I herd that while Equititrust may have first mortgages on some of the properties owned by Dudley, what made up their LVRs in the disclosure statements was a cross collateralization between those properties that they hold 1st on a others they hold 2nds on. With Westpac moving (as first mortgagee), it will be good to see just how sound Equititrust's security is over Dudley. I think we are in for some impairments here.
I believe that ASIC are monitoring this thread quite closely in light of recent developments.. I also tnough people have been shocked by these actions that they will not let it go and will keep pushing the issue with relevant authorities until there is an answer. ...
You overrate the corporate undertaker. They hardly take any notice of the press, why should they take any notice of this forum?
Have you read the book "The World According to ASIC: We ARE the World"? (just kidding).
Use of one of more aliases is fine if there is no intention to commit fraud or deceive.
I think members should find it easy to see when a poster is trying to mislead.
"Truth has no agenda".
So many new members, so few posts, and all on the same topic, and all anonymous.
Now that's conspiratorial.
Wouldn't Guy Fawkes have loved it all.
Let's hope it doesn't all blow up in someone's face.
gg
I believe that ASIC are monitoring this thread quite closely in light of recent developments..
The reason I say this, is that I belive a complaint has been made and that reference has been made to this site where the deception occured..
You have to make a formal complaint. Go to the following link and make the complaint:
https://www.edge.asic.gov.au/008/complaintV005?get/complainant/t=4d1751bb93f1fe40d0a5d0a276c7fc78dc33cc
If you want something done, you have to do it yourself.
I don't think it takes a brain surgeon to note that NOBODY uses their real name on this forum - big surprise - we're all anonymous! Aliases are not illegal - except when used to defraud or deceive.
Now, back to Mr. Nuts .. what's your inference? why don't you say what you really want to say? Are you inferring that I'm part of some conspiracy? If you are, then you should come up with the evidence, or if you can't, then you should say 'sorry' and let the matter rest.
Such reason is not welcome here, ASICK. (I'm being facetious. Your cut-throat style takes a bit of getting used to, but the basic thrust shows through). ...
... The volume of response is about to rise. ... There will be a predictable outcry about valuation dates, and who owes what to whom, from the eggspurts. I see the release as a reasonable attempt to inform investors of the current state of play.
There are no guarantees, but absolute chaos is not yet upon us.
amended: from the fund update
".. It’s worth noting that, as indicated in previous investor updates, Equititrust has also absorbed over $30m in impairments across the loan book in the past three financial years. These impairments were funded by other investments and from Equititrust’s yield on the subordinated Capital Warranty investment. Whilst it was not necessary for us to absorb these impairments – they could have been offset against the subordinated investment units – we do not believe that this would have been consistent with our investment philosophy that any capital loss is to be first borne by Equititrust to the extent possible. ..."
I can see you're very, very, very pro the manager.. and that's fine .. but my comment has never been about your fund's performance (except to say it had fared quite well to date), rather only about $42m the manager two-stepped out of the fund a very short time before the fund was frozen. The outlook for your fund is a matter for members only - it's their money at risk. Certainly the manager has $42m less at risk now than it did on 1 July 2008.
Why are you so concerned about a link to ASIC's ecomplaint line? It's the perfect mechanism for members to make complaints - and yes, ASIC has to investigate the complaints. ASIC is unlikely to act on complaints aired on this forum. I can tell you that if I was an investor in your fund, then I would raise a concern about the $42m with ASIC (as I would be entitled to do).
I've seen all the promises of managers, and I've seen all the disappointed investors - promises are one thing - return of capital in many cases is quite another thing altogether. If there is a sting, it's always in the tail.
By the way, what is "the basic thurst" which shows thru? (amended)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?