Cole Reet III ... Anyone ?

Don't know anything about it but I'd stay away.

quote:

---

rarely, if ever, seen an investment more inappropriate than this one

---

LINK

You should really do more homework on it and ask him some questions about why he likes it before you lay into him.

Take notes on why he likes it and report back, then we can give you a final verdict.

Teeing off on a financial professional because of a blog might not be a great idea.

Clarification: I do think it sounds sketchy as hell from the few articles I read, just saying you shouldn't fly off the handle without letting him explain himself first.

Concerns:

quote:

---

While publicly registered, the shares will not trade on any public exchange.

---

liquidity concerns?

quote:

---

The trust is structured as an Upreit, or umbrella partnership REIT, which allows it to buy properties using limited partnership units as currency.

---

Dilution concerns
Accounting fraud concerns

REITWrecks is legit, I wish he wrote more.

Wait, you mean a pension board did something stupid? Really? And a public pension board? I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell ya!

quote:

---

you mean a pension board did something stupid? Really? And a public pension board?

---

If the truth ever came out about the incompetent trustees of Louisiana public employees pension funds you would not only be shocked, but you would be sick to your stomach. People who can't have a checking account with their bank because they can't keep from writing NSF checks are sitting on the board of billion dollar plus public employee pension funds. Some of them probably think debit cards charge interest......

The public pension boards in Louisiana just have a membership qualification and it's voted on by pension participants.

For example, the Sheriffs pension fund which covers all employees of sheriffs around the state just has sheriffs or sheriffs' employees on the board of trustees.

There are no education or other qualifications required. Just win the election voted on by employees of the retirement system. The only exception is each state retirement plan has the state Treasurer or his representative on the board.

Is there any wonder why all of Louisiana's public employee pension funds are vastly underfunded? The trustees keep voting increases in retirement benefits and then hold out their hands to the state taxpayer complaining their fund is underfunded.

It's one of the reasons I have campaigned for all Louisiana public pension funds to be consolidated like CalPers is. Fat chance of that happening.

The trustees of public pension funds get almost a blank check for wining and dining themselves and/or at the expense of pension consultants/investment advisors. It's very dirty.

Google the history of golf course's investment losses of the Municipal Employees and Municipal Police (two separate funds) systems. It's disgusting.

So they have no input on the general investment allocation strategy of the funds the oversee? I thought that was the entire point of their existence.

Yeah, so they don't amount to anything but compensated yes-men due to lack of sophistication.

quote:

---

I'm sure it's pretty rare for the fund managers not to convince the board to vote one way or another.

---

I can assure you it is quite common for investment committees or boards to be unconvinced by educated and informed staff members, consultants, or investment managers. I attended many trustee/committee/board meetings in my career and was regularly astonished by the depth of ignorance on display. I basically refused to have anything to do with any of the public plans in Louisiana, with one exception. But Louisiana, while being worse than most, wasn't that exceptional. Now some committees/boards may have more or less power, but as a general rule the investment committees of public pension plans are typically the last word on things like setting investment policy, hiring and firing managers and consultants, and making decisions about benefit changes, etc. Their policies are implemented by the investment staff, who make recommendations, which may or may not be followed, and are generally slightly more sophisticated than the board/committee. The problem is that all these people have their own agendas and most of them have little to do with the purpose of the plan: to provide funds to pay benefits at the lowest cost possible. Staff and committees are interested in boondoggles, typically paid for by asset managers. Staff is frequently interested in things like managing assets in house, and building out the resources needed to do that. Nevermind that most don't have the scale or skill to do it effectively or efficiently, once it's in place, it's almost impossible to dismantle, plus it has the added benefit of filling out the resume in anticipation of jumping to a better job later. The whole thing is a total fricking scam. The shite I have heard coming out of some of these fool's mouths would make your average Congressman sound like an erudite scholar. Anyway, to assume that any of the parties involved have any of their interests aligned with the ultimate purpose of the pension plan, is to assume far to much.

I really believe that public pensions are a ticking time bomb that isn't getting nearly enough press. I think it has more potential to get folks out in the streets with pitchforks and torches than any other issue.