Seems that emails are not available to other users.

Hello Calpespain,

I posted a Glanmore comment last year on July 9 to which you kindly replied. I have some interesting information that I would only divulge by private email. I notice that you suggest to Maize to click on your profile name to find your email address.

However, when I do that there is only the date of your joining and the date of your last post displayed. Any suggestions?

LeGuen

Have entered my email onto my profile.

I did click on your profile name which opened your profile but your email does not appear. I could try putting my email into my profile.

Maize:

What a pity that the contents of previous postings were deleted. I'll try to higlight, copy and save it as a reference.

maxsteam: you say:One issue that I am unsure about is that their web site states that "The Glanmore Property Fund is a specialist UK commercial property fund" and not a Guernsey fund. Am I looking at the same fund?

The fund is a UK property fund but regulated and registered in Guernsey.

One very fundamental investment principle is that, for safety, you should spread your investment around various funds. There is nothing wrong with puttting something into a property fund but it would not be prudent to advise someone to put everything there.

The performance of the Glanmore Property Fund as given on their latest fact sheet show that the main losses of value happened between 1 and 2 years ago. For comparison, the TR Property Investment Trust has lost about 65% of it's value from its high about 4 years ago.

One issue that I am unsure about is that their web site states that "The Glanmore Property Fund is a specialist UK commercial property fund" and not a Guernsey fund. Am I looking at the same fund?

Maize:
Yes you are right, from 30th June 2007 when the share price was £79.533 to today at £15.274 thats a loss of 80.795% from that high.

No, I am not involved in any financial markets, this was part of my pension pot which I was going to totally remove from Skandia in January 2008 after my Christmas Holidays. But upon my return I was met with the lock up of the Glanmore Fund. It has taken me two and a half years to feel mentally strong enough to start to see if I can get some sort of redress either against Skandia or Glanmore. I feel, it will have to be Skandia initially as they hold my bond and should have protected me or acted better in their judgement of allowing me to place the funds with Glanmore.

I wait to see your opinion when it arrives. I also feel that its possibly better not to show this forum too much of what you find as this allows Glanmore or Skandia access in advance to possible action or to cover their backs further.

I will attempt to leave my contact details under my username profile, click upon it and see if you can see a method to contact me there.

As promised in my earlier post, I've composed and sent a confidential email to a knowledgeable financial person. For obvious reasons the persons identity cannot be revealed as he may then not be willing to enter into any discussions. I have sent all the links that I have about the business and my personal situation and requested whether we have recourse and who to approach. Given the nature of his work I hardly expect a reply soon so give it time.

Are you involved in financial markets fulltime or have you already sought the help of someone who is? Do you know of other folks that have gone this route? What have they been told. Will stay posted.

Your information is shedding light on all the piles of documents in my possession which were sent to me to inform me of my investment. It was the half value of a farm sold and worth ZAR 331,500.00. Compared to your loss not much. Had I invested it in the local South African markets it would have grown close to R2m. At that stage many South Africans were worried about instability and placed money offshore as a form of security.

Was I negligent in placing money into this fund? I believe not. It was done in good faith. What however grieves me is that this type of thing could be repeated. The financial industry as a business raises questions of ethics. It should be a service industry. Live and let live. Now they kill the goose that lays the golden egg. No one invests money to lose it - due caution and care should be taken when dealing with the proceeds of peoples lifes work, their money. Fair pay for good work would probably address the world ills. Now you have individuals who continue to draw down fees for themselves even at a time when many are biting the dust. The least they could do is offer their sevices FREE untill the matter is resolved. That would be acting in the interest of their shareholders and the ethical thing to do considereing their incompetencies.

My first correspondence from my IFA dates to August 8 2001 and confirms that the money is in Royal Skandia collective redemtion bond. The schedule from Royal Skandia to verify the transaction dated July 18 2001 then refers to the policy as Excecutive Investment Bond with the CRB forming part of the ERB. I will get back to communicating with you and any other people invested in Glanmore Property Fund.

Tomorrow being Monday I shall contact someone who will point me in the direction to go from here. Last week was the first time since placing this investment that I have been able to try to find out what is going on. The companies, institutions and financial intermediaries have guarded their contacts so that the ordinary investor like myself were at their mercy.

Finally, I see on a portfolio valuation dated 6 July 2007 the share was worth GBP 79,533!

I am not sure where you are going here. Are your shares in Glanmore held in any type of bond then? Mine are held in an EIB with Skandia on the IOM. Skandia own the rights to my shares. Not me. I asked them to act for me in December 2007 when Glanmore proposed the 6 month delay and Skandia wrote back and said, that they were taking a passive outlook with this fund as they had too many clients around the world and could not contact them all in the required time and therefore were taking no part in the AGM vote for or against the redemption suspension.

I am also involved in the KSF(IOM) banking collapse again with this Skandia Bond, as are some very clever up to the mark individuals who for sure would have taken Skandia to court over that matter if they were able. It seems, that although I hold as others do an holding in any fund or deposit though a bond, you cannot have the same rights as a direct investor in the fund. Making it difficult to take legal redress against as in this case Glanmore. To do so, I have to firstly prove that Skandia are at fault and win that case and if I were then Skandia would then have to prove Glanmore at fault.

A wicked web has been woven very cleverly indeed. Our money has been stolen or taken from us, in a legal way, although to me, it is totally corrupt. But I feel we have little or not option of redress through any formal legal channels. If you know differently then we should correspond directly to discuss this further with the prospects of taking the matter further.

I have always been under the impression that a 'Bond' is also a contractual agreement. Are 'collective redemtion bonds' different? This fund is not a unit trust which means that the 'bond' is equavalent to a loan. As far as I'm concerned someone took this money from the investors and used it to secure a bond. This person (or institution acting as a person) still remains indebted to the investor. By selling the underlying assets to new managers or a bank, the obligation to repay the bond to the investors does not disappear.

There is to much rhetoric around the issue. The facts are that there are investors and managers and a contract. What happened inbetween, with various clever buying and selling of these assets, must not be allowed to cloud our understanding of the basic and simple truth.

A comparison - my wedding ring with three diamonds was stolen by someone about 15 years ago. It was never found. Someone out there is wearing my wedding ring. It will always be mine and that thief remains in bondage till the debt is selttled. FACT

Please see new posts

I started this thread in January 2007 which gained a lot of comments from individuals in South Africa, which probably contained a lot of information which Glanmore did not like and this resulted in all of the post being deleted from the forum. So one has to be careful what is written otherwise the moderator will remove our posts. At that time, I was trying to gather enough individuals to seek a legal opinion to take a class action against Glanmore. Sadly, the numbers never came in, as we need numbers to make the claim legally viable for everyone. Suing through the courts and legal representation is expensive and the way the fund has been devised make it even more so. An opinion would be at the very least £5-10,000 and then you have all the associated costs from the solicitors practice. I do however feel that probably there could be a case to answer but it's not going to be easy.

The fund established in 1997 by three directors of Cardales under the Thesis Asset Management a Guernsey registered and regulated company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Cardales.For six years from inception, approximately, the fund was showing a good NAV price increase with inflows to the fund moderately.
By June 2003 the fund had grown to just £206.234m after six years of operation and had a NAV purchase price of £66.730 against a debt of just £93.392m. (45.28% debt to equity ratio)

On 9th February 2004 Thesis and Cardales were purchased by Tilney Asset Management. The original three directors, joined Tilney and continued to manage the fund. It was under Tilney that the fund saw dramatic growth from £203,234m in June 2003 to £1.2bn by December 2007. No doubt and in turn these three directors received a handsome sum for that sale.

Why and how did they achieve such strong growth once Tilney acquired them? The Glanmore fund was unregulated by the UK FSA and therefore could not be sold to individuals in the UK. It was also unregulated in South Africa, again could not be sold direct. To overcome this, Glanmore/Tilney decided to get around the problem in South Africa by establishing a company that would act as intermediates for investors. Today this company I believe holds a 35% stake in The Glanmore Property Fund. Furthermore, Glanmore hold and control a substantial amount of property funds within the Glanmore Fund as shown in their recent audited accounts. Whether it be directly or indirectly this probably gives the Glanmore Fund manages total control over any AGM voting to do as they please with the fund. I.E. lock it up for 4 years.

I have found by researching that Glanmore have been very clever in the way the fund has been marketed and sold. They now have large institutional investors who themselves are investing in the fund for their clients, linked to their own property funds or via bonds. This takes away the direct individual investor and, this is one of the reason so few have come forward to challenge Glanmore and its management on the fund. You see, the institutional funds will receive a management fee and Glanmore still receives a management fee. So why would the institutions cut of the hand that is feeding them. Its worse than that:

Glanmore also paid IFA an attractive upfront introduction commission to get them to recommend to their clients to invest in the fund in Europe's unregulated financial market (Spain & Cyprus to name but two). Not only that, they also paid an annual retainer fee whilst those funds remained held within the fund. These fees were payable until such times as Glanmore raised extra funds from the market to stay afloat. Some £95m in August 2009 was raised by issuing extra shares known as ‘B’ Shares.

Glanmore raised money for initial investment for the fund mainly from UK expatriates around the world, including a very large percentage in South Africa, by offering very good upfront and continuing rear end commissions to IFA and intermediaries, who in turn, set up their own funds linked to Glanmore. Several Insurance companies link products to the Glanmore Property Fund. Glanmore paid these companies an upfront fee and a continuation fee, until as said, the issue of ‘B’ shares. The continuation fee ceased at the refinancing issue of the ‘B’ Shares, at the insistence of the two main banks involved with the funds loans.

Why did Glanmore not register the fund in the UK, after all, the entire fund operated from UK offices, purchased and managed all UK properties and paid UK tax on its operations? (they say to avoid CGT) Why did they choose Guernsey the most laxed and less stringent financial market regulator of any of the UK offshore financial centre's to register the product?


Was it planned this way, to avoid being taken to a UK court in times of stress or hardship as now, more easily to do in a UK court? Making it difficult for individuals to take them to task. Is this why they encouraged the insurance companies that issued investment bonds to invest with them. Knowing that an individual cannot seek redress against them directly, as it is the bond company that holds the share and not the individual.

With Insurance companies still able to charge a fee for holding the Glanmore fund within a bond and Glanmore itself able to charge their management fee of 1.5% pa plus a 5% fee on purchases and sales, is it no wonder that the insurance companies and holding companies voted to suspend redemptions for 4 years whilst they themselves are still able to draw from the clients that fund these fees.

Why did it take over 15 months for Glanmore to reduce the NAV from December 2007, the point of the redemption freeze, to March 2009 and ultimately, October 2009 for the NAV to reach the level it stands at today? (To maintain their high fees) And why is it, that with commercial property funds run by the likes of L&G and others have shown an increase in their valuations from mid 2009 to today and yet Glanmore keeps going downwards. Other commercial property funds currently stand from the highs of 2007 with just a 20 -30% reduction in values yet Glanmore stands at well in excess of 70% down.

Tilney is now owned by Deutsche Bank's private wealth management, acquired on 20th October 2006, yet retained the name Tilney on all Glanmore products until March 2009. Seems only the companies that own the Glanmore and manage the fund have made any money out of the Glanmore Property Fund, which portrayed in their literature as a fund set up to, empower the private investor.


The management of Glanmore had an opportunity to sell the fund for £16 per share in 2009 to CIREF but, said at that time, in the best interest of the funds shareholders the offer should be rejected. The fund currently stands at just over £15 per share and has a 4 year redemption notice wait period. Yet with CIREF the shareholder stood a real chance of the fund price increasing and would have been able to sell the shares in CIREF when desired. How could that decision have been in the best interest of the funds shareholders? I say it was to protect the manager’s annual fee of around £15m and to protect all the large institutional fees.

The amount raised from the refinancing and issue of the ‘B’ Shares was £95m, the fees for the 5 years from 2008 to 2013 is £75m, add to that the redemptions of £12m paid out in October 2009 we have the same figure give or take. Why raise money just to pay fees and a small percentage of redemptions. With £22M of redemptions now on notice, is this why the NAV is marked so low at just £15.

In the past couple of years since Deutsche Bank's private wealth management have been in charge, the accounts have become more transparent. You are able to see the amount of holding companies that Glanmore own within the fund. Had these been available from the onset, so clear to see and read, I for one would not have placed money in this fund. Glanmore uses top legal firms in Guernsey and also one of the best in London. I conclude that they have all the legal angles covered and sadly, it is the poor old investor who has taken the hit of there management decisions not to sell when they should have in December 2007, when they were the first in the market to halt redemptions. They were ahead of the market, they could have sold the properties back then at a much higher value than can currently be obtained to fulfill their redemptions on notice at that time. The manages for sure, have been very clever at protecting their own positions and guaranteeing their long-term fees payable from the fund. Yet we are without doubt being taken for fools as we are locked into a fund with no hope. Can we do anything about it, I doubt it but, only wish we were able to.

I personally have lost over £500,000 within Glanmore and with years more to wait to be paid out, I mentally suffer every single day.