Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Mayfair 101/Mayfair Platinum

Provisional liquidators have revealed investors in Mayfair 101's secured notes product were afforded no protection as they claimed the company behind the highly publicised purchase of Dunk Island was doomed from the start.

The End
 
Provisional liquidators have revealed investors in Mayfair 101's secured notes product were afforded no protection as they claimed the company behind the highly publicised purchase of Dunk Island was doomed from the start.

The End
I did warn those sophisticated investors months ago.

gg
 
And they are pitched at "sophisticated investors".

gg
It really gives me no pleasure to announce that the Australian Financial Review has finally grown a pair and has slagged off the concept of sophisticated investors, aka mugs, in relation to Mayfair Platinum 101.

Many pitches, such as from Mayfair, only go to “sophisticated” or “wholesale” investors. That means a person meeting thresholds such as having net assets of $2.5 million or more, or injecting more than $500,000 in one go – as Mayfair told grey-haired potential investors at a seminar.


Avoid these outfits offering "above fixed interest returns".

gg
 
Watching an ongoing train wreck.
A couple of years ago a dodgy smart alec promoter ran full page ads in News Ltd papers inviting "sophisticated" investors to tip in a couple of hundred mil into a you beat property development by Mayfair 101.

At the time of the promotion it stank to high heaven. 18 months and $200m later the rotting corpse of Mayfair 101 and its high profile fund manager James Mawhinney has being savaged in the Federal Court.

The 140-page federal court judgement against Mawhinney repeatedly describes his conduct as “reprehensible”.

“Mr Mawhinney’s conduct can accurately be described as reprehensible conduct which demonstrates a complete disregard for financial services laws and, as a consequence, places the public at great risk of financial loss should Mr Mawhinney not be restrained,” Justice Stewart Anderson ruled.


I'm wondering why
1) We are not seeing criminal charges against James Mawhinney
2) How come he isn't sleeping with the fishes off Dunk Island. :rolleyes:

This guy has a financial history that beggars belief. Some worthwhile lessons on researching the people behind any potential investment.




This article goes into Mawhinneys previous financial history


 
There was another excellent analysis by AFR which was copied into a Reddit thread. Also some good insights in the comments.

 
Today's AFR reports an 84 year old lost $100,000,a teenager lost all of her $120,000 Black Saturday bushfire claim payout and a 25 year old put his entire $300,000 worker's compensation into Mawhinney's IPO Capital in 2017,despite it not having a financial licence AND receiving a warning from ASIC on this,just months beforehand... All sophisticated investors, in Mr. Mawhinney's eyes,no doubt.
 
couldn't happen to a nicer subset of the species. More front than Myers.

Justice Anderson gave Mawhinney a thrashing in the judgement.

I did not find Mr Mawhinney to be a credible witness. Mr Mawhinney refused to make even the most obvious concessions to the failures of the Mayfair Group of companies to make disclosure to investors of the risks faced by them in investing in the Mayfair Products. Mr Mawhinney sought to rely upon legal advice obtained by the Mayfair Group of companies to justify the failure of the promotional material to explain adequately the risks that investors faced in investing in the Mayfair Products. The impression I obtained from Mr Mawhinney’s demeanour in giving evidence was that Mr Mawhinney was determined to allocate blame for the substantial losses incurred by investors to ASIC for taking enforcement action against Mr Mawhinney and the Mayfair Group of companies. Mr Mawhinney refused to accept that investors did not have first-ranking security over real property assets. Mr Mawhinney refused to accept any responsibility for the substantial losses sustained by investors as a consequence of his and the Mayfair Group of companies investment decisions. Mr Mawhinney was determined to inform the Court why he and the Mayfair Group of companies were not at fault. Mr Mawhinney refused to accept that the investments made by the Mayfair Group of companies were highly speculative and that this fact had not been disclosed in the promotional and marketing material to investors. Mr Mawhinney’s evidence was not honest and truthful.

Mawhinney was a predator. I'm glad justice has finally caught up with him.
 
Justice Anderson gave Mawhinney a thrashing in the judgement.

Mawhinney was a predator. I'm glad justice has finally caught up with him.
was? according to the AFR press:

"Banned spruiker James Mawhinney is linked to a new fixed income promotion that boasts a matching list of businesses to Mr Mawhinney’s fizzled investment group Mayfair 101.

"Provide Capital is targeting retirees and self-managed superannuation funds as potential customers by asking them to lend at least $250,000 in return for interest rates ranging from 4.25 per cent and 7.95 per cent. The term period for the borrowings goes from as little as six months to 10 years.
this time its a brother-in-law. Usual complex structure applies?

"Until January 14 this year, Mr Mawhinney’s brother-in-law Dylan Panetta, 35, was listed as director of Provide Nominees, the company trading as Provide Capital. He was sole director when the company was created in September 2020, changed its official name to Provide Nominees in August last year and registered the trading name Provide Capital at that time too.

"That company is in turn owned by TPP Global, of which Mr Panetta is sole director. Mr Panetta, who previously worked in customer engagement at Mayfair 101’s Mayfair Tourism, is the only listed shareholder of TPP, although he holds it beneficially for another person or entity. His sister is Brigette Panetta, Mayfair’s former finance director and Mr Mawhinney’s partner. Mr Mawhinney has previously described Mr Panetta as his brother-in-law.
 
Top