Slim Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 And you apparently couldn't spot a government worker if it bit you on the ass; I do not work for the government. There's plenty who know me on here would back that up. The accusation of conflict of interest was dismissed in court, there's no evidence to support it, and despite repeated requests nobody's been able to point out where it exists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Border Terrier Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 The advisors are there to advise/recommend what films to invest in. Presumably they base their advise on whether they think the film will make a profit. The potential conflict is because they provide additional services on top of that advice e.g. acting as producer, providing film stages etc. They are potentially conflicted as it is in their interest to recommend others to invest their funds so films are produced so that they can earn a fee for those additional services. It is not for the giving of the advise. The leap of logic in the above is that you consider all advice to be independent. This isn't the case, the interests are well known and declared up front. In fact the government is party to it also, because it's invested into Pinewood itself to benefit from that bias. If I go to see an independent adviser, my expectation is that they are going to show me a range of products. If I go to see the adviser who works for my bank, my expectation is that they will guide me to products from that bank. >If I go to see an independent adviser, my expectation is that they are going to show me a range of products. And then he'll steer you toward the product offering him the best commission. Not quite so independent as we're led to believe. TBT. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 23, 2014 Author Share Posted November 23, 2014 Slim's the MF Ostrich. ..if he can't see it...then it ain't true and can't possibly hurt him or anyone else. I love his optimism. But he should realise sometimes that a pessimist is often an experienced optimist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 If I go to see an independent adviser, my expectation is that they are going to show me a range of products. And then he'll steer you toward the product offering him the best commission. The 1990's called, they want their accusation of advice bias through lack of strict regulation, back. @Slim Haven't read such a good Slim Smackdown in years, well done & keep it up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Cheers Bob Albert, I will at least take the time to read the posts and respond rather than just take a pop at the individual without adding anything to the debate. Being dismissed as a one liner by Eddie Teare in Tynwald is not being dismissed in Court as no explanation was give other than 'I've had a look and this is not a conflict of interest' at least a lot of people have taken their time to actually provide an explanation for their perception above and didn't have to resort to cheap jibes about bad grammar when challenged. Also I'm sure many people have to deal with potential conflicts daily as part of being involved with regulated businesses so are qualified to state their view. I don't think we have to look far in your history of posts to find cheap jibes and insults do we boredom? I had a dig at the spelling, but I've also responded to the points he's made and why I think his claim that the advice should be independent and impartial is entirely made up. The records show that the whole point was the investments were shared, with shared rewards, it's one of the things the subsequent report criticised in fact. The new arrangement combined with the pinewood investment is also not with an independent expectation on the advice; the investments are intended to go into pinewood projects with a hope that they'll include an isle of man component. It looks to me like they're very much biased, and they're supposed to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 23, 2014 Author Share Posted November 23, 2014 Slim...we're on page 53 of this thread, I've said what needed to be said long ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 OMG resorting to sock puppet praise to support a totally flawed argument. You're the best Slim. And your good at spelling, and sums, and all sorts of other stuff too. You're my hero. MF, defined Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 OMG resorting to sock puppet praise to support a totally flawed argument. You're the best Slim. And your good at spelling, and sums, and all sorts of other stuff too. You're my hero. Heh, you think I'm Bobster? That nicely illustrates how little evidence you lot need to come to a completely wrong conclusion! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 @Slim I don't really think he does, it's just the currently popular MF insult. At least it's moved on from "your carer...", although its equally as unimaginitive. I like Lao's apporach best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2bees Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 OMG resorting to sock puppet praise to support a totally flawed argument. You're the best Slim. And your good at spelling, and sums, and all sorts of other stuff too. You're my hero.Lovely. My cockles have been warmed by all the niceness going on in this thread, the "I don't always agree with you but you're an intelligent opponent to fight" undertones are what makes MF tolerable. Notice the mouth piece isn't active here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 When I said I was not going to post any more on the topic it was basically with regard to the conflict of interest point. I thought it was done to death and if by this point a reader did not understand the point then they were never going to. If they were still going to argue that black is white then so be it. It was also in a response to Slim who said he would not respond. Slim though obviously could not prevent himself so I reluctantly I have been drawn in again. Slim argues that I was arguing that Cinemanx were appointed to provided independent financial advise as fund managers. I have never said that. I have said that the current advisors are retained to provide advise and recommend films in which the IoM film funds should be invested. I believe that advise should be impartial. I have used the word Advisors throughout and I do not believe I have ever used the phrase fund managers or independent financial advise. These are phrases Slim continually throws in to try and divert the argument. He appears to be accusing me of jumping to a conclusion that the advisor is meant to be providing independent advise. That appears a logical assumption or is Slim suggesting that the advisors are retained to give biased advice rather than independent and impartial advice? It has to be one or the other. Slim I understand that there is a potential share of the profits, although interesting not the losses. I have no problem if the advisors share get a fee for there advise or of they get a share of the profits. The first they get whether or not they recommend a film for investment, the second presumably is an incentive to try and pick winners. What Slim continually overlooks is that at no point have I mentioned them or suggested that is where the conflict of interest lies. It is easy to divert or deliberately misunderstand an argument if you ignore what is stated and reply by arguing against a point that was not actually made. Where the advisors earn additional fees, which are not dependent on the success of the film is in the making of the film. e.g. producers fees, providing of a film set. That is where the potential conflict arises. It is in their interest to recommend an investment to earn those fees. As I have said to cover my arse, I am sure this conflict is fully recognised and managed accordingly. It must be tempting though if you have a production facility lying empty for a whilst, or you are twiddling your thumbs as a producer with the result that you are not earning to find a project to fill that gap. If only one was in a position to advise a client to invest a film to fill in that gap. I appreciate that the new arrangements give an expectation that the projects will be Pinewood Projects, but that does not alter the fact when reviewing a project to advice IoM Govt whether they should invest in the advisors have a vested interest in the project going forward. If it does they will earn additional fees no matter how well or badly the film does just from being involved in the production. The potential conflict is that may cloud their thinking an colour their advice Finally if everything is so fully disclosed, would you point out where it is reported how much of the investment in each film is paid to Pinewood or any of their associates and subsidiaries with regard to the actual filming and production of that film. Equally the same figures paid to Steve Christian, Gasworks and their subsidiaries. It could well be what they earn for the advise management time is small beer to what they earn from their actual involvement in the production. If it is pennies I will gladly hold up my hand and accept that the potential conflict of interest is a dead issue as they would have no vested interest in whether a film is made or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Either why you rock cool dude. We all think you're ace.At last, one thing me, you and Slim can all agree on. Close the topic now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Slim argues that I was arguing that Cinemanx were appointed to provided independent financial advise as fund managers. I have never said that. Um.. The advisor is retained on a fee to provide advise. That advise is presumably meant to be provided on an independent and impartial basis. Make your mind up! Where the advisors earn additional fees, which are not dependent on the success of the film is in the making of the film. e.g. producers fees, providing of a film set. That is where the potential conflict arises. It is in their interest to recommend an investment to earn those fees. I understand what you're saying perfectly, even if you seem to change your mind as per the quote above. As you say, the pinewood investment shows the advise is supposed to be bias, towards investing in films that (pre pinewood) cinemanx are investing in or what pinewood are planning on providing services for. That's the whole point, to both profit from the investment in films, and direct efforts in film production towards the isle of man. It has been described as a hedge, which I don't think is fully accurate but it does show the intention; if the movie we've invested into flops, at least we made some dosh on the production. Of course its biased with those goals. That isn't a conflict of interest, it's how the arrangement is supposed to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 No I stated that they are retained to advise on presumably an impartial and independent basis. i.e. to review a advise film proposal and advise if it is worth investing in. To my knowledge I have never described them as fund managers nor that they are independent financial advisors. They are terms you frequently use. Yes there is meant to be bias towards films that Pinewood or providing services etc to. but when they are advising on whether a project that Pinewood are potentially involved in should receive the clients funds they are automatically potentially conflicted as it is in the advisors interest that the film goes ahead so they can earn there additional fees from the production of the film. For that to go ahead they need IOM Film Funds investment. If the film was going ahead anyway I agree there would be no potential conflict. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 No I stated that they are retained to advise on presumably an impartial and independent basis. i.e. to review a advise film proposal and advise if it is worth investing in. To my knowledge I have never described them as fund managers nor that they are independent financial advisors. They are terms you frequently use. As I quoted, you said the advice should be impartial and independent, and they are advisers. But as far as I can tell, you've made this up. Where has it ever been stated that the advice should be impartial or independent? As for fund managers: In simple terms the manager/advisor of the funds is the one who recommends which films should be invested into. I have no problem with Pinewood, Gasworks, Christian being the manager/advisor of the fund but as such they should have no paid for involvement in the films being made. Is a manager of the fund not a fund manager? Yes there is meant to be bias towards films that Pinewood or providing services etc to. but when they are advising on whether a project that Pinewood are potentially involved in should receive the clients funds they are automatically potentially conflicted as it is in the advisors interest that the film goes ahead so they can earn there additional fees from the production of the film. For that to go ahead they need IOM Film Funds investment. If the film was going ahead anyway I agree there would be no potential conflict. So if there's a bias built into the strategy, they can't be independent or impartial. If the goal is also to manage a syndicate of investors as quoted above, and also share in profits, as quoted above then any interests and bias are up front and understood. I still don't see where the conflict arises. I'm not being difficult, I just don't see it. The decision is with the treasury, the treasury knows the facts of who is involved. If Mr Christian had the final say, I'd agree with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.