What shocks me more is they held Exit Votes (SPV 33 in particular) and withheld this particular information, which I have no doubt would have very much changed the outcome on an already narrow margin outcome! I'm furious... If the property had been sold, would it mean they were less likely to recover the losses? I shouldn't see why because it should be locked up contractually but this does have me wondering!
I appreciate your point crapo & agree that it could have changed votes (I am in 33 and think I voted keep when it would have been sell), but more significant for me and others is the fact that it was sold, without the proper disclosure of the information, on the SM - I may not have been in it at all or may have paid significantly less to be. That to me (even if it wasn't me being affected financially) is a much bigger issue & I suspect (I have *not* discussed this with PM) may be a colourful illustration of why the SM couldn't continue.
Ignoring the specific details of this property for the moment I think you're both misunderstanding how voting works with shares. The number of investors is pretty irrelevant as each shareholders vote will be weighted proportionate to their shareholding. That 30.98% might only be a two or three investors, in which case if they didn't change their mind it wouldn't matter how many others changed their minds. And you certainly can't make any assumptions as to how many people changing their vote might be required - just one person might change the result or 50 might try and not have enough impact
Fair one, and you have mentioned that to me before. I still think hiding the information changed the outcome of the vote and a further vote is likely to verify that. I'm sure someone will then argue that that is obvious if there are no tenants and no guaranteed rent but that's the position they were in before but they were just hoping (in vain) to resolve it. It stinks.
Largely agree, but while I am potentially financially inconvenienced I will withhold judgement on whether it is a poor judgement or more sinister & (for everyone's sake, including fellow investors & the forum) suggest that everyone sticks to the facts we know for certain.
Add "even if well intentioned" & you are exactly where I am.
I suppose we must give PM some credit - with comms issues like this & the clear potential for financial damage to those trading on the SM, it was not as knee-jerk/over reaction as some of us thought, myself included, to close it. Heck I think their decision to limit BTL severely (has there been any this year) is very wise, even if it was their original stock product - we all know the one about the camera maker who said digital photography will never catch on!