Managed fund co-operation group

[seamisty]

Good morning simgrund

Well, mail me your suggested paragraphs and additions to:

mellifuous@dodo.com.au

and we'll see what we can do.

Thanks.

mellifuous I consider it important that you complete this valuable document. Breaker1 has included the link to this forum in his latest investor update;;;


'Support requested for a new initiative by the PIF AG and some combined City Pacific/PIF unit holders:

I would like to draw your attention to the "Managed fund co-operation group" thread on aussie stock forum:
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17644&highlight=Managed+fund+co-operation
as I think investors should offer support by endorsing the efforts of anyone willing to make 'noise' if they agree with the content.

Welcome to this new thread which has been created in the hope that members of all managed funds might find ways of solving issues of common concern.

Issues such as how to put pressure on government for a changes in applicable law in order to give (better) protection to investors in managed funds, how to pressure ASIC to look into alleged wrongdoings by fund managers, and how to gain co-operation with the media to present the plight of investors in a constructive and beneficial way.

If you feel you are able to contribute in a constructive way, then I sincerely hope you will join to express your view and co-operate to alleviate our mutual concerns.

This new thread is a joint effort by members of FMF [City Pacific] and the PIF AG at this time.'

Those wishing to contribute can contact him at breaker7@optusnet.com.au and he will foward it to k.smith who has kindly volunteered to assist you by helping to coordinate this initiative.
Thanks again for the time and effort you have committed to this, it is much appreciated. Cheers, Seamisty

 

[simgrund]

Good morning simgrund

Well, mail me your suggested paragraphs and additions to:

mellifuous@dodo.com.au

and we'll see what we can do.

Thanks.

Just give me/us again the DIRECT link to the draft letter.
I am lost in this link.http://www.moneymagik.com/managed_fu...tion_group.pdf
Thanks mellifuos

 

[mellifuous]

Just give me/us again the DIRECT link to the draft letter.

The link is:

http://moneymagik.com/letter.pdf

 

[mellifuous]

The link is:

http://moneymagik.com/letter.pdf

Hi Simgrund,

I'm starting to get what you mean - you mean a fund into which retired persons would be able to invest with security - I'd guess at this time that's called a bank or a building society.

I think that the days of the 'cowboys' (City, MFS, etc.) are over, or at least just about over. I'm really hoping that ASIC will start putting its foot down, with the result that the outcomes for investors will be more certain and secure.

All these cowboy managers simply got greedy - they were totally self-interested - and they were not kept on a tight rein by ASIC and their respective fund's auditors.

A poor manager will see a fund's capacity to obtain a facility as a way to increase the F.U.M. (funds under management) and thereby increase their fees (since fees are calculated as a percentage of FUM).

A good manager will see that same facility as a ballast against too great a drop in cash flow as a consequence of the tension between investor and borrower increase/decreases.

None of the funds that failed achieved any level of capital contingency - they lend our every cent they could get their hands on - and the facility providers let them - I'll be surprised if any of the facility providers even gave a second's thought to the consequences for investors in the funds.

They were driven to make even more profits and couldn't help themselves from entering into nepotic relationships which placed unit holders' investments in peril - such relationships were probably the cause of the substantive part of our losses.

In the past, a great deal of trust was placed in managers by ASIC, and it's clear that ASIC's trust was misplaced - the framers of the Corporations Act must never have envisaged the situation we find ourselves in today.

I would say what you (Sigmund) is looking for, is what we are looking for in the future if we were ever to consider investment in property trusts in particular, and in managed funds in general - we are looking for a secure place to invest our money - not a cash cow for cowboys to milk over and over again.

I'd say that until the government cleans up property trusts, if you want secure place to invest, make it a bank or building society.

Unless the government and the industry is able to establish confidence in the managed fund business, then only a new generation of suckers will invest, and in time many of them will end up just as we have.

I've often thought how stupid City Pacific Limited (CPL) was - if it would have simply continued to shear out its fees from the FMF and the borrowers - if it had ensured the LVRs were low - if it had ensured that security for the loans was the same as a bank lender - and if it had not engaged in all the other self-interested, greedly, nepotic transactions - then I believe both the FMF and CPL would be strong today.

To study CPL is to study greed, self-interest, and stupidity.

Thank you for your support of the letter to the finance minister.

http://www.moneymagik.com/letter.pdf

It is very much appreciated.

 

[Mary Lynch]

I found "Money Magic" sinuous, convoluted and difficult to finish reading, much as I appreciate the effort that has gone into putting it together. It needs a thorough editing. I am sorry but I couldn't sign it as it is.

 

[doctorj]

The link is:

http://moneymagik.com/letter.pdf

What do you hope to achieve sending that? Have you had anyone with experience with managed funds give it a read and give you some critical feedback?

 

[mellifuous]

What do you hope to achieve sending that? Have you had anyone with experience with managed funds give it a read and give you some critical feedback?

nothing.
no.
like everything else, it's a dud.
thanks for your wise counsel.

no, i guess I should have went to Phil Sullivan, or Michael King.. they could give me some insight.

maybe to ASIC..

maybe to Mary Lynch.

'sinuous' -- why?

no constructive criticism from ANYBODY.. and I called for, in fact I've nearly begged for it..

but, nothing,,,,

so, we do the best we can...

and that's the truth.


Mary's comments just stun me.... just plain ignorance.


I 'm for supporting the issues, not who writes them.
If she's capable of telling me the errors, then she should do so.

 

[k.smith]

I found "Money Magic" sinuous, convoluted and difficult to finish reading, much as I appreciate the effort that has gone into putting it together. It needs a thorough editing. I am sorry but I couldn't sign it as it is.

I'm starting to do a bit of work on the letter.

It's located in .pdf format at http://www.moneymagik.com/managed_fund_co-operation_group.pdf

If you'd like to comment, then please contact me at:-

allan161@msn.com

I'd particularly like input from MSF members.

Criticism, suggestions, alterations, additions, and corrections are welcome.

Thanks.

Mary, the letter is still a DRAFT....
If you have any ideas, please feel free to contribute...

 

[doctorj]

nothing.
no.
like everything else, it's a dud.
thanks for your wise counsel.

no, i guess I should have went to Phil Sullivan, or Michael King.. they could give me some insight.

maybe to ASIC..

maybe to Mary Lynch.

'sinuous' -- why?

no constructive criticism from ANYBODY.. and I called for, in fact I've nearly begged for it..

but, nothing,,,,

so, we do the best we can...

and that's the truth.


Mary's comments just stun me.... just plain ignorance.

If she's capable of telling me the errors, then she should do so.

So what do you want to achieve by sending the letter?

 

[seamisty]

So what do you want to achieve by sending the letter?

From an MFS PIF investor point of view, I would hope to achieve that the disgracefull, irresponsible, deceptive behaviour of previous MFS/OCV directors and some employees which resulted in the stealth of millions of dollars from innocent investors will NEVER EVER be allowed to be repeated!!!!! The regulatory guidelines need to be monitored independantly from outside of managed funds and acted on immediately .

It is a direct result of sending letters similar to the propsed one that we now have a class action, a senate enqury and finally ASIC intervention.

If individuals did not show initiative and instigate enough NOISE to be heard, who do you think would have looked after our interests ? Financial advisors, fund managers? Seamisty

 

[mellifuous]

So what do you want to achieve by sending the letter?

I want to bring to the attention of law makers the plight of members of non-liquid listed and unlisted managed funds for my benefit, and for the benefit of unit holders in the FMF and other funds - yes, even for the benefit of critics who find themselves locked up in these funds too.

I'm guessing that you, DoctorJ, are not a loser in one of the FMF, MFS, ACR, or Westpoint, otherwise you might think differently. And since you seem a learned man, and if you were caught up, you would be in there 'boots and all' to do whatever could be done to better your chances of getting the most of what is left of your investment.

Yes, I'm not the greatest writer, and I've never professed to be so. However, the greatest writers are not here - we are all just ordinary people trying our best.

If we don't this (and there are people who agree with what we're doing), then nothing will be done - and like it not, we have to accept that something has to be done.

http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/pdflib.nsf/LookupByFileName/REP_139.pdf/$file/REP_139.pdf

Now, the abovementioned report is headed "Report on Submission for CP100 - Unlisted Property Schemes - Improving Disclosure for Retail Investors'.

ASIC wrote to 98 responsible entities of unlisted property schemes seeking their feedback on CP100 (about the development of RG46, Improving Disclosure for Retail Investors).

ASIC received 23 written responses - perhaps Wellington Capital and City Pacific contributed, BUT, investors didn't - because investors weren't asked to contribute.

Investors weren't canvassed, it was all about disclosure by managers who partake in the input of information collected in order to make legislative and/or policy changes - so, have a look at the history of the managed funds with respect to disclosure: City Pacific's FMF and IF, MFS's PIF, Westpoint, and ACR to name a few - what chance do we have? zilch.

Ok, we face criticism and lack of support, and the english might not up to Mary's standard, but we try - we are going to send this document when we're satisfied that all constructive input has ended. So, Mary if you want to help, get with it.

I learnt a long time ago, that criticism is always leveled at those who 'do' - I can handle that (sometimes).

 

[doctorj]

OK - so you want to achieve two things.
(i) Get as much money back as you can
(ii) Stop it ever happening again

Can I suggest you focus on one at a time - focus everything (including any letter you might send) on getting your money back first, then worry about reforming the industry later.

 

[mellifuous]

OK - so you want to achieve two things.
(i) Get as much money back as you can
(ii) Stop it ever happening again

Can I suggest you focus on one at a time - focus everything (including any letter you might send) on getting your money back first, then worry about reforming the industry later.

With respect DoctorJ... read all about the matters and then make comment.

In our opinion, then is a positive step to getting our money back.

All the matters raised relate to where we are now - they are not an attempt to cause legislative change for the future, but are an attempt to change legislation and/or policy NOW.

Thanks.

ps. by the way, thanks for the best bit of banter we've seen on this thread..

good onya.

pps. from the ASIC report

"... Some respondents, although acknowledging the importance of the information, queried its usefulness to retail investors. ..."

 

[doctorj]

With respect DoctorJ... read all about the matters and then make comment.

In our opinion, then is a positive step to getting our money back.

Right. Good luck taking on Australian legislation and international accounting standards.

 

[mellifuous]

Right. Good luck taking on Australian legislation and international accounting standards.

Thank you, we will but try. I really appreciate your attempt to help.
Thank you for that too.

 

[k.smith]

So what do you want to achieve by sending the letter?

I intend sending this letter, and more and more to follow if need be..

Unitholders have a right to have a statutory entity appointed by ASIC to represent them.

As long as the input that forms the laws come from the industry itself, unitholders will be helpless.



http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/pdflib.nsf/LookupByFileName/REP_139.pdf/$file/REP_139.pdf


page 8"......Some respondents, although acknowledging the importance of the

information, queried its usefulness to retail investors. Although we have

simplified some of the disclosure principles, we do not consider that retail

investors should be denied important information on the basis that they may

not understand it (particularly as there is no clear empirical evidence of this

and varying levels of financial literacy amongst retail investors). We are also

publishing an investor guide to help investors understand the disclosure

principle information....."



page 23"...

Submissions said that investment ratings were useful to retail investors.

However, several submissions noted the difficulties that retail investors face in

interpreting investment ratings. Some submissions considered that retail

investors placed too much weight on investment ratings......"



The above comments are an indication of how unrepresented unitholders are.
We should be pressing for a PDS that the average investor understands, and there should be a criteria for assessing that they do....our why else should they be advertised in the general community..???

We are trying to do something about it...

 

[doctorj]

Thank you, we will but try. I really appreciate your attempt to help.
Thank you for that too.

I'll offer you one more... consider it a tax deduction.

 

[mellifuous]

I'll offer you one more... consider it a tax deduction.

yes, I have that opportunity and it never leaves my mind - but, that's not the case for thousands of investors. They lose what they lose - as you are aware, capital losses cannot be offset against income. However, if you tell me I'm wrong, then I'll be a very happy fellow.

For entities with property sitting in the wings capable of being sold at a handsome profit, well, they'll get relief, but it never all comes back.

Thanks.

 

[k.smith]

From an MFS PIF investor point of view, I would hope to achieve that the disgracefull, irresponsible, deceptive behaviour of previous MFS/OCV directors and some employees which resulted in the stealth of millions of dollars from innocent investors will NEVER EVER be allowed to be repeated!!!!! The regulatory guidelines need to be monitored independantly from outside of managed funds and acted on immediately .

It is a direct result of sending letters similar to the propsed one that we now have a class action, a senate enqury and finally ASIC intervention.

If individuals did not show initiative and instigate enough NOISE to be heard, who do you think would have looked after our interests ? Financial advisors, fund managers? Seamisty

Yes, Seamisty, that is exactly what we must make a lot of noise about..



in this document

http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/pdflib.nsf/LookupByFileName/REP_139.pdf/$file/REP_139.pdf

Table 1: Unlisted property scheme coverage from consultation
Number of responsible entities visited 24
Percentage of total responsible entity population 25%
Number of unlisted property schemes those
responsible entities represent
160
Percentage of total number of schemes 56%
Assets managed by responsible entities visited $16.58 billion
Percentage of total assets under management of all
responsible entities of unlisted property schemes
60%
Written submissions from various sources 23

And yet the details of who these responsible entities whose input into this ASIC report are "confidential"...

 

[simgrund]

I found "Money Magic" sinuous, convoluted and difficult to finish reading, much as I appreciate the effort that has gone into putting it together. It needs a thorough editing. I am sorry but I couldn't sign it as it is.

Dear Mary,
The draft is easy to follow if you do not go into "MONEYMAGIC" itself.
The draft of 12 pages can be worked on by:
# isolating or marking the "Amendments to the Act" sections.
# cut and paste onto your own Word doc of these sections sans
commentary which confuses you
I simply printed them out and found it easier to go through.
You will find a lot of sense in the amendments proposed.
And your support is needed for obvious reasons.
With best wishes, simgrund