Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Third Irish forestry fund.

Options
1…911131415

Comments

  • Options
    #302
    tomgilboy
    Registered Users Posts: 19 ✭tomgilboy


    I think the Farmers point is that after first harvest the land is in a terrible state ..full of left over felling debris and old roots ..making it more expensive to re-plant.

    However we know it can and is often replanted, there may not be available replanting grants now ..but who's to know what will be available in 10 years time. I can see more farmers in the West being encouraged to give up traditional farming for more planting .so that could all change things.

    The land itself certainly won't deminish in value unless you use top quality land ..and nobody has done that ..least of all Veon !


  • Options
    #303
    antietam1
    Registered Users Posts: 359 ✭✭antietam1


    st1979 wrote: »
    Am reading this with interest. Am a farmer who 20yrs ago considered buying a share or 2 but didn't.
    Don't know if you were shafted or not with your return. But definitely the growth they originally spoke of was unachievable.
    I am only plucking figures from the air and already on this thread
    They bought land for 1k an acre. So that was costing 2 shares. Clearfell price today is 6-8k an acre. Then the land is left over to be sold on. This land has to be replanted with no subsidies forever more. I would imagine it's worth around 2k at that point.
    Government paid for the planting. And gave subsidy of around 100 an acre for 15 years. That was probably soaked up in administration fees of the fund and (probably) inflated maintenance costs of the forest and insurance etc.

    Whatever you get this week may be the correct value. But you were never going to achieve 28k per share. You were misled the first day.

    I have neighbours planting good land worth over 10k an acre. Because they have the belief that they are going to make a fortune. As timber is worth 8k an acre and they get the calculator and compound that figure by 6% inflation by 30 years and that must mean they will have a clearfell value of 45k an acre plus 15 years of subsidy of 200 an acre. So they make 48k an acre in 30 years so over 1500 a year. Which is better than any farming return.

    The reality is their land went from being worth 10k to about 2 or 3k (more valuable than ifs land as it's not in the middle of nowhere but still) and we can all take a value for corn milk beef whatever and multiply it compound inflation.
    And their land will always have to be replanted with no future subsidy.
    As a farmer its like building houses on it. The land is never going to become available ever again to rent or buy to expand my dairy farm. It's forever gone.

    Excellent post and I felt the same myself at the time, couldn't stop the wife buying shares though.


  • Options
    #304
    Spain Calling
    Registered Users Posts: 8 ✭Spain Calling


    Just signed up as I am now living in Spain and I bought shares in the 5th fund for my sons a long time ago. They have just informed me about the situation and I have read all postings from page 1. This has been a very strategic marketing plan by these guys with relevant press releases to wet the appetite and NDA agreements with lack of transparency at ROI cheque issue time. Even the delay in the post adds to the decreasing of emotions as you can see by some of the latest topics including some dubious postings all righty. I personally feel annoyed that Irish land and forestry created by monies from ordinary Irish citizens has been sold off to a foreign investor. Action is essential if the ROI is not satisfactory.


  • Options
    #305
    st1979
    Registered Users Posts: 936 ✭✭✭st1979


    I never said land that was bought for 1k lost value. It probably is worth 2k but took 20 years to get there.

    Yes in my area there is land that was bought for more than 10k planted and the above calculations the owner used in his explanation.

    When you plant land and get the grant for forestry you sign a contract that the land is to be replanted forevermore. With no grants. When you apply for clearfell license you get it on the basis you have to replant. This is why land that is not planted but is suitable for forestry is worth more than land next to it that has just been clearfelled.

    Maybe the rules will change in the future but why would it. You have signed a contract once the land is in forestry why would a future government decide to give you grants. It would be a waste. The land has by law the be planted. It can't suddenly be cleared and you claim single farm payment on it. As alarm bells will ring. All land is satellite mapped and they know it was forestry.

    But this is all besides the point. The fund was never going to ever do the figures you were told as it was all based on an inflation figure that didn't happen.

    In fairness if I could of bought land at 1k an acre I would of planted it as well. So they bought very cheap land. So 1 share could of bought half an acre. Got planted for free with government grant. Got half an acre subsidy for 15 years approximately 750 total. Then a good crop at year 30 maybe get 4k and then land at top price is worth 2k an acre so half that is 1k

    So max return would be 5750 per share excluding insurance and management fees and fund fees. You have sold 10 years early so was never going to be near that.

    And please don't take this as me being a smart guy cause I knew better and didn't invest. I am not at all. I would have bought a few shares if I could of. I am just now looking at the figures as they happened.

    In fact I think I rang an auctioneer years ago trying to find some of this cheap land but found them very cagey on the west coast. All spoke of much more expensive land. So fund done well to buy land that cheap even 20 years ago.

    But one thing about forestry rules I hate is that it has to be replanted. And before any one says there is a way around it. I know there is. That is you have to buy another piece of land same acres and plant it with out grant or subsidy. To me thats not a way around it. Once land is put in forestry it's in it forever. They say about land as a safe investment is they aren't making more of it is true. But forestry is like land disappearing from an area. Not great for a community thankfully I don't live in Leitrim or somewhere like that. Think about the amount of money coming into an area that is farmed it could be anywhere from 500 an acre to 3000 an acre every year. That money is then spent in the area buying diesel, cattle feed, cattle from other farmers etc. The farmer maybe making f all but it's money being spent in the area. Where as forestry is today 200 an acre for the first 15 years then nothing for a while then a bit of thinnings then nothing till clearfell.
    It might be more profitable for the farmer but not great for an area.

    So I will hold my hands up and say I am a total hypocrite as I would buy land if I could in Leitrim or far away as an investment but not want to live beside it


  • Options
    #306
    Murph_D
    Registered Users Posts: 10,432 ✭✭✭✭Murph_D


    Harry Palmr wrote: »
    Nobody knows yet, the cheques should hit the mats tomorrow.
    Davo222 wrote: »
    They under sold the 10year plans and got away with it, saying there was a downturn in demand.
    So here we go again. Has any fund ever delivered?

    The first one or two they sold at maturity managed to deliver - but only because they sold the assets to new plans they were setting up. For instance, FIPs 2 and 3 sold assets to later FIP vehicles. Its all there in the accounts.

    More: https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threads/investment-in-irish-forestry-funds.6699/post-1306908


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #307
    Maura21
    Registered Users Posts: 1 ✭Maura21


    Will we even get the money we spent on the shares in the first place back?


  • Options
    #308
    ForFsSake
    Registered Users Posts: 33 ✭ForFsSake


    Maura21 wrote: »
    Will we even get the money we spent on the shares in the first place back?

    Depends on how you look at it. We are getting back approx twice what we put in on average. So a 635 EUR share (£500 converted) will get you back 1300 EUR.

    However if you look at what 635 EUR 20 years ago is worth today then its close to just getting your money back.

    All dependant on the calculations from the accounts proving to be what happens which seem 99% likely.

    Assuming they send them as promised!


  • Options
    #309
    Movementarian
    Registered Users Posts: 257 ✭✭Movementarian


    So now that the thread is back, is anyone who has received cheques willing to confirm what was received? Is it as bad as people expected?


  • Options
    #310
    Buford T. Justice XIX
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,633 ✭✭✭✭Buford T. Justice XIX


    Mod note: Service has now resumed, folks. We removed the thread for a short time while we decided how to deal with a number of posts.

    I'll remind any posters of their responsibilities not to be using this thread for attacking others they may have an issue with. Discuss the issues you may have with those responsible by all means but you will not be allowed any attacks without providing backup to your post. Clear?

    If not, feel free to contact one of the mods to discuss further, please.

    Again, apologies for the delay in reopening the thread.

    Thanks in advance,

    Buford T. Justice.


  • Options
    #311
    paris24
    Registered Users Posts: 30 ✭paris24


    Movementarian wrote: »
    So now that the thread is back, is anyone who has received cheques willing to confirm what was received? Is it as bad as people expected?

    €1313.11 one share in third fund, cheque arrived this morning.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #312
    Robodoc
    Registered Users Posts: 25 ✭Robodoc


    2 shares second fund €2222.56. 2.6% annualised return
    2 shares fifth fund €2123.30, similar arr

    Poorer return than third fund will serve to depress me even more than i was already


  • Options
    #313
    Movementarian
    Registered Users Posts: 257 ✭✭Movementarian


    paris24 wrote: »
    €1313.11 one share in third fund, cheque arrived this morning.

    Thanks for confirming. I can expect that great news in the post when I get home so....

    So if I took the original 500 irish pounds, (after conversion to euro) and stuck it in a basic deposit account for 20 years...would probably be near enough the same return.....


  • Options
    #314
    3rdIFFvictim
    Registered Users Posts: 2 ✭3rdIFFvictim


    Firstly we need to form a group of former shareholders.
    This may require setting up a Facebook page etc to track down other shareholders. Contacting journalists who wrote previous glowing articles about windfalls and bonanzas to get them to set the record straight and to reveal that shareholders are planning action would also help.

    Then we need to get some proper legal advice about our options. We need to identify an appropriate legal firm, one with a proven track record in commercial law.

    Investments may not return expected yields but given that this was sold early this raises legitimate questions about how much the shareholders have received against how much AXA Investments are expecting.

    This is too big for any individual to tackle alone so we are going to need many individuals who are prepared to contribute to any legal costs. The more involved, the more affordable and greater the chances of success. Legal fees divided by 100 should be affordable.


    I also suggest following complaining to your local TD and whatever Dail committee is in charge of this. Remember this was a Coillte spin off and Coillte are government owned so the buck stops there.


  • Options
    #315
    gordongekko
    Registered Users Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭gordongekko


    3rdIFFvictim wrote: »
    Firstly we need to form a group of former shareholders.
    This may require setting up a Facebook page etc to track down other shareholders. Contacting journalists who wrote previous glowing articles about windfalls and bonanzas to get them to set the record straight and to reveal that shareholders are planning action would also help.

    Then we need to get some proper legal advice about our options. We need to identify an appropriate legal firm, one with a proven track record in commercial law.

    Investments may not return expected yields but given that this was sold early this raises legitimate questions about how much the shareholders have received against how much AXA Investments are expecting.

    This is too big for any individual to tackle alone so we are going to need many individuals who are prepared to contribute to any legal costs. The more involved, the more affordable and greater the chances of success. Legal fees divided by 100 should be affordable.


    I also suggest following complaining to your local TD and whatever Dail committee is in charge of this. Remember this was a Coillte spin off and Coillte are government owned so the buck stops there.

    Post the links here when you have the Facebook page set up. And post the TD's replies here as well


  • Options
    #316
    Chiefd
    Registered Users Posts: 4 ✭Chiefd


    Fourth fund returned worse return than third,
    Count me in, for what group is set up


  • Options
    #317
    galwaytt
    Registered Users Posts: 12,761 ✭✭✭✭galwaytt


    3rdIFFvictim wrote: »
    Firstly we need to form a group of former shareholders.
    This may require setting up a Facebook page etc to track down other shareholders. Contacting journalists who wrote previous glowing articles about windfalls and bonanzas to get them to set the record straight and to reveal that shareholders are planning action would also help.

    Then we need to get some proper legal advice about our options. We need to identify an appropriate legal firm, one with a proven track record in commercial law.

    Investments may not return expected yields but given that this was sold early this raises legitimate questions about how much the shareholders have received against how much AXA Investments are expecting.

    This is too big for any individual to tackle alone so we are going to need many individuals who are prepared to contribute to any legal costs. The more involved, the more affordable and greater the chances of success. Legal fees divided by 100 should be affordable.


    I also suggest following complaining to your local TD and whatever Dail committee is in charge of this. Remember this was a Coillte spin off and Coillte are government owned so the buck stops there.

    I'm in - post up info when you have it.

    Ode To The Motorist

    “And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, generates funds to the exchequer. You don't want to acknowledge that as truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at the Green Party, you want me on that road, you need me on that road. We use words like freedom, enjoyment, sport and community. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent instilling those values in our families and loved ones. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the tax revenue and the very freedom to spend it that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a bus pass and get the ********* ********* off the road” 



  • Options
    #318
    galwaytt
    Registered Users Posts: 12,761 ✭✭✭✭galwaytt


    Movementarian wrote: »
    Thanks for confirming. I can expect that great news in the post when I get home so....

    So if I took the original 500 irish pounds, (after conversion to euro) and stuck it in a basic deposit account for 20 years...would probably be near enough the same return.....

    or, this: I sold my old Classic Porsche 911 for €22k around the same time as these started. If I'd kept it, it'd have been worth €65k now. And I've had the use of it in the interim.............

    Ode To The Motorist

    “And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, generates funds to the exchequer. You don't want to acknowledge that as truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at the Green Party, you want me on that road, you need me on that road. We use words like freedom, enjoyment, sport and community. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent instilling those values in our families and loved ones. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the tax revenue and the very freedom to spend it that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a bus pass and get the ********* ********* off the road” 



  • Options
    #319
    vmsignup
    Registered Users Posts: 4 ✭vmsignup


    Was it a Coillte spin off - there was no mention of that in the prospectus?

    It was a private company which bought private lands and then sold the private lands. The original prospectus for the second irish forestry fund mentions that one of the team in the company had retired from Coillte, but the fact that someone once worked for one company does not make a separate company a spin off.

    When you applied for membership of the company by subscribing, you were advised to take independent advice, and irrevocably authorised the directors to do all such things as are necessary in their absolute discretion and then waived the right to enforce any lose of failure against the directors provided they complied with their duties and obligations.

    So did they deviate from the plan or prospectus - probably not. The prospectus provided a forestry management plan which said it would hold the forest to maturity; but it also said that they could deviate from that plan if on advice of a qualified silvaculturist and with the objective of maximising returns. So unless you can show that the deviation from the plan was without advice, or was against advice, or that they deliberately did not maximise returns, I think that disappointing as the return was there is no case.

    Personally I invested across a number of funds and got an annualised rate of return of 3.8% - way lower than the projected annualised rate of 8% but the assumption of 4.5% inflation was also untrue. The returns achieved by the company appear to match what the forestry experts on the thread indicated were likely, so what loss are you holding the directors accountable for?

    This was an unregulated investment - Central Bank or Financial Ombudsman has no role in regulating it. It was not a government or semi state fund. So what you need to prove is failure to comply with directors obligations under company law; even ODCE found that hard to prove with Anglo. The directors over optimism in the prospectus, and my naivete in believing their claims is what is probably at fault.

    Companies fail all the time, investors lose money. The returns are disappointing, but I won't be wasting good money after bad to make up for making a mistake in investing in these funds.


  • Options
    #320
    Hatters
    Registered Users Posts: 10 ✭Hatters


    Disgusted...
    One share in 2nd fund... 21 years later...€1111.28.
    Count me in.... in furious


  • Options
    #321
    Chiefd
    Registered Users Posts: 4 ✭Chiefd


    1096.90 per share in fourth investment fuming


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #322
    galwaytt
    Registered Users Posts: 12,761 ✭✭✭✭galwaytt


    Mrs Galwaytt is going to blow a gasket when she gets home if our returns are the same.

    The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

    Ironically, just met my first-ever Veon logo'd SUV down town earlier...............

    Ode To The Motorist

    “And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, generates funds to the exchequer. You don't want to acknowledge that as truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at the Green Party, you want me on that road, you need me on that road. We use words like freedom, enjoyment, sport and community. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent instilling those values in our families and loved ones. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the tax revenue and the very freedom to spend it that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a bus pass and get the ********* ********* off the road” 



  • Options
    #323
    Chiefd
    Registered Users Posts: 4 ✭Chiefd


    Surely would of been better off seeing out the 30 years


  • Options
    #324
    galwaytt
    Registered Users Posts: 12,761 ✭✭✭✭galwaytt


    vmsignup wrote: »

    So did they deviate from the plan or prospectus - probably not. The prospectus provided a forestry management plan which said it would hold the forest to maturity; but it also said that they could deviate from that plan if on advice of a qualified silvaculturist and with the objective of maximising returns. So unless you can show that the deviation from the plan was without advice, or was against advice, or that they deliberately did not maximise returns, I think that disappointing as the return was there is no case.

    Well I think they did deviate from the prospectus, and the reasons arent' clear as to why.
    I can distil it to this: AXA have bought these funds in expectation of making money. So, whatever they paid for it (and which has trickled down to us as shareholders) is a value upon which growth is expected (otherwise AXA wouldn't have bought them).

    Ergo, the price we have received now is discounted - and that flies in the face of 'maximising returns'. Indeed, quite the contrary.

    Ode To The Motorist

    “And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, generates funds to the exchequer. You don't want to acknowledge that as truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at the Green Party, you want me on that road, you need me on that road. We use words like freedom, enjoyment, sport and community. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent instilling those values in our families and loved ones. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the tax revenue and the very freedom to spend it that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a bus pass and get the ********* ********* off the road” 



  • Options
    #325
    The One Doctor
    Registered Users Posts: 2,339 ✭✭✭The One Doctor


    €1000 per share? Holy shirt thats a scam.


  • Options
    #326
    Spain Calling
    Registered Users Posts: 8 ✭Spain Calling


    Count me in too and I call on every shareholder to just do one extra thing besides cashing the cheque and moving on. These guys are professionals and earn a very good living from their actions and will continue to do so without any regrets. So, formally complain in writing directly to their office address which you can get from their website. Just one letter with one stamp and keep whatever group of shareholders is formed after this date with details of their response. It will be important moving forward.


  • Options
    #327
    paris24
    Registered Users Posts: 30 ✭paris24


    3rdIFFvictim wrote: »
    Firstly we need to form a group of former shareholders.
    This may require setting up a Facebook page etc to track down other shareholders. Contacting journalists who wrote previous glowing articles about windfalls and bonanzas to get them to set the record straight and to reveal that shareholders are planning action would also help.

    Then we need to get some proper legal advice about our options. We need to identify an appropriate legal firm, one with a proven track record in commercial law.

    Investments may not return expected yields but given that this was sold early this raises legitimate questions about how much the shareholders have received against how much AXA Investments are expecting.

    This is too big for any individual to tackle alone so we are going to need many individuals who are prepared to contribute to any legal costs. The more involved, the more affordable and greater the chances of success. Legal fees divided by 100 should be affordable.

    I also suggest following complaining to your local TD and whatever Dail committee is in charge of this. Remember this was a Coillte spin off and Coillte are government owned so the buck stops there.

    I’m in. I also tweeted Feargal from Sunday indo ( he wrote that first article about the sale) and directed him to boards. So feel free to retweet/share etc


  • Options
    #328
    Count Hairyfoot
    Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Count Hairyfoot


    For anyone who's so inclined - you can leave Veon a Google review.


  • Options
    #329
    hgfj
    Registered Users Posts: 252 ✭✭hgfj


    .


  • Options
    #330
    millb
    Registered Users Posts: 215 ✭✭millb


    vmsignup wrote: »
    Was it a Coillte spin off - there was no mention of that in the prospectus?

    It was a private company which bought private lands and then sold the private lands. The original prospectus for the second irish forestry fund mentions that one of the team in the company had retired from Coillte, but the fact that someone once worked for one company does not make a separate company a spin off.

    When you applied for membership of the company by subscribing, you were advised to take independent advice, and irrevocably authorised the directors to do all such things as are necessary in their absolute discretion and then waived the right to enforce any lose of failure against the directors provided they complied with their duties and obligations.

    So did they deviate from the plan or prospectus - probably not. The prospectus provided a forestry management plan which said it would hold the forest to maturity; but it also said that they could deviate from that plan if on advice of a qualified silvaculturist and with the objective of maximising returns. So unless you can show that the deviation from the plan was without advice, or was against advice, or that they deliberately did not maximise returns, I think that disappointing as the return was there is no case.

    Personally I invested across a number of funds and got an annualised rate of return of 3.8% - way lower than the projected annualised rate of 8% but the assumption of 4.5% inflation was also untrue. The returns achieved by the company appear to match what the forestry experts on the thread indicated were likely, so what loss are you holding the directors accountable for?

    This was an unregulated investment - Central Bank or Financial Ombudsman has no role in regulating it. It was not a government or semi state fund. So what you need to prove is failure to comply with directors obligations under company law; even ODCE found that hard to prove with Anglo. The directors over optimism in the prospectus, and my naivete in believing their claims is what is probably at fault.

    Companies fail all the time, investors lose money. The returns are disappointing, but I won't be wasting good money after bad to make up for making a mistake in investing in these funds.

    Reasonable Post ... I had a Forestry Investment Plan (10th) that gave roughly 1.x% ROI.. IIRC 2 or 3 years ago and that was very poor... and a signal / warning ...

    I also got a cheque today for the 6th Fund (1999) which gave me a ROI of 2.79% compounded monthly.. (over 20 years)

    That return is not great and ~half of what I expected (eg 6+%) at the start.

    I can see why they "sold-up" and compared to many "investment" schemes at least one got the money back plus something to account for inflation !! No Tax phew.. Their accounts seemed to be in reasonable order but ultimate profit dependent on timing / mixed factors etc... They should have had a RISK / return scenario graph on each annual account to manage expectations and show how their cost model had deviated over time..


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #331
    Tow
    Registered Users Posts: 6,730 ✭✭✭Tow


    There is still PRSI and USC to pay, it is only Income Tax exempt. You should be filling up A Form 11/12 next year for the payment.
    Actually probably not, any gain (probably a loss when inflation applied) is under the various limits.

    Does anyone have figures to hand on the amount of Government Grant they received, per fund, hector share etc?

    When is the money (including lost growth) Michael Noonan took in the Pension Levy going to be paid back?



Advertisement