Slim

Were they proposed or were they decided by that individual? What you're claiming here are two very different things. You have a strong argument, but it loses credibility when you make things up to support what you're saying.

Nope. All along he's been an external advisor, the final decisions have been taken by the treasury. If he'd have worked inside treasury, then I'd agree with you. Influential; yes. Overly influential? Probably. Good value for money? Almost certainly not. Self interested? Definitely. Conflict of interest? Nope, don't see it. I don't see the benefit of posting this stuff without sensible conclusions; it just isn't constructive.

The leap of logic in the above is that you consider all advice to be independent. This isn't the case, the interests are well known and declared up front. In fact the government is party to it also, because it's invested into Pinewood itself to benefit from that bias. If I go to see an independent adviser, my expectation is that they are going to show me a range of products. If I go to see the adviser who works for my bank, my expectation is that they will guide me to products from that bank.

Another post where you refer to these obvious facts. Why not just spend the time pointing them out to me? If he was a government employee, I'd agree it was a conflict of interest. Otherwise, it looks like a bloody good sales job. If you read up, you'll see I'm not a fan of the use of the media fund in this way, I think personally that the cash would be better spent encouraging our own media industry, particularly digital. I think if there is wrongdoing, we should have them discussed, the pages of documents and generalisations don't help.

I'm right about what? I've not said anything, I've just questioned the claim. If it's clear, explain it clearly. On one side you have Steve Christian advising on a deal to which he's a party, but the interest was fully disclosed and his move to pinewood was clearly defined as part of it.

In the Pinewood arrangement, where is the conflict? Be specific, because it's lost on me.

I don't work in government. I'm asking for the conflict to be pointed out, because nobody has yet. You cannot say anyone who's paid a fee for advice that's not performance related has a conflict of interest. That's stupid.

i think i get it now. Took long enough. I don't. Like Wooley said, it's an interest, not necessarily a conflict of interest. You're example would only pan out of Gassworks didn't get paid based on the advice given. That doesn't appear to be true. This looks quite simple to me: We moved the funds from a company to in house We appointed advisor (pinewood) to give advice on how to invest the funds in future Pinewood appointed our previous partner as a director and advisor, and paid him pretty much what we're paying them Where's the conflict? When is the advisor acting against the interests to create a conflict? They get paid either way. Please don't post more reams of quotes, your interpretation of them is what's needed. We can all read the public record.

The FSC is the Manx regulator, Pinewood isn't a Manx company. That aside.. Do you know the person in question is: a) a director of both companies b) has not declared as outlined above Note that the directorship is listed on Pinewoods director listing: Steve Christian is responsible for coordinating the investment advice to the Isle of Man Treasury Film and Television Fund. Prior to joining the Company he was responsible for overseeing the development of the Isle of Man's film investment programme. He is currently a non executive director of the Isle of Man's largest energy provider The Manx Electricity Authority and is also a director of CinemaNX Limited, Fordex Limited, Agrimark Limited and Gasworks Media Limited. That Pinewood appear to be paying him via Gasworks media isn't something to get excited about. I really don't see the issue. Newsnight, you keep posting these public records as if they're some kind of find. What are you seeing that you think isn't appropriate?

No, I don't think so. Those regulations as far as I'm aware apply to financial advisor who may be receiving a commission from a regulated financial services company.

No, I'd rather you answered my points. You seem to be really good at pasting reams of stuff you deem relevant, but not particularly good at interpreting it. LL: you've been pretty consistant in this thread talking about the arrangement as if it's some sort of regulated/licensed financial instrument. It isn't.

You've made this leap of logic yourself. He's not employed by the government as far as I know. He's employed by Pinewood. The old arrangement wasn't ideal, it's been refined to legitamise it with the inclusion of pinewood and a change in the way the fund is owned and managed. That the same people are involved isn't a surprise, tis often the way with outsource/retstructures. That it's not tied to the individual in question is key, if Pinewood decide to appoint someone else, they can. I don't see in all the winging generalisations where the specific wrong doing is. Just lots of grumbles about how it looks a bit wrong by people who don't really know or understand the detail and the clearly biased like Newsnight.

I never feel that secure no, I've been through redundancy and it isn't nice. As ever, I dislike misinformation and generalisations. What specifically is wrong here? Yes, it looks like an individual is doing rather well out of fees, but if we've appointed Pinewood and they've appointed one of the few specialists in movie production for small island nations, isn't that their choice? Where is the wrong doing?

I still don't see the issue. Like I said, Pinewood's chosen that company to sub to. You've not addressed why this isn't appropriate.

You're clutching at straws. Who pinewood pay for services is their business. Provided they do the service agreed for at the price agreed, it's up to them who they sub to.

But without it being a fiddle this time.

They're not, which is one of the valid criticisms in that it's hard to judge the benefits, but the same is true of other development funding such as grants.

Something that you've still not backed up with anything concrete. What you described isn't a hedge, but that's not what was proposed, which is. I think I'm wasting my time. You can't even be arsed to read the documents and are coming to incorrect conclusions.

Where was it stated that they didn't want to purchase the shares? The original proposal actually wanted double the shares, but they weren't able to. You're just making things up again, post something to back up what you're saying. What matters is the way the deals are linked, described as a hedge but really a risk mitigation strategy. Realistically, the MDF invests in individual films, the share deal earns on the returns of the wider market. What the pws ownership means is that we benefit from the UK's subsidy for films, something that our investment in films is competing with. By owning some of pws, we're hedging the risk of losing out in the investment market. This is how the proposal describes it, give it a read. Not true, read the report I linked.

So clearly that you can't actually demonstrate the fact? I don't think you're disagreeing, I think you're putting your fingers in your ears and shouting 'lalalalalalala!' You don't know that. According to the proposal, they were reliant as part of the strategy. I don't think that matters in this instance. The point is, the proposal considers it a hedge, that's why it's linked. That they got it wrong (and I agree with Bobsters definition obviously), but it's in the proposal and that's the strategy. I think you're separating the two things to make your argument stick. This is a partnership, it's an all encompasing deal. The Govt needed a get out of shit card for the NX mess, and they've backed Peel Holdings and Whittaker to manage their way out of it. It's a complex deal involving a bit of equity and a bit of investment advice, but it's all obviously come from negotiations and the construction of a strategy. It also appears to be working.

It isn't semantics, as I've provided the evidence that both deals are linked. I don't see that you've provided anything to say otherwise? Everything else in your paragraph is made up speculation. The motion taken to Tynwald: “That Tynwald, in principle and subject to contract approves the appointment of Pinewood Shepperton Plc as the investment managers for the Media Development Fund for an initial term of 5 years and that Treasury be authorised to expend from the Reserve Fund a sum not exceeding £24 million to purchase a shareholding in Pinewood Shepperton Plc representing a stake of up to 19.99% of ordinary share capital.” Clear enough? They're linked. Did you read the justification? http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/opqp/sittings/20112014/2012-GD-0029.pdf This document also links the fund to the investment, something you keep saying isn't a fact - yet here it is again. It's a hedge to the direct investment in individual films. By owning a share of the provider, you're earning from the wider industry rather than your individual investments, thus reducing the risk of those individual investments. No, you're missing the point that a manager has a mandate to mange without requiring authorisation. An advisor doesn't, he only advises. This deal required tynwald approval, nobody acted on their own. So you're arguing that he isn't a manger? He (or pinewood) isn't, they're an advisor appointed by the treasury to manage investments from the film fund. Their advice may or may not be biased, but as the investment decision remains with the treasury, that doesn't really matter.

Do you have that on record? We've done this to death, but the deals are linked, note the release quoted below which references them both. The deal was to find a way to manage the existing fund, and to carry on the islands participation in the film industry with a view to steer business inward. The results aren't perfect, but as a way of getting out of the mess of the old fund and cinemanx, it's looking pretty good in hindsight. Jesus, what is you want? It's price is demonstrably double what we paid, it's making £5m profit a year on a rising turnover, net assets of £85m and has just secured planning to expand. The Government's decided to back John Wittaker, and that's paying off. I know that must fucking annoy the hell out of the neigh sayers, but it's looking like one of the best moves the governments made in a while. Pinewood Shepperton (PWS) - £25 million Media Development Fund RNS Number : 7099E Pinewood Shepperton plc 06 June 2012  PINEWOOD SHEPPERTON PLC PINEWOOD IN NEGOTIATIONS TO ADVISE ON £25 MILLION MEDIA DEVELOPMENT FUND Further to the announcement on 30 May 2012 in which the Board announced that it is considering a proposal to manage a third party film fund, Pinewood Shepperton plc ("the Company"), a leading provider of services to the global film and television industry announces today that it is negotiating a binding agreement with the Government of the Isle of Man ("IOM") for the Company to source and advise on film investment opportunities for its £25 million Media Development Fund ("MDF") for an initial term of 5 years. If the Company enters into an agreement to advise the MDF, it is proposed that a core team from CinemaNX (the current adviser to the MDF) will join the Company to provide continuity. The Company notes the 4 June 2012 resolution tabled by the Minister for the Treasury, IOM, that the "Treasury be authorised but not requiredto expend from the reserve fund an amount of up to £24 million to purchase up to 19.9% of the ordinary shares of PinewoodShepperton plc from itsshareholders, if satisfactory terms can be agreed in connection with this proposal." Theresolution requires the consent of the Tynwald (Isle of Man Parliament). A further announcement will be made in due course. Enquiries Pinewood Shepperton plc +44 (0)1753 656732 Ivan Dunleavy - Chief Executive Andrew M Smith - Director of Strategy and Communications And from the other side: http://www.gov.im/news/2012/jun/06/pinewood-partnership-proposed-for-isle-of-man-film-industry/ The Isle of Man Government is proposing to negotiate a binding agreement with UK-based Pinewood Shepperton plc to source and advise on film investment opportunities for its £25 million Media Development Fund (MDF) for an initial term of five years. As part of the arrangement, the Isle of Man Government will also seek Isle of Man Parliamentary approval to acquire a stake of up to 19.9% in Pinewood Shepperton plc as a strategic Government investment. Clear enough? Have a read of Christians explanation to the standing committee in June: http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/hansard/20002020/eprct140627.pdf It answers the 'fund manager' question: Mr Christian is not a discretionary fund manager, he is a fund adviser, so in effect he will source out what he thinks is a suitable project. He will then come to Treasury and then it is up to Treasury to decide whether that 270 meets our, shall I say, risk appetite I think is the best way of putting it – whether we think that is appropriate, does it bring the appropriate level of economic benefits that we are expecting from the investmentSo the difference between this an other funds externalised from the government is that this hasn't been externalised. The £25m is still with the treasury, not with Pinewood. Pinewood are advising on investments into films, but the treasury is making the decisions and authorising the spend. The money is still here. So what you're bleating about is a £12m investment that's doubled in value and has returned £160k in divvies. Q25. The Chairman: Can I just try and get my mind around all of this? We took £12 million approximately and we bought a share of Pinewood Studios: that is one part of the transaction. Pinewood Studios then created Pinewood Film Advisers, who advise the Isle of Man Treasury on how to invest the £25 million which you keep in your name in the Isle of Man, or wherever you choose to place it. Is that basically a summary of the how it works? The Minister: It is, in effect, yes. The Chairman: Yes? Okay. I just wanted to confirm that because it seems like a pretty good deal to me.

Ignoring the boring fund managers stuff that we've done to death, the pinewood deal has resulted in films coming here, so it has contributed to diversity. Oops, yes, decimal point issues. It's still a large trade at double the price the island paid. Looks like a good investment in hindsight.

That's your point, it's pure arrogance to believe it's everyone's. I don't think it's been gambled, I think it's been invested with the aims of economic diversity. Could have been handled better, but it looks like it's working out ok. That must be really fucking annoying for those who slagged it off, right? Glass half empty Albert. Why not ask why is someone buying 32 million quid of it?

They've just traded 6,000 shares at 522p which is more than double what we paid.