Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF
- Thread starter breaker1
- Start date
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
Hi seamisty,
Apologies, you are right about the reference in press releases.
I meant to refer to the alleged breaches leading up to the present situation.
Hi seamisty,
Apologies, you are right about the reference in press releases.
I meant to refer to the alleged breaches leading up to the present situation.
- Joined
- 18 June 2008
- Posts
- 94
- Reactions
- 0
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
I've finally seen the article in today's AFR. What's all the fuss about? It says "PIF action group" and not "PIF Action Group". Yes it's an action group which is represented by PIF investors.
Let's all get serious without turning this into an Abbott and Costello routine.
I've finally seen the article in today's AFR. What's all the fuss about? It says "PIF action group" and not "PIF Action Group". Yes it's an action group which is represented by PIF investors.
Let's all get serious without turning this into an Abbott and Costello routine.
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
Do you have to pay $100 bucks up front before you get to see the rules? What if you don't like them?Seamisty:22_yikes:
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
Those of you who are familiar with the current PDS will know that if the current RE changes (to Wellington Capital Ltd, Resolution 3) you can kiss goodbye to anything we might have got from the $50m support facility!
Those of you who are familiar with the current PDS will know that if the current RE changes (to Wellington Capital Ltd, Resolution 3) you can kiss goodbye to anything we might have got from the $50m support facility!
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
Yes Juan, it is an action group represented by PIF investors, but Breaker's point is that it is not representative of PIF investors! - There is a huge difference.
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
Membership is $100. I presume they would let me see them before I signed (if I asked), but I am more interested in the answers to my questions.
Membership is $100. I presume they would let me see them before I signed (if I asked), but I am more interested in the answers to my questions.
- Joined
- 18 June 2008
- Posts
- 94
- Reactions
- 0
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
Will the following also have an impact on monies that PIF hopes to recoup from Octaviar? Does anyone know what OCV's exposure is if this project is shelved?
----------article----------
Peter Garrett suspends approval for Barrier Reef resort
Article from: The Courier-Mail
By Peter Michael
September 05, 2008 12:00am
DEVELOPERS are bracing for a backlash after Environment Minister Peter Garrett suspended a multimillion-dollar development on the Great Barrier Reef.
Mr Garrett yesterday shut down approval for Reef Cove Resort at False Cape, near Cairns, and ordered an environmental audit.
It is the first time a federal environment minister has exercised his powers to suspend a project's approval.
The ruling sent shockwaves through the developer market, with the Janet Holmes a Court-backed Ella Bay project, near Innisfail, also before the minister.
"I've decided to suspend approval of the False Cape project for a 12-month period because I am concerned about the threat of sediment run-off into the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area," Mr Garrett said yesterday.
"This suspension means there can be no construction at the site until I'm satisfied that the developer has completed the appropriate remediation work and can complete construction in a responsible manner."
The stalled $160 million project involved building a five-star resort with townhouses and 100 house blocks backing on to a steeply-sloped, heavily forested site overlooking Cairns and north to Cape Tribulation.
Reef Cove Resort spokeswoman Vicki Knight yesterday said they had spent millions on the development over the past five years and they were not about to walk away.
"We're extremely surprised and disappointed at Garrett's decision," she said. "We have referred the matter to our solicitors.
As far as we are concerned we have jumped through every hoop they asked us to."
The project has endured its fair share of controversy with a helicopter carrying four environmentalists crashing on the site in June, while a CEC excavator operator was crushed and killed there by a rolling boulder late last year.
In January, the project ground to a halt after financial backer MFS, now called Octaviar, ran into financial strife.
The mayor of the nearby Yarrabah Aboriginal community condemned the growing chorus of protesters, saying the resort was his community's best chance at ongoing employment.
Save False Cape spokesman Mark Buttrose, a local architect and one of four protesters who walked away unharmed from the chopper crash, commended Mr Garrett for his decision.
---------end of article-------------
direct link: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24295416-3102,00.html
Will the following also have an impact on monies that PIF hopes to recoup from Octaviar? Does anyone know what OCV's exposure is if this project is shelved?
----------article----------
Peter Garrett suspends approval for Barrier Reef resort
Article from: The Courier-Mail
By Peter Michael
September 05, 2008 12:00am
DEVELOPERS are bracing for a backlash after Environment Minister Peter Garrett suspended a multimillion-dollar development on the Great Barrier Reef.
Mr Garrett yesterday shut down approval for Reef Cove Resort at False Cape, near Cairns, and ordered an environmental audit.
It is the first time a federal environment minister has exercised his powers to suspend a project's approval.
The ruling sent shockwaves through the developer market, with the Janet Holmes a Court-backed Ella Bay project, near Innisfail, also before the minister.
"I've decided to suspend approval of the False Cape project for a 12-month period because I am concerned about the threat of sediment run-off into the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area," Mr Garrett said yesterday.
"This suspension means there can be no construction at the site until I'm satisfied that the developer has completed the appropriate remediation work and can complete construction in a responsible manner."
The stalled $160 million project involved building a five-star resort with townhouses and 100 house blocks backing on to a steeply-sloped, heavily forested site overlooking Cairns and north to Cape Tribulation.
Reef Cove Resort spokeswoman Vicki Knight yesterday said they had spent millions on the development over the past five years and they were not about to walk away.
"We're extremely surprised and disappointed at Garrett's decision," she said. "We have referred the matter to our solicitors.
As far as we are concerned we have jumped through every hoop they asked us to."
The project has endured its fair share of controversy with a helicopter carrying four environmentalists crashing on the site in June, while a CEC excavator operator was crushed and killed there by a rolling boulder late last year.
In January, the project ground to a halt after financial backer MFS, now called Octaviar, ran into financial strife.
The mayor of the nearby Yarrabah Aboriginal community condemned the growing chorus of protesters, saying the resort was his community's best chance at ongoing employment.
Save False Cape spokesman Mark Buttrose, a local architect and one of four protesters who walked away unharmed from the chopper crash, commended Mr Garrett for his decision.
---------end of article-------------
direct link: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24295416-3102,00.html
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
The fuss is about the article has no connection to do with the PIF Action Group or the PIF action group, and if it is no big deal, then the QLD PIFI will not have a problem with contacting the editor and requesting a retraction which has caused confusion and angst to a large number of elderly, vunerable Action Group members who have contacted AG reps today quite distressed thinking they are supporting the 'orderly windup' of the PIF, when they in fact, want to receive their anticipated distribution and the possibility of stronger unit value in 3-5 years. No big deal if you don't care how many seniors have been affected, no fuss at all if you are not responsible for mopping up the repercusions. I am really upset at the lack of compassion shown by a small group of holders who are prepared to use whatever means available to further their own agendas at the expense of others. Seamisty
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
May be we should all get serious and take a hard look at what JH is offering I am sorry to say it is nothing May be a vote No No No vote is our only option and see what happens I do not see any money from JH guarantee to arrive unless you do what I say and pass go or you lose all How can they decide to shut down the PIF they only just got it I think a NO NO NO is our only option this your money or was until JH decided it was hers
May be we should all get serious and take a hard look at what JH is offering I am sorry to say it is nothing May be a vote No No No vote is our only option and see what happens I do not see any money from JH guarantee to arrive unless you do what I say and pass go or you lose all How can they decide to shut down the PIF they only just got it I think a NO NO NO is our only option this your money or was until JH decided it was hers
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
Very true, elderly investors need income, maybe they'll get it with WC, who knows. But a great many of them just need and want as much of their money back as soon as possible so that they can SECURE AN INCOME. With WC their money will be locked in indefinately while VULTURES buy into the scheme on the NSX getting a bargain for themselves while diluting the value of units held by these elderly people. Note your own comment above.
Oh yes, that's right you're very concerned for these confused elderly investors. And you're right, no one likes people "that use whatever means available to further their own agendas at the expense of others".
Hi Seamisty,
Very true, elderly investors need income, maybe they'll get it with WC, who knows. But a great many of them just need and want as much of their money back as soon as possible so that they can SECURE AN INCOME. With WC their money will be locked in indefinately while VULTURES buy into the scheme on the NSX getting a bargain for themselves while diluting the value of units held by these elderly people. Note your own comment above.
Oh yes, that's right you're very concerned for these confused elderly investors. And you're right, no one likes people "that use whatever means available to further their own agendas at the expense of others".
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
Waleroo if you want to take a gamble, go for it. I received 2 ph calls from WC today, once again reiterating that if they do not get the 75% vote, thats it, its all over. If you believe they are lying, that is your choice. I am simply not prepared to take that chance!!! No way am I going to risk a potential unit value restoration and a annual distribution even if I have to wait 3-5years, for a miserly estimated 14cent per unit liquidation price gross!! You are in dreamsland if you think WC will not walk away. I actually give them credit for perserverance to date. I just hope the people who are prepared to support WC are rewarded for their faith and patience, because so help me if it was me in control, I would only be looking out for those that demonstrated some semblance of committment. Seamisty
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
So I haven't seen any quarantees of unit price our elderly investors will receive on liquidation of the fund if they vote N N N ( and yes I don't want estimates or target rates of return, I want written guarantees please)and yes I would certainly be tempted to pay 10-20cents for units with a NTAof 45cents with an estimated return of 13.5%%. Who wouldn't?? If you think investors are silly enough to take the risk of receiving 14cents per unit if WC walk away, then I am silly enough to think I will pick up units at 10-20cents. Seamisty
- Joined
- 4 May 2008
- Posts
- 288
- Reactions
- 0
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
With your logic, I can now go to any media outlet, tell them I represent the PIFI, ask them to relay to an Australia wide audience that the PIFI supports Jenny Hutson and Wellington Capital and strongly urge all PIF unitholders to vote YES YES YES on all resolutions, mention PIFI about 3 or 4 times and just add how the PIFI membership are really looking forward to the 3c distribution before Christmas and just throw in that we absolutely positively DO NOT want to go into any possibility of any wind up of the fund run by a pack of raw, ill prepared, cowboys, without even the slightest hint of what our returns could be and not even a any chance of a backup RE manager ready to go if the current RE takes her bat and WC and goes home. An then of course I should think nothing of it when you complain to me that your PIFI members from all over Australia ring you in horror asking you to explain what on earth is going on.
I'm sure you'd get over that Burnt, wouldn't you now?
At least in the AG we have never asked anyone for $100 upfront for a scratchies chance at only the possibility of something.
We as the AG have done whatever we could to extract as much for the PIF investor out of WC without the fund falling into a heap because of excessive investor demand from a severely abused and battered fund before it can get back on its feet
The objective of the PIF AG has always been to be attentive to the desires of the main body of the members of the AG and what they want. That we have done and their main desire has been to give WC and Jenny Huston a fair go.
That is something you PIFI guys I perceive are loathe to do, you have an agenda and stuff what the majority think and if the lot of us are dragged down the poop hole with you if it collapses in a heap, you can say, Oh well, we had a lawyer and lots of objectives didn't we. To bad we kept everything secret till the last minute with you PIF investors, we thought we'd just drop it on you right in the middle of the half finished investor vote for WC.
Retraction and apology in the AFR and an apology on this ASF site please!
BTW I have given up nearly 4 months of my life at great cost to me in this venture and never received a cent and if anyone offered me money to sway what I thought was in the best interests of the PIF AG members I'd tell them where to go.
With your logic, I can now go to any media outlet, tell them I represent the PIFI, ask them to relay to an Australia wide audience that the PIFI supports Jenny Hutson and Wellington Capital and strongly urge all PIF unitholders to vote YES YES YES on all resolutions, mention PIFI about 3 or 4 times and just add how the PIFI membership are really looking forward to the 3c distribution before Christmas and just throw in that we absolutely positively DO NOT want to go into any possibility of any wind up of the fund run by a pack of raw, ill prepared, cowboys, without even the slightest hint of what our returns could be and not even a any chance of a backup RE manager ready to go if the current RE takes her bat and WC and goes home. An then of course I should think nothing of it when you complain to me that your PIFI members from all over Australia ring you in horror asking you to explain what on earth is going on.
I'm sure you'd get over that Burnt, wouldn't you now?
At least in the AG we have never asked anyone for $100 upfront for a scratchies chance at only the possibility of something.
We as the AG have done whatever we could to extract as much for the PIF investor out of WC without the fund falling into a heap because of excessive investor demand from a severely abused and battered fund before it can get back on its feet
The objective of the PIF AG has always been to be attentive to the desires of the main body of the members of the AG and what they want. That we have done and their main desire has been to give WC and Jenny Huston a fair go.
That is something you PIFI guys I perceive are loathe to do, you have an agenda and stuff what the majority think and if the lot of us are dragged down the poop hole with you if it collapses in a heap, you can say, Oh well, we had a lawyer and lots of objectives didn't we. To bad we kept everything secret till the last minute with you PIF investors, we thought we'd just drop it on you right in the middle of the half finished investor vote for WC.
Retraction and apology in the AFR and an apology on this ASF site please!
BTW I have given up nearly 4 months of my life at great cost to me in this venture and never received a cent and if anyone offered me money to sway what I thought was in the best interests of the PIF AG members I'd tell them where to go.
- Joined
- 14 August 2008
- Posts
- 33
- Reactions
- 0
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
I will attempt to answer these, although I must say that I am not a member of the PIFI. However, I base my reasons on logic, so they may very well be the same as the PIFI.
Question 1
At the present time, I believe if nothing else were to happen, then the PIF could face liquidation. This would only happen if people who sought to redeem there money earlier this year were in fact able to proceed with that redemption.
I believe that liquidation can be avoided by a simple alteration to the current constitution. This could be to freeze the redemptions for a further period of time.
A further freezing would have the effect of the status quo remaining. The fund can continue to operate as it is today, however, it would allow for the probable turn around in the economy which is bound to occur in the future. It would also allow for a realisation of assets in a non firesale manner.
Question 2
WC is the RE. The vote (as I understand it, has no bearing on that). The vote is one for changes in the constitution - not a vote in favour or against WC. Therefore for at least the short term WC will remain and manage.
As I have said before, I do not believe that WC would allow this opportunity to manage the fund to slip between their hands.
In relation to changing the constitution, I believe WC would come back to the table with alternatives. If they did not, I would think that members could themselves seek to change it. Surely this could easily be done before January. Afterall WC was able to bring these changes to a vote in about two months of the roadshow.
As I have also said before, I believe that if WC did want to walk away as the RE, then another party would step forward. There would be people interested, dont be fooled by those who say the opposite. One only has to look at the media rports at the time, which said something along the lines of there were rumours of 20+ other parties.
Question 3
The constitution is being changed to make it harder to get rid of WC. This s done by firstly increasing the costs. I believe it is to 2% of assets. So it would become almost financially prohibitive to do.
I believe from memory there is also changes (increases) in the persons required to call meetings.
Question 4
I believe the buy back proposal is a sham. Offering 45c is all well and good. However it is no good offering someone a high amount when, the amount that that person will be able to sell is miniscule in the grand scheme of things.
Just a note in relation to the "dividend" - I believe this could be paid regardless of whether there is a yes or no vote. Provided there is a goal to avoid liquidation by altering the constitution in the near future.
I will attempt to answer these, although I must say that I am not a member of the PIFI. However, I base my reasons on logic, so they may very well be the same as the PIFI.
Question 1
At the present time, I believe if nothing else were to happen, then the PIF could face liquidation. This would only happen if people who sought to redeem there money earlier this year were in fact able to proceed with that redemption.
I believe that liquidation can be avoided by a simple alteration to the current constitution. This could be to freeze the redemptions for a further period of time.
A further freezing would have the effect of the status quo remaining. The fund can continue to operate as it is today, however, it would allow for the probable turn around in the economy which is bound to occur in the future. It would also allow for a realisation of assets in a non firesale manner.
Question 2
WC is the RE. The vote (as I understand it, has no bearing on that). The vote is one for changes in the constitution - not a vote in favour or against WC. Therefore for at least the short term WC will remain and manage.
As I have said before, I do not believe that WC would allow this opportunity to manage the fund to slip between their hands.
In relation to changing the constitution, I believe WC would come back to the table with alternatives. If they did not, I would think that members could themselves seek to change it. Surely this could easily be done before January. Afterall WC was able to bring these changes to a vote in about two months of the roadshow.
As I have also said before, I believe that if WC did want to walk away as the RE, then another party would step forward. There would be people interested, dont be fooled by those who say the opposite. One only has to look at the media rports at the time, which said something along the lines of there were rumours of 20+ other parties.
Question 3
The constitution is being changed to make it harder to get rid of WC. This s done by firstly increasing the costs. I believe it is to 2% of assets. So it would become almost financially prohibitive to do.
I believe from memory there is also changes (increases) in the persons required to call meetings.
Question 4
I believe the buy back proposal is a sham. Offering 45c is all well and good. However it is no good offering someone a high amount when, the amount that that person will be able to sell is miniscule in the grand scheme of things.
Just a note in relation to the "dividend" - I believe this could be paid regardless of whether there is a yes or no vote. Provided there is a goal to avoid liquidation by altering the constitution in the near future.
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
If ASIC were doing their job PIFI would not be necessary. We need to take a lead in the recovery of our "hard-earned".
A steady flow of distributions would be acceptable, if they were offered, providing there was some sort of redemption program other that the NSX.
JH is adamant that NO cash will leave the Fund. You are on your own - sell your units to some one else!
Without a reliable income and a sure means of redemption who would want them?
There is a better alternative and I don't mean liquidation.
The PIFI are a small group of investors who have spent a lot of time and money including excellent legal advice to better the outcome for all of us - big and small.
It is not too late!
If ASIC were doing their job PIFI would not be necessary. We need to take a lead in the recovery of our "hard-earned".
A steady flow of distributions would be acceptable, if they were offered, providing there was some sort of redemption program other that the NSX.
JH is adamant that NO cash will leave the Fund. You are on your own - sell your units to some one else!
Without a reliable income and a sure means of redemption who would want them?
There is a better alternative and I don't mean liquidation.
The PIFI are a small group of investors who have spent a lot of time and money including excellent legal advice to better the outcome for all of us - big and small.
It is not too late!
