Directors buying with conviction!, page-79

No actually they are nearly identical.

The core issue is the over-estimation of assets under management, which have a direct impact on management fees for RFM (RFF). Bluesky did the same thing, hid behind subjective valuations, inflated asset values and used GAV rather than NAV to charge fees on. While the assets weren't all the same, Bluesky did in fact have agri assets and lots of property. They also had private assets which were early stage and difficult to value objectively. Very very similar to RFF.

It all comes down to unethical behavior, which while not illegal is certainly flirting with the line. The point is, one day somebody will be left with the actual assets and what you will find is they aren't worth anywhere near the actual quoted NAV.

Somebody will lose somewhere if what Bonitas says is true.