All income must be paid out no less than quarterly. Income can not be converted to principal. According to conditions that have existed since the account was funded, no income should come from principal. At the end of each year a certain amount of “Undistributed Accrued Income” is held for distribution at the beginning of the next year. The “Market Value” minus the “Undistributed Accrued income” is the account "Principal."
$7,248,392.09 is stated to be the end of the year "Market Value" on the Summary Page (Page 3.)
The "Market Value" is a contrived Summary Page number which deceives the viewer into believing the "Market Value" (and hence the "Principal") are much higher than they really are. 6 numbers are added together to obtain the "Market Value." Those numbers are provided in pages 4 thru 10 of the Account Statement which is linked below (please print/view pages 3 thru 10.) A component of the summation for Market Value is $336,963.14 which is another contrived Summary Page nonsense number that represents nothing. Imaginary Annual Income that would have already been paid out can not be part of the "Market Value." The "Market Value Summation" is also linked below.*2014 RBC Annual Statement
The Summary Page indicates $336,963.14 is the Annual Income for 2014. Please go to the Summary Page and make your best determination of what is being reported for "Annual Income." USDI stands for "United States Dollar Income." The dates on the Summary Page are 01/01/14 to 12/31/14. An "Annual Income" of $336,963.14 is within the expected range.
Once I started to add things up and ask detailed questions I was then informed via written correspondence that the Annual Income was instead $143,453.37. But the figure of $143,453.37 for "Annual Income" created another problem. A quantity close to $143,453.37 can be obtained by adding up the receipts in the Portfolio.3 Activity Section shown on pages 17 thru 40. But $143,453.37 is about $6k short of the sum of 2014 income reciepts. The "2014 Annual Income," that was later reported ($143,353.37) is not explicitly stated anywhere on the Annual Statement.
So what does the number $336,963.14 represent? In written correspondence we were informed that it is all the income that posted since the account opened (a 5.5 year period.) The smallest bit of investigation, going back to the statement just one year previous, informs one that cannot be true. $336,963.14 is not what it appears to be (Annual Income.) It is not what it was later desribed to be (all the income that has posted since the account opened.) No one has been able to successfully explain what that number is supposed to represent. And even if $336,963.14 did represent all the income that posted since the account opened what business would such a number have the the Summary Page of an Annual Statement?
According to the statement Summary Page, rounding off to the nearest 1000, the "Accrued Income" is $12K. This indicates that the "Principal" is $736K ("Market Value" minus "Accrued Income.") The trust officer and also Mr. Neff reported in written corresondence that the "Principal" was $736K. The fact that they never corrected themselves indicates false reporting with the intent to deceive has occurred. Later, due to all of our complaints, RBC ordered "compliation reports" to be prepared at a cost of $10K to the trust. The report for 2014 stated the principal was $6,917,483 - but offered no assurances. At this point Mike Neff, the financial exeuctive who has influence over our mother, should have informed our mother and admitted to everyone else there is something seriously wrong with the Annual Statements. That hasn't happened. His position - as expressed in an email - is that the accounting just takes some getting used to. It seems Mr. Neff does not want to explain the accounting deficiencies - which appear to involve fraud - to our senior citizen mom. He has become incommunicado. To this day, no one has been able to pin down the amount of principal held at the end of 2014.
We have asked for the Tax Documents that must be filed for the trust. RBC has refused to provide them to us.>
There are all kinds of problems with the RBC Annual Statements. As a starting point it is important to recognize that the 2014 Annual Statement is using contrived Summary Page numbers that have no explanation. The big picture looks like RBC had a pile of money and did who knows what with it. They then produced annual statements that do not add up. The Summary Page makes it appear things are peforming much better than they really are. The lack of growth during the time RBC held the account looks strange when you consider the economy was in an "Inflationary Boom." There is a cash deduction of $329K indicated on Page 7 with no indication where that money went or how it was used. There are transfers to and from Wells Fargo that seem mysterious. Mike Neff is the adviser who convinced our mother to move things to RBC. Once I started to find problems with the statements Mr. Neff used his influence over our mom to move things to Wells Fargo where there is a whole new set of concerns.