|
Post by nemesis on Dec 21, 2019 0:52:31 GMT
I think most investors would be interested in an orderly windup with third party oversight
|
|
|
Post by analyst on Dec 21, 2019 17:56:26 GMT
Unfortunately no money is being accumulated from earnings - less than 50% of the assets are producing income and that's the reason the dividend is low.
The $80 million is based on a $1 as far as we know.
|
|
|
Post by analyst on Dec 21, 2019 18:02:26 GMT
In an orderly windup everyone's shares would have to be redeemed pro rata - the $80 million in redemption requests already in would not take priority.
|
|
|
Post by forexloonie on Dec 23, 2019 1:50:52 GMT
Thx for setting up this forum. It's a great addition! I may, however, differ in opinion. So far, I see a lot of unhappy investors here — and I'm definitely one of them. But the issue is how we can best be made whole. That's where we'll differ, I suspect. There are some reasonable questions being asked — like how can we be certain management's interests are fully aligned with their investors. Definitely worth pursuing aggressively. But Maryanne, I give zero credence to a lawyer's advice when it comes to investments. They're deal-killers, not deal-makers and usually are clueless about investments and investing. The key issue is whether it's smart for us to give management the ability to solve the problem they created. Are they motivated to do it and in the best position to do it. So far, we've obstructed their ability to do it for over a year so none of us should be surprised one bit that returns are lower. This needs to be resolved pronto! I'll weigh in more later after I've had more time to digest what's already here I couldn't agree more with your line "I give zero credence to a lawyer's advice when it comes to investments.". Me too. Not the same with HE, they get directions from lawyers, and they reorganize an investment fund based on their advice. This is what scares me!
|
|
|
Post by Moderator on Dec 28, 2019 22:01:57 GMT
After reading every entry on this forum to date— we are going nowhere! Let’s start by comparing some basic numbers and facts. 1)—Can we get a handle on the total number of investors. — to date only 77 are on this forum. 2)—What knowledge do we have of managements investments in the MIC. 3)—Do we have any idea of the largest investors position on how to proceed. 4)—What is the largest investors percentage of the MIC, or investment for that matter? 5)—What percentage of shareholders voted Dec 22nd. 6)—Is there a major investor that controls the swing of things by their percentage of shares owned, and if so what are these numbers? Any insight to these questions? Answer to 1) - We only have an email distribution list of 140 investors (holding roughly ½ of Class A shares) that is based on the shareholder list that HarbourEdge was required to disclose under OBCA as part of the Plan of Arrangement. As the address of the registered accounts shareholders does not appear on the list, our email distribution list is not complete. HE management repeatedly refused to share the complete list of Investors Answer to 2) – refer to the thread “Personal investments of management” Answer to 3) and 4) – The shareholder list disclosed under OBCA indicates that the largest investor is a Pension Fund that holds 16% of total shares Answers to 5) provided by TD's email "We had 459 Shareholders cast their vote with 363 Shareholders (79%) in support and 93 Shareholders (21%) who voted against the Plan. Unfortunately, and unexpectedly, one very large Shareholder voted against the plan resulting in the Plan not receiving the 66.6% of shares held voting threshold to carry the support required." Why is HE management giving us misleading information? What counts the number of shares that voted For and Against, not the number of physical persons. To date, the management refused to provide us with the meaningful results. Answer to 6) – Pension Funds, like any other institutional investor, have their own decision making process that does not include consultation with retail investors like us. They also have enough financial power to hire lawyers and recover their investment regardless of the vote result.
|
|
|
Post by Moderator on Dec 29, 2019 1:25:00 GMT
Thx forexloonie. Actually, HE management really do have to ensure all i’s are dotted and t’s are crossed legally so I don’t begrudge them that. Doing this properly is in everyone’s best interests. If they take action that’s later proven to be against the best interests of their shareholders, and withholding material information from us, when all is said and done, there’ll be plenty of time for legal action against both HE management and their lawyers. In the meanwhile, I want to find the best route to being made whole. I still want hear more from management. They’re clearly old school in terms of communication and have a lot to learn about openness in a forum environment. But I’m not jumping to conclusions about their evil intentions. Let’s hear them out with an open mind. They already did withhold material information from us and here is one example: On October 1, 2015 HarbourEdge stated in their emergency communique to Investors that “A portfolio manager provided HarbourEdge with a notice of their intention to recommend to their clients that they sell their HarbourEdge Shares and re-invest into other risk adjusted asset classes”. Today we know that the fact was a gross misrepresentation that has grave consequences on our money, because a lot more Investors would have taken the ELO if they would have known the real reason of the massive redemption request, finally disclosed on October 29, 2019 in the Information Circular: “September 3, 2015 “ A portfolio manager with substantial shareholdings under management places a very substantial redemption request because of a concern with the mortgage portfolio default rate.”
|
|