ubiquitous
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,782
ClubMan said:How do you reckon that it's "relatively risk free" unless you actually mean that the loss of €500 x 2 would represent a small risk to you personally?
ClubMan said:As mentioned before forestry is not necessarily environmentally friendly due to the damage that certain intensive forestry (in particular coniferous plantations) can do to the environment. No investment is ethical if it does not make the charges and operation clear to the investor. Not saying that this is necessarily the case here but worth bearing in mind.
ubiquitous said:shareholders are so powerless to hold management to account in almost every aspect of the operation.
euroDilbert said:(a) My investment was used to buy land (on which trees are being grown - the cost of this coming from subsidies and grants). Therefore, I rate my chances of losing all or even most of my original investment as low.
euroDilbert said:(b) As you suggest, even if I did lose it all, it is just one small part of my investments - which I am trying to diversify..
euroDilbert said:I also have BOI shares and, in practice, the same applies (large shareholders obviously can have some influence).
ubiquitous said:This isn't true. If management in BOI or any other company underperforms, the shareholders can boot them out, or sell their shares to someone else who can then enforce change. This is impossible in a situation where the shareholders merely have preference shares.
i have a fair bit in these funds (8 and 9) and rang during the week to check values etc. accounting values are fairly solid but are based on projections I assume?
The problem with investors having only non-voting preference shares rather than ordinary shares is that they have no power whatsoever to influence the management's decisions in relation to the timing of timber and land sales. This dilemma is complicated by the fact that the management and their related parties already hold lucrative management contracts with the funds and could well be in a position to buy the funds' lands or timber from the funds at any stage in the future. Whether the shareholders could expect a good or bad return on such a deal remains to be seen but the fact that their shareholdings are non-voting means that they would be powerless to object to, or block such a deal even if it badly prejudiced their interests.They said that once the first fund is matured that it will take "some time" for all wood to be sold etc etc. I did not press the issue but this may be something to be aware of.
Irrelevant as per above.1. What returns had been shown since its start?
none, apart from assumptions that certain % return(s) will be made.2. What data is available to back up the projected returns?
none3. What dividends are paid on preference shares?
none4. What guarantees are there that the projected returns will be seen?
The bottom line is we won't know how these funds are performing until the first of their products matures in 2010 (the first Forestry Investment Plan). If we see a profitable sale of the fund assets, and a reasonable return to the investors, we can breathe easy for now.
Not particularly. That's a bit like saying that if you generated a big profit from selling a house in 2004 you can expect a similarly big profit from selling in 2008.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?