Seeking Advice - Point Center Financial Investment

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program

matt138_IHB

New member
Long time lurker seeks advice and truth. I have family members with money invested with Point Center Financial. I am younger and they don't think I get it, however I think they drink koolaid. Point Center basically pools investor money and loans it out (first trust deeds) short term 2 yrs or so. I think they make money on the origination of the loan and also take a cut of the monthly interest payments (ex - investors get 10% and Point center gets 1% roughly). Borrowers have defaulted, foreclosures have resulted, investors now own the properties. Bottom line is Point Center has basically become a glorified property management company on these SFR deals and is looking to charge 1.5% ($3K/mo roughly) of the original loan balance ($2.4M roughly) per year to manage the property. Property may be leased for $6K, lessee pays utilities/most expenses resulting in a barely break even scenario, being optimistic here. This equates to a 50% property management fee (standard is 5-8% or so). Am I crazy or is this BS?



Also, the property is listed with the mcmonigle group, side note: I wish they would use the golden arches as a logo that would be sweet and throw in the hamburgular as mascot for good measure, for $2.4M roughly. I've pulled no comps but just figure it to be a WTF listing price, I could be wrong. Point center financial mails letters quite often (must cost a fortune) to investors and seems on the "up and up" but well written letters seem somewhat suspect as all companies are inherently interested in self-preservation. Certain letters suggest catastrophic consequences to selling now or not paying the management fees to Point Center. On top of this, they seem to suggest assurance they have weathered previous down cycle storms and the best idea is to wait for a market recovery. There has been a "cash call" to investors to pay for vendor service and prop mgmt backpay to Point Center. Most investors have voted to "ride out" the market and have even voted to compensate Point Center 1% upon disposition of the property for dealing with time consuming foreclosure procedures and other junk.



In summary, the investment is break even if leased (there is no debt service). My suggestion is to sell the property now, take the loss and move on to real investments. I see this as a sinking ship that will take a decade to return to value. Oh, and the neighborhood is Coto or Ladera - I forget which. Family members and local Realtor "experts" think I am crazy but the writing is on the wall as I see it. I apologize for any bias but I get pretty fired up - I feel I have a decent grasp judging by standard historical valuation methods and resetting ARM figures but everyone looks at me like I've lost my marbles. Thanks to the IHB and contributors in advance. I can furnish any info, letters, address etc if needed to reach an educated conclusion. I appreciate any help! Thanks again!
 
[quote author="matt138" date=1235415387]Long time lurker seeks advice and truth. I have family members with money invested with Point Center Financial. I am younger and they think I'm dumb, however I think they drink koolaid. Point Center basically pools investor money and loans it out (first trust deeds) short term 2 yrs or so. I think they make money on the origination of the loan and also take a cut of the monthly interest payments (ex - investors get 10% and Point center gets 1% roughly). Borrowers have defaulted, foreclosures have resulted, investors now own the properties. Bottom line is Point Center has basically become a glorified property management company on these SFR deals and is looking to charge 1.5% ($3K/mo roughly) of the original loan balance ($2.4M roughly) per year to manage the property. Property may be leased for $6K, lessee pays utilities/most expenses resulting in a barely break even scenario, being optimistic here. This equates to a 50% property management fee (standard is 5-8% or so). Am I crazy or is this BS?



Also, the property is listed with the mcmonigle group, side note: I wish they would use the golden arches as a logo that would be sweet and throw in the hamburgular as mascot for good measure, for $2.4M roughly. I've pulled no comps but just figure it to be a WTF listing price, I could be wrong. Point center financial mails letters quite often (must cost a fortune) to investors and seems on the "up and up" but well written letters seem somewhat suspect as all companies are inherently interested in self-preservation. Certain letters suggest catastrophic consequences to selling now or not paying the management fees to Point Center. On top of this, they seem to suggest assurance they have weathered previous down cycle storms and the best idea is to wait for a market recovery. There has been a "cash call" to investors to pay for vendor service and prop mgmt backpay to Point Center. Most investors have voted to "ride out" the market and have even voted to compensate Point Center 1% upon disposition of the property for dealing with time consuming foreclosure procedures and other junk.



In summary, the investment is break even if leased (there is no debt service). My suggestion is to sell the property now, take the loss and move on to real investments. I see this as a sinking ship that will take a decade to return to value. Oh, and the neighborhood is Coto or Ladera - I forget which. Family members and local Realtor "experts" think I am crazy but the writing is on the wall as I see it. I apologize for any bias but I get pretty fired up - I feel I have a decent grasp judging by standard historical valuation methods and resetting ARM figures but everyone looks at me like I've lost my marbles. Thanks to the IHB and contributors in advance. I can furnish any info, letters, address etc if needed to reach an educated conclusion. I appreciate any help! Thanks again!</blockquote>


I did a quick Google, and it sounds like you know what you are looking for and you know what you want to avoid. It sounds like their properties were majorly overvalued on appraisal and many are now in foreclosure, even though the initial LTV was supposedly 65%. That would certainly be ringing alarms for me.



Are you sure your family members think you are dumb. You certainly do not sound dumb. You sound reasonable and thoughtful. Are they resentful if you tell them this is not the investment for you at this time? Are you resentful if they dhoose to invest their money in what you consider to be too risky? Is there some issue with family money?



But what I wouldn't give to know which of my neighbors, Coto, have hard money loans on their property.
 
Get your money out now. These guys are on the path to Madoff land. I came across these guys back when the Ladera properties went back to the bank. I thought there was something shady then, and now I read this. <a href="http://cr.ocgov.com/grantorgrantee/searchBusinessName.asp">Go here and search their name</a>. Looks like they forgot to pay their taxes, and it wasn't until two months after the lien was filed before they paid it. It also looks like a NOD was filed on them.



I will have to look into this some more. But get your money out. The properties in Ladera were not 65% LTV, they were way more than that.
 
Wow, just wow. I think they are wanting to make HUGE money in a down market. These guys are up to no good. I'd get any money you have out now and walk. The properties will return to valuation, but it will be negative for a while and a push for even longer.... Even a cheapie interest bearing account will outperform these things. Goodluck and keep us informed.

-bix



p.s. I bet they won't even be able to get you your full investment money back. OR they will come up with alot of BS "fees".



-bix
 
We have no issues with the money as each person has invested separately and by no means bet the farm. I have no money invested and really just want to see family members not lose. We openly discuss money and investments - they all feel I am too bearish. I have maintained a firm stance with regards to the appraisal issue "achilles heel" and regret not voicing my opinion in a stronger manner. I don't want to see it get to "I told you so" but it looks like we're already there. We have, in the past, made sound real estate investments and have done well but have ventured into relatively foreign territory on this one and handed the controls to someone else - always a mistake.



There has been quite a bit of allegation and mudslinging toward the company in a couple local papers, but I feel most hold no water. I don't foresee Ponzi-esque issues, I simply think they should clue investors in on the actual severity of the market and if investors still want to hang on (at that point a hard sell) should charge reasonable management fees. The 80% majority still believe we are very close to the bottom and take everything Point Center says as Bible so it looks pretty hopeless. Proof once again we have yet to reach capitulation. Any suggestions as to how other investors could blog here and openly discuss? I will keep posting as events unfold. Thanks.
 
The management fee is BS. Does the Operating Agreement or investment prospectus say anything about possible property management or asset management fees charged in a foreclosure situation? Sounds fishy at best, though I am used to commercial real estate management fees, which range 3-5%.



What are the investor rights (any voting rights, or a right to change the manager)? I doubt the Operating Agreement has any allowance for an early redemption, but you may have some other recourse per the Agreement.
 
<a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-loanprobe25-2009feb25,0,7449244.story">http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-loanprobe25-2009feb25,0,7449244.story</a>
 
[quote author="sell4u" date=1235605747]<a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-loanprobe25-2009feb25,0,7449244.story">http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-loanprobe25-2009feb25,0,7449244.story</a></blockquote>


I just now saw that in the Times myself. Holy sh*t! 60% of the loans are delinquent? This guy is going down Madoff style. Get your money if you can.





<em>SEC probes O.C. real estate lender Point Center Financial

An investor lawsuit accuses the firm, owned by the husband of Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, of fraud.

By Stuart Pfeifer

February 25, 2009

The Securities and Exchange Commission has opened an investigation into an Orange County real estate lending company that is owned by the husband of a California state assemblywoman.



In an e-mail to his firm's roughly 3,000 investors, Point Center Financial Inc. President Dan J. Harkey disclosed that the SEC had subpoenaed records from the firm last week.



In an interview, Harkey said the SEC was seeking thousands of pages of documents in connection with a $25-million investment pool that funded construction loans. He predicted the SEC would find no irregularities in his company's loan pool, noting that the California Department of Real Estate took no action after a similar review.



Harkey said it would take weeks to compile the records the SEC requested.



Officials with the Securities and Exchange Commission in Los Angeles would neither confirm nor deny any inquiry into Point Center.



More than 50 Point Center investors filed a lawsuit against Harkey last week, accusing him of placing their money in risky construction loans and funneling profits to his wife's political campaigns.



In the interview, Harkey acknowledged that many of his investors had lost money but blamed it on the real estate downturn, which has caused widespread losses. About 60% of the company's loans are in default and interest payments to many investors have been reduced or suspended as a result, Harkey said.



Through a spokesman, Assemblywoman Diane Harkey (R-Dana Point) said she had no affiliation with Point Center and contributed her own money -- about $1.1 million -- to her campaigns. Before her career in politics, she worked as an executive at Security Pacific National Bank and Bank of America Corp., her husband said.



Aliso Viejo-based Point Center specializes in hard-money loans, which are short-term, high-interest offerings to developers who often can't obtain funding from banks. Hard-money lenders require a large equity stake in the property for loans they issue, using first trust deeds to recover investments if borrowers default.



Harkey said he amassed $500 million in capital from current investors, although he acknowledged that failed loans and the real estate slump had significantly diminished the value of those investments.



The lawsuit said that Harkey charged millions of dollars in loan fees to borrowers and management fees to investors, and claimed he used inflated appraisals that made the loans appear safer than they were. Harkey said he was careful to disclose the risky nature of real estate to investors, advising them that it was possible to lose some or all of their money. He called the SEC investigation routine and said he and his company would be cleared.



"They're compliance people. I have no problem with it," Harkey said. "My disclosure packages are so big I called them 'the phone book.' If the allegation is failure to disclose, they picked the wrong guy."



An SEC subpoena is not undertaken lightly, said Cliff Hyatt, a former SEC enforcement attorney now at law firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman in Los Angeles.



"It's not routine. It's part of a formal investigation by the SEC," Hyatt said.



Investigations involving complicated investments and thousands of pages of records can take months, if not years, Hyatt said.



"The first thing they want to look at in these things is what's going on with the money? Is the money being used in accordance with representations by Point Center?" Hyatt said. "One of the things the SEC is particularly attuned to right now is the possibility of a Ponzi scheme. The second thing is whether the disclosures are adequate."



Lloyd Charton, lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, said a number of appraisals were inflated, giving him and other investors false confidence that their money was safe. He said he welcomed new scrutiny from SEC regulators.



"We are thankful that someone will come in and shine sunlight into Mr. Harkey's activities," Charton said. </em>
 
Hey Skekker, <a href="http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/forums/viewthread/1247/P75/#49700">do you remember us talking about these guys back in April</a>? Ah... the plot thickens.
 
[quote author="xsocal land merchant" date=1235653006]Would you believe I knew him back in the early 1980s when he had D.J. Harkey real estate in Dana Point.



How the world has changed.</blockquote>


Heh, yes... yes, I do believe you. And I really want to get your opinion on John Laing. Check out the threads here. You adding to it would add a great value to compare history.
 
Let's be clear here. Point Center broke all sorts of laws over the last 5 years and like so many of these schemes they come to light when the economy goes in the tank and there's no new money to continue the scam. They made loans they knew were doomed to fail. They presented borrowers to investors as experienced developers when in reality they were such bad risks no one else would touch them. When Harkey couldn't get individual investors to fund loans he would fund them himself with money from his mortgage pools. Those are the ones the SEC has oversight on. It's not a $25 million pool either. It's more like $300 - $400 million between the mortgage pool and mortgage note program. As for defaults, the 60% number is from Harkey. The actual number is 85% in dollar volume. That is correct. 85% are in default. He made loans to the same developers over and over even when they were not performing on their previous loans unbeknownst to investors. He made loans for millions of dollars to people who pocketed the money and began defaulting immediatley. He made loans in 2008 that never had a chance even as the makret continued to crash. He knew the pool and note programs were in trouble and was looking to hit home runs in order to keep the company afloat.



In his press release he made some statement that if the SEC was looking at him because he didn't diclose, they picked the wrong guy. He thinks because he had a "risks section" in his operating agreement for the pools that means he has no fiduciary duty to his investors. He thinks that allows him to misrepresent loans. Wrong. He presented himself as an expert at arranging loans and valuing land. That is the basis for hard money lending which does have a place in the market. He stretched the bounds as real estate boomed and lended to anyone.



85% in default. The worst subprime lenders had maybe 25% defaults rates? He lost an arbitration hearing about a year ago and said "here's the keys to the company". He has probably personally taken out $50 million+ in fees over the last 8 years. This is the guy managing all these assets and accruing fees waiting for the market to rebound?



www.pointcenterinvestigation.com
 
So, Nickel ... you seem to know quite a bit about PCF. Is your knowledge all from what you have read, or do you have some personal experience?

Do you know if or how many spec homes in Shady Canyon or Ladera Ranch were funded through PCF?
 
I am an investor with PCF and very angry. I made 3 investments with them totaling about $500k. If I'm lucky I might get $25k back. I realized in about 2006 that the loans he was making were horrible because one was a spec house near my own home and there was no way the appraisal was right. There also was no way anyone in their right mind should be building a spec house in the midst of a declining market with huge amounts of inventory sitting unsold. After my loans went into default I did a lot of investigating and found all sorts of misrepresentation in his loans not to mention the general imcompetence he showed by not properly valuing the land.



I have made about a dozen hard money loans with smaller firms and I only had one that went bad. We still own that land an no one is charging a "management fee". The builder has vowed to pay investors first once he can build something to break even and I can live with that. I can't live with what Harkey has done. He has hid from investors for the past 2 years. I've requested meetings and access to his books which his operating agreements say we have the right to inspect. He has refused. The arrogance is unbelievable. He bought a private plane a couple years ago but sold it because his wife thought it wouldn't look good for her political career. The plane was the one that crashed in SC with a couple rock stars on board. He has a Bentley and another dozen or so cars and was fanatical about accumulating wealth at the expense of his investors.



As for spec homes I know he did some in Ladera Ranch and a few near Rancho Santa Fe, but by far his biggest losses were with developers like Hertel, Ehline, Burnett and others. These were big $20-$40+ million loans that were completely mismanaged. One of the points he made during seminars was that he managed the loan all the way until the pay off was made. We now know they did none of that. They made a loan and forgot about it until someone defaulted. We know he made 4 loans to one developer in 11 months and all four defaulted. Over $40 million just gone. The last 2 loans were made even though the borrower was not fulfilling a previous loan. We don't yet if the seller who walked away with the money was part of the scheme or if PCF just completely blew the viability of these projects. Either way it is unlawful. This guy has a fiduciary responsibility that he breached in so many ways.
 
This is why I love IHB, somehow we were found by Nickel, and he/she posted. This is great stuff. I just hope we get regular updates, but I will check the site posted. I saved one of the "investment" PDFs from their site, and I will trash it at a later time. Seriously, it is awful. I would feel more confident in giving Madoff money right now, than I would this company.



S H A D Y!
 
Boy all this stress must not be too good for ol' Dan-o and the fam - those neighborhood martini parties just aren't the same anymore. Hope the bentley was worth it. So let me get this right, the business model goes "make as many loans as possible until the $#$@ hits the fan, make a few more, then get paid about the same to manage the foreclosed investments." Bulletproof Dan-o, bravo. "Heads, I win. Tails, I win...oh wait..." No analysis, appraisal, understanding of economics, understanding of market-driving forces necessary.
 
February 19, 2009



Re: Recent media coverage



Dear investors:



Lloyd Charton is a disgruntled investor who happens to be my neighbor. Those of you invested in National Financial Lending, LLC will recognize his name, as he has been harassing you for over a year trying to convince you to align with him against Point Center. Mr. Charton's name may be new to the rest of you. In short, Mr. Charton sees his status as "special" and he wants to be repaid his investments before anyone else. Of course I refused to treat him preferentially, to which he responded by email: "You've told me you cannot treat me differently than other investors. You can. You should. Eventually you WILL, although by then we will have traveled down a long arduous litigious path which will by necessity involve many others."





It was only a matter of time before Lloyd Charton and his group enlisted the press in his war against Point Center. By now you probably know that Mr. Charton contacted the Los Angeles Times and provided them with an advance copy of a lawsuit he and his group of investors filed two days ago against Point Center, me personally and my wife, Diane. Point Center has also been featured on KNBC local news and in the Orange County Register. Mr. Charton is banging the same drum he has been banging for year and a half, and now he is using the media for that extra measure of pressure in an attempt to gain the favorable treatment he has sought all along. In the last several communications from Mr. Charton to other investors, his goal has become clear: Lloyd Charton has specifically told some of our investors that it is his goal to take over the servicing of the Point Center portfolio, thereby giving him control of your investments.



I want to address some key points raised in the Times article. It is unfortunate indeed that once the article begins "A lawsuit alleges" the article recites those allegations almost as proven fact. The key is "alleges". Friends, anyone can "allege" anything. Diane's election campaign funds are a perfect example. The complaint alleges "on information and belief" that Diane is an owner and employee of Point Center and used investor money for her campaigns. In fact, Diane does not have an ownership interest in Point Center, is not an employee or officer here and most certainly did not pay for her campaign with investor money. So how can they get away with an allegation like this? My lawyer tells me that "information and belief" translates into "speculates" "thinks that" or "guesses" this to be true without any direct knowledge at all.



A few other examples from the Times Article:



ALLEGATION: "Harkey exaggerated the value of the properties used as collateral by borrowers, making the individual investments appear much safer than they were."



FACT: Point Center does not establish the value of the properties. We have ALWAYS hired third party MAI (Member of Appraisal Institute) or other certified appraisers. In fact, when we became suspicious that appraised values were coming in too high on out of state loans, we required TWO appraisals and used the lower of the two values.





ALLEGATION: "many investors were retired people who entrusted Dan Harkey and Point Center with their life savings."



FACT: Of course many of Point Center's investors are retired, but Point Center is not an investment advisor or counselor. We make investment products available. The disclosures Mr. Charton, a retired attorney and self-proclaimed real estate expert, and his group signed are the same ones you signed. They tell you the investment is risky and you could lose some or all of your investment. The disclosures we provide on fractional trust deed investments are so voluminous that we refer to them as "the phone book". Investors are not allowed to invest more than 10% of their net worth in any one investment, and before Point Center will accept an investor's money, the investor must sign statements assuring Point Center that they are experienced in investing. If the plaintiffs put their "life savings" all in one place, it was not because Point Center suggested it.





ALLEGATION: "Point Center made millions of dollars by charging broker fees upfront to borrowers, allowing the company to profit regardless of whether the loans were repaid."



FACT: Brokerage fees and servicing fees are how Point Center earns its income and pays its expenses and employees. There is nothing unusual or inappropriate about it. Anyone who has ever financed a home has paid a broker fee up front regardless of whether the loan was paid back. As bad as the home mortgage meltdown is, no one has suggested that the brokers on all those foreclosed homes should give back their commissions.





ALLEGATION: "the investors were often left with foreclosed properties worth a fraction of the money they had invested."



FACT: At least they got this one right. And this is the very reason Point Center continues to hold the properties. To sell now would result in huge losses. By managing and holding the property until the real estate market recovers, losses can be minimized or avoided. Perhaps the plaintiffs' other investments are somehow immune from market forces, but for those invested in the stock market, real estate and other common investment vehicles, the loss of value is familiar.





ALLEGATION: The Burnett Development loan was a "bad" loan.



FACT: The article provides its own answer on this one: "The loan was made near the peak of the real estate boom, but conditions soon changed." One investor, a highly experienced real estate agent, claims: "I knew the intention was to develop the property. I didn't realize it hadn't gone very far." She apparently didn't read the disclosures. It's as simple as that.





ALLEGATION: "In a summary of the project distributed to prospective investors, Point Center said the property owner had 'spent the past seven years securing California Coastal Commission approval' and needed only final approval from the city of Carpinteria. . . . But the Coastal Commission had not approved the project . . . . This was just a clear case of misrepresentation.



FACT: Elsewhere in the article, it is mentioned that the plaintiff's have filed complaints with the Department of Real Estate. In fact, one of those complaints related to this very issue and Point Center received an inquiry from the DRE. What the plaintiffs want to twist into Coastal Commission approval of the project said nothing of the sort. The Loan Summary said "The General Plan on the subject property dated April 2003 was reviewed and approved by the California Coastal Commission". Once documentation was provided to support the loan summary, the DRE dropped its investigation.





ALLEGATION: "He was bringing in new money to pay off investors on the same loan, and that's a Ponzi scheme."



FACT: In addition to the inquiry regarding the Coastal Commission approval, Point Center also underwent a full 8 week audit by the DRE, which found absolutely no irregularities in the trust account. If anyone would be in a position to spot a Ponzi scheme, it was the DRE. Once again, Point Center came through unscathed.





ALLEGATION: "Investors say they also filed complaints with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the California Department of Real Estate and the FBI."



FACT: The DRE concluded its audit finding none of the issues complained of by the plaintiffs, which apparently prompted the second, more specific audit on the Coastal Commission issue where Point Center was again vindicated. As threatened, we received a subpoena from the SEC which we must now divert significant company resources to for response, along with fighting the lawsuit itself. So far, there has been no communication from the FBI.





The press coverage, like the DRE complaints and the SEC subpoena, is yet another distraction; yet another waste of money and resources. No amount of mud slinging does anything to change the substance of the matter or the current market conditions. Point Center continues to work on your behalf; Point Center is best situated to manage the properties through these troubled times; and Point Center will weather yet another storm served up by Mr. Charton.



You will soon receive a full newsletter from Point Center, but I wanted you to have this important information in the meantime. As always, if you have any concerns, please contact your Point Center representative.



Sincerely,



Dan J. Harkey, President
 
Regarding this letter from PCF, the Department of Real Estate concluded nothing. I guarnatee we will be hearing more from them again. And saying the DRE could uncover a Ponzi scheme is like saying Barney Fife wasn't able to pin a murder rap on you so you must be innocent. The DRE has been presented with clear evidence of misrepresentation on the Summerwind loan which was confirmed by the City of Carpinteris. Who knows how long it will take them to act. Don't have time to go into the other statements by Harkey, but he'll have his day in court. The depositions of Harkey, his staff, his appraisers, his developer pals should be good stuff. They better get their stories straight and hope one of them doesn't crack.



FYI: the neighbor on the other side of Harkey is now part of the lawsuit also so this is hardly a case of a disgrunteld, renegade, terrorist or other term that Harkey has called Charton in recent letters. The plaintiffs are folks who have invested million of dollars with Harkey and are astonished that other investors haven't figured out that a firm that has default rates on 80% of their loans is not on the up and up. Lloyd Charton doesn't want to control the assets, but he does want to find a replacement who will do it for much less than Harkey and much more competently (which won't be too difficult).



And no, I am not Lloyd Charton.













[quote author="matt138" date=1235802625]February 19, 2009



Re: Recent media coverage



Dear investors:



Lloyd Charton is a disgruntled investor who happens to be my neighbor. Those of you invested in National Financial Lending, LLC will recognize his name, as he has been harassing you for over a year trying to convince you to align with him against Point Center. Mr. Charton's name may be new to the rest of you. In short, Mr. Charton sees his status as "special" and he wants to be repaid his investments before anyone else. Of course I refused to treat him preferentially, to which he responded by email: "You've told me you cannot treat me differently than other investors. You can. You should. Eventually you WILL, although by then we will have traveled down a long arduous litigious path which will by necessity involve many others."





It was only a matter of time before Lloyd Charton and his group enlisted the press in his war against Point Center. By now you probably know that Mr. Charton contacted the Los Angeles Times and provided them with an advance copy of a lawsuit he and his group of investors filed two days ago against Point Center, me personally and my wife, Diane. Point Center has also been featured on KNBC local news and in the Orange County Register. Mr. Charton is banging the same drum he has been banging for year and a half, and now he is using the media for that extra measure of pressure in an attempt to gain the favorable treatment he has sought all along. In the last several communications from Mr. Charton to other investors, his goal has become clear: Lloyd Charton has specifically told some of our investors that it is his goal to take over the servicing of the Point Center portfolio, thereby giving him control of your investments.



I want to address some key points raised in the Times article. It is unfortunate indeed that once the article begins "A lawsuit alleges" the article recites those allegations almost as proven fact. The key is "alleges". Friends, anyone can "allege" anything. Diane's election campaign funds are a perfect example. The complaint alleges "on information and belief" that Diane is an owner and employee of Point Center and used investor money for her campaigns. In fact, Diane does not have an ownership interest in Point Center, is not an employee or officer here and most certainly did not pay for her campaign with investor money. So how can they get away with an allegation like this? My lawyer tells me that "information and belief" translates into "speculates" "thinks that" or "guesses" this to be true without any direct knowledge at all.



A few other examples from the Times Article:



ALLEGATION: "Harkey exaggerated the value of the properties used as collateral by borrowers, making the individual investments appear much safer than they were."



FACT: Point Center does not establish the value of the properties. We have ALWAYS hired third party MAI (Member of Appraisal Institute) or other certified appraisers. In fact, when we became suspicious that appraised values were coming in too high on out of state loans, we required TWO appraisals and used the lower of the two values.





ALLEGATION: "many investors were retired people who entrusted Dan Harkey and Point Center with their life savings."



FACT: Of course many of Point Center's investors are retired, but Point Center is not an investment advisor or counselor. We make investment products available. The disclosures Mr. Charton, a retired attorney and self-proclaimed real estate expert, and his group signed are the same ones you signed. They tell you the investment is risky and you could lose some or all of your investment. The disclosures we provide on fractional trust deed investments are so voluminous that we refer to them as "the phone book". Investors are not allowed to invest more than 10% of their net worth in any one investment, and before Point Center will accept an investor's money, the investor must sign statements assuring Point Center that they are experienced in investing. If the plaintiffs put their "life savings" all in one place, it was not because Point Center suggested it.





ALLEGATION: "Point Center made millions of dollars by charging broker fees upfront to borrowers, allowing the company to profit regardless of whether the loans were repaid."



FACT: Brokerage fees and servicing fees are how Point Center earns its income and pays its expenses and employees. There is nothing unusual or inappropriate about it. Anyone who has ever financed a home has paid a broker fee up front regardless of whether the loan was paid back. As bad as the home mortgage meltdown is, no one has suggested that the brokers on all those foreclosed homes should give back their commissions.





ALLEGATION: "the investors were often left with foreclosed properties worth a fraction of the money they had invested."



FACT: At least they got this one right. And this is the very reason Point Center continues to hold the properties. To sell now would result in huge losses. By managing and holding the property until the real estate market recovers, losses can be minimized or avoided. Perhaps the plaintiffs' other investments are somehow immune from market forces, but for those invested in the stock market, real estate and other common investment vehicles, the loss of value is familiar.





ALLEGATION: The Burnett Development loan was a "bad" loan.



FACT: The article provides its own answer on this one: "The loan was made near the peak of the real estate boom, but conditions soon changed." One investor, a highly experienced real estate agent, claims: "I knew the intention was to develop the property. I didn't realize it hadn't gone very far." She apparently didn't read the disclosures. It's as simple as that.





ALLEGATION: "In a summary of the project distributed to prospective investors, Point Center said the property owner had 'spent the past seven years securing California Coastal Commission approval' and needed only final approval from the city of Carpinteria. . . . But the Coastal Commission had not approved the project . . . . This was just a clear case of misrepresentation.



FACT: Elsewhere in the article, it is mentioned that the plaintiff's have filed complaints with the Department of Real Estate. In fact, one of those complaints related to this very issue and Point Center received an inquiry from the DRE. What the plaintiffs want to twist into Coastal Commission approval of the project said nothing of the sort. The Loan Summary said "The General Plan on the subject property dated April 2003 was reviewed and approved by the California Coastal Commission". Once documentation was provided to support the loan summary, the DRE dropped its investigation.





ALLEGATION: "He was bringing in new money to pay off investors on the same loan, and that's a Ponzi scheme."



FACT: In addition to the inquiry regarding the Coastal Commission approval, Point Center also underwent a full 8 week audit by the DRE, which found absolutely no irregularities in the trust account. If anyone would be in a position to spot a Ponzi scheme, it was the DRE. Once again, Point Center came through unscathed.





ALLEGATION: "Investors say they also filed complaints with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the California Department of Real Estate and the FBI."



FACT: The DRE concluded its audit finding none of the issues complained of by the plaintiffs, which apparently prompted the second, more specific audit on the Coastal Commission issue where Point Center was again vindicated. As threatened, we received a subpoena from the SEC which we must now divert significant company resources to for response, along with fighting the lawsuit itself. So far, there has been no communication from the FBI.





The press coverage, like the DRE complaints and the SEC subpoena, is yet another distraction; yet another waste of money and resources. No amount of mud slinging does anything to change the substance of the matter or the current market conditions. Point Center continues to work on your behalf; Point Center is best situated to manage the properties through these troubled times; and Point Center will weather yet another storm served up by Mr. Charton.



You will soon receive a full newsletter from Point Center, but I wanted you to have this important information in the meantime. As always, if you have any concerns, please contact your Point Center representative.



Sincerely,



Dan J. Harkey, President[/quot
 
More Harkey/Point Center shennanigans



http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-harkey3-2009mar03,0,4844957.story





I like the quote from Diane Harkey saying she will take money from anyone as long as there is no conflict of interest. Yeah no conflict at all. Take the money and within a week the borrower magically shows up on Point Center's doorstep asking for millions of dollars. No conflict there at all.



I also like the deadbeat developer saying he and Harkey share the same interests. Are those interests inflating appraisals so these loans could be passed off as safe and then defaulting on the loans? There's no conflict when Dan Harkey refuses to go after the personal guarantee of a developer that donated to his wife's political campaign?



You have to be kidding me.
 
Back
Top