Eddie Hobbs new Brendan Investments vehicle

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ad change?

Just heard the ad on the radio. It no longer states that the prospectus has been approved by Financial regulator. It now says that it was published 'in accordance with Prospectus directive'.

Interesting. I wonder was this a change in the ad or are there a few versions, one of which says it has been approved by the financial regulator. Or has the ad been changed I wonder?
 
Re: Ad change?


I copped that as well. And if it's as a result of Brendan taking on board the criticism of the emphasis they were laying on the prospectus being regulated even though the investment itself isn't, well, fair play to them.
 
I drew the ad to the attention of the Financial Regulator yesterday. I didn't get an acknowledgment of my email and I doubt if they acted on it, but it would be nice to think that they heard it themselves and expressed their displeasure.

Brendan
 
Gonk is right if they've change the ad fair enough. On the radio last week btw Hobbs made the same point about the difference and if the ad has been changed already it looks like they did it themselves responding to comments at that point. Surely the regulator examined the ads before use
 
Refer said:
Surely the regulator examined the ads before use
Click to expand...

There would be no reason for them to do so - the neither the ads nor the investment are subject to IFSRA's Consumer Protection Code.
 
Perhaps you are right its just that I thought that an application for an public offer for shares would automatically require the Stock Exchange to preview ads and would require legal advisors to denote the correct wording?
 
On the website in the Introduction there is a summary here [broken link removed]

The Prospectus has been drawn up in accordance with Part V of the Investment Funds, Companies and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2005, Part 5 of the Prospectus (Directive 2003/71/EC) Regulations 2005 (SI No. 324 of 2005), and Commission Regulation (EC) No. 809/2004 - the EU Prospectus Regulation. Accordingly this Prospectus has been approved by the Financial Regulator (being the competent authority for Ireland) in accordance with Part 7 of the Prospectus Regulations 2005 and has been filed with the Financial Regulator accordingly. The Financial Regulator only approves this Prospectus as meeting the requirements imposed under Irish and EU law pursuant to the Prospectus Directive 2003/71/EC.


Prospective investors should note that Brendan Investments Pan European Property plc (trading as Brendan Investments) is not regulated by the Financial Regulator or the Irish Stock Exchange.


 
Refer said:
Perhaps you are right its just that I thought that an application for an public offer for shares would automatically require the Stock Exchange to preview ads and would require legal advisors to denote the correct wording?
Click to expand...
These ads probably weren't even made at the time of the initial application, and in any case the ISE would have even less reason than the IFSRA to examine or comment upon the wording of a TV or radio advertisement.

I would think it's more likely that the wording of the advertisement has been voluntarily changed by Brendan Investments, in response to (or in order to preempt further?) criticisms they've received about potentially misleading language, etc.

Perhaps Mantus can shed some light on the matter?
 
We have it definitively in the Sindo. The regulator did demand the change in the ad. EH admits as much but says He was about to change it anyway.

Well done Boss.
 
Yes well done but the timing of the Boss'es letter end last week couldn't have been the cause because the changes happened before his letter was received both on radio and the website above. Gonk is right that the company went about making the alteration itself then. Hmm. The TV ad is unchanged but looks like this is changing too based on the senator's piece, ( which was a bit of classic SR bufoonery I thought)
 
Anyone read Sue Denham's piece in today's (Sep 23) Sunday Times where she writes about Hobbs possibly posting here on AAM as "Riddler"? She ends the piece "Asked last week, he [Hobbs] said he wouldn't 'get into all that', but he did admit to posting on askaboutmoney under a 'well-known' moniker."

Gonk - it is ok and useful to report this piece about Askaboutmoney in the papers. But we don't allow speculation about the identity of posters on Askaboutmoney itself. So I have deleted your subsequent comments.

Brendan
Administrator
 
Am really struggling to see the relevance of the change in wording. Whether a fund is regulated or not by the FR isn't going to mean a thing if the property maket in Geermany / Portugal tanks.

Having a prospectus approved by the FR again does not imply that you €5,000 is a watertight investment. All that it means is that content of the prospectus conforms with EU regulation
 
Hi Slender

In the original ad, Eddie says very strongly and prominently that the Prospectus is regulated by the Financial Regulator. Anyone watching it would think that this gave a large element of security or comfort.

If the product does not work out, many people will claim that they thought it was regulated by the FR.

Brendan
 
I checked with an Actuary friend who advises me that their ads were sent to the ISE which is the body dealing with the issue before production. If he is right then the regulator would have found itself on tricky ground, ie nothing non-factual was said. Brendan's point is right on emphasis heightened I'd add by the NR debacle and all the talk about regulation.

The other interesting thing that arose is that talk between life offices is nervous of a successful PLC launch in the retail market which they dominate with unit-linked funds. The nervousness has to dso with precedent and who will copy cat eg Quinlan, Warren, Ballymore etc. It seems that it was pressure from Life Offices on IFSRA was the driver.

This is getting quite interesting to watch. Hobbs was on the RTE Sunday morning show and pretty well took the SINDO apart, anyone hear that?
 
Yes I heard him on the Marian Finnucane show. He was very annoyed I felt about Shane Ross and the point that Ross made in relation to the fact that the CBRE Report on the outlook for property was 14 months old. Eddie said that this was the only way the prospectus could be put together and that people were receiving the updated position at the Roadshows.
 
Eddie said that this was the only way the prospectus could be put together and that people were receiving the updated position at the Roadshows.
Click to expand...

This is the third time I've heard the excuse that "updated details are being given at the roadshows."

(1) Nothing in the prospectus, website or brochure about the track record of the directors in actually making money for clients - just mentions that they have been involved in the property business. But apparently, this information is provided at the roadshows.

(2) No mention of properties in the pipeline on the promotional material - this too is apparently discussed at the roadshows.

(3) Now it seems the updated CBRE report is being discussed at the roadshows also.

The advertising should carry a warning - "unless you attend a roadshow, you'll only get half the story from our promotional material or prospectus."
 
Bedlam said:
Eddie said that this was the only way the prospectus could be put together and that people were receiving the updated position at the Roadshows.
Click to expand...

And to misquote Groucho Marx, a verbally quoted statistic is hardly worth the paper it is written on.
 
To be fair the 2007 report has been on the advertised Brendan website since the start and it is the case that attaching it formally to the Prospectus could not have been done. It seems extraordinary that the ISE took over a year to process an application like this and thereby required the promoters to link a separate report for 2007. Shane Ross went off half cocked I thought. He believes that the deposit return over ten years will be better than commercial property investment, a bit OTT methinks.
 
Gonk, the Sunday Times speculation is wrong. Riddler's last post was 11.02 pm Friday sept 7th at which point Hobbs was on the Late late Show. Riddler was somebody else obvious from the writing style. The irony is that jounalists and, concious of the rules about naming, also post here under monikers including on this thread and based at the Sunday Times.

Some hacks use AAM to drum up stories and, occassionally, when short of ideas resort to quoting nameless sources from AAM.
 

Thanks for this - I am happy to accept you are correct on this point.

Nonetheless (and I am trying to phrase this carefully to avoid infringing the rule about speculating on specific posters' identities) Hobbs did say to the Sunday Times that he has posted on AAM. And, of course, he has the same right as anyone to post pseudonymously.

But, either he has not posted on this thread to defend his product, which would be odd; or he has, and has not declared his interest, which would be odder still.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register