Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

[Burnt]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Here you are MGR2118, Page 59, Explanatory Memorandum::::6.4 Cash payments
The responsible entity intends to make cash payments to Unitholders totalling 3 cents per Unit with
the first payment to be made in October 2008, the second in December 2008 and thereafter quarterly.

Also note - the rest of the quote should read "it is anticipated that the cash distribution will be a capital repayment". Therefore, it is not income.

Also note - EM page 38 under the heading No Cash Payments, "the responsible entity anticipates being in a position to pay 3 cents per unit by way of cash payment by 24 December 2008". That's it.

By the way, if you could bet on the chances of receiving the $50mil SF from Octaviar, I know which way I'd be betting (sfa).

Good on you MGR2118, well said.

 

[like2ski]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Here you are MGR2118, Page 59, Explanatory Memorandum::::6.4 Cash payments
The responsible entity intends to make cash payments to Unitholders totalling 3 cents per Unit with
the first payment to be made in October 2008, the second in December 2008 and thereafter quarterly.

Hi seamisty,
You have omitted to complete the quotes related to payments in the Explanatory Memorandum where it also states that "the responsible entity ANTICIPATES BEING IN A POSITION to make the payments"
Is this not contradictory? where is the guarantee and can you be sure that it will be implemented? Moreover I think that someone else has already stated that, if WC were genuine in their desire to make cash payments to unit holders, these could be made under the current set up as well,we don't need to change anything i.e. voting N.N.N.

 

[mgr2118]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hi Seamisty,

You have just demonstrated what I have been saying - there are a lot of words, but to the legalistic JH, there is nothing in writing, so she cannot be held accountable (which should be the case as we are paying WC to be accountable) if the payments are not made, for whatever reason.

Surely, WC should be clarifying this issue, rather than leave it to individual telephone calls, or posts to this forum that hold no substance in law.

 

[Burnt]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

By the way mgr2118 - and anyone else - the PIFI email address is
PIFInitiative@gmail.com
I know they are flat out, but all support is welcome.
Cheers.

 

[Burnt]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

According to the Constitution,

All loan establishment fees go to WC
All loan rollover fees go to WC
All penalty interest go to WC

All losses go to the PIF.

This is as ugly as a hat full of arseholes.

Hi Smokey68, you cracked me up with this one - lol lol lol lol

 

[Jadel]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Originally Posted by Smokey68
According to the Constitution,

All loan establishment fees go to WC
All loan rollover fees go to WC
All penalty interest go to WC

All losses go to the PIF.

This is as ugly as a hat full of arseholes.


Smokey have you got any more of these in your Repertoire mate lol lol

 

[like2ski]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Octaviar's manager wants more control

A finance company that took control of the collapsed Octaviar Premium Income fund is trying to change the funds constitution so that it would gain million of dollars if it was removed as manager, reported The Australian newspaper.

Controlled by Jenny Hutson, Brisbane company Wellington Investment Management is trying to place restrictions on the Fund that would make it difficult for investors to remove it as manager, according to a report by Hicksons Lawyers partner Kalinda Cobby.

Mr Hutson told the paper that while the changed would make it more difficult for Wellington to be removed, they would help the investors that wanted to keep the manager in place long-term.

Investors of the Fund, who have formed a body called the PIF Initiative, are upset about Wellington's claims that if they did not approve the changes to the Fund's constitution, they would only receive 14 cents in the dollar.

Wellington is trying to implement a severance fee into the Fund's constitution, the paper reported.

Mr Hutson told the paper Octaviar had paid Wellington $750,000 to manage the Fund, but Wellington was also expected to pay Octaviar a fee between $15 million and $20 million depending on how the Fund performed.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...wants-more-control-J6LVD?opendocument&src=rss

Hi DoraNBoots,
Do you know what the proposed payment to Octaviar by WC is all about??
I've recently become involved in the whole saga and had not heard about this one???

 

[Jadel]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Notwithstanding anything else offered or stated when we all first joined the MFS PIF, we all had a clear understanding that:-

1. we would earn regular income (at a defined rate) on money that we put into the MFS PIF,

AND

2. we had the option to redeem our money, or re-invest our money, after a defined period.

The responsibility for these liquidity events was with MFS PIF (as the RE).

Although words may have been said during the July forum meetings, I have looked and looked and can find no clear and precise statements in any formal documentation from WC that we will receive any REGULAR income.

I also find it unacceptable that WC has absolved itself totally of any responsibility to return outstanding value of OUR funds – whether in 3 months, 3 years or even 30 years!!

Having attended a forum meeting, and after reviewing the WC Melbourne Forum DVD a number of times, it appears, certainly to me, that JH has not really listened to us, the unit holders, about these key issues.

On this basis, I have to concur with the actions of the PIFI.

Regardless of the many comments and concerns expressed on this forum over many months (which would have also been monitored by WC staff), I certainly have seen nothing really improve (for unit holders).

As a legally incorporated association, PIFI has the ability to respond to the very legalistic JH in words that she can understand.

MGR

You hit the nail on the head mate.

It takes a thief to catch a thief and it takes a damn good lawyer to stop another one in their tracks and we have one in Kalinda Cobbey

 

[breaker1]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

One of the most important parts of that structure that had to be in place was an alternative Responsible Entity. This the NO voter party have NOT done. Its like a cowboy walking up the main street of town for a draw without his gun and then bragging "after the gun fight, I'm gonna shout ya all a drink folks".

Not only have the NO voter party NOT prepared an RE for you, but that non existent RE has NOT SOLD their package to ALL PIF investors.

They have NOT given ALL PIF investors any PDS / memorandum or anything similar to digest, but only if you do want their Secret Squirrel idea's, you'll have to pay them $100 for the privilege.

Yet, without anything substantial in place for all of us, they are quiet prepared to only get at least 26% of the vote against WC, to shut Jenny down and bugger the consequences for the rest of us. That's reckless!

They don't seem to understand that whatever their shaky agenda is, if successful, ALL PIF investors are going to be dragged into it whether they like it or not, whether we understand their plans or not - and as far as I am concerned THAT'S NOT ON !

The NO vote minority party had to have had their package well and truly in place at least 1 month ago FULLY COMPLETED - NOT HALF BAKED - AND FULLY SOLD TO ALL. This they have NOT done.

NO DEAL TO THE NO PARTY!

 

[selciper]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Like2Ski -

You thought that my logic was awry when I found fault in a JS statement given to the Australian and that I will nevertheless vote YES YES NO after such an observation. My logic is this: I don't want to walk the plank blindfolded. If there were a potential alternative RE named in this forum, then I would immediately weigh up the choice.

 

[selciper]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Sorry typo in my last post. JS should read JH.

 

[DoraNBoots]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Voting NO simply means that you do not accept the options presented.

Those who are talking of replacing the RE at this stage are getting ahead of themselves.

Has anyone to date put forward a logical, compelling argument for the YES vote based on facts rather than ignorance or fear?

 

[Burnt]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hi DoraNBoots,
Do you know what the proposed payment to Octaviar by WC is all about??
I've recently become involved in the whole saga and had not heard about this one???

Even though this question was directed to someone else, I'd like to offer an answer.

Wellington bought up all the shares in Octaviar Investment Management Limited (PIF RE) from a wholly owned Octaviar subsidiary and they are due to pay that subsidiary company the purchase price in June 2009. This price is 4 x the net profit of WIM (WIM took on four other funds when purchasing OIM) for the 12 months following the acquisition, + Net Tangible Asset Value of WIM at the end of that 12 mths.

In other words, Wellington will be handing back 4 years worth of management fees to Octaviar. This is why they want to lock themselves in for an indefinite period and be paid a huge exit fee if removed. Considering that all costs are reimbursed to them (even taxes), WIM's net profit would have to equal their management fee.

 

[Burnt]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Voting NO simply means that you do not accept the options presented.

Those who are talking of replacing the RE at this stage are getting ahead of themselves.

Has anyone to date put forward a logical, compelling argument for the YES vote based on facts rather than ignorance or fear?

Exactly DoraNBoots,
People are getting ahead of themselves if they think voting NO means RE has to be replaced.
Voting No means that we can move forward and vote on other options than the restrictive ones WC has put forward.
Again I will state that it is just not possible under the law for the current RE to just walk away. Unitholders get to vote on a replacement RE, and until a new RE is registered with ASIC, the current RE REMAINS THE RE.

 

[Juan Mortyme]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Article in The Daily Telegraph today.

-----------------------
Rebels oppose changes

Edition: 1 - State
Section: Finance, pg. 105

REBEL investors in the hobbled $750 million Premium Income Fund once controlled by stricken financier MFS have raised objections to planned changes promoted by the current fund operator.

The investors are vehemently opposed to three proposed constitution changes sought by Wellington Investment Management, which is operated by merchant banker Jenny Hutson and took control of the fund in May.

Investor Rachel Carr said yesterday she was one of more than 30 fund clients who have complained the mendments would diminish their rights if approved at a meeting on September 18.

Based on legal advice, these clients dispute the idea that the fund must be liquidated by March 31 with only a 14c on the dollar return unless the amendments are approved by the fund's 10,300 investors.

-------end of article--------

 

[JohnH]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Article in The Daily Telegraph today.

-----------------------
Rebels oppose changes

Edition: 1 - State
Section: Finance, pg. 105

REBEL investors in the hobbled $750 million Premium Income Fund once controlled by stricken financier MFS have raised objections to planned changes promoted by the current fund operator.

The investors are vehemently opposed to three proposed constitution changes sought by Wellington Investment Management, which is operated by merchant banker Jenny Hutson and took control of the fund in May.

Investor Rachel Carr said yesterday she was one of more than 30 fund clients who have complained the mendments would diminish their rights if approved at a meeting on September 18.
Based on legal advice, these clients dispute the idea that the fund must be liquidated by March 31 with only a 14c on the dollar return unless the amendments are approved by the fund's 10,300 investors.

-------end of article--------

u hum!!! :batman: but we must not be complacent

 

[seamisty]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Sorry you guys,I have been out and as I have so many on ignore on this thread I only have 2 posts to read.I will re-post the article in todays Gold Coast Bulletin as I think it solves the PIF actions group and WC's problem of refuting or resorting to damage control via the media, save us all a lot of time and effort::Wellington faces its Waterloo Nick Nichols

September 6th, 2008

ANGRY Premium Income Fund investors are confident they have the numbers to roll Wellington Capital's 'rescue' proposal which goes to a vote in less than two weeks.

Despite Wellington's founder Jenny Hutson revealing this week she had received 97 per cent support from more than 3000 votes counted, PIF Init-iative spokesman Dennis Chapman said large investors still had the numbers to crush the proposal.

The PIF Initiative, a group of investors lobbying against Wellington's plans through an internet campaign, is angry at Wellington's bid to abolish the original responsible entity of the fund -- set up by the defunct MFS (now Octaviar) -- and secure a hefty exit fee in the process.

It also opposes plans to list the fund on the National Stock Exchange.

Mr Chapman said Wellington does not appear to be acting in the best interests of the Premium Income Fund's (PIF) 10,300 investors, many of whom are elderly and have kissed goodbye to the $770 million they invested.

PIF Initiative has approached corporate watchdog, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, to investigate, although the nature of the investigation has not been disclosed.

ASIC yesterday declined to comment on specific cases.

PIF Initiative also has sought legal opinion as to whether Wellington Capital is acting in the best interests of investors.

Wellington Capital has called a meeting on the Gold Coast for September 18 to vote on three resolutions that are designed to keep the fund a going concern.

"A lot of people don't really understand the full ramifications of what (Ms Hutson) is trying to push through," said Mr Chapman.

"All we're after is a fair go."

Although 3000 votes have already been lodged, Mr Chapman yesterday described PIF Initiative's chances of getting remaining investors vote down the proposals as 'pretty good'.

"The top 3000 people will more than cover it," he said.

Wellington needs the backing of 75 per cent of units by value to proceed.

PIF Initiative is concerned on a number of fronts, including the 14c per unit valuation put forward by Wellington for a liquidation of the fund.

The fund is said to be valued at 45c a unit as a going concern.

Mr Chapman said he believed 45c a unit could be achieved through an orderly sell-off of assets, giving investors the chance to retrieve more of their funds over a quicker timeframe, and he would like to see an independent responsible entity take over the task of doing so.

Wellington Capital has estimated it will take three to five years to restore full value to investors.

"But a lot of these (investors) are elderly people," said Mr Chapman.

"Half of them won't be around in five years. That's the sad part."

Mr Chapman said a promised 3c distribution to investors by December was a major incentive being used by Wellington Capital.

But he said this would be a repayment of capital, rather than payment from profits.

It also would be a trigger for Wellington Capital to be paid ongoing management fees for the fund.

PIF Initiative is opposed to an NSX listing for the fund.

A rush of sellers is expected to push the price of units down to about 10c each, it said.

Mr Chapman said this would be the worst outcome for elderly investors who needed to sell immediately.

Mr Chapman, once a comfortable self-funded retiree, invested about $1.25 million in the failed MFS empire, with about $200,000 in PIF.

"I'm doing it tough like you wouldn't believe, but there are lot more people who are far worse off than me," he said.

 

[Juan Mortyme]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

All I am giving WC at present is the Ok to demostrate her abilities, unhindered, that have already been recognised by being awarded Queensland Business Woman of the year 2007. I trawled the net for days looking for any information that would deter me from going with WC and found nothing but praise for the woman!!! If there was one skerrick of scandal or wrong doing it would have been plastered all over this thread by all and sundry. The other opportunities waiting to present themselves are heavily disguised and too slow off the mark. It's too late, the majority off investors have made their decision, many from as far back as the forums where they were satisfied with what they saw and were prepared to accept whatever was put to them from WC. At least I can recognize a dead horse when I see one. Seamisty:horse:

Seamisty, this is what the Courier Mail reported on the 21/10/06 after the announcement of the MFS and S8 merger.

------excerpt of article by Melissa Maugeri (p. 78 Courier Mail, 21/10/06)-------

Ms Hutson said a successful completion of the MFS deal would see investors who have put in $1 get a return of more than $10 in five years.

``If shareholders want to stay for the ride they can, and if they want to cash in their chips they've been on an extraordinary adventure,'' she said.

-------------end of excerpt-------------

A case of deja vu perhaps??

 

[newwwtrader]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Voting NO simply means that you do not accept the options presented.

Those who are talking of replacing the RE at this stage are getting ahead of themselves.

Has anyone to date put forward a logical, compelling argument for the YES vote based on facts rather than ignorance or fear?

THIS IS EXACTLY RIGHT!!!!!!

A no vote does not rid the PIF of WC. Anyone who says that in order to vote no, you essentially need to have a new RE waiting in the wings is, in my opinion just spreading false and baseless information. All it is doing is trying to scare those who are teetering towards the yes vote.

WHAT THEY ARE SAYING IS WRONG.

The only thing worse than what WC is doing to investors in the PIF, is those that allow WC to do it.

I dont know whether to feel sad or angry to those that wish to vote yes. Im sad, that many feel that this is you're only option. Im sad that you have been so easily misled. But Im also angry for the same reasons. Weird isnt it!!

 

[seamisty]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

I have heard that there is approx 30 paid up subscribers to the QLD PIFI and they are encouraging some to post anti WC on this thread. I would hope this is not the case as it means some are not taking them seriously and using them to further their agenda to promote the liquidation of the PIF. I have also heard some are looking to recoup their expenses for stamps and other costs involved in promoting the wind up of the fund. My information is only received from confused elderly investors looking for direction from some one they trust who has never done anything more than give an unbiased opinion as to which way they should vote. Seamisty