# Dolphin Trust collapse - Wealth Options broker



## Shirazman (30 Jan 2021)

I'm one of the 1,800 Irish suckers who took the German Property Group (formerly called Dolphin Trust) bait.        

Although initially hesitant about investing, I was convinced when my broker sent me the following assurance from Wealth Option Trustees (WOT):-

_"We hold first charge security over property in Germany as security for investors which is valued in excess of or at least equal to the amount of funds raised by Irish investors .....   and if there is a default in investors coupons or capital we can call on this security and sell those properties."_

It was recently reported in the Irish media that this so-called security may effectively be worthless, which leads me to wonder what (if any) options I have to recover all - or even some - of my investment.    I am aware that, in the UK, questions have been asked in Parliament on behalf of some worried investors and the UK Financial Services Authority appear to be taking some sort of action, but there's no sign of any similar activity in Ireland. 

Has anyone got any suggestions as to what I should do next, please?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (21 Mar 2021)

Good article in the Irish Times on it.









						Irish investors in German ‘pyramid scheme’ have little hope
					

Over 20,000 investors in total committed savings into Charles Smethurst’s GPG




					www.irishtimes.com
				




It's not clear to me if your money is gone or not.

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (21 Mar 2021)

From the Irish Times article 

 More than €500 million has been raised from loan note sales in the Republic in the past decade, according to some estimates, driven most recently by the high commissions brokers can make in this area as new EU rules have made it more difficult to make lucrative returns switching clients in and out of regulated products.
...
Acting on the advice of her financial broker, Dineen says she bought €127,000 of loan notes in February 2017 that were to be used by the then-named Dolphin Trust to develop and renovate listed buildings in Germany, the High Court in Dublin heard this month as the septuagenarian sought to have an Irish special purpose vehicle linked to the German group put into liquidation.

...
All told, 1,828 Irish investors bought €150 million of loan notes issued by Dolphin Trust between 2012 and 2019, an investment administered - and, from mid-2018, distributed - in the market by Wealth Options Trustees Ltd (WOTL), based in Naas, Co [broken link removed]. The Irish investments were channelled to the German group through two special purpose vehicles (SPVs), MUT 103 and Dolphin MUT 116, registered to the same address and each sharing the same directors as WOTL: Eanna McCloskey and Brian Flynn.
...
Originally, the German product was distributed in the Republic through a Cork-based company called Dolphin IG.* It was sold directly to investors by scores of brokers.

,,,*
While the going was good, there was money to be made. Brokers earned commissions of up to 20 per cent. 

...

When it first emerged in July 2019 that Dolphin Trust had missed interest payments in the UK, WOTL issued a letter to brokers highlighting how Irish investors were protected, saying it only passed on money to Germany “when we have security in place for a value in excess of the funds loaned”. As of that May, the “face value” of security held was about 182 per cent of loans advanced. “The security is held (or has been ordered) as a first legal charge assigned to the Irish [MUTS].”

...

Within weeks, however, Dolphin Trust would tell WOLT that it was not in a position to meet coupon payments due to Irish investors in December. The Naas firm, as administrator of the MUTs, hired a number of advisers, including law firm Dentons, to try and protect the interests of the Irish investors.

...
Dentons options provided to the court earlier this month said the GPG insolvency administrator believes that all of the loan claims of the Irish MUTs – which owe Irish investors €107 million – against the German group’s companies are “subordinated and therefore the granted securities could be challenged”.

...
“I am proceeding on the basis that the directors of the company (MUT 103) have no culpability, either moral or legal, for the potential problems with the security provided to it. Nonetheless, there is a stark difference between the position on security described to the brokers by WOTL and the situation as set out by Dentons,” said O’Moore. “The security obtained by the company, central to the protection of investors, was taken on the watch of (among others) the current directors. For the purpose of enforcing this security, and seeing off any challenge to it, it would be preferable that the company now comes under the stewardship of a liquidator supervised by the court.”
...


----------



## Brendan Burgess (21 Mar 2021)

It might be a good idea for these investors to contact Coleman Legal

The wind-up of GPG will take years. Litigation may also be in store. Dentons has proposed that overseas advisers to the MUTs should be investigated. Keith Rolls, a senior solicitor with Dublin-based Coleman Legal, said he has “received instructions from clients to pursue action against a number of parties involved in the creation and selling of these products”. He declined to say how many affected investors are on board.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (21 Mar 2021)

On reflection, I think that those affected should get together and make complaints to the Ombudsman about the professional advice they received or maybe even the sales literature.

Brendan


----------



## Daffodils (21 Mar 2021)

Can the FSPO do anything if it was an unregulated product?

_“..case also throws into focus the risk entailed in the market for loan notes, an unregulated investment product used in this case and which has proliferated in recent years on the Irish commercial property scene.”_


----------



## Brendan Burgess (21 Mar 2021)

The advisors were regulated. So I presume the Ombudsman can hear a complaint against them.

Brendan


----------



## Bronte (22 Mar 2021)

Shirazman said:


> I'm one of the 1,800 Irish suckers who took the German Property Group (formerly called Dolphin Trust) bait.
> 
> Although initially hesitant about investing, I was convinced when my broker sent me the following assurance from Wealth Option Trustees (WOT):-
> 
> ...


So that statement from WOT was not true.  But it is not the brokers fault that it was not true.  So why were they allowed to make that statement and who would be responsible for it being untrue.  I suppose the real question is why are consumers not more protected.  Why do people fall for get rich schemes all the time.


----------



## Bronte (22 Mar 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> The advisors were regulated. So I presume the Ombudsman can hear a complaint against them.
> 
> Brendan


What can they complain about.  Investing is a risky business.  I would be surprised that people investing in this weren't told that investments can go up as well as down.  My bank analysed me and said I'm so risk adverse here's basically no product they could offer me, or with such a low return as to make it pointless.  It's the law here that they must so analyse clients.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Mar 2021)

Bronte said:


> I suppose the real question is why are consumers not more protected. Why do people fall for get rich schemes all the time.



Hi Bronte

It was the financial advisors who fell for the get rich quick scheme.

They wanted to believe it as they were getting 20% commission. 

20% Commission and the customer getting 13% return on their investment?  Those brokers have serious questions to answer.

From time to time, people send me a brochure that they have received offering stock market returns but with no risk.  I tell them that it is not true and they ask me what the catch is. I tell them that I am not going to bother reading the brochure. There is a catch. 

But they invest anyway.

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Mar 2021)

Bronte said:


> I would be surprised that people investing in this weren't told that investments can go up as well as down.



So would I.  But they should get someone to look at the brochure and correspondence to see if they were misleading.

Brendan


----------



## Bronte (22 Mar 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> From time to time, people send me a brochure that they have received offering stock market returns but with no risk.  I tell them that it is not true and they ask me what the catch is. I tell them that I am not going to bother reading the brochure. There is a catch.


My parents taught me that the shiner and slicker the brocure the more it tells lies. 

How can a brochure offer returns with no risk.  Is that actually legal.  I imagine there is some small print somewhere saying it's all subject to what you sign up for and what you sign up for is high reward for high risk.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (30 Mar 2021)

A journalist has contacted me asking if anyone would be willing to talk about their experience of Dolphin Trust.  Start  a conversation with me if you are open to this.

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (7 Apr 2021)

I would be interested in seeing the original brochure or marketing  material for this if anyone has it.

Brendan


----------



## Shirazman (19 Apr 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> On reflection, I think that those affected should get together and make complaints to the Ombudsman about the professional advice they received or maybe even the sales literature.
> 
> Brendan


I have contemplated that course of action, but I believe that my advisers were almost as badly duped by the promoters as I was so am reluctant to throw them under a bus.     That said, I seem to remember that they got a free junket to Germany (courtesy of the Irish promoters, presumably) - which is more that I did  

What does annoy me is that as they were aware that I was a risk-averse investor I should never have been recommended to invest in that product.


----------



## flyingfolly (19 Apr 2021)

Apparently many of the brokers promoting Doplhin Trust also invested their own money in them too. Not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing...


----------



## Shirazman (20 Apr 2021)

Indeed!  

Got this from my broker yesterday:

"A new entity, the GPG (German Property Group) Redress Group has been formed by 40
Broker Firms, to support their clients who invested in the Dolphin Trust investment. The
group represents 1,180 clients, from all parts of Ireland, who invested more than €65.5
million through two special purpose vehicles (SPVs) for cash and pension investment. *Some
25% of the member firm principals and staff are investors in GPG themselves."*

GPG investors were offered an investment based on a clear understanding that monies
invested would only be transferred to Germany when full and adequate security, in the form
of German Listed Buildings, was in place. This process was outlined in ‘Investors
Memorandum’ provided to investors in advance of their commitment and also in numerous
product brochures, booklets and communications.    

The GPG Redress Group has been set up to support investors by engaging on their behalf,
where authorised and appropriate, with all connected parties to the investment, including
the Liquidator, the Pensions Authority, and the Department of Finance, among others."


----------



## fistophobia (20 Apr 2021)

4M payment to the 2 directors is unrelated to Dolphin Trust issue.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (20 Apr 2021)

Shirazman said:


> the GPG (German Property Group) Redress Group has been formed by 40
> Broker Firms,



I think that the clients need to set up their own Redress Group as they advisors who recommended this product to them have serious questions to answer as well.

Brendan


----------



## Sophia808 (22 Apr 2021)

Tonight RTE Primetime are covering this story, what views on regulating the loan note sector because this Dolphin debacle looks to be the tip of an iceberg involving thousands of pension savers and investors?


Large numbers of regulated advisors sold investment, much of it pensions to Dolphin GMBH that had no Audited Accounts since 2015
None of the Brokers are covered by Professional Indemnity but sold hundreds of millions in loan notes
Much of the money went through MifiD regulated firms via PRBs, ARFs, PRSAs the majority of it outside the scope of the Central Bank

Why isn't this getting the attention the huge losses and exposures deserve, it is far more serious than Davy's conflict of interest?
Welcome views because this needs more discussion, the market is out of control


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Apr 2021)

Sophia808 said:


> None of the Brokers are covered by Professional Indemnity



Why?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Apr 2021)

Sophia808 said:


> Why isn't this getting the attention the huge losses and exposures deserve



Because the people affected have not organised themselves into a cohesive group to raise the matter. 

But there is also the small issue that they bought an investment promising them a huge return, ignoring the basic principle of "if it looks too good to be true, it probably is." 

Brendan


----------



## Marc (22 Apr 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Because the people affected have not organised themselves into a cohesive group to raise the matter.
> 
> But there is also the small issue that they bought an investment promising them a huge return, ignoring the basic principle of "if it looks too good to be true, it probably is."
> 
> Brendan



To be fair Brendan, many people would have been sold these rather than bought them on their own.

The FSA in the U.K. published clear analysis as to the sources of poor outcomes for consumers 

1 pillar related to poor due diligence on the part of intermediaries. A sales brochure promising the moon on a stick isn’t due diligence 

2. The conflict of interest presented by commissions

This matter has the hallmarks of both of those


----------



## Digzy1 (22 Apr 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Because the people affected have not organised themselves into a cohesive group to raise the matter.
> 
> But there is also the small issue that they bought an investment promising them a huge return, ignoring the basic principle of "if it looks too good to be true, it probably is."
> 
> Brendan


Hi Brendan 
Can you provide an email please.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Apr 2021)

Here is what the Information Memorandum said - I have highlighted some of it in bold

10. Risk Factors 

Dolphin Trust will take great care t*o only share the opportunity with those who accept that they have the ability to absorb the risks associated with the Loan. *This opportunity has been structured in a manner so as to make it attractive to holders of Self Administered Pension Schemes (SSASs), Approved Retirement Funds (ARFs), Approved Minimum Retirement Funds (ARMF), Self Invested Personal pensions (SIPPs), Personal Retirement Savings Accounts (PRSAs) and Personal Retirement Bonds (PRBs). However, Lenders should be aware that they will be required to bear financial risks of the Loan. Lenders should understand the risks and satisfy themselves that this type of opportunity is suitable for their personal circumstances and financial resource.

Potential Risks
A. Removal of the Tax Break incentive by the GermanGovernment.

B. A major fall in German property prices, making sales to German investors difficult.

C. The collapse of the Euro currency, which could create a recession in Germany or at least stimulate greater caution and impact on current bank lending practices. This might create a knock on effect, in relation to the loans that are currently being made available to German Property Buyers by the GermanBanks.

D. Past performance is not necessarily a reliable indication of future performance.

*E. This Dolphin Trust Opportunity is not suitable for clients who require hard capital protection*, neither is it suitable for those clients who require ready access to their capital during the term of the Loan.

*F. This Dolphin Trust Opportunity should be considered high risk and despite all the efforts that have been taken to mitigate the risks you could lose some or all of your initial loan. *Please consult your financial advisor to make sure that this facility fits within your risk profile.

G. It is important to note that the security to be provided in holders of Loan Notes, when liquidated may not equal the value of the LoanNote.

Dolphin Trust do minimise the risks, regarding the development and renovation of a property, through the completion of an in depth Due Diligence and analysis process.* In the unlikely event that one or all of the above occurs, any person choosing to lend to Dolphin Trust GmbH may expose themselves to losing all of the funds loaned, this list is not all encompassing.*


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Apr 2021)

But the risks were not listed in the Information Sheet 

Just the opportunities.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Apr 2021)

The FAQ from Wealth Options put the risks at the end after selling the great security and history of their involvement with Dolphin Trust.

WARNINGS
• Terms and conditions apply. See product brochures for full details.
• There is no guarantee that these investments will provide a better return than a deposit or any return at all.
• The value of the investment can fall as well as rise.
• This FAQ does not constitute advice.
• Please note that the provision of some of these products and services do not require licensing, authorisation or registration with the Central Bank and, as a result, they are not covered by the Central Bank’s requirements designed to protect consumers or by a statutory compensation scheme.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Apr 2021)

Marc said:


> To be fair Brendan, many people would have been sold these rather than bought them on their own.



I agree. 

But if an advisor tells you that he can get you 10% return on your money when deposits are paying 1% , you have to share some of the responsibility. 

And, I have pointed out that any advisors who sold this project have questions to answer.

Brendan


----------



## Steven Barrett (22 Apr 2021)

Sophia808 said:


> Tonight RTE Primetime are covering this story, what views on regulating the loan note sector because this Dolphin debacle looks to be the tip of an iceberg involving thousands of pension savers and investors?
> 
> 
> Large numbers of regulated advisors sold investment, much of it pensions to Dolphin GMBH that had no Audited Accounts since 2015
> ...


The Central Bank haven't got a grip on what is going on in markets today and are not up to date. I was on a webinar by a well respected actuary who spoke about how regulated and non regulated products are being mixed all the time. He had presented this to the Central Bank and he said there were glazed eyes. They simply didn't understand. The Central Bank needs more power to be able to do its job properly. 


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## Shirazman (22 Apr 2021)

I see that Pearse Doherty fired the first salvo on behalf of the Dolphin investors in the Dáil this morning!    Three cheers for Sinn Féin, the investors' best friend!    https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/politics/arid-40272425.html


----------



## Shirazman (22 Apr 2021)

Steven,  if, as you wrote, the Central Bank "_hasn't got a grip on what is going on in markets today and [is] not up to date_" then what good would giving it more power do?


----------



## Shirazman (22 Apr 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Because the people affected have not organised themselves into a cohesive group to raise the matter.
> 
> But there is also the small issue that they bought an investment promising them a huge return, ignoring the basic principle of "if it looks too good to be true, it probably is."
> 
> Brendan



I suspect that most of us "_bought an investment promising us a huge return_" on the recommendations of our QFAs.     At the time that I invested in Dolphin, I wasn't aware of what the "FA" meant in that particular acronym!


----------



## Steven Barrett (22 Apr 2021)

Shirazman said:


> Steven,  if, as you wrote, the Central Bank "_hasn't got a grip on what is going on in markets today and [is] not up to date_" then what good would giving it more power do?


A lot goes on in the world of personal finance that is actually outside the scope of the Central Bank and there is nothing they can do. At least if they have the power and resources, there is a chance of them getting up to speed. 

But yes, I get your point!


----------



## Sophia808 (22 Apr 2021)

This morning on Leaders Questions, it opened with Sinn Fein Pearse Doherty skewering the Central Bank on the simple point of why they had not issued a public warning since 2016? Leo Varadkar looked baffled and confused. There is nothing in law to stop the Central Bank issuing public warnings and its concerns. It did so recently about Bitcoin but when it really mattered, when the Bonanza years trebled loan notes 2017-2019 and reached through many of the firms it regulates, it failed utterly in its mandate, to Protect Consumers. 

Am I missing something here because this is really black and white stuff. It is ironic that it took a SF Finance spokesperson to cut through the guff to the hard truth, regulatory failure on a grand scale.  It is up on YouTube


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Apr 2021)

Shirazman said:


> I wasn't aware of what the "FA" meant in that particular acronym!


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Apr 2021)

Sophia808 said:


> There is nothing in law to stop the Central Bank issuing public warnings and its concerns.



What should they have done? 

"We do not regulate property investments or loans to property companies, so be careful"

"Don't invest with a German investment company called Dolphin Trust"

I presume that they will look at the regulated entities who sold these to their clients. 

But it seems to me that the people who lost money are not even bothering to challenge their financial advisors.

They are blaming the Central Bank for their losses.

Brendan


----------



## Shirazman (22 Apr 2021)

Sophia808 said:


> This morning on Leaders Questions, it opened with Sinn Fein Pearse Doherty skewering the Central Bank on the simple point of why they had not issued a public warning since 2016? Leo Varadkar looked baffled and confused. There is nothing in law to stop the Central Bank issuing public warnings and its concerns. It did so recently about Bitcoin but when it really mattered, when the Bonanza years trebled loan notes 2017-2019 and reached through many of the firms it regulates, it failed utterly in its mandate, to Protect Consumers.
> 
> Am I missing something here because this is really black and white stuff. It is ironic that it took a SF Finance spokesperson to cut through the guff to the hard truth, regulatory failure on a grand scale.  It is up on YouTube




Well, you're missing the fact that as Leo Varadkar isn't the Minister for Finance he wasn't the right person for SF's Finance Spokesman to have questioned about the functioning of the Central Bank! - especially without LV having any advance notice of the question.   
All that Pearse was doing was indulging in a bit of political showboating in advance of tonight's Prime Time programme.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Apr 2021)

Hi Shirazman

You might be right.

But, you guys need all the publicity you can get on this. It would help if one of you had got a Fine Gael TD to raise it. But failing that, any TD will do. And Pearse is the best for articulating this sort of issue.

Brendan


----------



## Shirazman (22 Apr 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Shirazman
> 
> You might be right.
> 
> ...



I'm not really sure what publicity can achieve for us, Brendan.    And anyway, I'd prefer to deal with politicians who choose to work quietly behind the scenes rather with than those who use megaphones and who will move on to the next grandstanding opportunity as soon as one arises.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Apr 2021)

Interesting programme.

Pointed the finger at the brokers very clearly who got 7% or 8% commission. 

Oddly enough, no mention at all of Wealth Options. 

I think that Coleman Legal will probably go after the brokers.  I can't think who else they would go after.

They spoke to two investors. I am surprised that they did not put the question to them "What were you thinking?  That you could get a 13% return with very little risk?" 

Quite a few people had pension funds. Again, totally unsuitable for pension funds so the advisors have questions to answer here. 

Those impacted should get  together and they should all complain to the Ombudsman. 

Even though it's an unregulated product, I presume that they can complain about the financial advisors who sold them. 

Brendan


----------



## WolfeTone (22 Apr 2021)

Shirazman said:


> I'd prefer to deal with politicians who choose to work quietly behind the scenes rather with than those who use megaphones and who will move on to the next grandstanding opportunity as soon as one arises.



I wouldn't be dismissing Doherty so quickly. Yes, I understand the sentiment, but Dohertys track record is pretty impressive. He forced a previous government to hold a by-election when they tried to stall indefinitely. The High Court would rule that a minimum period of three months (i think) is the longest a constituency should wait without opportunity to elect a political representative.
His work in exposing false and exaggerated claims by the insurance industry, to justify increasing premiums, is also impressive.
Of course, there is an element of grand-standing and show-boating, but that is the nature of the beast. But Doherty does add meat to his positions in general. I would take it as a positive that he has picked up on this.


----------



## Sophia808 (23 Apr 2021)

Brendan it is unclear if the Ombudsman can or will rule here, then there is the issue of no Broker cover. In the UK the FSCS (compo scheme,) covers IFA damages like this and has paid out £24m so far but the regulator the FCA regulates the IFA fully including loan notes.

In Ireland the Central Bank did a runner? 

Let's face it with property values at 10% of the loan notes there will be zero coming back after costs and the German liquidation probably lasts into the 2030's.

That leaves Irish High Court multi party action through specialists like Coleman. That is the guy who previously successfully rolled over Rabo Bank (ACC) and ITC for misselling loans for deposit account type 'World Series' bonds. That settled after 1 day after allegations of fraud was admitted in the Supreme Court, thus defeating the statute of limitations defence. Rabo ordered the case settled to safeguard its AAA rating, it appears. 

Victims here have a chance because any action will sweep in German actors, the Wealth Option lawyers, the State notaries in addition to Brokers, Wealth Options and their insurers where relevant. It is reasonable also to expect the court to set aside the corporate veil if warranted leaving certain directors personally liable, so there is a lot to play for and victims need to know that before walking away.

What is extraordinary is the degree to which Brokers have victims in Stockholm syndrome, the most common thread is 'no one told me this was unravelling'. As for the risk fine print, there are no declarations in applications that required investor signature on risk acknowledgments, so easily breezed past at point of sale.

Where advice was by Central Bank regulated firms, cash pulled from existing regulated products, transferred through Mifid II regulated entities PRSAs, PRBs, ARFs, some of it going to regulated instruments like deposits, then a large chunk gets ejected into unregulated loan notes, how had the victim any chance? They were told it was secured on German property valuations that appear phantom.

Most victims have filled Risk Questionnaires as Low Risk conservative investors so how come their capital ended up in high risk loan notes where 100% loss was perfectly possible? That is the issue for brokers, that and zero due diligence even basic maths on a post it would show this to be a ponzi. Then there is no Audited accounts since 2015 for Dolphin to get past.  This looks more like a criminal enterprise than an accidental ponzi. The statement from the German liquidator that cashflows through accounts were in excess of €3bn that is 3 x Loan Notes raised is a tell?

In very many pension cases victims were told to cash out Defined Benefit pensions like the NHS pensions agency, absent any breakeven analysis or actuarial examination, so that's a clear issue and its insured by PI cover. The common policy is AIG. 

Any victims reading this here really ought to put their file in chronological order, copy all paperwork and go see Colemans, this is likely to evolve into the mother of all financial litigation.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (23 Apr 2021)

Sophia808 said:


> That is the guy who previously successfully rolled over Rabo Bank (ACC) and ITC for misselling loans for deposit account type 'World Series' bonds.



Really?  How well did the investors in ACC do?  Did they get back more than the costs of taking the action? 

It may be unclear whether the Ombudsman has jurisdiction here.  So lodge a complaint and you will know soon enough.

The Ombudsman should *always *be the first port of call before the legal profession.

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (23 Apr 2021)

I have moved the Central Bank discussion here. 






						Why are the Dolphin Trust investors not regulated by the Central Bank?
					

First of all, I haven't watched the Prime Time programme yet. But this is where there is a clear blurring of the lines between regulated and non regulated products. A SSAS isn't regulated but a PRSA is. A Loan note is not regulated. An insured pension plan is regulated. What does the Central...



					www.askaboutmoney.com


----------



## Sophia808 (23 Apr 2021)

Afaik know those that qualified got back their interest, the costs were spread thinly across a large number but the settlement is secret. 

You miss the point on the FSO, even if it rules, it is only vs the broker and none of them is insured, so they'll just fold tent. Any CRO examination  will show few if any net assets, most are lifestyle SMEs.  The route to recovery is to get insured and large actors involved.


----------



## Steven Barrett (23 Apr 2021)

Watching the Prime Time programme and there really needs to be education of the relationship between risk and return. That investor spoke about the bank offering 1% and the loan note offering 13% and he never thought it was high risk. I supposed his "advisor" was too busy calculating what 8% commission was in euro in his head to remember to explain it to him. 

You can't have one without the money. Cash is low risk because you know what you get back at the end and it doesn't go up and down in value during the period you hold it. Something that is paying 13% has to be high risk as that is what is being offered for you to move out of cash. The higher the expected return, the higher the chances of you losing money. 

Also, a guarantee is only as good as the person underwriting it. A bankrupt company isn't going to honour a guarantee. 


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## Brendan Burgess (23 Apr 2021)

Sophia808 said:


> That is the guy who previously successfully rolled over Rabo Bank (ACC)





Sophia808 said:


> but the settlement is secret.



So let's be quite clear on this - you have no idea at all to what extent Rabobank rolled over. 

Rabo Bank might have rolled over just far enough to pay the legal fees in full  and to pay the investors nothing but a refund of their costs? 

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (23 Apr 2021)

The route here is for a group of the investors to get together and discuss it themselves. 

To investigate the FSPO route. 

If that is not going to succeed , to investigate the legal route.

They must understand upfront the huge exposure to legal costs and the low chances of success. 

Brendan


----------



## Cruzer123 (23 Apr 2021)

fistophobia said:


> 4M payment to the 2 directors is unrelated to Dolphin Trust issue.


Why? Anything I have read make them seem connected and arguably culpable.


----------



## Shirazman (23 Apr 2021)

Sophia808 said:


> Any victims reading this here really ought to put their file in chronological order, copy all paperwork and go see Colemans, this is likely to evolve into the mother of all financial litigation.



Been there, done that!   To their credit, Colemans sent me a document outlining the upfront and potential future costs and fees involved in taking a case, and this scared me away.   I can't afford the risk.

As Brendan wrote above:  ....  potential litigants_ must understand upfront the huge exposure to legal costs and the low chances of success._


----------



## Shirazman (26 Apr 2021)

Extract from this week's update from the (UK based)  *German Property Group Creditors Association*


_"The end of another busy week for the Committee. We have worked hard to raise the profile of the GPG case and, hopefully, raise awareness in the corridors of power that could alleviate our suffering. There has been a German TV programme and several press articles released which are raising questions of the German authorities, particularly the Prosecutor's office in Hanover a, BaFin ( their equivalent of the FCA) and the Bundestag. 

*We have also increased awareness over in Ireland by taking part in Primetime on RTE ( a Panorama type programme on their equivalent of BBC 1) and questions have been raised in the Irish parliament today. We continue to liaise with investor groups in France and Ireland.*

You may have read that the [UK] Government are now going to compensate LCF clients that purchased bonds. Like loan notes, bonds were previously an unregulated investment product and fell outside of the frameworks. We will of course follow this with interest and continue to raise awareness to the plight of Dolphin investors.

I have had a response to my letter to the Treasury Committee and am hopeful that UK politicians will scrutinise the FCA and call on the Serious Fraud Office to conduct a thorough investigation here. I will be continuing to push for this through the MP Campaign."_


----------



## Shirazman (27 Apr 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I wouldn't be dismissing Doherty so quickly. Yes, I understand the sentiment, but Dohertys track record is pretty impressive. He forced a previous government to hold a by-election when they tried to stall indefinitely. The High Court would rule that a minimum period of three months (i think) is the longest a constituency should wait without opportunity to elect a political representative.
> His work in exposing false and exaggerated claims by the insurance industry, to justify increasing premiums, is also impressive.
> Of course, there is an element of grand-standing and show-boating, but that is the nature of the beast. But Doherty does add meat to his positions in general. I would take it as a positive that he has picked up on this.



Fair enough; although my strong suspicion is that he's far more interested in kicking the Central Bank than he is in the fate of the Dolphin investors!


----------



## noproblem (27 Apr 2021)

A segment on The Pat Kenny show about it this morning. Didn't really pay much attention but for those who are affected i'm sure you can listen back..


----------



## Shirazman (27 Apr 2021)

noproblem said:


> A segment on The Pat Kenny show about it this morning. Didn't really pay much attention but for those who are affected i'm sure you can listen back..



Thanks.      Can be found at:  https://www.newstalk.com/shows/pat-kenny-show-234857


----------



## Sophia808 (12 May 2021)

The GORG report on the liquidation of DC80 the German SPV that was the banking centre is revealing. There were no Accounts, internally so impossible to link creditors to assets. This means specific claims to charges will be impossible because the cash never got there and the German aggregation rules when liquidation meets chaos like this. 

It is only a question of time before regulators act because they cannot risk another  Custom House Capital debacle, also involving German property. Any action will change the mood around Dolphin.

It is too simplistic to boil this down to buyer beware, the investors never stood a chance, not when they completed low risk tolerance in profiles at the front end, when advice is by regulated companies,  money flowed into regulated products and there was no requirement to sign plain English declarations knowing all this stuff.


----------



## Sophia808 (12 May 2021)

Dolphin in Bloomberg News today as the story goes global given the  reach from Asia to Ireland


----------



## Marc (12 May 2021)

Sophia808 said:


> The GORG report on the liquidation of DC80 the German SPV that was the banking centre is revealing. There were no Accounts, internally so impossible to link creditors to assets. This means specific claims to charges will be impossible because the cash never got there and the German aggregation rules when liquidation meets chaos like this.
> 
> It is only a question of time before regulators act because they cannot risk another  Custom House Capital debacle, also involving German property. Any action will change the mood around Dolphin.
> 
> It is too simplistic to boil this down to buyer beware, the investors never stood a chance, not when they completed low risk tolerance in profiles at the front end, when advice is by regulated companies,  money flowed into regulated products and there was no requirement to sign plain English declarations knowing all this stuff.



classic example of profit before prudence 

I wonder if this will force the CBI to take another look at commissions on investment products


----------



## Sophia808 (16 May 2021)

ATM the CB will do no such thing because loan note market is unregulated, it is in its bunker and shows no appetite to leave it, including to liaise with other State agencies


----------

