Equititrust?

[kostag]

I'm an Equititrust investor - historically, all has been good - bit I am hearing some disquieting developements - such as ex MFS execs David Kennedy and David Anderson (OMG!) now in charge - same auditors as MFS used - same business model - and even Royal Bank of Scotland loans outstanding/overdue. There was a press write up about a loan to Al Konstaninidis going bad etc - and a legal fight which involved Equititrust and David Kennedy. David Anderson's recent Court performance re MFS matters was less than flattering and one would need to question whether he ought be in charge of another Public fund. Anyone got any news on this? I saw on an ASIC search that long standing Director Wayne McIvor has resigned from Equititrust as well.... often a sign that things are not good.

[Julia]

Are you able to simply withdraw your funds if you want to?

[Buffettman]

Thanks Kostag for the info. I wasn't aware that Equitytrust had the same business model as MFS. I didn't even know they had a tourism business nor did I know they were a listed company. Can you please tell me a bit about these? What tourism businesses do they invest in? What is the stock code for Equitytrust? I couldn't find it.

Isn't that Al guy the one who was involved with Paul Keating in the piggery business? Isn't he on criminal charges now for fraud or something?

[Buffettman]

Kostag,

Mate I think you might be confused. I rang Equitytrust today and spoke to their investor guy (I think it was Ron or something) and he told me that they have no tourism business nor are they listed. He also said they owe no money to Royal Bank of Scotland.

Are you confusing them with someone else? He also said that the owner of the business has invested about $70m of his own money in the funds and that he has voluntarily subrogated it such that other investors get paid before him (for interest and capital).

Would be most interested in your views on this as I also have a fair bit invested with them and am very happy with them to date - interest always paid in full and on time.

[kostag]

Hi Buffetman

you have found out more than me and from what you say all sounds good. I dont think that they have any tourism businesses or whether they are listed or not. I dont know that listing helps or hinders. There annual accounts refer to $53M of unpaid redemptions - now that might be just an issue of caution and prudence. However there are a lot of investors, trying to get their money back, who can't. I do know from Linkedin search and as per the newspapers that the two MFS excess Anderson and Kennedy are now in charge. I also ready an Choice magazine article that referred to a shonky award for a $40million 'guarantee' that was not really a guarantee. So I don't know where the $70millions comes from. Now Ron or whoever may be right and I trust that he is. But $40M is not $70M and if the market has fallen since the days of the $40M, then that $40M may have turned to vapour. I did read in an artcile by a Mr Nicols on the Gold Coast that Equititrust was owed over $35M by Jimmy Raptis, who I think has gone south again. So if that $35M comes off the $40M, then I dont know what Ron is alluding to. As to the Banks being owed money, my financial planner has some dealings with an existing borrower of Equititrust and he had heard (all rumour I know) that the Royal Bank or something like that was owed about $35Million. Again, you have to be careful just passing on rumour but there are some issues that cannot be denied and that is something about $40M which if Raptis is $35M (and working on basis of no other bad loans) then $40M is now $5M. and there are 2 ex MFS execs in Court who are now in charge of the outfit. That seems to be fact. Now finally, this is the bit that worried me. When I saw the statement about Raptis owing Equititrust moneys , I looked at teh last fianncial reports on the annual accounts off the Equititrust web site and looked for any provision for dodgy loans and there was no such write down. So if the Raptis loan is bad, where is it? So and I can only guess - whilst you might be very very correct and we all hope you are, there are some issues that do need some addressing, and they dont appear to be addressed.

[kostag]

MFS and Equititrust link:

just saw this in the paper about David ANDERSON an ex MFS exec who with David Kennedy - also an ex MFS exec - now run Equititrust Ltd - a holder of $300million of public funds, in a similiar structure to what MFS was..... is this someone we want minding our money - we might get offerred a dollar as well:-

MFS directors made 'dollar deals' KATE LAHEY
June 16, 2010
.MORE than a year after investment group MFS collapsed with $1 billion in inter-company loans and owing creditors $2.5 billion, directors were still making deals through its entities, in one case giving away a third of a company to one of the men for nothing, a court has heard.

As examinations by liquidator Kate Barnet resumed in the New South Wales Supreme Court yesterday, two former directors were questioned about the sale of one particular company, MFS Alternative Asset Ltd (AAL) last year.

BusinessDay has previously revealed that AAL now has a stake in a company, Aurora, which is preparing to float. The sole director and a shareholder of AAL today is former MFS chief financial officer David Anderson.

In June last year, Mr Anderson asked two directors of McLaughlin Financial Services (an original MFS entity) to sell its 33 per cent stake in AAL to Mr Anderson's own company, Management Finance Pty Ltd, for $1. His company would then bill AAL a $1 administration fee, the court heard.

[Buffettman]

Kostag,

Have you asked for your money back? What did they say? You hardly seem like somebody who is concerned about your investment but rather seem hell-bent on causing them damage - isn't what you say more likely to delay your payment than expedite it as others will also want their money back? I am a little confused how you can claim you just saw the article in the paper that you quote yet it was in the paper almost a month ago and you appear to be well on top of such issues. Could it be that you actually have no money invested with Equitytrust but are more interested in stirring up trouble? Are you from a competitor of Equitytrust? If this is the case then please stop the malicious banter as it is only going to affect true investors like myself and everytime you raise something it worries me and I have to call them to check it and I am getting embarassed about this.

BTW I spoke to Equitytrust and they told me that they got all their money back on Raptis plus a couple of million extra in default interest? How does this change you view as per your post above?

Buffettman

[kostag]

Buffetman - there is a lot of truth in what you suggest and you have better information than is publicly available, to me, anyways. My issue has been the lack of information in troubling times and that a fund that has performed so well over so many years, now seems to be under the new management and control of parties who have just jumped ship out of Octavia coupled with one of the McIvor founders leaving only recently . I agree, I have not pressed for money back but I understand from ASIC that there is over $50million of frozen redemptions, so what is the point. Noone wants to see anyone under false pressure with silly losses incurred but as I think that we have all now learned from the MFS imbroglio, it is sometimes foolish to wait in the silence in the assumption that in doing so, all will be well. Again, I do not know, as you say, and we all hope that your information is correct. It probbaly is. I think we would all be much much happier to ahve some announcement from the business owners, who we gave our money to, than speculating what is going on.

[kostag]

this does not make me feel any better about who is now running the place:-Down but Raptis will be back.jpg
Equititrust is understood to have a S35 million exposure to Raptis Group. The
property lender, headed by former lawyer. Mark Mclvor, did not ...
http://www.midwoodaustralia.com/_press/Down but Raptis will ... - 114k - Similar pages
MFS finance officer refuses statutory declaration
18 Jun 2010... NSW Supreme Court yesterday that he has just landed a new job with
Equititrust, earning $250000 a year as strategic solutions director. ...
http://www.theage.com.au/business/mf...officer-refuse... - 114k - Similar pages

[kostag]

anyone know what is happening at Equititrust - lost of chnages - amy all be for the better - anyone know?
Seems that Wayne McIvor and John Haney - two long standing Directors - have suddenly and without comment - jumped ship.
New executives include David Kennedy and David Anderson two ex senior MFS executives - both ex KPMG staffers. KPMG also happen to be the auditors and were MFS auditors.
The new management structure seems to indicate that Equititrust has become a property development company with a very hands on role in property development and managament - in the mould of City Pacific, MFS and a myriad of others. Maybe that's a good thing, however teh tried formula of over 20years seems to ahve gone out the window - with old long serving directors jumping ship and some new colourful characters now in charge.
The current model may be sound. However it is not what I or anyone else invested in. Also the current PDS on the web site uses well out of date financial material. In the small print you can work out that there seems to be over $50M of unpaid redemptions. This cannot be a good sign. In terms of on-going ability to operate, amongst the small print there is a disclosure that the Fund's bankers, National Australia Bank, seem to have a tight leash on the Fund. There seems to be a loan to value ratio limit of about 24% which whilst that is very low, it does seem that the Equititrust fund is very close to that limit now. Now that concern is that there does not seem to be much provision for impaired loans, but even a very cursory google search on Landsolve or Equititrust spits out recent loan litigation on a number of fronts. A quick calculation base don teh scant information provided would seem to indicate that the Bank set Loan to Value ratio limit may have been (substantially) breached. Where is some ASIC reporting when you need it?

[kostag]

this article popped up in the media today - it relates to the new COO of the Equititrust funds David Anderson -

Liquidator Kate Barnet from Bentleys Corporate Recovery is trying to determine when the company became insolvent, with the focus on about $1 billion in inter-company transactions.

Former MFS director David Anderson was re-examined by barrister Adam Bell SC, on behalf of the liquidator, in the NSW Supreme Court in Sydney today.

Mr Anderson said, claiming privilege, that he drew down $2.2 million from a premium income fund under his control for use by MFS prior to November 2007, but denied this was to address a ‘‘cash flow crisis’’ within MFS.

‘‘It has always been a group seeking to grow at the fastest rate and funding future expenditure was always an ongoing matter to be dealt with,’’ Mr Anderson said.

Mr Bell said the transaction showed ‘‘MFS was struggling with cashflow problems by the end of 2007,’’ and that ‘‘there was a cash crisis at MFS and no other ready source of funds’’.

Mr Bell asked Mr Anderson whether he was aware that using the premium income fund assets to secure a loan to MFS in this way put the beneficiaries’ assets at risk.

Mr Anderson agreed on balance that appeared to be true

[kostag]

this popped up in the press today:-

The former chief financial officer of collapsed property group Octaviar Ltd can't recall taking any steps to ensure that more than $256 million of investor funds raised in 2007 were used for their intended purpose.

Financial accounts show the company channelled funds from equity raisings in early 2007 into a series of intercompany loans and debt payments, a public examination in the NSW Supreme Court heard on Wednesday.

The Gold Coast-based property group, previously known as MFS, failed in 2008 owing about $2 billion to creditors.

Advertisement: Story continues below MFS told investors the equity raising was to fund previously announced acquisitions of Sunkids and Sunleisure businesses, barrister Dominic O'Sullivan told the court.

But according to the company's general ledger and operating accounts, those payments were never made, Mr O'Sullivan said.

Former chief financial officer David Anderson said he could not recall any payments being made to Sunkids or Sunleisure.

"I can't see in the documents you have shown me of any payments made to Sunleisure or Sunkids," Mr Anderson said.

Mr Anderson was re-examined by Mr O'Sullivan on behalf of the liquidator for Octaviar Investments Notes Ltd and Octaviar Investments Bonds Ltd, Will Colwell of Ferrier Hodgson.

"Sitting here now ... would you regard it as part of your responsibility to ensure the money was used appropriately, in accordance with the prospectus?" Mr O'Sullivan asked.

[kostag]

Equititrust auditors are KPMG
David Kennedy ex MFS and ex KPMG now runs Equititrust
David Anderson ex MFS and ex KPMG now is CFO at Equititrust
KPMG audits Equititrust MFS and Allco


Of all the similarities between struggling financial companies Allco and MFS, one obvious link has so far escaped media attention: the role of auditor KPMG in the twin fiascos.

While MFS remains suspended (it lasted traded at 99 cents compared with a high of around $6.70 in June) and Allco continues to struggle (closing at $3.30 compared with a high of approximately $13.00 in March) the common ground between the two companies is that they were both audited by (and more importantly, paid significant non-audit fees to) KPMG.

Both of MFS’s company secretaries were previously employed by KPMG; David Anderson, chief financial officer of MFS, was previously a partner at KPMG in the finance area while Kim Kercher, MFS’s chief “governance” officer was previously a manager at KPMG.

The auditor signing off on MFS reports (which in light of recent announcements, don’t seem to be entirely accurate) was Mitch Craig (who is KPMG’s National Partner in Charge of Risk Advisory Services). According to MFS’s 2007 Annual Report, KPMG were paid $483,600 for audit services. However, the audit fees pale in comparison to the non-audit related services performed by KPMG. The firm was paid $771,098 for assurance, taxation and diligence services in 2007. KPMG also provided $665,600 in non-audit services to MFS satellite, MFS Diversified (KMPG also audited MFS Diversified until last year).

[Olman]

The Equititrust Annual Financial Report makes for some interesting reading.

The Equititrust Income Fund is managed by Equititrust Limited (the "Responsible Entity" - let's abbreviate that to "RE").

The RE maintains a minimum investment of $40million in the Fund. This investment is subordinated to the rights of other investors. I take this to mean that ordinary investors get paid out before the RE. A very noble gesture, on the face of it. However, there is lucrative compensation available for this gesture.

Income distributions from the Scheme were conducted in the following order of priority:
1. expenses of the scheme in an actual basis
2. benchmark distribution to members
3. payment of management fees to the RE
4. distribution of remaining surplus to be paid to the RE as a return on RE's subordinated units.

The RE takes a management fee of 1.5% (excluding GST) of funds under management ($4.46 million in 2010).

In addition, the RE took $10,531,734 as a return on the RE's subordinated investment, in accordance with priority 4 above. This was in one year, and amounts to 1/4 of the subordinated investment - a return of 25%. Not bad, when you consider the rates being paid to ordinary investors of around 8%.

What I find disturbing is that the RE has classified the Fund as a "non-liquid" fund, and on this basis they have frozen redemptions. If the Fund is really "non-liquid", where did they find the 10.5 million to pay themselves? Where does the capital invested by the ordinary investors rank in priority as far as redemptions are concerned?

As I see it, at 25% return, they only have to hang in there for 4 years and they've made their capital back, and the subordinated status turns into a joke at the investors' expense. All that is required is to hold off redemptions for another couple of years while continuing to rake off the "distribution of remaining surplus to be paid to the RE as a return on RE's subordinated units."

Something smells very fishy here. Any comments?

[kostag]

In the latest PDS materila it also states that whilst REDEMPTIONS are not met etc, that Equititrust shall not be entitled to charge fees etc.

So, there seems to be ~$50M of investors who have asked for their money back and cannot get it, whilst the Manager, who states constantly that they tale the first $40M of risk, keeps getting paid , as you say over $20M a year, presumably from funds that have come in from loans, being the return of capital etc for those people who are still waiting to be redeemed.

I think that CHOICE MAGAZINE may have been right when they declared this CAPITAL WARRANTY to be the winner of the SHONKY AWARD for 2008.

How can an entity still raise money from the public whilst this is going on?

The Equititrust Annual Financial Report makes for some interesting reading.

The Equititrust Income Fund is managed by Equititrust Limited (the "Responsible Entity" - let's abbreviate that to "RE").

The RE maintains a minimum investment of $40million in the Fund. This investment is subordinated to the rights of other investors. I take this to mean that ordinary investors get paid out before the RE. A very noble gesture, on the face of it. However, there is lucrative compensation available for this gesture.

Income distributions from the Scheme were conducted in the following order of priority:
1. expenses of the scheme in an actual basis
2. benchmark distribution to members
3. payment of management fees to the RE
4. distribution of remaining surplus to be paid to the RE as a return on RE's subordinated units.

The RE takes a management fee of 1.5% (excluding GST) of funds under management ($4.46 million in 2010).

In addition, the RE took $10,531,734 as a return on the RE's subordinated investment, in accordance with priority 4 above. This was in one year, and amounts to 1/4 of the subordinated investment - a return of 25%. Not bad, when you consider the rates being paid to ordinary investors of around 8%.

What I find disturbing is that the RE has classified the Fund as a "non-liquid" fund, and on this basis they have frozen redemptions. If the Fund is really "non-liquid", where did they find the 10.5 million to pay themselves? Where does the capital invested by the ordinary investors rank in priority as far as redemptions are concerned?

As I see it, at 25% return, they only have to hang in there for 4 years and they've made their capital back, and the subordinated status turns into a joke at the investors' expense. All that is required is to hold off redemptions for another couple of years while continuing to rake off the "distribution of remaining surplus to be paid to the RE as a return on RE's subordinated units."

Something smells very fishy here. Any comments?

[Olman]

In the latest PDS materila it also states that whilst REDEMPTIONS are not met etc, that Equititrust shall not be entitled to charge fees etc.

So, there seems to be ~$50M of investors who have asked for their money back and cannot get it, whilst the Manager, who states constantly that they tale the first $40M of risk, keeps getting paid , as you say over $20M a year, presumably from funds that have come in from loans, being the return of capital etc for those people who are still waiting to be redeemed.

I think that CHOICE MAGAZINE may have been right when they declared this CAPITAL WARRANTY to be the winner of the SHONKY AWARD for 2008.

How can an entity still raise money from the public whilst this is going on?

Just so we are both on the same page, so to speak, how do you get "$20M a year" for Equititrust? According to the annual report, the management fee is $4.46 million, and the return on subordinated investment is $10.5 million, which totals around $15 million.
Also, "In the latest PDS material it also states that whilst REDEMPTIONS are not met etc, that Equititrust shall not be entitled to charge fees etc." The PDS on the Equititrust web site is dated 06/02/2009 and states that they are not entitled to collect management fees if the [B]Benchmark Interest Rates[B] are not paid. They have been paying out the interest (so far), so legally they are entitled to the management fees. However, there seem to be no conditions on the payment of the return on subordinated investment. This "return on subordinated investment" is the pot of honey for Equititrust, and seems to me to be a pretty shady area which deserves legal investigation in light of the "non-liquid" status of the fund and the freezing of redemptions.
All is not well with Equititrust.

[Olman]

Kostag, thanks for your email. I can't reply because I need 5 posts on this forum before they will allow me to email anyone (sigh - rules are rules....)

I am an investor with Equititrust and subject to the freeze on redemptions. I have been concerned about their double-speak for some time. When all was well (pre GFC) their rhetoric was believable and they seemed like a good bunch of people. However, since the freeze on redemptions, they seem to have been more concerned with their own survival as an enterprise than with being honourable people as far as their investors are concerned. I have had several discussions with them about their policies and cannot say that they have my complete trust any more.

(This makes my 3rd post. Two more to go, and I can reply to your email...)

[kostag]

I think that your assessment both pre and post GFC is accurate.

There is no doubt that pre-GFC that Equititrust was (or appeared to be) very reponsible.

Post GFC, the whole model seems to have changed to a point that they are now simply like all the other failed 3rd tier mortgage models.

Lets look at some of the issues that must raise some query:-

1. you are right. The latest reports note that the CBA has bene paid back $90M and the National Bank is in line to get $3M a month; new investors are being asked to stump up; yet old investors are owed over $50M with no exit in sight;

2. Board changes: suddenly we have Messrs Hayney and Wayne McIvor - both long standing Directors - off the Board, without explanation. Was there something that concerned them?

3. We now have two ex MFS senior execs David Kennedy and David Anderson, on the Board - and seemingly having a very big say in what goes on. The Courts seem to be castigating them both over their actions or inactions in the MFS embroglio. How could anyone seriously have them running a major mortgage fund, whilst still under a huge cloud.

4. Advisers , auditors etc: all in common with teh failed MFS.

5. Large staff numbers: Equititrust seemed to succed with a lean closley run business model - look at the web site in 2008 and now look at the senior executive staff numbers! At say $150K per executive - what's happended to the overheads and who is paying these! I guess we are all paying as we are not getting our money.

6. Landsolve: what is this really all about. I understand that what it really is is to take control of the bad loans in Equititrust - that is, a failed deal - rather than report it as a bad loan - it 'moves across' to Landsolve, with much fanfare. Presumably all this means is that Equititrust now pays all teh bills on a raft of non-performing loans and assets - more outgoings, no income and a huge roll of the dice that the market will improve. In the meanwhile, we are presented with PDS and financial reports that record little if any bad or default debt - when in fact the 'bad' debt is hidden away in Landsolve. Logically, if all the loans were good ones and paying theiur interest and not in default, there would be an orderley flow of funds and we would all see some flow of money.

7. Loan to Value ratioes: as per the PDS, the National Bank's agreement to roll-over for another year was based on Equititrust maintaining a fixed Loan to Value Ratio. On the face of it, they comply, however, if you try to analyse what might be bad/doubtful loans on projects that have bene side-lined into Landsolve - there is little doubt in my mind that the National Bank LVR Ratioes have been breached. Now, why would that be good? Well, in my view if Equititrust is being bled on carrying bad loans and bad properties and paying huge salaries to a whole raft of new people - some who must be considered (from their recent past) to in the least be incompetent, then rather than funds just frittered away, the sonner that ASIC or the National Bank put a stop to this, and put an independent party such as Korda Mentha in control, to start to sell the porperties off properly and cautiously, the better, I suspect, for us all.

In my view, if you scratch the veneer, it is not very thin and what is under that veneer, does not look too good.

[Equititrust Ltd]

Whilst it is not our usual policy to post replies on websites such as this, a valued investor has drawn our attention to the misinformation and untruths that have been posted and it would be remiss of us not to at least demonstrate their inaccuracy. That said, we do not feel that it is productive to enter into an ongoing dialogue re same and as such our posting will not be a regular occurrence. Viewers should not read anything into our failure to reply other than that we do not consider it to be an appropriate use of resources. In fact, in our view, those participating in this site are most likely not investors at all but rather disgruntled borrowers against whom we have been forced to act due to them defaulting on loans.

If any genuine investor has any concerns with their investment at Equititrust then, as always, we remain committed to addressing such concerns. Having said this, I think the appropriate way for this to be done is by them contacting us individually. As always, we shall be open and transparent in all our dealings.

By way of example only, I shall address the matters raised by “kostag” (whose name incidentally is strikingly similar to an associate of a former recalcitrant borrower of Equititrust’s) in his latest post of earlier today. I shall use the same numbering system as that adopted by him.

1. Funds from new investors have not been used to repay bank debt – such repayments (which total $96m) have been generated from loan collections. In addition, outstanding redemptions are actually approximately $40m and not over $50m as outlined as many have voluntary converted to term investments;

2. Changes to a Board are not at all unusual (particularly when one considers how long they have been on it). One only needs to look at the calibre of those that have joined the Board to see how the changes have strengthened the Board composition and not weakened it. I can confirm that the changes were instigated internally in order to provide a greater corporate governance framework and that both Mr McIvor and Mr Chaney expressed complete support for the changes;

3. Whilst the reference to MFS is hardly worth commenting on given the clear misrepresentation of the true position, it is worth noting that Mr David Anderson is not on the Board as outlined and at no time have either Mr Anderson or Mr Kennedy been castigated or criticised by the Court on any occasion regarding their involvement in MFS. Incidentally, Mr Kennedy was only at MFS for approximately 9 months and left some 6 months before it collapsed;

4. KPMG is one of the four largest audit and accounting firms in the world. It has a niche in auditing financial organizations and in fact is also the auditor of ANZ Bank, Suncorp and one of the largest banks in the world, HSBC to name but a few. It is also the only Big 4 firm with a serious presence on the Gold Coast and as such it is hardly of significance that both MFS and Equititurst shared the same audit firm (although it should be noted that the MFS audit was conducted out of Melbourne);

5. Staff resources have been increased in order to protect investor’s interests as a much greater degree of time is required to be spent monitoring and managing our loan book post GFC. This is consistent with similar increases in our Big Four banks loans management departments post GFC. It would be irresponsible for us not to have done this. The significant increase is costs is being entirely borne by the Responsible Entity and not by investors;

6. Landsolve was not created to take control of bad loans and not one single loan has been “moved across” to Landsolve as suggested. The birth of Landsolve is a recognition that the world post-GFC is a very different place and that development lending moving forward will need to be managed in a very different way. The suggestion that the financial reports “record little if any bad or default debt” is simply wrong. Almost $40m worth of loans have been impaired over the past three years to recognise falls in property values and potential unrecoverability of same. As Landsolve has no debt or any loans there is no “bad” debt hidden away as suggested;

7. The NAB LVR Ratios have not been breached as alleged. The rest of point 7 contains pre speculation which is entirely untrue;

Equititrust is supportive of the right for one to express an opinion but is concerned when posts such as those by Kostag and Olman contain numerous and repeated errors and conclusions that a reasonable person could not possible reach.

The facts speak for themselves:

(i) In its 17 year history no investor has ever suffered a loss with Equitirust;
(ii) Income distributions have always been paid in full and on time;

It is unfortunate that redemptions have been frozen and this is regrettable but we had little choice once the federal government decided to guarantee bank deposits and banks decided (notwithstanding such guarantee) to unilaterally curtail credit provision across the country. It is with some degree of pride that we have managed to pay distributions throughout – something that Commonwealth Bank’s own mortgage fund has not been able to do.

As I said at the beginning, any genuine investor can call us at anytime should they have any concerns about their investment. I personally invite both Kostag and Olman to contact me personally should they continue to have any concerns about the financial position of Equititrust and I will be sure to provide them with an transparent and honest assessment of same.

Regards

David Kennedy
Chief Executive Officer

[ParleVouFrancois]

Either Kostag is a whistle blower and we should congratulate him for bringing this in hindsight quite obvious deteriorating of corporate structure in EquitiTrust, or he's on a crazed rant because he was a margin called in, investor.

I'd like to read Kostag's reply to the very detailed response by EquitiTrust.

Disclosure: I have no commercial relationship with EquitiTrust, I'm merely curious as to what's really going on.