FMF [First Mortgage Fund]

Yes, interesting.

However, the Mirvac Aqua Income Funds Performance Update June 2009 is a good read too. It doesn't give a lot of info, but what it does give is interesting.

http://www.mirvacaqua.com.au/downloads/20090917_MA_June_Quarterly_Update.pdf

On page 8, all loans are in monetary default, however, only 2 are in technical default. The managers are lucky the investors are all tied up. The frozen fund, a manager's delight.

opps.. I've become a skeptic about valuations. And just look at this:-
Loans with capitalising interest^^ Value $33,860,729 as a % of loans 41.96%

Mortgages Under Management (MUM) $80,691,884
Provision for loss -$23,368,193
Mortgages Under Management (net of provision) $57,323,691
Average Loan to Value Ratio, net of provision* 77.35%
Average Loan to Value Ratio** 98.46%

And this was OVER ONE YEAR AGO --->

Once they get money they just don't want to let it go - "...
Mirvac AQUA also froze its Income Fund despite it not being exposed to mezzanine loans, the company said. The decision has been made so investors would not rush to withdraw their money. ..." How dare they want their money back ... well, they can't have it.

http://www.investordaily.com/4762.htm

"... Investors may face losses on Mirvac AQUA funds
Impaired mezzanine loans
Vishal Teckchandani
By Vishal Teckchandani
Fri 01 Aug 2008

Mirvac AQUA freezes three of its mortgage funds, two of which have exposure to impaired mezzanine loans.

Investors in Mirvac AQUA's funds may be at risk of taking losses, as the investment manager stopped redemptions last week because the value of its investments has eroded.

Mirvac AQUA froze its High Income Fund and Enhanced Income Fund as their mezzanine loan exposures have become impaired.

The High Income fund has $37.3 million of its $180 million in funds under management (FUM) tied to these types of loans. The $6.3 million Enhanced Income fund has 10.5 per cent in FUM invested in mezzanine loans.

Mirvac AQUA also froze its Income Fund despite it not being exposed to mezzanine loans, the company said. The decision has been made so investors would not rush to withdraw their money.

Mirvac AQUA did not make it clear whether it intended to liquidate the funds, however it notified ratings agency Standard and Poor's that payouts from the High Income and Enhanced Income funds would tumble as much as 6 per cent and 7 per cent respectively.

Just in its last company quarterly review Mirvac AQUA stated that the funds were "well-placed" to perform and maintained high levels of liquidity.

"We are conscious at times like these that investors and their financial planners seek clear and transparent communications on the activities of the manager and the funds and we remain committed to our corporate position of investment confidence through clarity," the review said.

The firm intends to meet unitholders within two months to discuss the situation, a Mirvac spokesperson told InvestorDaily. ..."

The Waiting Game

Well, I'm peeved that Trilogy is taking so long .. but Balmain has a history of the waiting game in its partnerships -- well, at least in the FMF (to date) and in Mirvac Aqua.

In its 'Letter to Investors' dated 29 June 2009, Mirvac Aqua stated (in part) on page 3:-

"... Going forward
In recent months we have been working on strategies to restructure and re-open the Mirvac AQUA Income Funds and, in so doing, improve returns and provide a more certain and rapid redemption program. We are in the process of finalising this strategy and will write to you shortly with details of this strategy. ..."
http://www.mirvacaqua.com.au/downloads/20090629_Letter%20to%20Fund%20Investors%20Final.pdf

In Mirvac Aqua's 'June Quarterly Update' released on or after 19 September 2009, the manager stated (in part) on page 3:-
"... FUTURE STRATEGY
The Manager, Mirvac AQUA, is completing a review of the Mirvac AQUA Income Funds from a structural viewpoint and will be writing to Unitholders shortly regarding its proposed strategy for the Funds. ..."

On the 29 June 2009, the manager of Mirvac Aqua 'was finalising the strategy' and would write to investors 'shortly'. On 19 September 2009, the manager was "... completing a review of the Mirvac AQUA Income Funds from a structural viewpoint and will be writing to Unitholders shortly regarding its proposed strategy for the Funds. ..."
http://www.mirvacaqua.com.au/downloads/20090917_MA_June_Quarterly_Update.pdf

So, as at the 29 June 2009 they had been working on a strategy in 'recent months' - let's say from 1 May 2009 (not to go back more than 2 months) and yet, as at 19 September 2009 they were still working on it: that's nearly five months without a strategy. Will there be a strategy? What will it be? Listing? If they can't come up with one in five months, can they come up with one at all?

The strategy has morphed into a 'review' in order to disclose a 'strategy' - what's next for them? A strategy about another review to disclose a strategy about a review? hummmm!

It's now October 2009 and the Mirvac Aqua fund was frozen on 31 July 2008 - it's heading up to a year and a half for them, and there has been no resolution. 'Going Forward'/'Future Strategy', is it no more than 'Pie in the Sky'? Managers make fees, time passes, investors wait .. and wait .. and wait ---- managers make fees, time passes, investors wait .. and wait .. and wait.

It's the Waiting Game.

I think Trilogy should disclose their strategy - they've had months now - let's not hear that they need to have a review to determine a strategy - oh no! no more reviews.

No fire sale in CityPac retiree tower

Nick Nichols, business editor - October 4th, 2009
http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/10/04/144301_gold-coast-business.html

The article makes no mention of 'co-lenders' ('co-investors').

The latest loan figures (taken from the fund's accounts and tabulated in the references below) show that the two syndicates at Grande Pacific owed the fund over $80m as at December 2008.

Comment and loan information at:
http://www.moneymagik.com
http://www.moneymagik.com/grande.php

Rumour has it that the 'owners' in Grande Pacific have interesting conditions attached to their contracts - does anyone know what the conditions are?

Is there yet another set of competing interests down at Grande Pacific?

oh! I'm slow .. they're 'occupants', not owners.

So, what's the deal? How much is costing the fund for the occupants to stay there?

So, just where does the fund stand with respect to these 'occupants'?



We lost out to second mortgages, banks, co-lenders .. now do we lose out to occupants?



oh no! not another strategy "... Receiver Mr Park said he would be putting together a strategy to sell the remaining apartments in Grande Pacific Broadwater. ..."

"... Mr Park assured all existing occupants that they had security of tenure ..."

So, if they have security of tenure, why the need to assure them there would be no fire sale?

I would have thought it more prudent of them to assure investors in the FMF that there would be no fire sale.

...

seems there are things happening in a number of developements..

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...r-Marina-Cove-lots-WHSDK?opendocument&src=rss

I wonder when we who are "kept in the dark" are going to hear something..

waiting, waiting,

people who dont read the newspapers and are not computer savvy would have no idea what is going on with their investments...

Just a thought - hypothetically, if the 'occupants' of Grande Pacific are unsecured creditors and the FMF holds the first mortgage (subject to other entities), then why doesn't the fund take possession of the 'occupants' premises and put them up for sale?

If so, then why do investors in the FMF have to wait for years to get their money back while unsecured creditors are not pressed to vacate?

Would the manager be working in our best interests?

Why is it that investors in the FMF seem to have to stand behind everyone else in the world?

Why is the money always coming from our pockets and from no one elses?

The receiver is taking money from our pockets and nothing from the 'occupants' - is that fair if they are no more than unsecured creditors?

Why should investors in the FMF 'fall on their own swords' when there is a contest of rights/priorities?

This is all hypothetical, but ask Balmain if the 'occupants' are owners or merely unsecured creditors!

Ok, Trilogy said they'd finish their strategies and reviews by mid-October, and while I think that's the managed funds' equivalent of a "Bridge too Far'", that is, a "Month Too Long": something we all await with bated breath.

As part of his BRW spiel, Mr. Griffin said that the manager would do what investors wanted - if investors wanted to wind up the fund, then the manager would - however, if investors wanted to see the brave new world of the STRONG FMF, then they could stay on board.

Clearly a meeting of investors is required to determine the wishes of majority before long term decisions should be made.

It's implicit in the promise to give investors choice by way of a meeting, that the manager be restrained from making long term plans with assets held by the fund by way of security from borrowers.

It's implicit also that the manager be restrained from releasing tidbits to the media and private investors ahead of releasing information to investors.

Well, now we find out that there's a rumour about the loan to 'Pacific Beach" at Broadbeach being $170m (or so) when Sullivan told us it was $205m.

Now, we have a media report (goldcoast.com.au) that the loan to Grande Pacific is $50m when the December 2008 accounts should $82.6 + interest payable as at December 2008 + interest to date, which should account to $90m.

Are we to believe the rumour about Broadbeach?

Are we to believe the media report of $50m owing at Grande Pacific?

How about the co-lenders at Grande Pacific? Are there any? and if so, how much?

If the debt is $90m, wouldn't we expect the manager to correct the public record?

Now we have the manager assuring 'occupants' of Grande Pacific of their 'tenure' without any reference to the fund's voted-on future. Further, the manager has now stated they are reopening Martha Cove in 2010 - again, without a vote as to the direction the fund will take.

Sure, the manager is interested in its commission and thinks long term - but, we're interested in our money - we didn't invest for the duration.

Sure, even in a wind-up there will be some assets that will take long to sell than others. Common sense dictated that a fire sale is of no value to investors in the FMF.

However, there is a great disparity between the 'dream' to have the fund strong again (long term) on the one hand, and a desire to wind up the fund in a sensible way (short to media term) on the other.

It seems to me that the manager has already taken the long-term view without putting the matter to members, and this is not consistent with Mr. Griffin's promise in BRW.

It's not good that a manager takes months to give information to members, but members have to wait. ASIC thinks it's reasonable and has unbelievably given them months to do what should have taken much, much less.

However, this hasn't stopped the manager from spruiking off in the media as its heart desires with respect to issues that I would have thought should have been properly directly communicated to members of the fund, BEFORE transmission to the media.

I phoned a friend the other day and asked him if he knew about the fact that City had not impaired the related party loans - he said he didn't know about that. I'm sure he's not the only one. If one doesn't get all the news reports, then one doesn't know what the manager is 'outing' to the press at any given time.

The manager has email and mail contact information for many members, as well as a web site, yet it chooses to give information to SOME media outlets before giving it directly to members.

You can see I'm not happy with the manager with regard to these issues.

I think the manager should have :-

(a) Waited until its release of information to members in mid-October before giving ANY information to ANYONE (individuals and media).

(b) Ensured members were properly informed about EVERY loan.

(c) Ensured members were properly informed about the TOTAL debt/liability to EVERY creditor of the fund.

(d) Called a meeting in order to allow members to decide the future for the fund (i) wind up, (2) a brave new world.

(e) Informed members FIRST before dropped tidbits to the media and others.

(f) Not given assurances to ANY entity (person or otherwise) before determining the future direction of the fund. There is no good reason that members of the FMF should be placed BEHIND individuals holding a lesser security is there is NO GOOD reason to do so.

If you're happy, clap your hands.... :band:

If you're not happy, then do something about it!

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/10/05/143895_gold-coast-business.html

".....Balmain Trilogy joint chief executive Andrew Griffin described the completed Broadwater tower as 'a business as well as real estate'.

He said receivers were called to ensure the business was 'managed properly' and to maintain the continuity of rights for existing occupants.

"It is a considerably valuable business asset (that) has been devoid of management," he said....."

Isn't it the duty of the RE to look after OUR interests before any other interests?
We know the "occupants" are in a precarious situation...SO ARE WE..! !

We invested in first mortgages on real estate...we are not interested in running a "business"...
What about our "continuity of rights"?
Pacifing the existing "occupiers" doesn't help us sleep at night.

Familiar story - just try to fit all the names with different ones and see if you can create a story of your own .... :cowboy:


"... MFS bosses, auditor pursued over $420m loss
MICHAEL EVANS October 8, 2009

LAWYERS for investors in the collapsed Gold Coast property company MFS Limited, now called Octaviar, are pressing ahead with a $1 billion class action against former executives including chief executive Michael King and auditor KPMG.

In an amended statement of claim before the matter returns to the Federal Court in Sydney tomorrow, Carneys Lawyers prepared a 560-page document detailing a series of claims against officials of MFS Investment Management, the manager of MFS's main fund that held $1 billion in deposits from more than 10,000 investors.

It includes details of related party transactions and claims that officers failed to exercise care and diligence. Auditor KPMG is accused of failing to carry out compliance audits and to notify suspected breaches of the Corporations Act. There are allegations that Mr King and two fellow company officials were directors of both MFS's management company and another company, McLaughlin Financial Services Limited - the responsible entity of the MFS Diversified Trust - at the time of a series of loans.

''Unauthorised payments by MFS Investment Management'' were made from the fund in related party transactions, it is claimed.

It is also alleged that MFS Investment Management officers made unauthorised investments against the stated investment criteria and the managers' ''wrongful transactions'' led to investors suffering losses of more than $420 million.

The claim says KPMG partner Andrea Waters failed to refer transactions to ASIC despite ''awareness of suspected breaches'' ..."

http://www.smh.com.au/business/mfs-bosses-auditor-pursued-over-420m-loss-20091007-gn5j.html

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/08/18/westpoint-paper-trail-snares-kpmg/

"....Unfortunately, the Westpoint collapse is one of a series of calamities to hit KPMG’s audit division in recent years. Through bad luck or incompetence, KPMG was involved in auditing MFS (and also the MFS Premium Income Fund), Allco, City Pacific and Bill Express. In the cases of MFS and Allco, former KPMG partners and auditors readily switched from auditing to being employed by their former client. At City Pacific’s subsidiary, CP1, KPMG’s auditors infamously failed to detect several basic arithmetic errors in the company’s financial reports. In all instances, the financial reports of those companies prior to their collapse appeared to bear very little resemblance to reality...."

http://www.smh.com.au/business/how-do-you-solve-a-puzzle-like-octaviar-20091011-gscz.html

"...Anderson declined to say how many people were paid through Business Puzzle Solutions, for which he is the only director and shareholder.

CBD: How many people are paid by Business Puzzle Solutions?

Anderson: Anything do with this and the payments of the administrators, you should … speak to the administrators.

''Speak to them,'' the former KPMG partner confided to CBD. In MFS's final annual report Anderson, who joined the firm in 2002, is referred to as ''responsible for treasury and financial structuring roles throughout MFS, oversees the financial reporting and taxation functions and assists in investment banking projects''....."

http://www.ilovebig4.org.ua/2009/06/big4s-billion-dollar-errors-lawyers.html

"....Similarly, complex fraud is difficult to detect, especially in very large businesses, because of the sampling methods used by auditors. However, in some cases auditors appear content to authorise financial statements which are incorrect, due to incompetence, personal interest or a combination of the two. As with ratings agencies, the independence of auditors has been called into question, given that they are being paid by the very people they are supposed to be monitoring.

Auditors are officially appointed by a board's audit committee to review management accounts, but in many cases that company's board is on very friendly terms with its executive team. As such, questioning the auditors' conclusions may be akin to questioning the performance of management...."


.....does anyone have any idea how much CPFMF paid KPMG for audit and non-audit fees..??

k.smith said:

[ur .....does anyone have any idea how much CPFMF paid KPMG for audit and non-audit fees..??

Click to expand...

More Importantly, is Trilogy paying KPMG for non-audit services and audit service?

Ho Hum ... just another question that would go unanswered.

:jump::jump::jump::jump::jump::jump:
One just has to look at the apathy displayed by just about every FMF unit holder to see how easy it is for any manager to lead the whole fund around like a lazy old cow with a halter.

http://www.ilovebig4.org.ua/2009/06/big4s-billion-dollar-errors-lawyers.html

"....By receiving significant audit, and non-audit, fees yet rarely seeming to blow the whistle on problems, auditors' independence and value are cast into serious doubt.

The clamour is growing for solutions - such as having the external audit function run by a government authority, similar to the auditor-general, or having ASIC, rather than a company's board, select and appoint the auditors from an approved panel....."



....well, I guess this is just another area where we unitholders really had no idea of the undercurrents at play.

Well, this is what $1m/month (more or less) gets us:-

* 2009 Tax statements to be sent to all unit holders.
(Oct 09) ---- yes, we earnt nothing - I'm surprised that actually could print a zero statement in the months and months they've had to do it.

* Publication of Summary Report of the Asset and Legal review.
(Early Nov 09) --- a broken promise.

* Finalisation of the CBA facility extension.
(Mid Nov 09) --- wasn't it supposed to be written down? Why not go to another provider? Where is the objectivity?

* Release of 2009 financial accounts.
(Late Nov 09) --- any slower and they'll be going backwards.

* Publish RG45 disclosures.
(Late Nov 09) -- yes, well, who cares about statutory obligations.

* Investor Committee members to be chosen by MGI White Hancock.
(Late Nov 09) --- well, we'll see this when we see it - don't be surprised by the outcome.

* Web based portal to access unit holder information to be made available.
(Nov/Dec 09) === why so long? gee, these guys are sloooooow.

* Hardship policy to be implemented and published.
(Dec 09) --- good, now those in need can get their $100k each.

http://www.balmaintrilogy.com.au/Default.aspx

Now, don't be suprised --- this was to be expected --- reviews, strategys.. remember the MIRVAC Aqua fund of which Balmain is a partner? well, reviews/strategys -- month after month after month.

Seems when they haven't got any answers, then they just delay.

The promise of mid-October now runs to November --- a month by a month.

Of course, where is the mention of the meeting we're supposed to have to determine the fund's future?

For my part, these managers all look the same to me.

and don't forget, we can trust these figures because they'll be audited by KPMG - wow.. that must give unit holders a great deal of comfort.

I set up a simple yahoo forum at http://asia.groups.yahoo.com/group/pac_fmf/ for anyone interested in having a say 'for' or 'against' the manager.

At some time members have to realise that their futures are really in their own hands and sitting back and waiting for a manager to deliver the goods has not worked in the past.

Please consider participating. Thanks.

Interesting to see the news on CNN this morning - two Bear Sterns traders in handcuffs heading into court charged with various frauds - part of the evidence is that an email from one trader to the other stated that the sub-prime mortgage securities they were trading in was 'toast' while at the same time they were out promoting investment in that market.

Interesting to look at all the statements made by City Pacific from August 2007 until 3 March 2008 that the fund was strong, and then have a look at the state of the fund at the time the statements were made.

If the two situations could be regarded as 'pictures', then what do you think is in the first picture that's not in the second picture?



Lest we forget (those statements).

Now, don't go and think that ASIC doesn't go and do battle, because it does:-

"... On January 30, ASIC won court orders freezing the $2 million after arguing there did not seem to be a "proper basis" for the payment. Worrell, appointed liquidator of Storm on March 26, subsequently retrieved the funds and the money made its way back to Storm's major secured creditor CBA. ..."

well, it's gotta be worth going to bat for the good ol' CBA - that's what taxpayers' money is for - it's not for protecting members of the FMF, and it's not for investigating matters within the FMF - gee, we've only done over half a billion dollars - no need to waste money chasing hundreds of millions when ASIC can get back for $2m for the CBA.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=34001&d=1255733812 (thanks to research on the Storm thread)

Oh! and by the way, a member of the FMF approached Trilogy to enquire as to (1) the cost of the disk/s containing unit holders contact information, (2) the format of the data on the disk, and (3) the detail contained about each unit holder.

Trilogy had one question 'What do you want to do with the disk?'

The answer 'To contact other unit holders'.

Trilogy's employee did not provide an answer, and like other requests for information from Trilogy, stated he 'would be back with the information', and that was after he went to speak with his manager.

Yes, I knew about the approach, because I, like others, want to put together a united front to protect our interests.

After the fund was frozen on 3 March 2008, we sat back and waited, and just look what happened - are members really prepared to do the same again, well, I'm not! Are you?

Fellow investors,
there is a huge interest by unitholders for information, we can gauge that by the amount of hits onto the sites that are on ASF and on Yahoo....everyone is anxious for news.
The amount of people that actually post on the forums is only a very small percentage, but to make that more effective we need YOUR input..
So may I ask you to JOIN the forums, say something, even a one line sentence , so that we that DO post know that you are out there..
If we sit back in silence, we WILL LOSE..http://asia.groups.yahoo.com/group/pac_fmf/

"... Jenny Hutson, whose merchant bank Wellington Capital manages the Premium Income Fund, was yesterday frustrated that the $200 million held by Octaviar when the company hit the wall last year had now been whittled down to $125 million. ..." (excerpt from posting #2468 by 'Seamisty' on the Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF thread on this ASF.)

It really is worth reading the MFS and Storm threads.

Hey, they've got a bargain ... 'Pacific Beach' at Broadbeach cost the FMF over $205m and we're getting back $40m from the sale (according to media reports).http://www.moneymagik.com + $30m (more or less) already paid in March 2008 and accounted for in that financial year.

Organisationally, Storm have done a great job - they got together, got organised, and went out fighting. I've posted before how investors in Storm done no less that swamp the Senate Inquiry with submissions.

Even hand written submissions were made by inidividuals who seems to be unable to even write a straight line - yet, they made the effort to contrible, some must have made a magnficant effort.

Storm were just so well represented that, on more than one occasion, the inquiry has been called the 'Storm Inquiry' - the few submissions from managed funds flounder in the 'noise' of lack of representation and lack prominance due to the plethora of Storm submissions.

I think it's reasonable to think that anyone reading the Inquiry site would think that investors in managed funds must be comfortable with the position they're in - sure, they've lost money, but they don't seem to put the blame anywhere and they don't seem to want to make an effort to get the senate to do anything for them. Heck, they don't seem to even be interested to write a letter expressing their views to the inquiry.

Well, we all know that investors are concerned and do allege blame with respect to their losses, and we all know that virtually nothing was done because we're not well organised, and we all know that we do not have a united voice for FMF members, and while there is organsisation within Westpoint and MFS, they were not represented at the inquiry to any real extent either.

One has to ask, in the absence of representation, why don't members act for themselves? Why are so many members 'lookers' but not 'doers'?

There must be at least 100,000 Australians with billions of dollars of losses from investments in managed funds, yet ASIC's representations at the inquiry would suggest we complain of nothing more than the fact the funds are frozen and we want some or all of our money returned.

In fact, ASIC has made submissions as to only two issues (1) money for the needy, and (2) just when investors might get money (a) early and take losses, or (b) stay in the long term to recover loss. That's it! If I'm wrong, then please correct me - I have not read all submissions.

Nothing from ASIC about management of the funds, related party loans, bank involvement, auditors, or the PTQ. Yes, the forums are full of views as to the behavior of management and associated entities - yet nothing relating to these matters from ASIC.

Readers will note in my last posting on this forum that ASIC would go to court to recover $2m effectively on behalf of the CBA, but does nothing for members of the FMF.

Look at the heat the CBA, BoQ, and other financial institutions as well as the directors of storm and financial advisors related to investors in storm are feeling from the inquiry - and then look to see if management, auditors, bankers, and custodians are feeling nothing more than the cool flow of an air of contentment.

Storm's actions have made it pellucidly clear that if we do nothing, we will get nothing - 'the good lord helps those who help themselves.' No flood will be contained without building a wall against it, no wrong will be set right unless we act to make right the wrong.

Sooner of later, members of the FMF must realise that to do nothing is to get nothing.

You can pray all day and all night, you can think that what goes around, comes around - but neither will help --- if you do nothing, you will get nothing.

I note that Trilogy have meetings with various entities, including the CBA and ASIC - we're not there and can't share the business cards, tea/coffee, cakes/donuts, and chit chat. We're out of the loop. All these folk are on first name terms - we just know their names in this reign of M. Bacon I.

If the past is a predictor of the future, every reader should see for him/herself the myriad of dangers which present themselves when we disregard the absolute need to become a consolidated group.

Hi lookers on,

As a result of conversations between myself and 'seamisty' from the MFS thread, a new thread has been created - MANAGED FUND CO-OPERATION GROUP.

This thread has been created in the hope that members of various managed funds might discuss (and hopefully solve) common issues of concern.

You may access the thread through its name or by searching using either of the key words FMF or MFS.

Please continue browsing.

Thank you.

If you support the manager changing the constitutional interpretation of the value of a unit from $1.00 to 'fair value', then you'll be caught, 'hook, line & sinker'.

If you don't care about your money, care for mine - don't be suckered by the words 'fair value', because their use won't be fair for you.

'fair value' splits the fund into the needy and the greedy (hopeful). The only winner will be the manager. We came into this fund together, and we should leave it together, with an amalgam of equality and fairness as the foundation of our actions.



Just a trip down memory lane:-

http://www.moneymagik.com/we_believe.php

http://www.moneymagik.com/change.php