns for investors. Further, the outcome for investors is far from certain with the "three-legged race" yet to be completed.

 

[ASICK]

"Nice to see Property Trust Bosses Sharing the Pain"

http://www.smh.com.au/business/nice...t-bosses-sharing-the-pain-20120802-23ibm.html

 

[dinga]

IThe reality with this mob is that they will do anything to prolong the existence of the FMIF because that is where they are paid from. On My calculations based on the size of their other funds, FMIF accounts for circa 75% of their total topline revenue. If it were to be liquidated in its entirety which it should have been over three years ago that cashflow stops for LM. This is one of the key points where the RE I believe has breached the corporations act in that it has put its own interest ahaed of those of its investors

I would be suggesting to you all to work on a Zero return from FMIF. The debt to asset ratio of as you know is now north of 70% based on rubbery valuations. This is largely because most of the borrowers/loans are in default and interest owing has been capitalised to the point that there is areally big chance of negative equity situation. 18 months ago I was advised that they had identified properties to sell and were vigorously marketing them. I asked to see the marketing advertisements etc and who they were listed with and they would not provide that information.

Only last week they were to commence adviser briefings with more this week. None went ahead last week, would be interesting to see whether they went ahead this week.

Some comments:

1. Absolutely agree that there are real question marks about whether or not the RE has breeched the Corporations Act in a number of respects. Understand there are a number of folks looking at this aspect - including the Sydney office of the law firm Piper Alderman. Any investors interested in supporting a detailed examination and possible subsequent Class Action can contact Ms Shaan Palmer at <SPalmer@piperalderman.com.au>

2. Interesting to hear that the Advisor Briefings didn't go ahead last week. Perhaps the poor sods running them are as confused as me about the content and purpose, which seem to be in a state of mutation.

* Firstly, the invitation sent by LM to Advisors was "The forums will facilitate active discussion of the proposed liquidity mechanism for the closed funds, the processes involved, the fund assets and scenarios of the financial modelling regarding the “sell” and “hold” pools. This will be an opportunity for you to develop further understanding prior to the investment allocation step, when you will be guiding your clients in relation to their allocations."

* In response to investor request to attend, LM advised the meetings were not suitable for investors as they were informal and LM is not licensed to provide advice to investors and must be very careful of the manner in which information is presented to investors.

* Lastest version is that the meetings are business meetings covering a range of topics, not only those of FMIF and the feeder funds

Giddyness means I'm less interested in any further clarification, but greatly interested in hearing EXACTLY what is said at these meetings, if they indeed go ahead

3. We should have a better appreciation of exactly how badly the Funds are placed when the audited accounts are released (which apparently will happen before we are asked to vote (again) on LM's proposals. Would love to be a fly on the wall during the discussions with the Auditors.

4. Am hoping that the audited 2011/2012 financials will remove any doubt that the best and fairest outcome is to wind-up the Funds, albeit it very late (call me optimistic but my hope is that I'll eventually retrieve 30% of my total amount of capital & re-invested interest - which would mean a further write-down of 59% from the current stated Unit Price of 73 cents)

Time to call upon Saint Jude.....

 

[ASICK]

The "Fiscal Drip"

And then we have the financial advisors on the drip feed - it'll be interesting to see (if possible), the number of advisors who say "liquidate the fund LM - give punters back their money": translated as, "we know that we're severing the fiscal drip, but we think it's the right thing to do.

Others might say "hang in there LM - the market'll improve": may be translated by some investors as "we care, we want punters to have a fair crack at recovery - we're not thinking of that handy fiscal drip, we think it's the right thing to do", other investors might come to a very different translation.

"Irishdan", you're right about those accruals - it might be comforting for investors to see a lift up in fund value as a consequence of any level of accruals (interest receivable), but if such accruals don't translate to cash, there'll simply be a price to pay (for investors) in the future, and that future might be quite near.

However the substantive losses will probably be incurred when assets are actually sold - as I've previously mentioned, if such assets aren't being sold because the market isn't willing to pay the price, then bringing down the price to meet the market in order to make sales and return money to investors (and to repay bank debt) could every well be a real shocker for investors (whether they hold or sell).

 

[dinga]

Re: "Nice to see Property Trust Bosses Sharing the Pain"

http://www.smh.com.au/business/nice...t-bosses-sharing-the-pain-20120802-23ibm.html

Question 13 in my email to LM dated 22 July 2012 asked about the level of fees being charged to the frozen funds in which I am invested (FMIF and CPAIF), including how LM judged the fee levels to be 'appropriate".

Putting the past aside for a moment, am hoping that these examples will spur LM to reduce its fee levels go-forward (especially if fees have been calculated on past NAVs that need to be subject to further drastic reduction, as is widely expected).

Which also makes me wonder about trailing commissions (or "drip feeding" in ASICK's words). Am also curious about how any Advisors could remain comfortable if they continue to receive the same level of trailing commissions both pre and post the freezing of the LM funds. Surely conscience would have dictated that Advisors would also have felt the need to "share the pain", and rebated all (or all least a substantial part) of those commissions. Or is that simply too naive a notion.....

 

[Irishdan]

Re: The "Fiscal Drip"

And then we have the financial advisors on the drip feed - it'll be interesting to see (if possible), the number of advisors who say "liquidate the fund LM - give punters back their money": translated as, "we know that we're severing the fiscal drip, but we think it's the right thing to do.

Others might say "hang in there LM - the market'll improve": may be translated by some investors as "we care, we want punters to have a fair crack at recovery - we're not thinking of that handy fiscal drip, we think it's the right thing to do", other investors might come to a very different translation.

"Irishdan", you're right about those accruals - it might be comforting for investors to see a lift up in fund value as a consequence of any level of accruals (interest receivable), but if such accruals don't translate to cash, there'll simply be a price to pay (for investors) in the future, and that future might be quite near.

However the substantive losses will probably be incurred when assets are actually sold - as I've previously mentioned, if such assets aren't being sold because the market isn't willing to pay the price, then bringing down the price to meet the market in order to make sales and return money to investors (and to repay bank debt) could every well be a real shocker for investors (whether they hold or sell).

Hi Asick,

I am an adviser although I have never directly recommended LM to anyone. I am involved in this through trying to assist people who have LM exposure to get out of it and through a previous purchase of another advisory practice. I work on a flat fee/retainer basis and not commission or % based fees but I have spoken to other advisers and most of if not all that I know have been agitating to have fund liquidated and whatever assets remaining returned to investors (for over 3 years). What would be interesting is to see where the mythical "advisers waiting to put money into the fund" are licenced through because as far as I am aware LM is not covered by any of the fund researchers such as Morningstar &lonsec and never have been but for abrief period that Lonsec did initiate coverage several years ago. In fact the only reference to research on the websitewas to their "advisers introducer day" which was the same modus operandi as the "tree People" in WA like Great Southern where you would get flown into the GC, put up in 5 star digs after a limo ride and then sold the LM spin and then wined and dined until you got on your plane again 2 days later. In fact I know of one firm where the entire staff including the receptionist were treated to this "research". !!! Indeed I doubt very much whether LM is on any approved product lists currently other than licencees who are "mates" with Mr Drake et al

All unit holders should be encouraged to contact Piper Alderman and get their name on the list to vote to change the RE. It might be their only hope of realising some of their investment

 

[Invstr]

Re: The "Fiscal Drip"

Thanks for all research Dinga, ASICK, Irishdan.

I also happen to be an unlucky investor who has been led down the LM garden path by their financial advisor. I actually asked for the funds to be redeemed before the GFC and subsequent LM freeze, but was refused redemption once the fund was frozen, even though an redemption application was subimitted 6 months earlier. Like many others, I'm tearing my hair out about this.

So Piper Alderman are looking into action re: LM and the frozen funds? I also heard this firm (http://www.9selborne.com.au/bio_anthony.html) were also interested in representing investors. Is there a consensus yet as to which firm would be the best to represent investors?

Additionally, has anyone been in contact with the financial ombudsman regarding this? http://fos.org.au/centric/home_page.jsp

As an aside, I'm sure you all know about LM's expansion plans...

http://www.moneymanagement.com.au/product-news/2012/lm-investment-management-s-singapore-play

Please excuse any ignorance on my behalf regarding this - I've only just come across this forum.

Invstr

 

[ASICK]

for the information of members and guests - the Managed Investment Scheme Report - July 2102:
http://www.camac.gov.au/camac/camac.nsf/byHeadline/PDFFinal+Reports+2012/$file/MIS_Report_July2012.pdf

See page 18, "only a registered liquidator be permitted to conduct the winding
up of an insolvent scheme"

[note: only a recommendation, and I might add, a good one - there's no reason why members should be compelled to suffer a manager who caused damage to a fund to enjoy fees (at members' expense) while winding it up!]

 

[dinga]

In chasing up LM for responses to my questions (see my post dated 22 July 2012), I took the opportunity to also ask the following questions [thanks ASICK!):

Can LM also please answer these questions, based on the following background understanding (from material provided by LM)

* LM intends to allocate assets to the "hold" and "sell" pools.
* LM has identified assets that are suitable for each of these pools.
* The assets are to be weighted according to investor elections
* LM has no vested invest in the weighting of assets to each pool.

1. What exactly does "weighting" mean?

2. Please provide an example of how the weighting process will work

3. Another LM Fund holds a second mortgage over FMIF asset(s). Doesn't LM therefore have a vested interest in whether that/those asset(s) are allocated to the "hold" or "sell" pools? If so, shouldn't LM declare its interests?

4. Is that security asset for the FMIF loan up for sale? If not, why not?

5. If the 2nd mortgage lent by the fund can't be sold, is it fair to leave the risk to the "hold' pool?

6. In the circumstances, why aren't any/all related party loans repaid immediately and the money returned to FMIF investors without further delay?


On 7 August, LM said it was preparing a full response to the first lot of questions, and it would be provided shortly.

 

[dinga]

Re: The "Fiscal Drip"

Thanks for all research Dinga, ASICK, Irishdan.

I also happen to be an unlucky investor who has been led down the LM garden path by their financial advisor. I actually asked for the funds to be redeemed before the GFC and subsequent LM freeze, but was refused redemption once the fund was frozen, even though an redemption application was subimitted 6 months earlier. Like many others, I'm tearing my hair out about this.

So Piper Alderman are looking into action re: LM and the frozen funds? I also heard this firm (http://www.9selborne.com.au/bio_anthony.html) were also interested in representing investors. Is there a consensus yet as to which firm would be the best to represent investors?

Additionally, has anyone been in contact with the financial ombudsman regarding this? http://fos.org.au/centric/home_page.jsp

As an aside, I'm sure you all know about LM's expansion plans...

http://www.moneymanagement.com.au/product-news/2012/lm-investment-management-s-singapore-play

Please excuse any ignorance on my behalf regarding this - I've only just come across this forum.

Invstr

Firstly a hearty, but belated, welcome to this Blog.

I think investors have approached a number of law firms who are looking at matters LM. I contacted Selbourne Chambers earlier (refer to the details posted by ASICK on 27 May) and Greg Drew was very helpful. They are barristers and are/have worked with a number of referring solicitors including Piper Alderman. I got the impression that the consensus arrangements are worked out by the law firms involved, and a joint collaborative approach is usually agreed between them about how such matters are taken forward.

Still no answer from LM to my earlier questions posed on 22 July (guess "shortly", is in the eye of the beholder...) Will chase LM up again now

 

[No Trust]

It seems these schemes all have striking similarities:

Emanate from the Gold Coast

Founders have a penchant for Luxury Beachfront Homes

Ordinary investors get screwed royally


My advice is keep pushing for answers as we did on the Equititrust Forum, it was amazing what was unearthed despite the company's denials and founders attempts to protect his luxury lifestyle... There was no regard for the investors just a survival mentality that centred around the founder's personal welfare...

Equititrust was a wreck that was being propped up by lies, when the truth was revealed it collapsed.

Piper Alderman may be your only recourse.

 

[ASICK]

All the funds crashed as soon as assets had to be disposed of. The inability to convert interest accruals (receivables) into cash and the inability to convert asset value to equal value of cash were the prime reasons for the losses. Like air gushing from burst balloons, value gushed from the funds at a rate investors found had to believe.

As to the rest, "No Trust" said it all.

 

[dinga]

Well, LM have - sort of, loosely, kind of.... - responded "Various of your questions properly require information currently being finalised for all investors, including the BIS Shrapnel report.

Please bear with us while BIS shrapnel finalises that report and it is fully considered by LM and integrated into our financial modelling; to then be included with all the information for investors, with a two week consultation period with the regulator regarding same, following which it will be ready to send to investors."

To which I've replied:

I was disappointed to receive your email, which is inconsistent with the advice provided on 7 August that I would receive a full response 'shortly'.

While some of my questions are dependent upon the modeling, many aren't - and they are fundamental to my concerns and indeed those of many other investors. LM has had ample time to respond in relation to the following matters and I again request that LM urgently does so.

A. What is the trigger point at which LM will consider the fund(s) should be wound up?

B. Will investors be given the opportunity to specifically vote on winding up? If not, why not?

C. When will the Audited 2012 Financial Accounts be available?

D. What is the current status of the DBank funding arrangements, especially including the requirement tp pay $13.5mio due by 30 June 2012. Did that happen? What are the impacts/implications/penalties following non-payment?

E. Will feeder fund investors be given the opportunity to vote on the proposed changes to the FMIF Constitution? If not, why not?

F. What is the status of the Advisor Forums proposed by LM?

G. Answer the questions concerning the basis for, and level of, CPAIF fees

H. Answer the questions concerning related party 2nd Mortgages.

When will LM provide full responses to these matters, as it promised?


Am thinking of running a book on the likelihood and timing of a 'full response being shortly provided'.

Anyone care to suggest some starting odds???

 

[ASICK]

... "Various of your questions properly require information currently being finalised for all investors, including the BIS Shrapnel report.

Please bear with us while BIS shrapnel finalises that report and it is fully considered by LM and integrated into our financial modelling; to then be included with all the information for investors, with a two week consultation period with the regulator regarding same, following which it will be ready to send to investors." ...

Isn't the 'financial modelling' the very thing you're seeking information on?

An analogy might be "We're waiting for the numbers to add BEFORE we're prepared to show you how to add numbers".

Dinga, Methinks more BS from LM - to my mind there's no transparency in anything you've posted from LM. :1zhelp:

 

[Irishdan]

Isn't the 'financial modelling' the very thing you're seeking information on?

An analogy might be "We're waiting for the numbers to add BEFORE we're prepared to show you how to add numbers".

Dinga, Methinks more BS from LM - to my mind there's no transparency in anything you've posted from LM. :1zhelp:

Just revisiting the numbers in the 2011 statements and am eagerly waiting to be able to compare 2012 numbers.

Fund had net assets at the time of $382m. ($167m was investments made through the related feeder funds)

Net default loans $353m at the time

At that time there were redemptions lodged amounting to $291m however these rank behind DB loan of $62m at the time. 3 assets of the fund were transferred to LM MPF totalling $29m via a non cash settlement ( a reduction in loan amount receivable from LMMPF and therefore excluded from the statement of cashflows)

So unit holders representing 77% of the assets in the fund wanted their money out and the bank would have needed to be repaid as well

Difference between lodged redemptions + DB Loan (291m + 62m = 353m) & net assets of fund at $382 = $29m

Value of assets transferred via non cash settlement therefore not included in statement of cashflows = $29m

Assets remaining in the fund $353m

Net default loans $353m

Investors wanting money back (Including DB) $353m

further on in the statements they refer to being mortgagee in possession of of $415m worth of security that secures $405m worth of loans.(effectively 97% LVR on these assets over twelve months ago)

These are taken straight from the 2011 financial statements on the LM website.

 

[No Trust]

All the hallmarks of another Equititrust... Lack of information, banks breathing down their necks, delay in audited accounts... Looks like a dead canary at the bottom of the cage...

The Gold Coast never fails to disappoint...