This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Equititrust?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to new
Re: Equititrust: MORON OUTED

This is the sort of response we have come to expect This was posted by OZAD who has now been outed as EQUITITRUST) .....
 
Joe Blow said:
I would also ask all thread participants to not resort to personal attacks but to stick to discussing the facts of the situation.
Click to expand...

Kostag, please take note.

Kostag: 19 February:
OLMAN is another Equititrust 'plant'. Someone called Katie posted some 'polly anna'ish' drivel, and OLMAN embarks on a campaign of thanks and congratulations on such insightful revelations. "Will that be more sugar coating with those fries, mam?"
 
Equititrust Deception Caught Out

The deception perpetrated by Equititrust and revealed this morning by the Administrators of this web site exemplifies the Worst of Corporate Australia and obviously a company in crisis..

I will be writing to the Treasurer, Wayne Swan this morning as well as ASIC in regard to their actions. I encourage all persons aggrieved by their false and misleading conduct to take appropriate action in terms of making a complaint..


The Sydney Morning Herald and ASIC were not wrong about these guys…


Thanks need to go out again to ASF for running an Ethical Web Site.
 
Re: Equititrust: I APOLOGISE

CORRECT. I APOLOGISE.

OLMAN, ARE YOU ABLE TO STATE THAT YOU DO NOT WORK FOR OR ARE ASSOCIATED WITH ANY EMPLOYEE OR DIRECTOR/SHAREHOLDER OF EQUITITRUST??
 
Re: Equititrust: MORON OUTED


Still, it was very humorous, apt and to the point. I find it interesting that the two most vocal detractors here have failed to declare their interests, despite numerous requests to do so, and yet all who dare to post anything not considered derogatory to Equititrust are slandered and vilified.

There has been no denial of the charge that these antagonists are failed developers out for blood. The constant repetition of baseless accusations adds nothing to the debate. It would be refreshing to see something original, rather than tired old rehashing of press releases from years ago and statements already released on the Equititrust web site.

Empty threats to call in the big guns do not elevate one's status by association. These things normally proceed without trumpeting beforehand. It will be interesting to see the outcome of such action - I hope the results will be posted.
 
Re: Equititrust: I APOLOGISE

kostag said:
CORRECT. I APOLOGISE.

OLMAN, ARE YOU ABLE TO STATE THAT YOU DO NOT WORK FOR OR ARE ASSOCIATED WITH ANY EMPLOYEE OR DIRECTOR/SHAREHOLDER OF EQUITITRUST??
Click to expand...

Read my previous posts. I have stated this many times. Can you confirm that you are an investor with Equititrust, and not a disgruntled borrower?
 
Re: Equititrust: TODAYS SYDNEY MORNING HERALD

MY ADVISER HAS CHECKED AND TOLD ME THAT THIS PROPERTY JUST SOLD BY THE FIRST MORTGAGEE WAS INVOLVED IN SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS LAST YEAR, INITIATED BY EQUITITRUST, WHO HELD A SECOND MORTGAGE.

I AM TOLD BUT I DO NOT KNOW AND CANNOT CHECK - THAT THIS SALE AT THE PRICE ACHEIVED HAS RESULTED IN A 100% LOSS BY EQUITITRUST OF ITS LOAN OF $2.5m PLUS/MINUS, INTEREST AND ALL LEGAL COSTS.

smh: PAGE 1: ARTICLE HEADED: Obeid joins the jetty set Kate McClymont and Jonathan Chancellor
February 19, 2011
 
Kostag - investor or failed borrower?

kostag said:
READ MINE.
Click to expand...

I have read your posts. While I have seen many inferences in your posts, I have not seen a definite statement that you are an investor in Equititrust, or a denial that you were an Equititrust borrower. Where exactly do you state specifically that you are an investor in Equititrust? Where exactly do you specifically state that you are/were not an Equititrust borrower? If you can't actually quote the date of the posts, a straightforward statement here and now about your interest will do.
 
Re: Equititrust: TODAYS SYDNEY MORNING HERALD


This SMH article says nothing about Equititrust - not a mention; zero; diddlysquat. Your insinuations are not substantiated by any proof other than hearsay and personal conjecture. How can you expect this to be taken seriously?
 
TODAYS SYDNEY MORNING HERALD

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION


GZELL J

WEDNESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2010


2009/288092 EQUITITRUST LIMITED V SLJM PTY LIMITED & ORS
JUDGMENT
1 The subject of these proceedings was a loan of $2,650,000 made on 13 December 2007 of which the first defendant, SLJM Pty Limited, was the named borrower. Also on that day an earlier negotiated loan to the second and third defendants, Mick Bechara Hakim and Yvonne Hakim, of $1,188,000 was advanced. The advances were made simultaneously for the completion of the purchase by Mr and Mrs Hakim of a residence in Woolwich they had contracted to buy for $11,005,000 on 19 March 2007.


Olman said:
This SMH article says nothing about Equititrust - not a mention; zero; diddlysquat. Your insinuations are not substantiated by any proof other than hearsay and personal conjecture. How can you expect this to be taken seriously?
Click to expand...
 
Equititrust Deception Caught Out

Hi Olman,

Diversion, diversion diversion. What do you say about Equititrust’s multiple accounts and deceit... I guess you can’t say much can you...

In regard to the big guns as you call them, THEY ARE NOT EMPTY THREATS in any way or form. I will post the outcomes as they reach the press, as I have posted other outcomes before...

It’s not trumpeting, it’s not threatening it’s a PROMISE that this deceit will be reported as others were to both ASIC and the Australian Media... ASIC's justified stance against Equititrust as well as the comprehensive media coverage nationally, is well documented. My track record speaks for itself...
 
Re: TODAYS SYDNEY MORNING HERALD


So Equititrust went after another failed borrower - this seems a logical and responsible thing to do. The remainder of your post remains unfounded insinuations and meaningless unless you can provide further substantiation.
 
Re: Equititrust: EQUITITRUST LIMITED V SLJM PTY LIMITED

reading this case....

House bought for $11Million

NAB advanced $7M

Equititrust advanced a total of $3.8M

Total borrowed: $10.8M

Now, clearly, I must have missed something, because this is close to 100% lending by EQUITITRUST.

Now, the house is sold for $8.5M

I dont know what unpaid default interest was owing to the National Bank (clearly enough for the loan to be in default - so lets assume 6 months at 10% per annum on $7M - $350,000?; costs of recovery; GST on the sale?; etc - so OLMAN is correct. I don't know the answers and if I hold my breath for Equititrust to answer anything other than what they want - I'll never know.

However, on the face of it, a reasonable person would form the view that EQUIITRUST has taken another massive hit.
 
Re: TODAYS SYDNEY MORNING HERALD

ah, the constant babbling mantra - failed borrowers, failed developers, corrupt vindictive media, vindictive competitors, now it is those pesky investors who want information..... OLMAN, you have to take a break.... enjoy the oxygen!

Olman said:
So Equititrust went after another failed borrower - this seems a logical and responsible thing to do. The remainder of your post remains unfounded insinuations and meaningless unless you can provide further substantiation.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Equititrust Deception Caught Out


Crikey, I'm in awe of your connections. I wrote to the Prime Minister once, but he didn't reply. In my many dealings with regulatory bodies, the results were inevitably a long paper trail that evaporated in the end to nothingness. I have had letters published in the press, and have been subject to interviews by the media, but in all honesty I can't say that it proved anything, other than the media is generally out to get a story and often publish anything to fill a gap.

What is your track record?
 
Re: Equititrust: those pesky questions just won't go away , will they

Q1: Why did Equititrust borrow and therein grant FIRST RANKING security (ahead of our interests, ie: investors) to National Bank, Commonwealth Bank and Bank of Scotland, over $150MILLION pushing all investors into second ranking security, at one stage behind a mountain of debt exceeding $150Million, and , as at today, still some $50Million in default loans to Banks?

Q2: Acceptiing that 'gearing' the loan book and allowing it to grow and make more interest margin and fees etc for Equititrust,was a profitable move for McIvor, how was such a policy in any way in the interests of investors, who simply stood to get the same agreed interest on their investments, such investments were meant to be secured against prime mortagge securities, over which 'we' held first mortgage?

Q3: When the Banks asked for their money back (which despite Equititrust rants, they were entitled to do), why did Equititrust de-nude cash reserves by fully paying out the Commonwealth Bank and substantially paying down the National Bank? How did this policy help investors or put their interests first and foremost? I accept that it ensured the survival of Equititrust for the benefit of Equititrust shareholders and managament, yet how did it assist investors interests?

Q4: We hear much about Equititrust's sub-ordination investment of $40million and how we should draw some obscure comfort from it. ( I say obscure because it hasn't helped many of us get paid back after 2 years) Did McIvor or Equititrust ever actually invest by way of advancing and investing $40Million of real money? I mean 'real money' in the same way as investors advanced their real money, or was the investment some paper 'journal entry' accounting, in the same vein as Allco, MFS.

Q5: Equititrust pays itself a very high interest rate (I recall something in the order of 24% (3 times what we get) ) on its own 'investment' (assuming that as per Q4: it is an actual investment) and a very large amount (I dont recall the exact amount) of managment fees. I think a total of about $15Million a year. With in excess of $40Million of investors having to plead hardship to get some repayment of their own capital (and still not getting it!), how does the payment of $15million from one's left hand to one's right hand, when investors are 'begging' for their money to be paid back, possibly align with McIvor's comment :- our interests ahead of investors. I can assure each and every investor that this is not the case. Every decision we make puts the interests of investors first.

Q6: How did the recent PDS (banned by ASIC and had to be withdrawn) which sought to raise $50Million of new money (when there is over $40M of old investors that can't be paid back right now , for last 2 years) , which as we now all understand was to repay the National Bank, and plonk some new (presumably higher rate lender) into first ranking security position ahead of all existing and legitimate investors, possibly benefit existing investors and align with McIvor comment about investor's interests being considered first and foremost?
 
Re: Equititrust: EQUITITRUST LIMITED V SLJM PTY LIMITED


Heavens above, your use of large type is frightening! I have reading glasses and have no problems with 10point type - can I ask you to be more considerate?

According to your post above, Equititrust loaned 3.8m. It's sad when developers' and borrowers' stated intentions do not go to plan, and we can see that there was a screw up here. So Equititrust went after their legal dues. The rest is (again), your story; unsubstantiated by any further facts. You may be correct. Equally, there may be more to it. I prefer to deal in cold hard facts rather than possible fantasies.
 
Re: Kostag - investor or failed borrower?


kostag
Re: Equititrust: those pesky questions just won't go away , will they

Nope. They just keep on keeping on.
 
Re: Kostag - investor or failed borrower?

you are a lawyer OLMAN.

You were asked what your relationship to EQUITITRUST was/is?

You answered by questioning me, which is fine.

My questions remain my questions.

Fact is - whether I am a BORROWER, a disgruntled INVESTOR, an associate of EITHER, really does not change the VALIDITY of the questions does it?

(Look what happended when some one raised some character called Dudley Quinlivin which it is alleged owes Equititurst some $50million or almost 25% of its entire asset base - we get two posts (one yours) about doctor sister vet dog smoking gun grassy knoll - what the hell? which we must therefore read simply as 'yes, Quinlivin is a current Equititrust borrower' (and we would bet must be in massive default)

However, if you are, as we are led to believe, a genuine happy well informed INVESTOR then your posted replies have some modicum of legitimacy. I suspect not.

Now, BUFFETMAN OZAD and others all claimed to also be happy, well informed INVESTORS etc and we all drew some comfort from that. But, guess what? They weren't at all, were they?

Now, we all give you the benefit of the doubt.

Fine, the real issue is not who you are? (which you wont disclose anyway- and that's your right I guess) or who I am. What if I am an unhappy client who is being sued by you. That would explain my vitriol, however would it change the content of the questions? It might just give me some insight into what is really perhaps going on and being hidden, and surely, this assists all people be they investors or members of the public about to tip money into Equititrust. On the other hand, if I am an investor, does it make my questions more or less relevant or poignant? Probably not. At best, it lets you say, these pesky questions are coming from upset clients? or failed developers? So what. Why dont you list the last employer of half the motley crew at Landsolve, and see what that list throws up. A list of failled lenders and property industry 'characters'. So don't scratch the veneer too hard.

One of many issues that is very relevant is that there are material false (sorry, false is maybe too strong) misleading disclosures which have been identified. Legitimate questions have therefore been asked by a range of the public - be they ASIC, Media, Investors and or Borrowers (who cares who they are). Everyone is attacked by Equititrust (and you, Ozad, Buffetman etc) - no answers though. Nothing changes.

Whilst EQUITITRUST continues to play with over $200Million of public money and adopt this bunker mentality to providing proper information irrespective of who raises the question, whatever their motive, whether Equititrust likes it or not, it is they who are open and will remain open to public scrutiny.

Not me my friend.

.
Olman said:
kostag
Re: Equititrust: those pesky questions just won't go away , will they

Nope. They just keep on keeping on.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...