Thursday, 15 October 2015

Riveroak - Who are they

Well it seems that many people are asking who is this company that wants to take over Manston Airfield and the answer is, sadly, difficult to answer. As Cllr Wells says the reality and the emotion is difficult to separate.
Firstly what do they do?
"RiverOak Investment Corp. has a reputation for identifying under-utilised assets & creating new value from them on behalf of our client investors.
For more than two decades we have built both our investment business and our reputation on being able to find, research and invest in the types of assets that typically achieve above-average risk-adjusted returns." link to here
In simpler terms they identify distressed real estate, add value, then sell on at a profit or rent.

Where are they
Suite 703, 1 Atlantic Street, downtown Connecticut. (note not the whole building just a suite of rooms)
What assets do they have.
"One of RiverOak’s active funds (there are only three of them) is RiverOak Realty Fund III. It looks as if this RRFIII invested in three assets. One was liquidated in 2013 with no profit coming back to RiverOak. One is a limited service business hotel. The third is a development that was going to be a block of flats. RiverOak ran into construction problems and the lender demanded its money back. Judgement has been awarded to the lender and it looks as if RiverOak will lose the money that it put into this investment. Total money made in management fees by RiverOak for 2013? $90,000 – less than £60,000. Total RiverOak director money in this fund? £59,000.
Let’s look at another fund, RiverOak Realty Fund IV. One asset, an office block, was taken back by the lender via a “deed in lieu of foreclosure.” The other assets are a block of flats and various blocks of student housing. RiverOak’s management fee for 2013? £275,000. Total RiverOak director money in this fund? Zero.
And the third fund? That’s MKRO I. The deadline for investing in this fund was extended. Normally this happens when you go to the market to attract investors and you don’t get knocked over in the rush. The fund’s two assets in 2013 were a 25% share in a portfolio of flats spread over four blocks and a 60% share in an additional, separate, block of flats. Total RiverOak director money in this fund? Zero.
So, RiverOak invests in flats, student housing, a bit of house building, and the odd hotel or office block. In the three current funds, RiverOak’s directors appear to have just £59,000 of their own money invested. They can’t play with the rest of the money invested in the funds – it’s not theirs. Management fees earned by RiverOak look pretty small and a couple of investments have gone belly up" link to here
But Beau Webber says they have a AAA+ rating, higher than a lot of Countries including it seems the United Kingdom?
Now this is where it gets interesting so bear with me. In financial circles companies that deal in financial matters are judged on a number of areas such as Financial strength and these rating are given out by Standard & Poors, and Moodys however it seems that in Riveroaks case their rating is given out by the Better Business Bureau (who?)
To quote "Another of these little-known facts about the BBB: “We are not a consumer watchdog.” While the BBB offers consumers many services—lists of popular scams to watch out for and such—the organization’s mission isn’t to have your back. From top to bottom, the BBB is funded by the annual dues paid by businesses it anoints with “accreditation,” which allows the companies to put those iconic BBB stamps of approval on their storefronts and websites. This fact raises obvious questions about an inherent conflict of interest: The organization’s customers are businesses, not taxpayers or consumers. How can the BBB serve as an honest broker between businesses and consumers when it is fully funded by one of these parties? Many argue that it cannot — that there’s a natural incentive to paint its paying clients in the best possible light."
You can read the rest of the article here
 So it seems Beau is conflating an A+ rating for a paid for endorsement (and a real estate one at that) for a financial rating which there isn't one at all.

So is Riveroak a suitable partner for TDC? Seems Farage thinks Chris Wells is doing things by the book

Now I understand some in the pro camp question my motives around Manston so to clarify some of the questions raised.
1. No I didn't skip out of Ramsgate in a hurry in fact it took me 5-6 months to sell my properties and buy in Southampton
2 No I didn't accept £29K from the Labour party to infiltrate a local group to stop them protesting, in fact I campaigned for 2 years to have the developers (SFP Ventures (UK) Ltd) removed from the lead role over Pleasurama. (read the blog here) Ask yourself would I put my neck and reputation on the line if I didn't care about Ramsgate?
3 Do I want Manston as an airport? Of course I do but not as a Cargo Hub with 40 landings and takeoffs a day with no benefit to Ramsgate and not run by Riveroak, who seem to be less than honest with their propaganda, in fact, they are similar to SFP Ventures, and I suspect, are Land Bankers. I cannot see how they intend to make a profit from aviation.
4. As I have moved to Southampton where we have a successful airport I can see planes everyday with little disturbance due to the type of planes being used to fly passengers


  1. Barry James can you answer this question. Why do the likes of trailer trash Cheesewright, failed FORS member Davis, Spunkie delight and Brooks accuse you of stealing paper work and the Covenant to do with Pleasurama.

    1. Not got a clue. Boredom perhaps. As pointed out a covenant doesn't exist however like the Loch Ness monster and the tooth fairy people still believe. No accounting for the gullibility of some people. Don't forget it wasn't that long ago people thought the earth was flat.