Correct Jimi, although in ciy's case I beleive it would have...

Correct Jimi, although in ciy's case I beleive it would have been cba calling 'the undertakers' in.

But the fmf guys can't see that. BT have simply sold themselves by -
* Not being ciy &
* Being cheaper than ciy
and the unitholders have been blinded and taken it hook line & sinker.

Their venom against ciy was so great, that they simply could not bring themselves to see that THE ONLY company that could get them out of the mess was ciy, without Sullivan. Ellis was thrown the proverbial 'hospital pass', and did ok considering. All the damage had been done beforehand.

What the fmf guys don't realise is that their voting decision will ultimately be their downfall. Instead of ciy being engaged and motivated to get things back on track (ie ciy's survival), their actions have brought in yet another, this time unrelated party (the receivers) who has no connection with the fmf whatsoever, and whose job is to get money back for cba. I can't see how the receivers will be 'helping' the fmf and/or BT. They have now lost even more control of the fund.

And as you point out, there will be the upcoming writedowns, and the legal actions that will inevitably result.

I also thought it interesting that BT will not be using their own name in the title once the fund is 'renamed'. They are going to call it 'Pacific First Mortgage Fund'. Not a great change is it? I'm betting BT won't put their name on the title cause they know what's going to happen, eventually. They'll get their 1.5% though...

It will be interesting to see how the whole train wreck pans out.

Cheers,
Mac