Packer Group Structure

[Terryw]

Hi

There is an interesting article on Crikey with an even more interesting diagram of the Packer family business set up - probably on part of it.

The article is entitled "Who profits from our foreign aid? The untold story of GRM International"

and is available at http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/07/12...gn-aid-the-untold-story-of-grm-international/

The diagram is half way down the page, but a direct link to the larger version is
http://media.crikey.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/chart2.jpg

Well worth a look

 

[Piston Broke]

And here's the gist:

"The answer to the empty accounts is explained by the fact that GRM International Pty Ltd is a trustee company, not an ordinary proprietary company. Trustee companies, which are not uncommon in the world of business, allow the company to carry on all its activities on behalf of its owner, the GRM Unit Trust, the operations and beneficiaries of which remain secret.

Though the author loves the word "secret trusts" when they are "private trusts" just as like every other trust.
And ftr GRMI is a "proprietary company" just like all the other Pty Ltds that operate in australia, the activities or functions it performs are a different matter.

 

[Dazz]

Why do you find it interesting Terry ??

 

[Terryw]

Dazz, because it gives a glimpse of how the richest family (?) in Australia structures their holdings.

 

[Dazz]

.....can the knowledge gleaned from that "glimpse" translate directly into your personal affairs, or will your circumstances dictate something completely different ??

Other than the normal voyueristic 'celebrity' thing, what learnings do you conclude from the "glimpse" ?? I'm struggling with the question cos I haven't learnt a thing from looking at it.....

Help me "see" please what you "see".

 

[Terryw]

I guess I am a voyuer then

 

[wobbycarly]

I guess I am a voyuer then

You're not the only one. That IS interesting. Relevance TBD.

 

[evand]

I find it interesting. Doesnt mean it benefits me in any way.

Why do you think something 'interesting' has to benefit ones personal wealth?

.....can the knowledge gleaned from that "glimpse" translate directly into your personal affairs, or will your circumstances dictate something completely different ??

Other than the normal voyueristic 'celebrity' thing, what learnings do you conclude from the "glimpse" ?? I'm struggling with the question cos I haven't learnt a thing from looking at it.....

Help me "see" please what you "see".

 

[willair]

Dazz, because it gives a glimpse of how the richest family (?) in Australia structures their holdings.

Terryw,maybe try and understand one of Mr Kerry Francis Bullmore Packer quotes,,If you don't complain, you don't have to explain..willair..

 

[handyandy]

.....can the knowledge gleaned from that "glimpse" translate directly into your personal affairs, or will your circumstances dictate something completely different ??

Other than the normal voyueristic 'celebrity' thing, what learnings do you conclude from the "glimpse" ?? I'm struggling with the question cos I haven't learnt a thing from looking at it.....

Help me "see" please what you "see".

I find it interesting as it brings to mind a question - namely how did they transfer assets to a Bahamas inc without being crippled by CGT. Just from the top of my head - I seem to remember that their previous structure was trust oriented and they had some issues as the trust structure was coming to an end.

There is always something to learn even if it doesn't directly relate.

Cheers

Ps I haven't read the actual article as yet. Bedtime reading tonight

 

[Dazz]

Why do you think something 'interesting' has to benefit ones personal wealth?

I don't think any old "something" has to benefit one's personal wealth.

But that isn't just something. It's not a good looking woman, it's not a football, it's not a new way of making coffee. They are but 3 of millions of examples of things that are interesting - but have no link to wealth, except the good looking woman perhaps in a very negative way.

Instead it's a detailed accounting and legal structure of a specific very wealthy family's set up to maximise the end beneficiaries wealth. Unless your circumstances are extremely similar, it would have little to no benefit to your wealth efforts.


I am simply failing to see how details of one individuals accounting and legal structure is interesting if it doesn't help you personally. If James Packer came on here he'd tell you all to get stuffed and it was none of your business, I know that for sure. I'm sure you wouldn't want your structure intricately detailed and plastered all over the press for people to gawk at.


To answer your question handyandy, that controlling structure up the top based in the Bahamas was set up by Frank Packer way back in the early 70's. Keating closed off that particular loophole back in the mid 80's.....but the Packers got away with it cos it was already set up by a person that was now deceased. Keating got most of 'em with his net, but the Packers slipped thru.


That explanation goes part of the way to my indifference, because that type of thing cannot be set up....the door was firmly closed more than 25 years ago, so there is no point trying to replicate it, and hence I cannot see how one can benefit from it.

 

[Jonathon]

I find it interesting as it brings to mind a question - namely how did they transfer assets to a Bahamas inc without being crippled by CGT.

The assets were in the UK.

Unlike Australia, the UK has a Capital Gains Tax, but foreign residents are exempt. (Although this may have changed in the last 12 months)

 

[evand]

I get your point but some people have an interest in the life cycle of moths or 17th century porcelain dolls or any other arcane and esoteric subject.

Doesn't mean it benefits them financially or personally , its just an interest.

Maybe Terry has an interest in financial and corporate structures. It doesn't really float my boat but i can appreciate it might others.

I don't think any old "something" has to benefit one's personal wealth.

But that isn't just something. It's not a good looking woman, it's not a football, it's not a new way of making coffee. They are but 3 of millions of examples of things that are interesting - but have no link to wealth, except the good looking woman perhaps in a very negative way.

Instead it's a detailed accounting and legal structure of a specific very wealthy family's set up to maximise the end beneficiaries wealth. Unless your circumstances are extremely similar, it would have little to no benefit to your wealth efforts.


I am simply failing to see how details of one individuals accounting and legal structure is interesting if it doesn't help you personally. If James Packer came on here he'd tell you all to get stuffed and it was none of your business, I know that for sure. I'm sure you wouldn't want your structure intricately detailed and plastered all over the press for people to gawk at.


To answer your question handyandy, that controlling structure up the top based in the Bahamas was set up by Frank Packer way back in the early 70's. Keating closed off that particular loophole back in the mid 80's.....but the Packers got away with it cos it was already set up by a person that was now deceased. Keating got most of 'em with his net, but the Packers slipped thru.


That explanation goes part of the way to my indifference, because that type of thing cannot be set up....the door was firmly closed more than 25 years ago, so there is no point trying to replicate it, and hence I cannot see how one can benefit from it.

 

[nucence]

Nice post Terryw