Equititrust?

[Ozab]

Kostag,

If you read the chain of postings you will see that Olman was not particularly complimentary of Equititrust in earlier posts. He then appears to have taken up Kennedy's invitation to discuss his concerns and the bulk of his concerns appear to have been addressed. Maybe you should do likewise rather than continue to post material which for the best part appears wrong. You are certainly not acting like an investor.

You complain about Kennedy not answering your questions and you draw inferences from this. My reading of the posts show that he has made it clear he will not further be addressing matters raised by you. In the circumstances it hardly seems appropriate to draw negative inferences about someone's non-reply when they have made it plain they will not be replying.


If you don't want to talk to them that is fine but for crying out loud, learn to use spellcheck.

[No Trust]

Another well written article where Equititrust gets a mention is:

by Michael West of the Sydney Morning Herald (Copy Below) it now seems prophetic of the mortgage fund industry and of what was to come.

The Gold Coast train wreck Michael West
September 12, 2008
A few weeks before the stock market crashed in October 1987, Christopher Skase issued a big profit upgrade.

Earnings for his flagship company Qintex were shaping up to be stronger than ever in 1988.

Fast forward 20 years. Skase's "blue sky'' was all a mirage, just like Phil Green's $750 million profit forecast for Babcock & Brown earlier this year.

And just as the wealth-destruction feats of the '80s entrepreneurs are now being replicated by the financial engineers of the new millennium, the Gold Coast property market is once again hurtling towards a train wreck.

It's a re-run of the '80s - minus the Japanese investors, who were so scarred they never came back to Surfers Paradise. In a fitting symbol of the cycle, Chris Skase's Mirage Resort is back on the market again - both Sheraton Mirages are, in fact: Port Douglas and Main Beach.

This time around, thousands of small investors in mortgage funds will get the drubbing, not to mention the banks, once again. The banks have simply stopped lending, as property developer Jim Raptis cruelly found out this week when one of his financiers pulled the plug just 14 weeks from completion of his bellwether development at Southport.

While Raptis goes cap in hand to his bankers, the likes of construction giant Multiplex and a couple of other trade players are running the rule over Raptis Group and its projects. The question these vulture capitalists are asking themselves is, can we buy these assets cheaper still?

The answer is, almost certainly, yes.

While bank lending screeched to a halt months ago, the train wreck of crumpling corporates is happening right now. This week alone, receivers were appointed to one Raptis entity and to Rob Borbidge's debenture spruiking Asset Loan Co.

This outfit, like City Pacific - which froze redemptions to its funds early this year - advertised its high-yield "investments'' in the media and peoples' savings to property developers.

These were the "bricks and mortar'' investments. But they weren't "as safe as houses''. Rather, they were only as safe as the leverage and the counter-parties in a speculative high-rise development whose bricks and mortar were yet to be brought to the site.

The problem is all the players are intertwined. They jointly venture on the same developments, they lend each other money, they borrow from many of the same banks and mortgage-fund players.

Raptis, for instance, has a loan to repay to Mark McIvor's EquitiTrust. It also has a joint venture with CP1, a relation of Phil Sullivan's City Pacific, which is suspended from trading on the ASX and negotiating for its life.

This very afternoon, Octaviar (the old MFS) awaits judgement from a Queensland court on whether it will be liquidated or not. There is roughly $1 billion of assets there, assets soon to come on the market.

Unlike the previous cycle two decades ago, the banks are loath to appoint receivers and hand control to external parties to chew through diminishing profits with their large fees.

Hence the shock for Jim Raptis. Raptis may have been highly geared but he had been around for 35 years and was hardly one of the raciest developers about.

Among the $900 million in Raptis debt, about $750 million is secured, most of it over the Southport Central project. Suncorp is owed $230 million and St George $60 million.

The property fraternity on the Coast has been rattled by the fact that Capital, a division of HBOS, didn't try harder to refinance or rescue Raptis, rather just calling in its receivers. The move puts every Raptis associate and counter-party in a bind. Korda Mentha is believed to have been advising Capital.

So, this week there is now another nine acres of five-star beachfront hotel at Surfer's up for grabs. The Sheraton Mirage Resort is on the block again, this time the price tag is $100 million.

The ghost of Christopher Skase is stirring.



When the flow stops

A few words of interest for those with mortgage fund investments. When a mortgage fund tries to act like a bank and lend funds to developers, there is a fundamental flaw in the model.

For one, it is usually second-tier developers who use mortgage funders such as City Pacific as the financially-sound developers have equity to put into their projects and greater access to banks and upmarket financial institutions.

Development loans by their nature require ongoing commitments to supply more funding in a series of draw-downs. Unless the fund leaves large amounts of cash on standby (and therefore is prepared to lose money) they need one of three things:

1 Perfect matching of inflows and outflows so no development can run late, no settlements delayed and developers have to meet their sales targets.

2 More and more people putting investment funds in.

3 An overdraft facility to smooth out the cashflow.

When these three fall out of sync, the mortgage lender and borrower begin to get into trouble. What happens when all three wheels come off and the bank that provides the overdraft loses patience - as they generally hold first ranking security over fund assets (such as in Premium Income Fund)?

This is the beginning of the train wreck.

Projects stop, mortgagee sales occur, losses to investors and losses to creditors, who are often just the small tradespeople, mount.

Add to this the various exotic accounting treatments, not least the widespread practice of capitalising interest.

Unless new investors' funds are coming into the fund, there is no liquidity to pay returns.

Make no mistake, Raptis is by no means the most precarious of the property developers on the Gold Coast and City Pacific and Asset Loan will not be the only spivvy lenders to fall.

[email protected]

BusinessDay

[Olman]

In the face of the continued hysterical attacks by Kostag the following quoted private messages cut through the veneer and show a glimmer of understanding of the true nature of the man – or should I say men?

In the history of this thread Kostag’s postings appear to have a bipolar personality. Most of his posts exhibit confused logic and poor expression, while occasionally the language polishes up and a semblance of order can be seen to occur in the reasoning of the message. To further illustrate this contradiction, I quote the two personal messages received by me from Kostag via this forum in their entirety and with formatting as received:

First message 14 November 2010.
kostag
Join Date Jun 2010
Posts 30
Equititrust
you seem to have a good handle on what is going on here. Have you money invested and cannot get redemption, or is your interest purely academic?

comment: well spoken, good grammar, intelligent post.

Second message 30 January 2011:
kostag
Join Date Jun 2010
Posts 30
Re: Equititrust
sorry mate - never used teh PRIVATE MESSGAE system before

there is now material from called ZENCORP

frankly - I think that we have done our dough.

Comment: "never used the private message system before" -WTF???? The first message above indicates otherwise.

It's time for Kostag and his friend to wake up to themselves. As the saying goes, "you can fool most of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time".....

There is a consistency to Equititrust's comments posted here and on their web site, and in personal communications, which is difficult to ignore. I have trawled through the information provided on the web site in detail, and I have studied all 48 pages of the PDS for the Priority Class Income Fund. The information provided is very comprehensive and gives a pretty good picture of the current strategy for dealing with the problems created by the banks' withdrawal of support for the second tier mortgage industry.

Equititrust have a plan of action which is documented and explained pretty well. The detractors posting here are keen to put the boot in, but don’t come up with any credible alternative plan. If the capital raising succeeds, there is every chance that Equititrust will recover and investors will get some peace of mind about the operation of the fund.

The truth of the press articles mentioned is not in question, but it’s a long shot to call it revelatory news when Equititrust has clearly presented the information on its web site. The adulation of journos displayed in recent posts is another thing altogether. I don’t wish any disrespect to the journos mentioned, or the profession generally, but it does seem strange that any perceived criticism of journalism in this thread is considered akin to heresy, while unfounded allegations and untruths regarding Equititrust are bandied about with gay abandon. C’mon fellas – you’ll have to do better than that.

[No Trust]

The above post lost "all" credibility when he /she stated that credible journalist’s awards were comparable to Hitler and the Nazi regime. Then in explanation the poster tried to say that the "Hitler" analogy was related to industry accolades.. ??


Criticize Journalists all you like but exercise some political correctness and respect the fact that the Australian Journalism Fraternity is also comprised of members of the "Jewish Community" who I am certain would find the comparison of their industry awards to Hitler highly distasteful.


Is the Business Journalist of the Year 2007 award given to Anthony Klan in question?


Independent Review

The articles that are referred to above and published by the most well repected papers in the country provide an accurate and “independent” review of the information provided by Equititrust on its website and information in the public domain. The articles provided an invaluable service to all investors in the country.


Transparency

No organisation, its products or its performance should be excluded from public scrutiny where the public's money is concerned.


Sydney Morning Herald

This is even more pertinent now than ever, as Michael West of the Sydney Morning Herald correctly outlines in his article dated September 12, 2008.

“Development loans by their nature require ongoing commitments to supply more funding in a series of draw-downs. Unless the fund leaves large amounts of cash on standby (and therefore is prepared to lose money) they need one of three things:

1 Perfect matching of inflows and outflows so no development can run late, no settlements delayed and developers have to meet their sales targets.

2 More and more people putting investment funds in.

3 An overdraft facility to smooth out the cashflow.

When these three fall out of sync, the mortgage lender and borrower begin to get into trouble. What happens when all three wheels come off and the bank that provides the overdraft loses patience - as they generally hold first ranking security over fund assets (such as in Premium Income Fund)?

This is the beginning of the train wreck.” (End Quote)

As mentioned previously "The investors both present and incoming should have as wide a view of the facts as possible."


FINANCIAL INFORMATION

The above post also seems to ignore the fact that the all informative Equititrust Website as he puts it is missing Interim Financials usually posted in December as well as the annual review usually posted in August.

[No Trust]

Colin Kruger's article below "is" worthwhile reading..

Equititrust acknowledges potential conflict in funding roles

Colin Kruger Sydney Morning herald

January 10, 2011


THE mortgage fund operator Equititrust faces a conflict of interest as it raises $50 million from new investors to aid a fund which has been frozen for more than two years with $240 million of investor money.

A portion of the fresh funds raised was expected to be used to pay distributions to the frozen Equititrust Income Fund and to redeem unit holder investments in that fund, the company said.

EIF was one of many unlisted investment vehicles that were forced to freeze redemptions in 2008 to prevent mass withdrawals when the government placed a guarantee on bank deposits.

In a product disclosure statement inviting investors to the $50 million Equititrust Priority Class Income Fund (EPCIF), the company admitted it ''will potentially be in a position of conflict'' in its roles as responsible entity for both the lender, EPCIF, and the borrower, the frozen EIF.

More: http://www.smh.com.au/business/equit...109-19jur.html

[kostag]

This forum seems to have deteriorated into an argument between two factions. One faction is quite clearly allied to Equititrust and is more than likely Equititrust management. (Ozad has popped up defensively of Olman - claiming that Olman has legitimacy as a spokesman because at first he was critical so that must make him ‘one of us’ - but then – miraculously - he spoken to David Kennedy - and all was solved - a bit too corny and contrived, I am sorry Ozad).

On the other side, you have a mix of parties whether they are disillusioned borrowers or upset investors. Each of these would have their separate motives. I think that we can all accept that.

Let’s leave all of this to one side.

Aussie Stock Forums is a place where questions can be posed and hopefully information provided. Concerns are raised and then debated (hopefully).

Analogies to Adolf Hitler and the credibility of Australian reporting media are probably best left where they belong - at least pre 1946. Frankly, I find the references quite offensive. However, whilst on that note, perhaps David Kennedy has adopted the persona of Kolonel Klink who would quite regularly say, when confronted with some awful reality: “I know nothing…!!” (from this day forward perhaps it is Kommandant Kennedy - sorry I could not resist this one!)

What Equititrust does seem to forget in all of this is this. They have other peoples’ money. And quite a lot of it - over $200million of it.

This is their very inconvenient truth, I am afraid.

It is well and good for Olman to say ‘why don’t you talk to David Kennedy and get all the answers’ (maybe we have spoken to Equititrust) and ‘I have read to the PDS and it answers all my questions etc’.

Well, Olman seems to be the only one with all the answers. No-one else can get the information that they really need.

Now, I posed a series of simple questions to David Kennedy a few posts back. I respect David Kennedy’s right to say nothing. That’s fine. But don’t use Aussie Stock Forums on occasions to 'beat your drum' on the one hand, but then when very simple direct questions are asked, simply ignore them and say I am not going to answer any more etc. It’s akin to the boy in the schoolyard who says “If I am not the Captain of the team, I am going to take my ball home and none of you can play”.

It is David’s right to say nothing however it is also our (quite legitimate) right to assume that he either cannot answer or is not prepared to publicly answer the concerns raised. It does his credibility little if any good to hardball it and say 'I wont play anymore'. As the media pointed out, it didn't work when he was under court room scrutiny by Bentleys over his role as COO of the failed MFS/Octaviar financial 'basket case' - it equally does not work with his many public investors in Equititrust which he now resides over as CEO.

Now, Equititrust puts some of the criticism of it down to scuttlebut by ‘recalcitrant borrowers’ - I guess that means people who borrowed moneys from them and could not or did not pay them back. In some instances, these Borrowers will have a prior first mortgage from a bank with Equititrust holding a second mortgage. Correct? I think that we can accept that there would be some degree of this so some commentary must be taken with a grain of salt and tested before it is relied on.

However, lets look at Borrowers and Lenders and what happens and should happen.

If Equititrust has loaned someone money and they don't pay them back - Equititrust, not unreasonably, takes the legal steps to enforce its securities.

It takes the view, rightly so, you have our money and we want it back.

Now, the Borrowwer may have a tough bank on a first mortgage who has not helped or let them down, the GFC issues, a whole range of problems. But notwithstanding all of this, Equititrust moves in. You borrowed our money and we want it. (You only have to google search for the last year or so and up pop a load of cases where Equititurst has sued to get their ('our') moneys back).

What Equititrust seems to forget - they have our money. We want our money back. They got greedy and allowed banks to get in ahead of us and take security. In fact they owed the banks – how much? Close to $200million. What were they thinking? What was any of us thinking? This had to end in grief. Moneys borrowed on our securities, to rank ahead of us, to enable Equititrust to explode their loan book and make, with hindsight, what appear to be a whole range of very large and very greedy and imprudent loans.

So, the Banks wanted their moneys back. Where’s the surprise there? We want our money back.

But unlike Equititrust and its borrowers, we , as the major lenders to Equititrust, get told what is going to happen. Like it or lump - we have your money - get used to it!

It is akin to a Borrower of Equititrust saying to them - ‘sorry, we don’t want or can’t pay you back right now. We are really sorry - the GFC you know - terrible stuff – and then there’s the bank who has a first mortgage ahead of you – they wanted their money - you just have to wait and sit while still we do something - and in the meanwhile, we are going to borrow even more money, pay out the Bank and put this new loan ahead of you’.

Can you imagine? So where’s the difference?

There is no difference.

Olman suggests to a few of us that we ‘get real’. I suggest that Olman and his fellows at Equititrust do a bit of soul searching and understand that a constant barrage of spin does not take the place of a redemption cheque.

Blaming others, year after year, simply does not cut the mustard. We have all had enough. Frankly it is time that someone stepped in, just as Equititrust uses independent Receivers to step in when its Borrowers get out of line, and take control of their securities – that is what we need – someone to start to collect money and start to pay us back.

In the face of the continued hysterical attacks by Kostag the following quoted private messages cut through the veneer and show a glimmer of understanding of the true nature of the man – or should I say men?

In the history of this thread Kostag’s postings appear to have a bipolar personality. Most of his posts exhibit confused logic and poor expression, while occasionally the language polishes up and a semblance of order can be seen to occur in the reasoning of the message. To further illustrate this contradiction, I quote the two personal messages received by me from Kostag via this forum in their entirety and with formatting as received:

First message 14 November 2010.
kostag
Join Date Jun 2010
Posts 30
Equititrust
you seem to have a good handle on what is going on here. Have you money invested and cannot get redemption, or is your interest purely academic?

comment: well spoken, good grammar, intelligent post.

Second message 30 January 2011:
kostag
Join Date Jun 2010
Posts 30
Re: Equititrust
sorry mate - never used teh PRIVATE MESSGAE system before

there is now material from called ZENCORP

frankly - I think that we have done our dough.

Comment: "never used the private message system before" -WTF???? The first message above indicates otherwise.

It's time for Kostag and his friend to wake up to themselves. As the saying goes, "you can fool most of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time".....

There is a consistency to Equititrust's comments posted here and on their web site, and in personal communications, which is difficult to ignore. I have trawled through the information provided on the web site in detail, and I have studied all 48 pages of the PDS for the Priority Class Income Fund. The information provided is very comprehensive and gives a pretty good picture of the current strategy for dealing with the problems created by the banks' withdrawal of support for the second tier mortgage industry.

Equititrust have a plan of action which is documented and explained pretty well. The detractors posting here are keen to put the boot in, but don’t come up with any credible alternative plan. If the capital raising succeeds, there is every chance that Equititrust will recover and investors will get some peace of mind about the operation of the fund.

The truth of the press articles mentioned is not in question, but it’s a long shot to call it revelatory news when Equititrust has clearly presented the information on its web site. The adulation of journos displayed in recent posts is another thing altogether. I don’t wish any disrespect to the journos mentioned, or the profession generally, but it does seem strange that any perceived criticism of journalism in this thread is considered akin to heresy, while unfounded allegations and untruths regarding Equititrust are bandied about with gay abandon. C’mon fellas – you’ll have to do better than that.

[kostag]

and when did you join Equititrust?

Kostag,

If you read the chain of postings you will see that Olman was not particularly complimentary of Equititrust in earlier posts. He then appears to have taken up Kennedy's invitation to discuss his concerns and the bulk of his concerns appear to have been addressed. Maybe you should do likewise rather than continue to post material which for the best part appears wrong. You are certainly not acting like an investor.

You complain about Kennedy not answering your questions and you draw inferences from this. My reading of the posts show that he has made it clear he will not further be addressing matters raised by you. In the circumstances it hardly seems appropriate to draw negative inferences about someone's non-reply when they have made it plain they will not be replying.


If you don't want to talk to them that is fine but for crying out loud, learn to use spellcheck.

[No Trust]

Further to Olmans post above he states :

"The adulation of journos displayed in recent posts is another thing altogether. I don’t wish any disrespect to the journos mentioned, or the profession generally, but it does seem strange that any perceived criticism of journalism in this thread is considered akin to heresy, while unfounded allegations and untruths regarding Equititrust are bandied about with gay abandon."

It would be great it he could be more specific and state what untruths the media bandied around about Equititrust with "Gay Abandon".. Maybe in Olmans's skewed perception of the issues there is a conspiracy against Equititrust by Homosexual Nazi's in the Media..

[kostag]

NO TRUST - I share your frustration at the illogical arguments being thrown at us BUT let's us not sink to this level - this web site provides those of us with legitimate concerns to raise them and seek information. Now, we all know by the fact that it is a website etc that there will be different people with diffrent motives and agendas - soem will be oppostion, some will be disgruntled clients some will be bad borrowers etc and some will be active Equititrust execs.... I think we can all sort out who is who and hopefully, at some point some truth and good sense will prevail -

Further to Olmans post above he states :

"The adulation of journos displayed in recent posts is another thing altogether. I don’t wish any disrespect to the journos mentioned, or the profession generally, but it does seem strange that any perceived criticism of journalism in this thread is considered akin to heresy, while unfounded allegations and untruths regarding Equititrust are bandied about with gay abandon."

It would be great it he could be more specific and state what untruths the media bandied around about Equititrust with "Gay Abandon".. Maybe in Olmans's skewed perception of the issues there is a conspiracy against Equititrust by Homosexual Nazi's in the Media..

[No Trust]

The most current article by Colin Kruger of the Sydney Morning Herald on 10 January 2011casts some uncertainty on the future payment of investors. The publication of interim financial results on the Equititrust Website (As was previously done every December) would go a long way in assisting existing and potential incoming investors on the state of affairs.

The Australian Financial Press may also find this informative

[Olman]

Further to Olmans post above he states :

"The adulation of journos displayed in recent posts is another thing altogether. I don’t wish any disrespect to the journos mentioned, or the profession generally, but it does seem strange that any perceived criticism of journalism in this thread is considered akin to heresy, while unfounded allegations and untruths regarding Equititrust are bandied about with gay abandon."

It would be great it he could be more specific and state what untruths the media bandied around about Equititrust with "Gay Abandon".. Maybe in Olmans's skewed perception of the issues there is a conspiracy against Equititrust by Homosexual Nazi's in the Media..

ROFLMAO! Consider this bit which I wrote in an earlier post yesterday: "The truth of the press articles mentioned is not in question".

Then read this bit again in the post quoted above: ...."any perceived criticism of journalism in this thread is considered akin to heresy, while unfounded allegations and untruths regarding Equititrust are bandied about with gay abandon".

Your homophobic lack of comprehension indicates a remarkable degree of illiterate ignorance. You guys have certainly shown your true colours to any reasonable person who cares to read this thread. Cheers!

[No Trust]

Olman, It is pleasing to hear that you agree that the press articles in regard to Equititrust are true.. The predominant theme you have put across though is that we shouldnt read them and only refer to the Equititrust Website.

Thanks also for the clarification on the phrasing of your post, however any reasonable person reading the post in question will find it contradictory. Other "reasonable" people who I have referred the post to agree..

Let’s dissect it for you

1. First you agree the news articles are true.. (ok, so why are you criticising the journalists and questioning whether they have won awards, when they actually have)??

2. Then you say the adulation of journo's in recent posts is another thing (There has been no adulation just provision of news articles relating to Equititrust)

3. Then in the same paragraph you say any perceived criticism of journalists is akin to heresy (Heresy?? Bit extreme)

4. Then immediately following, and in the same sentence you say "while unfounded allegations and untruths regarding Equititrust are bandied about with gay abandon"
(the inference being that the journalists have been behind unfounded allegations and untruths)

Enough of the semantics...

You seem deadly silent though on the lack of Interim Financials on the Equititrust website..

[kostag]

as protective as a she-bear - I think we all have a pretty good idea who OLMAN must be.

It is just a shame that Equititrust will not just, as NOTRUST suggests, simply list the INTERIM financials on the WEBSITE - so that the Directors and Auditors publicly declare (as they are legally obliged to do) what the true position is with OUR money, which is under their custodianship.

That's all we want - is some truth.

Olman, It is pleasing to hear that you agree that the press articles in regard to Equititrust are true.. The predominant theme you have put across though is that we shouldnt read them and only refer to the Equititrust Website.

Thanks also for the clarification on the phrasing of your post, however any reasonable person reading the post in question will find it contradictory. Other "reasonable" people who I have referred the post to agree..

Let’s dissect it for you

1. First you agree the news articles are true.. (ok, so why are you criticising the journalists and questioning whether they have won awards, when they actually have)??

2. Then you say the adulation of journo's in recent posts is another thing (There has been no adulation just provision of news articles relating to Equititrust)

3. Then in the same paragraph you say any perceived criticism of journalists is akin to heresy (Heresy?? Bit extreme)

4. Then immediately following, and in the same sentence you say "while unfounded allegations and untruths regarding Equititrust are bandied about with gay abandon"
(the inference being that the journalists have been behind unfounded allegations and untruths)

Enough of the semantics...

You seem deadly silent though on the lack of Interim Financials on the Equititrust website..

[Olman]

Olman, It is pleasing to hear that you agree that the press articles in regard to Equititrust are true.. The predominant theme you have put across though is that we shouldnt read them and only refer to the Equititrust Website.

Thanks also for the clarification on the phrasing of your post, however any reasonable person reading the post in question will find it contradictory. Other "reasonable" people who I have referred the post to agree..

Let’s dissect it for you

1. First you agree the news articles are true.. (ok, so why are you criticising the journalists and questioning whether they have won awards, when they actually have)??

2. Then you say the adulation of journo's in recent posts is another thing (There has been no adulation just provision of news articles relating to Equititrust)

3. Then in the same paragraph you say any perceived criticism of journalists is akin to heresy (Heresy?? Bit extreme)

4. Then immediately following, and in the same sentence you say "while unfounded allegations and untruths regarding Equititrust are bandied about with gay abandon"
(the inference being that the journalists have been behind unfounded allegations and untruths)

Enough of the semantics...

You seem deadly silent though on the lack of Interim Financials on the Equititrust website..

1. My criticism was not directed at the journos, but at the idea that the articles contribute anything new to the debate here in this thread. Your statement that one of them is a multi-award winner has no relevance to the argument.

2. Adulation : I quote from your posts (my comments in blue):

"the article by Colin Kruger is very well researched and to the point".
A pretty simple reiteration of info provided by Equititrust (all available on their web site) hardly needs the qualification you provide. After all, it's a journo's job to get it right. My criticism of your style here is minor, but we're talking about adulation and here is the first evidence.

another well written article by a multi award winning Australian journalist.
Again, a minor example of irrelevance to the subject of this thread.

I commend the two journalists for their efforts
how much of an effort is it to repeat the EQT info from their website? The articles seem like routine work pieces to me.

THE Australian's Anthony Klan was named winner of the Sir Keith Murdoch award for excellence in journalism.
Does this mean that journos who don't get awards are not to be trusted? Again, irelevant to the subject matter of this thread.

I again commend the Journalist for highlighting the issue..
- again? I hope you compliment the garbage collectors for doing their job...

To save bandwidth I won't dignify Kostag's adulatory contributions with a mention. The comments quoted above are pretty innocuous and not worth comment on their own, but collectively they imply that obeisance to the journalistic deity is the final arbiter of life on earth. (Relax, Kostag, I acknowledge this is hyperbole). This is what I mean by adulation.

3. "Heresy - a bit extreme"..... yes, probably, but the spirited defence of your adulation is also extreme IMHO.

4. What don’t you understand about my statement that the press articles are true? The statement you are quibbling about is again quoted as follows:
...."any perceived criticism of journalism in this thread is considered akin to heresy, while unfounded allegations and untruths regarding Equititrust are bandied about with gay abandon".
Note the bit in red. Then note the comma between the two clauses. The qualification
"in this thread" applies to both clauses, the inference being that posters in this thread have been behind unfounded allegations and untruths. There are some very simple explanations of grammar available on the web which may help with your understanding.

Semantics indeed. I don’t intend to indulge in any further explanations of basic syntax and grammar in future posts, especially when it strays well away from the nitty gritty of the subject of this thread.

Re my silence on the lack of Financials on the web site, this is your issue, not mine. For what it’s worth, I understand your criticism (it's the only valid point you've made in this thread), but I’m not associated with EQT in any way other than an investor, I’m not privy to any explanation, and I’m certainly not going to do research on your behalf. Why don’t you ask them directly and find out for yourself? I note that EQT have recently issued a Supplementary PDS (SPDS) for the EIF on the web site with more detailed information. They have also stated they are planning an updated SPDS to be issued shortly which will incorporate the EIF December 2010 results. If you are an investor, you would have received a mail-out about this.

Why don't you discuss your concerns directly with EQT management if you are an investor? Would you care to explain your interest?

[No Trust]

Olman, thanks for your response, It seems I have achieved my objective in getting your attention and the attention of others who read this thread in regard to the media and Equititrust.

The main theme of your criticism is that the journalists are reporting on what is already on the Equititrust Website and that this is not adding to the debate. We can agree to disagree here however one thing that is clear is that when both local and national media do contact Equititrust for comment or clarification they are rebuffed..


Example 1.Raptis seeks saving grace
Scott Rochfort Sydney Morning Herald
September 12, 2008

“The stricken City Pacific First Mortgage Fund has lent on several Raptis projects.
A mortgage fund run by Equititrust has also lent money to Raptis. The Equititrust chief executive, Mark McIvor, did not return the Herald's calls to explain how his company's Income Fund, which holds about $300 million of unit holder deposits, was placed to handle the crisis. The Income Fund was ordered by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in April not to make any "offers, issues, sales or transfers" to new investors.
Equititrust has a $35 million loan due for repayment on September 30, which was originally due to expire on May 31.”

http://www.smh.com.au/business/rapti...0911-4epr.html

Example 2.

“More mortgage funds frozen as jittery investors take cover Anthony Klan From:
The Australian October 22, 2008

A spokeswoman for fellow Gold Coast mortgage fund Equititrust, which holds about $300 million of ordinary investors' funds, said managing director Mark McIvor ``won't take your call''. “

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...-1111117816240

Example 3.

Mariners Cove 'transferred' to mystery partner
Nick Nichols, business editor Gold Coast Bulletin | February 5th, 2009

Meanwhile, Chevron Island-based merchant bank Equititrust is understood to have a $35 million exposure to Raptis Group.
The property lender, headed by former lawyer Mark McIvor, did not respond to questions put to it by The Gold Coast Bulletin yesterday.

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/...-business.html

In all 3 examples given the CEO would not talk to the media and in one example explicitly told the staff to say that “he won’t take your call”

Having discussed this with a director of one of Australia’s most prominent corporate communications companies, the feedback was that this was a text book case in “handling the Media Badly” The Public perception is another matter.


As custodians of the public’s money this is not acceptable, I have spoken to investors who were gobsmacked by this bunker mentality and felt that the questions being asked were valid and in the public’s interest.

The Public’s interest being the security of the money already invested in the fund as well a “clearer” picture for potential new investors.

In a sea of collapses in the mortgage fund sector it is critical to keep all investors informed. If the media do come knocking which they will, handle them in a corporately responsible manner.

All investors be they current or prospective will make their future decision to invest or not to invest on the basis of transparency.

Ego’s have to be taken out of the equation when you are in the custodianship of hundreds of millions of dollars of public money


One does not have to look to far back to see another example of mishandling of the media by Michael King of MFS. It wasn’t long after that that he was forced to resign..


It seems the new CEO of Equititrust has learnt a few lessons along the way and is engaging the media to date. However he is not the final arbiter on how the media will be handled.

The ultimate question. Is it too late ?

[Olman]

An interesting post, No Trust. You'd have to be a journo - I don't understand why you don't declare your interest. It shouldn't diminish your contribution, and would actually add to the credibility of your posts. Regardless of what or who you may be, criticism without admitting where you're coming from is deceitful and obviously leads to suspicion and distrust.

The examples quoted show that EQT has not been open to the media. Equally, each example quoted appears to lump EQT with other questionable players in the industry. I can understand the reluctance of EQT to lay themselves open under such circumstances.

You post here without declaring your interest, with criticisms of the company which could possibly have a public effect, and in the next breath we are told that EQT's reluctance to play your game is not in the public interest? This smacks of hypocrisy.

EQT is the custodian of investors' money - there is a subtle distinction between "the public's interest" and “investors’ interest”. I have to say that any time I have spoken to Equititrust they have been cooperative with information. After the effects of the GFC began to be felt I became suspicious of the lack of investor advice, especially in the face of media coverage such as your examples, but when I eventually got back to direct communication with them I found their provision of information comprehensive and gratifying. Any other investor has the right to speak to the company and receive similar satisfaction, and I have yet to hear of any bona-fide investor being shafted in this regard.

If potential new investors are concerned by this, they have the right to talk, and the choice to walk. They would have to be crazy to be suspicious of the operation and still go ahead with an investment.

The fact that EQT still actually exists as an independent entity in the face of other corporate collapses that have occurred to date, and unfounded attacks such as those that have appeared in this thread, must say something. The extent of scrutiny by regulatory observers and others is intense enough to indicate that continued survival is more a matter of good management than good luck.

In a perfect world I agree that there should be full transparent disclosure to the media, but sadly the media cannot be considered flawless and are quite capable of pursuing their own agenda. You acknowledge the improvement in media communication with the current CEO, and there is absolutely no doubt from an investor's perspective that the company has made remarkable progress with the provision of information to keep investors informed.

Too late? I don't think so. I personally feel the unfamiliar stirrings of an uncharacteristic (for me) optimism about the future with Equititrust.

On another level, I have a sneaking admiration for Mark McIvor's stance. Who says the world has to operate according to the dictates of the media? It’s an unfortunate fact that media power can be directed against any perceived opposition, and Mark McIvor has laid himself open to the possibility, but it’s rather refreshing to see principle triumph over pragmatism for a change.

In the final analysis, disclosure and communication are available to investors simply by talking to management. The media does not have a mandate to force a private company to behave as the media wishes. I agree that it would be desirable for full and frank public disclosure, but at the very least Equititrust seems to fulfil its legal obligations in this regard, and it would be short-sighted to rely solely on the media as the only source of truth.

What’s that old saying ….. “believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see” ?

It may be worth noting that I do keep myself up to date with media reports, and regard them as a necessary source of information amongst all others, but not the only source. I don’t know why Mark McIvor rebuffs the media, but I’m sure there is a valid reason.

Cheers!

[No Trust]

Let’s put the whole issue of the Media in very simple terms.. You cannot as a "responsible corporate entity" use the media to your advantage one day and rebuff it at the next.

The management of corporate communications is a fact of life. If the communications are managed badly all stakeholders become wary. How many current and prospective investors were lost in that critical time. Investors do read the paper and expect the custodian of their funds to act in a mature and responsible manner. The investors spoken to went into an immediate panic and the perception issues linger on and on..


The media releases by Equititrust to both local and national media late last year are a good example. The scepticism of Equititrust is reflected in the articles subsequently written by the journalists.

Example

Coast's Equititrust comes out fighting
Nick Nichols, business editor | October 26th, 2010

"In his first address to investors in about two years, Equititrust founder Mark McIvor yesterday outlined the problems of the past and his plans for a future"

The article was prefaced by the fact that there has been no statement for 2 YEARS

The reader comments are also reflective of the general level of scepticism built up over those 2 years.

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/...-business.html

The ostrich approach to crisis is not the answer..

In terms of criticisms facts are facts and another point of view is being expressed, which I am sure everyone in this country is entitled to.


In terms of corporate survival to date... Well that is another matter which may warrant some detailed discussion in another post. However most of the mortgage funds that still exist today are still FROZEN. If the mechanism allowing funds to be frozen was removed and companies in the mortgage fund sector still managed to survived I would accept your argument on corporate survival to date..

However while investors do not have the right to redeem funds it’s a one sided affair. The situation cannot go on forever there has to be a time limit on how long the funds can be frozen. This applies to the whole industry be they big players or small.

There will come a day of reckoning when the GFC excuses and "capricious" attitude of major Australian Banks will no longer be acceptable and a spotlight will be shone on the lending practices of the whole mortgage fund industry. If the lending practices were reckless leading to inordinate delays in the return of funds lent then someone has to step in at some stage on behalf of the investors.

There is another old saying... "Where there is smoke, there may be fire"

[No Trust]

Olman's post above states

"Too late? I don't think so. I personally feel the unfamiliar stirrings of an uncharacteristic (for me) optimism about the future with Equititrust."


Yet

Equititrust admits funds conflict Colin Kruger of the Sydney Morning Herald January 10, 2011,

Highlights a critical problem facing the company which may not endear the same level of confidence and blind loyalty amongst others.


"It also said EIF had a sufficient level of cash to ''meet its operational cash needs, including income distribution payments to investors for the next three months''.


“Equititrust has met all distribution payments to the fund's investors to date but it may face challenges in the future. There was $77 million worth of EIF loans in default in November, representing 29 per cent of funds under management.”


http://www.smh.com.au/business/equit...109-19jur.html

Which month are we in now Month 2 or 3 ??

Why was this left to the last minute ?? 3 months of "sufficient cash"??

Is there a plan B apart from the 50M fundraising ?

What happens after 3 months?

If the situation with the banks was getting so dire, why was this initiative not instigated earlier to protect the interests of all stakeholders, most important being the investors..?

These are the questions that investors are now asking whilst they look on with grave concern.

Posting of the overdue Interim Financial Results on the company website would go a long way in restoring investor confidence about the immediate future.

[Olman]

The investors spoken to went into an immediate panic and the perception issues linger on and on..

The media releases by Equititrust to both local and national media late last year are a good example. The scepticism of Equititrust is reflected in the articles subsequently written by the journalists.

Example

Coast's Equititrust comes out fighting
Nick Nichols, business editor | October 26th, 2010

"In his first address to investors in about two years, Equititrust founder Mark McIvor yesterday outlined the problems of the past and his plans for a future"

The article was prefaced by the fact that there has been no statement for 2 YEARS

The reader comments are also reflective of the general level of scepticism built up over those 2 years.

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/...-business.html

aw, c'mon...... the article is mostly quotes from Equititrust with nothing controversial until the statement by the journo that "Equititrust has a $50 million sub-ordinated investment in the funds, providing retail investors with a 10 per cent buffer against losses." For the EIF there is a $40m sub-ordinated investment. Investor's funds in the EIF are $220m, excluding Equititrust's investment. Now, using simple maths:
40m /220m x 100= 18% buffer against losses for the EIF. Better than 10%.....

No statement for 2 years - public statement that is -yes, Equititrust may have fluffed there, but I think they were a bit busy with administration. There has been a GFC, and it is still reverbating through the industry. Your saying the GFC is over and can now be deleted from the causes of current problems is ludicrous. You can't rewrite history.

Equititrust have made a statement now - a public statement that is. On the other hand, any concerned investor could speak to management at any time in those two years, and to the present day, and get a response. The media is not the only channel of information available, so it's not like investors were shut out in the cold.

The reader comments are Kostag by any other name - same tired old Ponzi claims and vitriol.

Regarding your statement that "The investors spoken to went into an immediate panic and the perception issues linger on and on.." - who are these "investors spoken to" (by you) : not Kostag by any chance? If this statement is expected to be accepted as a fact you have to provide some substantiation. Investors I have spoken to applauded Mr McIvor's management skills and expressed unwavering confidence in Equititrust....

As I asked you before at the very end of my post of 4th Feb: "Would you care to explain your interest?"

Are you an investor?

[No Trust]

Not making a public statement in 2 years is not "fluffing it".... Its Stuffing it up... Its also highly irresponsible and not good management.

Making the excuse, "oh I think they were a bit busy with Administration" to make a public statement is absolute nonsense.

The GFC is not over nor is the principle of prudent and responsible lending. The issue I am alluding to is that the sector as a whole has a lot answer for in terms of risky lending. Not all of the problems can be attributed to the GFC.

The investor you have spoken to would not have been yourself would it ?

Having never spoken to or met Kostag, the same accusation could be levelled at you in the reader comments section of the Gold Coast Bulletin Article. Are you the poster named "Another Equititrust Investor” or Equititrust or one in the same.

In terms of interest, providing the rules of this forum are adhered to, it could be any number of things related to the current saga none of which have to be dutifully revealed to any other party posting on this thread..


Other Investors spoken to do not have the same level of “unwavering confidence” in regard to the issues outlined less than a month ago by Colin Kruger of the Sydney Morning Herald.

They are valid concerns


"It also said EIF had a sufficient level of cash to ''meet its operational cash needs, including income distribution payments to investors for the next three months''.


“Equititrust has met all distribution payments to the fund's investors to date but it may face challenges in the future. There was $77 million worth of EIF loans in default in November, representing 29 per cent of funds under management.”


http://www.smh.com.au/business/equit...109-19jur.html

For ease of reference these are the other questions being asked by other investors..

Which month are we in now Month 2 or 3 ??

Why was this left to the last minute ?? 3 months of "sufficient cash"??

Is there a plan B apart from the 50M fundraising ?

What happens after 3 months?

If the situation with the banks was getting so dire, why was this initiative not instigated earlier to protect the interests of all stakeholders, most important being the investors..?