Bolter
More than 4 days have now elapsed since I posed two questions of fact. Should we assume that your reluctance to answer these fundamental concepts of the current proposals, is because you have no argument with the conclusions I have proffered.
Could it be that you have now realised the enormous holes in the proposal as put, or is it that you already knew, and hoped that by ignoring the questions they might disappear. Maybe your mate meme could assist.
Let’s go a step further.
Given that all elected representatives disappear with the passage of the current vote:
Obviously Austair will incur costs in the control/administration of AAPMBF. Remember that the Directors of Austair are taking over all the functions of the previous Trustees of AAPMBF, and there are now no ELECTED members of AAPMBF or Austair.
What is there to stop those who control Austair, from awarding to Austair extravagant administrative charges against the AAPMBF for controlling the fund?
Ms Wendy Sharon Boffa is the registered Key Person on whom Austair’s Financial Services License depends. How is Ms Boffa to be employed by and reimbursed by Austair, a separate legal entity from AAPMBF.
What is there to prevent Austair from awarding it’s Directors, substantial Directors Fees? The current manager (AAPMBF) has openly stated that paid Trustees/Directors is her preferred means of Direction.
What is there to prevent Austair turning into a profit centre for it’s shareholders? All nine of them. As the only activity currently proposed for Austair is the control of AAPMBF, it is obvious where the profit would need to be derived.
Austair filed with ASIC, a reservation of a name change on 23rd March 2010, a week before Capt O’Neil sent out his flawed documents.
What is the purpose of the change of name which removes all reference to the MBF?
Why was the new name not mentioned or used in the rule change documentation?
This is without doubt either; the most inept or, alternatively the most sinister and devious rule change in the history of the AAPMBF.
It might very well be that what the majority of Trustees intended may be in our best interests, however the holes in the proposal are so large and the potential for the destruction of our fund is so strong, we cannot afford to allow this change to go through unaltered.
VOTE NO. Force the Trustees to rework, and to properly explain what it is they are trying to achieve.
Paul Makin
Former Chairman of Trustees AAPMBF