Start Shares Publity AG and Thomas Olek

Publity AG and Thomas Olek


The Leipzig-based manager and fund provider publity AG is not coming out of the headlines: After the collapse of the publity share, the disappointing results of the NPL fund series and the embarrassing chaos surrounding the publity convertible bond (see ‚k-mi‘ 33/17 , 20, 22/18), a darker shadow now also falls on the provider’s real estate fund business: The Berlin law firm Schirp and the Aktionsbund Aktiver Anlegerschutz eV / AAA, Berlin, published in a press release of July 2018 publishers conflicts of interest and a classic Yourself business before.

That’s the point: four properties from the portfolio of publity Performance Fund 6 were sold to Münchener Immobilien Center AG (MunIC AG) between 2017-2018. The allegation of the law firm Schirp and the AAA: „On both sides of the real estate sales of fund no. 6 to the MunIC AG stands, at least behind the scenes, the same head: Not only the publity group including the public funds is Thomas Olek Thomas Olek is also significantly involved in the MunIC AG (with 62% at the beginning of May 2018, partly directly, partly via interim companies, and the current status has not been re-researched). “ The MunIC in turn should boast, u. a. to have acquired these objects at a price of 10% below the market value of publity!

Strong Tobacco! Does publity wear it on both shoulders and does the interests of publity fund investors still play the first fiddle? At the beginning of July, we confronted publity with this presentation and demanded clarification. By telephone, publity board member Thomas Olek announced extensive information about the transactions, which we are still waiting for in vain. Only on repeated demand by ‚k-mi‘ publity now expressed. With regard to the links between the publity group and MunIC AG, publity merely informs us: „publity AG has an existing asset management contract with Münchener Immobilien Center AG.“ Publity also comments on further possible personal and indirect links But irrespective of this, the asset management mandate alone does not constitute a massive conflict of interest. Finally, MunIC should not have commissioned publity to buy real estate at a particularly high cost from publity funds!

Accordingly, nebulous and evasive publity comments on our request to the statement of MunIC, the 4 objects of the publity investors as a bargain or 10% below market value to have purchased: „(…) The fund companies are required annual expert opinions for the In the context of the sale, the properties were sold taking into account the existing valuations.We can not assess the extent to which Münchener Immobilien Center AG defines this as below market value, as it is usually the case in traffic operations that both the The seller and the acquirer of an asset, because of the transaction, hoped for an advantage, which is, however, quite different in each case, at least for the investors of the fund company, we have managed to realize such an advantage through the sale. „Amazingly spongy is this statement in view of de s that publity works for both the seller and the acquirer.

Also, regarding the Prospectus requirement of the PPF 6 for the prevention of in-itself transactions, namely that „any transactions concerning the acquisition or exploitation of investment properties with the persons named in this Prospectus are inadmissible“, publity, surprisingly, has no stomach ache at all: „The The transaction you mentioned was carried out with MunIC AG, which itself is not mentioned in the fund prospectus. While it is true that Mr Olek is mentioned in the fund prospectus. However, Mr. Olek neither acquired the fund properties himself nor was he involved in the transaction as an executive member of MunIC AG or its direct or indirect majority shareholder. A conflict of interest was therefore never present. The publity AG only provides a service within the framework of the closed asset management contract, „the provider currently reports to ‚k-mi‘. This statement by publity remains u. E. equivocal: Does Thomas Olek have no connection to MunIC at all, or was he not formally involved in the specific transaction as possibly directly involved? ‚k-mi‘ has again checked publity at this point, so far without reaction.

Also, the ‚k-mi‘ present annual accounts and management report 2017 of the Fund brings little brightening on the issue of a conflict of interest: U. a. with reference to „strategic considerations of the management of the AIF“ omit object-related information, which could provide clarity.Also striking: The Fund, which according to purchase prices in 2017 on a real estate.

Also, the ‚k-mi‘ present annual accounts and management report 2017 of the Fund brings little brightening on the issue of a conflict of interest: U. a. with reference to „strategic considerations of the management of the AIF“ object-related information is omitted, which could provide clarity.The more striking: The fund, which according to purchase prices in 2017 has a real estate portfolio of € 43.78 million, generates rental income in this period Including operating costs prepayments in the amount of € 2.92 million, which is offset by expenses of € 2.812 million, so that the Fund retains only a neat net income from the management of € 125 thousand, partly from write-ups Real estate revaluations resulted in an unrealized gain of approximately € 5 million in 2017, resulting in a net asset value of 98% (previous year: approximately 78%) .The sale of real estate generated gains of € 2.173 million as well as Losses of € 671 thousand have been realized without the results being allocated to specific properties altogether 35%.