rmcdonal,
I'm not a member of the AFAP, and haven't been since I lost my medical in 1987. I got and got 5/8ths of the square root of
-all help from both the AFAP and the MBF at the time, and in the end had to take legal action to get a payout.
I was treated like a criminal rmcdonal, rather than a beneficiary for the benefit that I'd paid heaps for since I joined the AFAP and started to pay for those benefits. My opinion about the then-trustees of the MBF should therefore be obvious!
You say:
If one of the directors chooses to flee the country to some tropical island they will not be able to take several million with them (which is the case right now)
If that actually IS the case then there's serious doubts in my mind about the present structure and controls of the fund that would/could allow this potential outcome.
And if there are deficiencies in the processes/controls/procedures of the management of the fund, then obviously the trustees don't know a thing about risk management, or are turning a blind-eye to it!
And if that's the case rmcdonal, then the man on the Clapham Omnibus would probably have no other alternative but to suppport Mr Makin's case for a NO vote.
BTW Bolter.................from the way I read it, Mr Makin DIDN'T suggest that the trustees support such a ''sale''..............you only ASSUMED that he did. All he did was express an OPINION!
Clown!
