I continually put on these links because they're factual:
I think members should read all the documents and listen to all the sound clips from the meeting - members should try to understand what was said to us and see the outcome. Really, it was a lot of representations, followed by a lot of disappointments. Now I've received an email from a substantial investor wanted to see the end of Trilogy -and this guy was one of the members who brought Balmain into our fund ! I guess there's only so much one can take, right? The investor's interests control a unitholder which is one of two of the largest in the fund.
From my life experiences, I'd say that corporations don't go into the pits to fight - and I'd guess they regard forums such as this as the pits. I can understand that corporations might see the world differently, but seeing it differently doesn't make them see it right.
I think that if LM runs a campaign on Trilogy's performance in a single, precise, correct document, then I think it will deprive Trilogy of a takeover of the fund - in saying that, it really depends on the depth of feeling against LM. So, LM has to get its act together and show investors that it's sincere - that might be a big ask - but, to my mind, it's something they have to do. I think they've taken some steps towards that end - investors might think otherwise because discontent seems to go back a number of years.
Trilogy will grow its support off investor discontent - LM has to minimize that discontent in order to sap Trilogy's support within the fund - as I see it, this is the "battleground" - it's a battle for investors' "hearts and minds".
Then there is the risks - if Trilogy runs for the other feeder fund, I would see that as a grab for dough. It's clear (as least to me) that Trilogy run for the wholesale fund was for the $$$$ since it doesn't give them any special benefit in any future LMFMIF meeting - As LM knew, so would have Trilogy known (or ought to have known) that there'd be a $350k/annum fee in the offering if it took the wholesale fund, and it would have known (or ought to have known) that members in the fund would be disadvantaged without any advantage towards a future LMFMIF meeting. Trilogy used sentiment to gain fees when there was no other advantage. I think investors see that quite plainly now. That should disclose a side of Trilogy that's not too pleasing.
I wish I did have an expert opinion, because I'd love to tell, but I can't. In short, I would say that if investor sentiment against LM is so bad that they disregard all of Trilogy's shortcomings, LM doesn't stand a chance. However, if LM is able to placate long-time discontented investors by proving to them (in short order) that it will do the right thing, then Trilogy will fail.
So, who'll win? I haven't got a clue.
An article that might be of interest:
"Stephen Ecob from Collection Corporation of Australia in Hobart has had little success getting the responsible entity of the fund, Trilogy Funds Management, to cough up $4.8 million in unpaid owners' corporation (aka strata) fees linked to the $650 million Martha Cove marina project.
''They wouldn't even come to the front counter,'' Ecob said about his recent visit to the reception of the Trilogy office.
The First Mortgage Fund took possession of several large lots in the marina development on Port Phillip Bay that were seized from its now bankrupt former manager and debtor, City Pacific. City Pacific borrowed more than $200 million from the fund (containing more than $900 million of deposits) to develop the project.
''They are just milking the joint for fees and haven't even paid the rates,'' Ecob told CBD, clearly frustrated at the lack of response he was getting from the fund's new managers.
The debt collector's complaints about Trilogy and its co-manager Balmain might also raise tempers among First Mortgage investors, who have so far only received a capital return of 5¢ for each of their units that were originally worth $1.
Despite having a debt collector on its case over unpaid strata fees, the managers Balmain Trilogy have still been able to pay themselves fees from the fund once worth $1 billion. The fund paid out $2.9 million in management fees in the last six months of last year.
The Trilogy Funds chairman, Rodger Bacon, was unable to provide a clear position on whether he thought the fund was liable for the strata fees.
''The various interested parties and companies that are involved and the receivers that are involved, I wouldn't even attempt to give you any clarification of that,'' Bacon said. He suggested CBD put a call through to his co-manager, the loan manager Balmain. Balmain's chief executive, Andrew Griffin, failed to return CBD's phone call."