The 2022 accounts have been filed with the Companies Office. The auditor (Susan Morrissey, Chartered Accountants, Cashel) has given a clean audit report saying that the company is operating on a going concern basis. There's no details of where the location(s) of the forest is. I did not receive any accounts or audit reports for 2022 or for any year going as far back as I can remember. If the 2022 accounts have been filed that implies that 2021, 2020 and previous years must be in order. There have been no communications whatsoever from the Directors that they are filing these reports. It demonstrates a total disregard for the shareholders. The Directors are filing theses accounts to comply with the Companies' Acts; obviously the investors' monies is not theirs but belongs to the company and this is what they must do. As per an earlier posting I made a complaint to the Competition Authority (CCPC) who are responsible for investigating breaches of company law. I have also sent the current auditor an email about all this, asking her for her comments. Sin é é.
What are your specific grievances?
Forestry is a very boring, very long term investment.
You basically buy land, you plant trees on it, you manage it reasonably intensively for 4 years until they're safely established and growing, you normally collect a state subsidy for a number of years to cover most or all of the costs of doing so, and then you sit back for 35 years and wait for it to mature.
Then the trees are harvested, and you get big money for selling the proceeds. You enjoy that windfall tax free, you have to reinvest a small element of it back into growing a new generation of trees on the land and the cycle continues.
The proliferation of forestry funds that popped up at various stages of the boom were always a bit odd in that they were predicated on an assumption that the funds would sell up after 20 years and generate a return to the investors.
The problem with that model was and is the fact that it's always hard to sell a semi-mature forest unless the underlying land has some other value for development or amenity purposes.
Basically only those with the deepest pockets can afford to buy an unsubsidised asset that will barely raise a red cent in net income for 15 to 20 years from the date of investment. So if you decide to sell up after 20 years you will struggle first to find a buyer and secondly to achieve a price that exceeds the original cost of buying the land. So it's a very bad idea to sell at that stage.
On top of that, most if not all of the forestry funds which were marketed back then did not sell ordinary shares to investors but a class of preference shares that conferred limited or no rights to control or influence the future direction of the investee company.
All of these issues were flagged on AAM back in the day and I remember well getting flak from others for daring to raise them.