Jim Rogers and Paige Parker

Top 51. Dec 5, 2005 9:09 PM

» standard - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Forgot to Mention An Important Fact -- R

In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Forgot to Mention An Important Fact -- Re: R posted by Normxxx:

Norm, I'm afraid I don't follow your post. It seems to imply that it could take years, but we will all be okay.

Is that your bottom line or are you guessing that we could see the court confirm the positions soon...whenever the next hearing is?

-- posted by standard

Top 52. Dec 5, 2005 9:19 PM

» standard - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Forgot to Mention An Important Fact -- R

In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Forgot to Mention An Important Fact -- Re: R posted by lessismore:

Kim, you're not alone. I invested because I needed help, and i know that indexes beat managed accounts more often than not. But I would recommend not appologizing to anyone for asking questions. I think we all should have asked more. Insinuating that you're naive will lead more con men to your door. I AM NOT AN AMATEUR, but because I would have had to take so much time spreading risk across so many areas, I thought this fund would help.

Now I have to say tha I was unimpressed with Jim Rogers on TV the other day and would not consider his TRAKRS. I just wouldn't. He owes us a better explanation.

He should addres REFCO's point that the Beeland people authorized every contract, per the new article posted above.

He justs waves his hand and says, "Clear paper trail."

Did they authorize multiple transfers or not and if so, why?

We need answers.

-- posted by standard

Top 53. Feb 1, 2006 5:35 PM

» DrAziz - Getting our money back

I was wondering if anyone else out there was a holder of the Rogers International Raw Materials Fund. As you may know, the brokerage holding much of the funds' assets went bankrupt and they're refusing to give the fund its money back. The fund management keeps telling us not to worry but the damn thing keeps dragging on in bankruptcy court. I feel angry and betrayed and can't believe how this could have happened. Any thoughts?

-- posted by DrAziz

Top 54. Feb 2, 2006 6:42 AM

» pbradford6 - Re: Re: Getting our money back

In response to Re: Getting our money back posted by Kirk wrote: Through Jan 1, 2006, these two core portfolios, composed of seven different Vanguard Index funds, have beaten the S&P500 over the past five and seven years by over 20% using no market timing and only rebalancing once a year. These index fund portfolios include US equities, international equities and an REIT index fund.
:

Kirk, do you also use ETFs rather than just the Vanguard mutual funds in your core holdings? Are there ETFs that mimic your core holdings? Could one of your subscribers use just ETFs in their core position?

Thanks

-- posted by pbradford6

Top 55. Feb 2, 2006 6:43 AM

» lessismore - Re: Getting our money back

In response to Getting our money back posted by DrAziz:

Dr. Aziz,
My husband and I are also investors in Rogers International Raw Materials Fund. We haven't decided what to do yet either. Two other investors have sued. I can provide you with more info on the suit if you contact me offline. I am not trying to sell anything, I am just passing on info that was provided to me by another investor I met online. Send me an email at refcorogers.5.nowwhat@spamgourmet.com

-- posted by lessismore

Top 56. Feb 2, 2006 5:06 PM

» DrAziz - Re: Re: Getting our money back

Dear Lessismore:

I don't know...I heard about the two investors who are suing Rogers and Beeland, but I don't know if that's going to go anywhere. It may even empower Refco and give them ammunition to drag this thing on. Obviously I don't know all the facts, but I don't know if Rogers or Beeland can really be blamed for this one. I could be wrong, of course, but I just don't think that more lawsuits are going to do any good. I think all we can do is wait it out.

I suppose I do have a sneaking suspicion that the dorks at Beeland exercised amateurish oversight over the fund's assets, but the whole thing seems more like awesomely bad luck. I mean, Refco was the world's largest commodity broker before it went belly up. I guess I'm just mad at the system in general, and the fact that people who are obvious crooks can drag these things out for so long.

-- posted by DrAziz

Top 57. Feb 2, 2006 5:44 PM

» lessismore - Re: Re: Re: Getting our money back

I was going to send you a copy of the complaint. It offers some interesting details.
My main contention(and one of the lawsuit's also) is that Beeland was looking at Refco as a potential investor in Beeland. They did not exercise due diligence when putting the funds' assets in Refco's hands because they were more interested in wooing Refco.
There are some other very curious details in the complaint that, if true, don't paint the management at Beeland in a very positive light.
I feel the same way about lawsuits, but I'm afraid we will see little of our money if we content ourselves with the Refco bankruptcy distribution.
Just my two cents.

In response to Re: Re: Getting our money back posted by DrAziz:

-- posted by lessismore

Top 58. Feb 2, 2006 6:18 PM

» DrAziz - The Refco Mess

Dear Lessismore:

I have to admit you have a point. I had sensed there was some sort of insider dealings going on between Beeland and Refco. I think I remember reading that some top guy left one company for the other right before the whole mess broke.

I think it's clear that Rogers had been wanting to take his RICI Index to the big leagues and reach international investors, and this was one of the reasons he chose to use Refco. Or, should I say, snuggle up to Refco. The big question is whether, in his desire to court and kiss up to the big boys at Refco, he overlooked his fiduciary duty to his investors. My gut feeling is that Rogers and Beeland was trying to woo Refco, but that their conduct in doing so probably did not fall below the standard of reasonableness required to prove negligence.

It's one of the basic duties of a commodities broker to put client's money in segregated funds. This is basic. Refco just didn't do this. The letter written by Sidley Austin to opposing counsel (posted on the Beeland Management website) seems to show a clear paper trail. I just don't see how they can justify what amounts to criminal activity. One thing is sure: Rogers can't afford to lose this one. His name is linked to this stuff, and words like "bankruptcy" and "fraud" do not resonate well with investors.

My guess is that, if these two investors succeed, Rogers is opened up for a big time class action suit against himself and Beeland. The fact that one has not yet been filed I think suggests that most people don't think he's to blame for this one. But I just don't know...my feelings alternate between anger and frustration.

By the way, do we have a new trial date? I heard that on Jan. 31, the judge was suppose to make some kind of trial ruling or something.

Dr. Aziz

-- posted by DrAziz

Top 59. Feb 2, 2006 6:49 PM

» lessismore - Re: The Refco Mess

In response to The Refco Mess posted by DrAziz:

I haven't heard anything further on the trial date.
There are many, but here is one interesting passage from the complaint against Beeland.

In the bankruptcy proceeding,Goodman, Beeland's CFO, testified that he did not understand the agreements that he signedto launch the transfer of funds to Refco, LLC and Refco, CM, but signed the documents anyway at Mercorella's(former Refco insider turned Beeland officer) urging."(my words in parentheses )

-- posted by lessismore