You can all email each other to your heart's content. I've been on here long enough to know that people having ideas of skulduggery may OR may not have a ring of truth. I'm merely here pointing out flaws in what is being 'vaguely' suggested. So that posters don't end up sending good money after bad. Which is why this article has a particular headline:You are not privy to what monitoring of the situation over 20 years was done, because people who were shareholders are discussing in this in emails.
Analysis: A group of Irish forestry funds have failed to deliver for investors
And so far I see nothing of note to suggest everything wasn't above board. Sure the returns that were 'predicted' didn't come true. Sure great returns were suggested at the beginning. What prospectus doesn't promise the sun moon and stars would be my view of it. I haven't heard one word about 'guaranteed' returns.