Equititrust?

[kostag]

they said we would never make it and never last

despite Kolonel Klink 'I know nothing' Kennedy and Mard Dog "Madoff" McIvor engaging forensic IT guys and using false IDs to drawer us out - we survived and got the truth out there

Media such as SMH in Sydney also did a great job

Lets hope that ASIC and AFP dont make a mockery of all of this effort and risk and finally finish this saga off with some serious jail time!!!

[No Trust]

250,000 hits and rising by the day... Great work Kostag in starting this thread...

Special thanks to Aussie Stock Forums for providing an excellent platform for investors of all types to be able to come together..

A hearty hello to Klink and Mad Dog too, who we know watch this thread like hawks... We see "Karma" is doing its job... Hope the resume's polish up nicely and don't forget to mention MFS and Equititrust in BOLD it will hold you in fine stead...

On wards to 500,000 hits...

they said we would never make it and never last

despite Kolonel Klink 'I know nothing' Kennedy and Mard Dog "Madoff" McIvor engaging forensic IT guys and using false IDs to drawer us out - we survived and got the truth out there

Media such as SMH in Sydney also did a great job

Lets hope that ASIC and AFP dont make a mockery of all of this effort and risk and finally finish this saga off with some serious jail time!!!

[Goldie101]

I am not an investor in Equititrust but a member of the Gold Coast business community who has followed the demise of Equititrust with a somewhat morbid fascination. I know several investors, advisors and a few former employees who I see from time to time and I think I am reasonably well versed in its affairs.

Freedom of speech is a wonderful right but it does not come free from obligation – it comes with responsibility even if one tries to hide behind the curtain of internet anonymity. One must be truthful in what one says and one cannot use it to cause harm or damage to others without consequences. There is an interesting article in today’s Sydney Morning Herald regarding this principle and how it has impacted upon the Hot Copper website (which is similar in nature to this one). This article made me reflect upon what I have read on this forum and looking at it today (having been an avid reader from time to time) made me chuckle as I witnessed the mutual self-adulation of some participants who are obviously oblivious to the consequences of their past actions (or simply don’t care). I was so amused I was energized to join the site and contribute (something I have been tempted to do for some time).

I am told (by several reliable sources) that the identity of some of the more prolific participants was established some time ago and is now well known to various parties/authorities. These identities will no doubt be revealed in time. I am told that they are not Equititrust investors at all but rather sworn enemies of McIvor. I suspect they would be as concerned for the workers of a piggery in Nauru as they are for Equititrust investors.

The irony of some participants alleging criminal offences against all and sundry and damaging countless reputations will not be lost if their own past catches up with them. I am told that it has been established that several participants have engaged in criminal defamation and serious breaches of the Criminal Code Act (like those on twitter who recently harassed Charlotte Dawson) and that such offences have not gone unnoticed. I guess only time will tell if this is correct.

There is nothing wrong with fair comment or even raising suspicions about certain matters or people associated with Equititrust’s demise (which seems warranted from what I am told as its collapse is nothing short of an unmitigated disaster). That is a fair way short of what some participants have done. They have acted as judge, jury and executioner against individuals, their families and highly respected professional firms. There can be no doubt that much of what they have said is false and they have jumped to conclusions that a reasonable person would not (or at the very least they have not provided facts to support their position). It certainly appears to have been done with malice and reckless abandonment.

I think the forum would have been far more useful had it stuck to the facts and allowed investors to discuss and comment on what has happened to their investment. The personal attacks have been unhelpful and have distracted from what should have been the main show. Investors should be very cautious as to acting on information contained on sites such as this. Consider what is said by all means - just don't pay treat it as gospel.

Anyway, not sure how much more I will contribute to this forum but there is my ten cents worth for now.

[ASICK]

I refer to the posting made by "Goldie101", although I do not care to quote same.

What an extraordinary posting! First, hearsay accusations against, and I'm guessing, "Kostag" and "NoTrust", by a person who himself/herself is anonymous, such accusations made in a posting, itself loaded to the hilt with hearsay.

"Goldie101" says he/she is " told (by several reliable sources) that the identity of some of the more prolific participants was established some time ago and is now well known to various parties/authorities.", so then, what is the problem?

Why haven't the 'authorities' acted to prosecute the alleged offenders of the alleged criminal defamation?

Why haven't the aggrieved parties brought such matters to the attention of the moderator of ASF, a person who is quite active in protecting the site against civil transgressions (and worse), and/or why haven't they proceeded with civil litigation to protect their reputations?

It has been mentioned by a number of us that members should support postings with evidence, but that has not always been the way of "Kostag" and "NoTrust", and so it goes.

It seems to me that "Goldie101" fares no better than each of "Kostag" and "NoTrust" since he/she brings no evidence to support his/her claims against those he/she makes mere allegations.

Given the losses, who can blame certain members for even harbouring a degree of hate for those who lose investors' money? - who could blame them becoming 'sworn enemies' of those who lost investors' hard-earned savings?

I'm sure the postings which follow mine will surely be no less than colorful.

[No Trust]

The Infamous Post #153 16th-February-2011 11:10 PM posted by Equititrust, the last paragraph read:

"Would we like to state that investors investment is 100% safe? Yes we would but ASIC guidelines restrict us from making such statements. What we can say is that Equititrust would have to lose its entire $40m investment before investors lose one single cent. Such commitment to protecting investors is unheard of in the Australian mortgage fund industry."

In response to "Goldie Locks" deluded post, I think this says it all... Here we have a company the "apparent" custodian of public money making clearly false statements to try and stifle the truth on this thread. Not only were there multiple false postings (under multiple accounts) by the company on this web site (which was widely reported in the national press) they also tried to supress the fact that they lent in excess of $70M of innocent retiree investors’ money to "King Con"

The Article by Colin Kruger below sums it up and reinforces the fact that those in control of Equititrust were the masters of their own destiny in terms of their actions and resultant damage to their reputations, which in turn have been widely reported in every national newspaper in Australia at its peak almost on a weekly basis... No one has made this up, journalists from the nation’s top newspapers Colin Kruger, Greg Stolz, Anthony Marx, Scott Rochfort, James McCullough, Mitch Gaynor, Anthony Klan etc etc etc, have brought this to the public domain...

As for what the Receivers and Liquidators have outlined in their reports, particularly the financial irregularities, well that’s on the public record as well...


http://www.smh.com.au/business/inves...612-1fz9d.html

http://www.smh.com.au/business/names...711-21wci.html

http://www.couriermail.com.au/busine...-1226338596337


Now the question is who at Equititrust will put their hand up for Infamous Post #153 ? In light of Colin Kruger' Article on the 13th of June 2011 it is clear whoever made the post on that date knew it was false considering the unfolding collapse of "King Con"...

Further as reported by Colin Kruger :

http://www.smh.com.au/business/four-...209-1an0h.html

If the Sydney Morning Herald had not put the spot light on the further $50M capital raising forcing ASIC to intervene how many more innocent Australians would have been financially devastated. Following this article the fact that Equititrust had massive exposure to "King Con" was exposed on this web site. Equititrust under a false account traced back to them tried to deny it on this thread...

"Goldie Lock's" does not seem to give a damn about the innocent retiree investors who cannot even get a pension as a result of the actions of Equititrust and its management who seem to this day to be more interested in self-preservation than the welfare of those who entrusted their money to them...

As a reminder watch the video below, "Also in the Public Domain" to see the innocent people whose lives have been decimated by Equititrust...

http://media.theage.com.au/business/...e-2318091.html

[Olman]

I found it refreshing to read Goldie's view. While Asick's comments also hold some relevance, the self-adulation of the Two Main Posters (TMP) here, and their evasive responses to any attempt to get them to declare their interest, are boring in the extreme.

The gleeful chortling of the thread "hit" statistics should be tempered by consideration of the posts - the majority of the TMP posts are personal observations and ranting of no substance, and one wonders how often the site is visited by them to ramp up the stats.

To their credit, they do occasionally come up with valid links to new information, but this is a pretty small proportion of their posts. Any oppositional view is attacked vehemently and intelligent discussion is drowned out by the knee-jerk responses.

The only sane way to deal with this site is to check out the thread, skip the constant irrelevant vitriol, and take note of anything that seems relevant. It only takes a second or two to judge the content and close the page.

No doubt the TMP will follow previous tactics and post a multitude of separate few-liners to push the dissenting views from sight. Enlightened discussion is in short supply here when considering the volume of garbage, but the nature of free speech does have limitations and it is unrealistic to expect any self-moderation.

Go for it, fellas ....

[Goldie101]

It comes as no surprise to me that No Trust should decide that attack is the best form of defence. In fact I would have been disappointed had this not been the case. The history of this blog shows that he personally attacks anybody who dares question anything he says. He appears to be either unable or unwilling to engage in anything like rational debate or consider an alternate view to his own. I will give some examples of matters to which I was referring at a later time that I believe will demonstrate what I mean.

Let me be a little clearer in my views. Does the collapse of Equititrust warrant investigation? Absolutely. My view is that this is a job best left for ASIC, the various Receivers, the Liquidator and others. Surely they have access to information that others do not. If anybody has any relevant information then they can provide it to them. Have the various posters who apparently have such damning evidence given it to the appropriate authorities?

As to ASICK’s post, I must say I was a little surprised. With the greatest respect, I couldn’t disagree more with what you say and I would hardly describe my post as extraordinary (particularly in light of some of the previous posts on this site). You draw comparisons between my post and those of some others yet fail to recognise the significant and obvious differences. For example,

(i) I have not named anybody nor tarnished anybody’s reputation. Whilst I have been told the alleged identities of various participants I do not think it appropriate to share them as I have no evidence as to whether what I have been told is correct. Even if I had such evidence I am not sure their identity adds much to the discussion. I suspect most readers will have long ago formed their own view regarding the motives of such participants (and the objectivity of them). Furthermore, even if I disclosed the blog name of participants to which I was referring (which I did not) this hardly would identify them to readers of this site – this is a million miles away from what various participants have done to others;

(ii) I made it clear that I was relying upon what I was told by others. I also made it plain that I did not know if what I was told was correct. In fact I said, “I guess only time will tell if this is correct”. ASICK, we are not in a courtroom – there is nothing wrong with hearsay evidence – the issue is the extent of reliance that one places upon it – given I have made it plain when I was relying upon such hearsay I am not sure what your beef is;

(iii) I was not attacking anybody. I was simply saying that I think investors should be cautious of acting on information contained in sites such as this (such a caution would obviously extend to my post). Nothing more, nothing less;

It is true that in theory anybody who thinks their reputation has been unfairly tarnished can take civil action. In practice, this a naïve proposition. The time and costs of taking such action against people who may well have no assets available to satisfy any judgement makes it almost always a waste of time to pursue such course. It is similarly naïve to expect the moderator to censor such things – this was one of the points of the article in the SMH yesterday (which prompted my post).

As to the “sworn enemy” comment you may like to re-read my post. I fully understand some investors who have lost large sums of money becoming sworn enemies of those that lost their money – I would do the same I suspect. What I actually said was that I was told the people to whom I was referring are not investors at all but rather sworn enemies. If this is true then, in my view, it does change the reliance one can place on what they say (particularly when they provide no evidence to support what they say). If they are not investors, what is their motivation to attack the way they have? This does not mean that they have no right to say the things they say – it just helps one put them in context.

Finally, I was not in any way trying to stifle debate – far from it. I was just trying to encourage constructive discussion as opposed to much of what has transpired on this site, especially of late. If you read my post I do not oppose participants from raising suspicions regarding people's conduct or behaviour. I merely say that comments should not be stated as fact when they are opinion and no participant should act as judge, jury and executioner. I am not sure any reasonable person would disagree with such sentiments.

As discussed above, when I get the time later I will give some examples of what I was talking about regarding certain posts.

In the meantime, enjoy the weekend.

[ASICK]

re: "Goldie101" - there are no many errors in your posting and while I enjoy engaging, it would simply take too much time to attend to all of the issues in detail.

Please note that any individual comments I made in my last posting should be taken to stand alone (eg. re: "sworn enemies") unless expressed otherwise.

As I read it, you complain of hearsay by members of this forum, but you dose out hearsay in spades.

You say, "There can be no doubt that much of what they have said is false and they have jumped to conclusions that a reasonable person would not (or at the very least they have not provided facts to support their position)." and yet in total contradiction you say, "ASICK, we are not in a courtroom – there is nothing wrong with hearsay evidence – the issue is the extent of reliance that one places upon it – given I have made it plain when I was relying upon such hearsay I am not sure what your beef is;".

It's quite a hypocritical stance for you to take - to say on the one hand that the bar should be raised when members of the forum make allegations (the provision of facts), and yet on the other hand to say that the bar should fall to the ground when you post (hearsay is okay).

I agree that the bar should be raised, and perhaps the first act in raising the bar might be for you to volunteer to ask the moderator to delete your first post since you have not provided one shred of evidence to support any allegation you made therein.

Some examples would be more than welcome.

[No Trust]

Now here we have "Goldie Locks" making some very serious allegations and when push comes to shove he arrrgh, gargle, arrrgh, pause, splutter says:

"I made it clear that I was relying upon what I was told by others. I also made it plain that I did not know if what I was told was correct. "

So in effect "Goldie Lock's" posting was nothing more than rumour, hearsay and gossip...

I think (in his own words) that says it all...

[No Trust]

Also of note is the fact that there is no mention of the Innocent Retiree Investors whose lives have been ruined by Equititrust and the multiple false postings by Equititrust on this thread... That was selectively ignored...

To any new readers of this thread the articles below are not hearsay, I wasn't told about them by someone anonymous, they are published articles by respected journalists in the public domain which are categorically in the Public's interest...


http://www.smh.com.au/business/inves...612-1fz9d.html


http://www.smh.com.au/business/names...711-21wci.html


http://www.couriermail.com.au/busine...-1226338596337

[No Trust]

Oh and here is some more factual information on "The Public Record" published by the then Administrator of Equititrust and still readily available on the Equititrust website for anyone wishing to fully inform themselves of the facts:

http://www.equititrust.com.au/Pdfs/A...0Creditors.pdf

Page 29 Para 11.1 is really interesting reading...

I wish I could make this stuff up, but no here it is in "The Public Domain" for all to see, read and legally comment on as enshrined under the provisions of the law enacted in 2005 and adopted in 2006.

Its Freedom of Speech which really does makes this country great...

[No Trust]

ASICK, your input in this debate has always been fair and balanced to the chagrin at times of those who have caused this disaster...

The debate can get heated at times and given the extent of the losses and in particular who the money was lent to without the investor's knowledge the comments have always been based on Honest Opinion on what is readily available in the Public Domain almost on a weekly basis.

Yet here we have a posting in which the poster clearly states that he does not have an honest opinion and does not know whether the allegations are true yet has proceeded to publish them...

Hypocracy of the highest order... Asking the moderator to delete the post might be a good option for the offending individual...

re: "Goldie101" - there are no many errors in your posting and while I enjoy engaging, it would simply take too much time to attend to all of the issues in detail.

Please note that any individual comments I made in my last posting should be taken to stand alone (eg. re: "sworn enemies") unless expressed otherwise.

As I read it, you complain of hearsay by members of this forum, but you dose out hearsay in spades.

You say, "There can be no doubt that much of what they have said is false and they have jumped to conclusions that a reasonable person would not (or at the very least they have not provided facts to support their position)." and yet in total contradiction you say, "ASICK, we are not in a courtroom – there is nothing wrong with hearsay evidence – the issue is the extent of reliance that one places upon it – given I have made it plain when I was relying upon such hearsay I am not sure what your beef is;".

It's quite a hypocritical stance for you to take - to say on the one hand that the bar should be raised when members of the forum make allegations (the provision of facts), and yet on the other hand to say that the bar should fall to the ground when you post (hearsay is okay).

I agree that the bar should be raised, and perhaps the first act in raising the bar might be for you to volunteer to ask the moderator to delete your first post since you have not provided one shred of evidence to support any allegation you made therein.

Some examples would be more than welcome.

[Goldie101]

ASICK, you say I complain about hearsay but then dose it out in spades. I am not sure where you get this from. You are the one who raised hearsay evidence, not me. My comment was actually “there is nothing wrong with hearsay evidence”. I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

With respect to No Trust’s predictable comments, I see no need to reply other than to note my bemusement that, of his 5 posts since mine, not one contained a denial of matters I raised - surely this would have been the faster way of dealing matters. I did not post on this site for his benefit, or for the matter, for anyone with an ulterior motive. I am posting for the benefit of investors and then only to warn them re the extent of the reliance that they place on what they read on sites such as this. I am certainly not defending the action of Equititrust or any persons associated with it but the manner and content of some posts is, in my humble view, entirely inappropriate.

For example, No Trust accuses McIvor’s elderly mother (who I suspect must be in or near her 80’s) of participating “in a number of scams with him”, of being the “front woman for Marky Boy’s scams” and of being a “co-conspirator” with McIvor. He provided not one shred of evidence to support any of these accusations and when another blogger chastised him he replied “So don’t give me this rubbish when you clearly don’t know the facts…”. I wonder what No Trust’s definition of a fact is.

Another example is with respect to the Liquidator, Hall Chadwick, who are a national reputable accounting firm. He has accused them of, amongst other things, total incompetence, being “a total disgrace”, being buddies with McIvor, being “idiots” and being a “running joke”. Whilst these are clearly matters of opinion he also accuses them of having a hidden agenda, being involved in scamming investors, engaging in deceit, lying and gouging for fees. These are very serious allegations that affect a firm’s reputation yet not one shred of evidence to back up the allegations is provided or alluded to. I suspect because none exists.

I do not intend to be a prolific poster on this site as I have better things to do with my time. I will however endeavour to post from time to time when I think the truth is being misrepresented or when I think things others says warrant being challenged. Readers can then decide the extent of reliance (if any) they place on my posts.

[gardie]

Goldie

The problem with leaving it in the hands of the supposed experts is that history has shown that mum and dad investors tend to get rather short changed.

In relation to another Gold Coast Fund the Premium Income Fund ASIC have being "investigating" for three years now and no matter how many complaints are made they are not prepared to even talk to the investors. "Cannot discuss an ongoing investigation". ASIC are aware of a number of actions that are criminal in nature by certain parties and yet by the time they do something there will be nothing left.

Now how would you feel if you house was burgled and when you try and go to the police you cannot get a response.

As to relying on liquidators and receivers take a look at the number of complaints made to the Senate Review on this industry.

The whole model or liquidators/receivers/administrators is flawed as they have no incentive to maximise investors returns. They claim to do so but they are at the front of the queue in terms of getting paid. I think it was worked out that at an Ansett creditors meeting the cups of tea cost $60.

If this forum can get matters out in the public eye and show just little regard parties have for mums and dads hard earned investment then it provides a great service.

[ASICK]

"Goldie101" said, "ASICK, you say I complain about hearsay but then dose it out in spades. I am not sure where you get this from. You are the one who raised hearsay evidence, not me. My comment was actually “there is nothing wrong with hearsay evidence”. I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one."

Yes, you did say "there is nothing wrong with hearsy evidence", but the whole of your complaint in relation to "No Trust" (and unnamed others) relates to the fact that they did not provide facts to support statements, an onus of proof that you yourself are not prepared to rise to - consequently, in my view, your stance is hypocritical.

"Goldie101" said, "With respect to No Trust’s predictable comments, I see no need to reply other than to note my bemusement that, of his 5 posts since mine, not one contained a denial of matters I raised - surely this would have been the faster way of dealing matters."

As I see, you didn't provide any particulars in your previous posts, so I have no idea why you should be bemused by anyone's failure to respond to broad allegations lacking particularization?

"Goldie1010" said, "I did not post on this site for his benefit, or for the matter, for anyone with an ulterior motive. I am posting for the benefit of investors and then only to warn them re the extent of the reliance that they place on what they read on sites such as this."

Yes, and that's a noble cause - but the site clearly disclaims each and every posting - there can be no reliance on any posting made on ASF, so there is no need for you to ride to the rescue (so to speak). I'm very much aware that the moderators watch each and every posting and take any complaints very seriously.

"Goldie101" said, "I am certainly not defending the action of Equititrust or any persons associated with it but the manner and content of some posts is, in my humble view, entirely inappropriate."

You are entitled to hold and express your view in this forum - you won't find argument from me on your right to do so - we're all here, not at the King's pleasure, but rather, the Moderator's pleasure.

"Goldie101" said, "For example, No Trust accuses ***** elderly mother (who I suspect must be in or near her 80’s) of participating “**************”, of being the “******************” and of being a “*************” with ******.." (I''ve edited the text - reference should be made to the posting made by "Goldie101")

"Goldie101" adds, "He provided not one shred of evidence to support any of these accusations and when another blogger chastised him he replied “So don’t give me this rubbish when you clearly don’t know the facts…”. I wonder what No Trust’s definition of a fact is."

And so it goes - Personally, I take no notice of such statements from "No Trust" because no facts support the statements, but how do you know that "No Trust" doesn't have facts which he's not prepared to disclose on the forum? He may - he may not. Where are your facts to support what he says is not the case? Without facts, what reasonable person would take any notice of any such statement?

"Goldie101" says, "Another example is with respect to the ************, who are a national reputable ***** *** . He has accused them of, amongst other things, ***********, being “a *********”, being *****with *******, being “*****” and being a “******”. Whilst these are clearly matters of opinion he also accuses them of having ********************, ************, ***********." (Refer to "Goldie101" posting)

I repeat my previous paragraph with the addition of the fact that the company has published certain documents on the Equititrust website, portions of which seemed not to sit well with "No Trust" and perhaps others on this forum - for my part, I'm not an investor, so such issues do not affect me at they might "No Trust" and others - his/her response may be or may not be justied, I cannot assess that - he'll have to answer that.

"These are very serious allegations that affect a firm’s reputation yet not one shred of evidence to back up the allegations is provided or alluded to. I suspect because none exists."

Well, by way of argument only, what if the allegations had legs to them? then so what? The firm is a national firm well able to defend itself in the media using $$$$. Perhaps you might tell us whether you are aware of the reasons why the firm hasn't proceeded with legal action in such a case of alleged defamation? -As I understand it, a company with a certain number of employees (perhaps such as the company you refer to) is unable to bring suit, but here you are defending it. How nice of you.

I'm sure the others you wish to defend will also be happy for your activities - but in the end, you bring nothing to the forum to rebut any allegations made by any poster on this forum against any corporate entity or natural person.

There are a number of avenues for redress available to those who feel aggrieved, yet none have been taken up - the only defence comes in the form of "Goldie101".

[ASICK]

I'm not in favour of members making statements which aren't able to be supported by facts - and while it's an ideal to have supportable statements, we're all human, and we err (some more than others) - some make statements out of anguish, some out of loss (eg. of money). Having studied a tad about psychology, I'm also aware that financial loss may affect one as much as the loss of a spouse and as such, loss of one's life savings may amount to some to be a loss which in effect, is really quite an emotional blow.

I find it difficult to criticize some statements which (to me) seem outlandish and perhaps, unsupportable, and I find that difficulty arising because I account for the fact that I see members losing their life savings, and I see members suffering the worst at the most vulnerable time in their lives.

I don't believe that either of "No Trust" or "Kostag" make statements as "sworn enemies" of McIvor as a result of some experience other than as a consequence of their respective investments with Equititrust: I confess I'd be quite taken aback if it was otherwise.

Many of us find ourselves on these forums in the hope we can better the outcome for what's left of our investments in the various funds, and some of us work to help others from falling where we fell.

Finally, I've been surprised that the moderator hasn't deleted a number of postings, but since he/she hasn't, I take it to mean that the moderator believes those postings to be okay. I trust that the moderator fully understands the limits of the law and will act to defend the site in the event it is necessary.

[klua]

A longish article on page 46 of today's Gold Coast Bulletin about the sale of Cronin Isalnd home and the resulting Commonwealth bank court case.

[No Trust]

I agree with ASICK's take on what "Goldie Locks" is really about and when you sum it up what is he offering investors who have lost the lot at the hands of Equititrust and those who have run it into the ground ??? Absolutely nothing ...

In terms of factual evidence the records of the Office of State Revenue in QLD, as well as law firms who have acted for the dynamic duo I think is evidence enough of the fact that smoke screens and mirrors by way of trusts has been the modus operandi for some time... Now if others are uninformed of the facts well that’s not my problem... But defending the indefensible makes one look like quite an ignorant idiot...

Supreme Court Action - Repossession

Now have a look at the little game being played out in the Supreme Court with McIvor's mother and Westpac Bank. Westpac want to repossess the home it seems as was reported in the press as a result of the receivership of one of the MM Entities. The bank is now taking the matter to trial on the 19 - 22 November 2012 and have called a quite a list of people to give evidence and provide non-party disclosure...

The trial will be quite eye opening as to the business arrangements between MM Properties / Holdings and McIvor's Mother and the connection to the home his sister lived in... Westpac sure is keen to unravel it…

http://apps.courts.qld.gov.au/esearc...number=1676/12

DOWNWARD TREND
James McCullough
Courier Mail

The fortunes of embattled Gold Coast businessman Mark McIvor continue to nosedive.

In the latest blow, Westpac has appointed KordaMentha as receivers and managers over about eight properties owned by companies associated with McIvor.

Among them are the Chevron Island headquarters of his struggling funds management firm Equititrust, as well as Gold Coast homes occupied by his mother and sister. The bank plans to sell the properties to recover $24 million-odd in loans." End Quote

http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/c...-1226228825079

Considering the inextricable link of the MM Entities to Equititrust, it seems that given the previous interwoven participation of relatives in terms of property ownership and use of bare trust structures, the resultant legal and financial outcomes of court proceedings are of high interest to Equititrust investors.

Liquidator

In terms of the Liquidator, what have they done for investors ??? Where are the public examinations, where are the statutory assets statements of McIvor and the other directors.

Promises have not been kept and if it wasn’t for this thread and pressure applied by investors at the meetings they would have tried to have their fees paid from the proceeds of the asset sales of the funds (further reducing the returns to investors). This was despite previous assertions that this would not occur…
I think every intelligent person can come to their own conclusion as to the professionalism or otherwise of a firm that does this…

For further factual evidence just look at the reports and statements of David Whyte the “court appointed” receiver who had to make a statement on the 18th of April 2012 regarding the actions of the then Administraitor now Liquidator and impact of the change of responsible entity would have on the dilution of the return to Equititrust investors whilst benefitting MM entities directly connected to McIvor…

http://www.equititrust.com.au/Pdfs/R...s%20Report.pdf

Also refer to paragraph 5 in David Whyte’s report below:

http://www.equititrust.com.au/Pdfs/R...0Investors.pdf

Now why would a respected insolvency firm recommend the change of the responsible entity where the direct result would be massive financial loss to the investors who have already been decimated…

David Whyte who I hold in high regard took the high road and via 2 reports stood up for the investors and questioned the actions of the Administraitor / Liquidator.

Given the factual evidence in the David Whyte reports, not mine it seems that “Goldie Locks” is again trying to defend the indefensible…

If it wasn’t for the pressure applied and exposure by this thread a lot of people would have been uninformed of what David Whyte ultimately exposed.

[kostag]

a lot of heated debate - which I suspect is not a bad thing at all.

It is worth remebering this.

This 'fight' got dirty when postings from purported Equititrust investors were tracked by this site's modertaor as emanating from an Equititrust computer.

At a time that history shows, Equititrust wa smore than likley insolvent, they were out in the market pro,oting a new $50M raising and a Meridien Marina trust.

The constantly crowed about 'sub-ordinated $40M cash invetsment' turned out to be only a series of clever accounting journal entries.

The Board - some of them reputable respected figures - presided over a Fund that amongst other things made a $70m loan to Dudley Quinlivan.

Valuations were obtained from respected Valuers but (presumably) not tested against purchase price evidence.

A large percentage of the loan book was represented by Vacant Land and Development assets with no cash flows. The loan book was more than likley toxic from late 2008.

Although a respected audit firm was used - what testing was done of the secuirty values and what positive testing was done of loan asset balances? We draw no inference at all - the simple fact is that the same firm audit firm audit firm audited MFS.

Again no inference - the simple fact that David Kennedy presided over MFS in its last few years and then Equititrust in its last few years.

Whilst Equititrust continued to spruik about the investors' funds being 100% safe - this site started to provide detailed analysis that showed its value at best under 50cents! Then slowly, over time, this sites worst predictions became a reality with respected Receiver David Whyte now predicting 17cents BEFORE final overheads and realisation - so more than likley NIL.

Yes, the fight became heated and YES with hindsight often was childish and perhaps petty. BUT falso, misleading and petty? I suggest that most of the information has turned out to be very much spot on.

Now, has this helped anyone? Probably not. If anything it has probably only served to bring investor losses to book earlier.

Who cares who any of the posters are. Clearly, various parties have various agendas. Just as some 'false posters' sought to mislead that they were happy Equititrust investors and "all was well" as against anotehr plethora of posters who clearly have an axe to grind.

Does it matter? I guess, if it is just done to hurt and injure, well that is what defamation law is all about. But if there is both truth and public interest involved and one could clearly prove that much of this site's posting have served to galvanise the media, motivate authorities, and highlight serious issues which for example contributed to a further $50M new raising being pulled and reigned in by ASIC.

So a bit of head-buting and to'ing and fro'ing by self interested parties and even perhaos enemies - well, who really cares?

There can be not much doubt that very substantially the truth has stuck. Has it been childish at times - by both 'sides' absolutely. Perhaps this has been the cost of getting the truth out there.

Has it caused Mark McIvor to suffer? Well, one could say that the loan book was clearly terminal and it was only a matter of time - so what loss could he have suffered. Is he going to say that the loan book was a good one? That the Banks, ASIC and this web iste all got it wrong? He might say it, but he would be struggling to prove that. Has his family sufferred. No doubt. But that personal devastation was the ultimate and inevitable result of a poorly constructed business model that clearly relied on the un-sustainable model of a continual flow of new funds from eiether Banks or investors. Post GFC, this was not going to continue and all it needed was a little bit of valuation and cash-flow stress to bring the true state of the core business into the open.

I agree - that between David Whyte and ASIC , this pretty shabby affair will finalise. But, I say in conclusion that much if not most of what was said and perhaps speculated on along the way (no-one had any real factual material to go on, because what was published was not in reality factual) was based on gut feel and assesments of individuals and did turn out to be very close to the real position. Surely that is what mattered in the end?

It probably does not hurt to reflect rather than on the postings on this site but go back through the Equititrust marketing blurb, spin and PDS statements. Do that with an open mind and tell me which information source was the more factual? Don't let me cloud your thinking - raed it all and make your own judgement.

[No Trust]

Buyers Snap Up McIvor Bargains
Lucy Ardern

Gold Coast Bulletin

7 September 2012


"Potential buyers could see the silver lining to Mark Mcivor's misfortune yesterday when they turned out in droves for a chance to pick up one of the eight properties linked to the Equititrust Group founder."


DOC.PDF