Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

[Maverick2802]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Does anyone have any definate dates on when the tax statements will be issued by wellington.
Last time I made a direct call to their customer automated answering machines I got return message which said we'd get our statements in a couple of weeks.... That was 5 weeks ago.

without me calling their machines again Has anyone heard anything new from wellington.......... is it that perpetual are still being relaxed in their attitude in doing their ever well paid job for the PIF.

At the meeting JH said they would be going out some time this week.

 

[seamisty]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

It is easy for someone not to see the wood for the trees, particularly when they are desperate.

I am fortunately far from desperate Communique, and I can assure you I am supporting WC because I personally believe that the best outcome for the Fund (therefore myself) is as a going concern under a committed team of professionals. Nothing to do with desperation, wood or trees with my decision, and I know of others in the same position as me who are of the same view. Regards, Seamisty

 

[communique]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

I am fortunately far from desperate Communique, and I can assure you I am supporting WC because I personally believe that the best outcome for the Fund (therefore myself) is as a going concern under a committed team of professionals. Nothing to do with desperation, wood or trees with my decision, and I know of others in the same position as me who are of the same view. Regards, Seamisty

You obviously did a lot of research Seamisty and I didn't realise your Action Group was incorporated - sorry! Forgive me for not digging back through the posts but I would appreciate some advice. To help me make my decision would you just confirm when you weighed up the alternatives to WC which I guess was winding up the scheme independently from WC did you come up with an figure of what the return would be. This would be helpful to compare with over a period of time with WC and her team of professionals at the helm.
Thanks in advance.

 

[seamisty]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

You obviously did a lot of research Seamisty and I didn't realise your Action Group was incorporated - sorry! Forgive me for not digging back through the posts but I would appreciate some advice. To help me make my decision would you just confirm when you weighed up the alternatives to WC which I guess was winding up the scheme independently from WC did you come up with an figure of what the return would be. This would be helpful to compare with over a period of time with WC and her team of professionals at the helm.
Thanks in advance.

I am pretty sure the AG is not in corporated Communique, it is an option still open to it, if and when it becomes neccessary (please confirm this Breaker1). I left the number crunching up to someone more qualified than me and the return of the anticipated annual return of 6 cent per unit on 45cents was 13 1/2% I think. JH personally told someone I spoke to who also was at the meeting last week that the 6 cents 'was doable' without any unexpected or unforeseen hurdles. The fact of the matter was that no one could guarantee a unit price if the Fund was wound up, orderly or otherwise.Nothing is guaranteed here, I just know that now is not the time to be selling property of any description, unfinished or otherwise. WC also has the job of renegotiating a deal on behalf of the PIF with OCV now that it is in voluntary liquidation. I have had legal advice regarding the PIF and meet with a AMP Financial Planner every six weeks, the uncertainty out there is nothing short of scary!! No one is prepared to commit to anything, that is why I have a high regard for WC. They are prepared to put their name on the line here when no one else gave the Fund a second look (if not a first). This is only my opinion, but I think it is an honest one with what information is available.Please do not be influenced by it, do your own research the same as me. (I am not a dictator) Seamisty

 

[CableGuy]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

You can interrupt the playground whenever you like Communique. I spoke with ASIC and I spoke with one of the people who contacted ASIC on behalf of the PIFI. Their intervention was a direct result from PIFI related actions. Unit holders relate that directly to added unwarranted expenses that ultimately will have some impact on the PIF so when some of us see the remnants of PIFI still agitating, we are inclined to get extremely angry and feel like we have to put the BOOTS in. You have no idea how much anguish and stress those actions caused! You obviously did not receive the amount of phone calls and e-mails I personally I had to deal with or you would realise the extent of ill feeling towards a few individuals that exists. I don't recall you posting in regard to some of the anti Wellington childish nasty posts and no one is asking you to agree with anyone.Regards, Seamisty (the dictator)

ASIC would not have told Seamisty that PIFI made a complaint as that type of information is confidential. ASIC aren’t even allowed to comment on the case at the moment, so unless you were at the hearing or get the transcript you won’t know what happened. You could take WC's word for it however, it’s their conduct that is in question.

If a member of PIFI made a complaint that does not mean that PIFI made a complaint. The unit holders making complaints are not responsible for the deceptive or misleading information. WC is responsible and they were given the opportunity to correct this without going to court however, they decided to challenge ASIC and they LOST. If you want to blame someone for all your personal phone calls look to WC. It is worth noting that ASIC did not seek court costs from WC (to which they were entitled) as this would not have been in the unit holder's best interests. WC on the other hand will be passing costs onto the fund as a result of their own misconduct.

The point of an AG is to keep the RE in check. What’s the point of asking an AG member for information if they are just going to spout off what they have been told by WC without checking the facts first. If anyone has an issue with the content of post #2782 please let us all know what it is. Who does not see the value of clarifying misleading information?

Discrediting the RE is not in anyone's best interest however, if by bringing the facts to light they are discredited then so be it. It is more important to ensure unit holders are fully informed rather than protect the RE.

-----
"Hey I'm on a pay phone, so if you're there pick up, pick up, pick up, pick up, pick up, pick up, pick up, pick up, well OK, call me back."

 

[great dame]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Who knows. I am not a fortune teller. Might even be worth more for all we know. I don't know, you don't know. No guarantees in this world. All I know is that our units would be worth jack if JH did not step in and prevent those other mongrels liquidating it.

I and the majority here say give Jenny a go. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. You should do the same as the majority really has spoken and you are just :horse:

I repeat your words HOLD ON TO YOUR UNITS THEY WILL BE WORTH $1 IN 3 to 4 YEARS Realy & truely now we both know that cant happen For a start the fund is being depleted by 6 cents a year handing out that income I am game to say the fund will be worth the same as what it is right now in 3 to 5 years selling on the exchange for about 20 cents You cant get a big 6 cents income & expect to get growth also it dont work that way sorry ////

 

[communique]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

ASIC would not have told Seamisty that PIFI made a complaint as that type of information is confidential. ASIC aren’t even allowed to comment on the case at the moment, so unless you were at the hearing or get the transcript you won’t know what happened. You could take WC's word for it however, it’s their conduct that is in question.

If a member of PIFI made a complaint that does not mean that PIFI made a complaint. The unit holders making complaints are not responsible for the deceptive or misleading information. WC is responsible and they were given the opportunity to correct this without going to court however, they decided to challenge ASIC and they LOST. If you want to blame someone for all your personal phone calls look to WC. It is worth noting that ASIC did not seek court costs from WC (to which they were entitled) as this would not have been in the unit holder's best interests. WC on the other hand will be passing costs onto the fund as a result of their own misconduct.

The point of an AG is to keep the RE in check. What’s the point of asking an AG member for information if they are just going to spout off what they have been told by WC without checking the facts first. If anyone has an issue with the content of post #2782 please let us all know what it is. Who does not see the value of clarifying misleading information?

Discrediting the RE is not in anyone's best interest however, if by bringing the facts to light they are discredited then so be it. It is more important to ensure unit holders are fully informed rather than protect the RE.

Cableguy, no problem from me in relation to your comments. I appreciate your clarification, in depth analysis, research and input. I just would like to know factually what the alternative is.

 

[Duped]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

I repeat your words HOLD ON TO YOUR UNITS THEY WILL BE WORTH $1 IN 3 to 4 YEARS Realy & truely now we both know that cant happen For a start the fund is being depleted by 6 cents a year handing out that income I am game to say the fund will be worth the same as what it is right now in 3 to 5 years selling on the exchange for about 20 cents You cant get a big 6 cents income & expect to get growth also it dont work that way sorry ////

See my posts on 1st September #2157 (page 108) and #2164 (page 109)

Post #2164 is about the annual % returns WC would need to achieve to return 1$ to us after 3/5 years as a COMBINATION of 6c a year and an exit value.

My calcs could be wrong so don't sue me if I'm wrong.

 

[Maverick2802]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

:horse:

ASIC would not have told Seamisty that PIFI made a complaint as that type of information is confidential. ASIC aren’t even allowed to comment on the case at the moment, so unless you were at the hearing or get the transcript you won’t know what happened. You could take WC's word for it however, it’s their conduct that is in question.

If a member of PIFI made a complaint that does not mean that PIFI made a complaint. The unit holders making complaints are not responsible for the deceptive or misleading information. WC is responsible and they were given the opportunity to correct this without going to court however, they decided to challenge ASIC and they LOST. If you want to blame someone for all your personal phone calls look to WC. It is worth noting that ASIC did not seek court costs from WC (to which they were entitled) as this would not have been in the unit holder's best interests. WC on the other hand will be passing costs onto the fund as a result of their own misconduct.

The point of an AG is to keep the RE in check. What’s the point of asking an AG member for information if they are just going to spout off what they have been told by WC without checking the facts first. If anyone has an issue with the content of post #2782 please let us all know what it is. Who does not see the value of clarifying misleading information?

Discrediting the RE is not in anyone's best interest however, if by bringing the facts to light they are discredited then so be it. It is more important to ensure unit holders are fully informed rather than protect the RE.

-----
"Hey I'm on a pay phone, so if you're there pick up, pick up, pick up, pick up, pick up, pick up, pick up, pick up, well OK, call me back."

Sorry Cable Guy, but you are wrong on several counts:

WC did challenge ASIC, and on the matters that they were defending ie. EM, they did NOT lose as JH clearly explained to YOU at the meeting, as YOU did not stay till the end of the hearing as YOU admitted.

The judge in fact dismissed all ASIC claims that the material put to unit holders was deceptive or misleading, so why do YOU keep saying that here and at the meeting. It baffles me of your continued stubborness!!

The ONLY thing the judge stipulated was clarification of the quaterly distributions. How has the RE been discredited? You are misleading the people of this forum by your inaccurate 'facts'. That was not the actual judgement, though I feel it is the judgement that YOU and the other PIFI member(s) that accompanied you in the QSC were praying for. Basically the 3 of you that put your hands up against supporting WC.

Did you think that the 3 of you would take control of our fund LOL!!

You are really are whipped!! :whip

 

[communique]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

:horse:

Sorry Cable Guy, but you are wrong on several counts:

WC did challenge ASIC, and on the matters that they were defending ie. EM, they did NOT lose as JH clearly explained to YOU at the meeting, as YOU did not stay till the end of the hearing as YOU admitted.

The judge in fact dismissed all ASIC claims that the material put to unit holders was deceptive or misleading, so why do YOU keep saying that here and at the meeting. It baffles me of your continued stubborness!!

The ONLY thing the judge stipulated was clarification of the quaterly distributions. How has the RE been discredited? You are misleading the people of this forum by your inaccurate 'facts'. That was not the actual judgement, though I feel it is the judgement that YOU and the other PIFI member(s) that accompanied you in the QSC were praying for. Basically the 3 of you that put your hands up against supporting WC.

Did you think that the 3 of you would take control of our fund LOL!!

You are really are whipped!! :whip

Thank you Maverick, you must have been at the court. Please tell the forum exactly what the judge said, not what Jenny said.

 

[Maverick2802]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Thank you Maverick, you must have been at the court. Please tell the forum exactly what the judge said, not what Jenny said.

If the court had discredited JH then we would be having to do a complete new vote on resolutions, but we are NOT. So what Jenny says IS true. Move on.

 

[communique]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

If the court had discredited JH then we would be having to do a complete new vote on resolutions, but we are NOT. So what Jenny says IS true. Move on.

My question was were you at the court and did you hear the judge? I for one will be reading the transcript before making my decision "to move on".

 

[great dame]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

See my posts on 1st September #2157 (page 108) and #2164 (page 109)

Post #2164 is about the annual % returns WC would need to achieve to return 1$ to us after 3/5 years as a COMBINATION of 6c a year and an exit value.

My calcs could be wrong so don't sue me if I'm wrong.

You wont be sued Duped because your DEAD RIGHT what you say
Bloody shame others cant understand /////////////

 

[Duped]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

You wont be sued Duped because your DEAD RIGHT what you say
Bloody shame others cant understand /////////////

Unfortunately, when's being dead right ever been protection? Might is right.

 

[CableGuy]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Sorry Cable Guy <snip>

-----
"I forgive you. I only hope my neurologist will feel the same."

The judge in fact dismissed all ASIC claims that the material put to unit holders was deceptive or misleading <snip>

Here is a report from someone who was at the hearing all the way til the end (from p137 post #2740).

Court ruling forces Octaviar meeting to be adjourned
Article from: The Courier-Mail

by Anthony Marx

September 17, 2008 12:00am

A MEETING expected to draw up to 1000 investors at the Gold Coast Convention Centre will have to be adjourned this morning.
This comes after a Brisbane court late yesterday ruled that information sent to them was misleading and deceptive.

The decision is a costly blow for Wellington Investment Management, which was seeking approval of three resolutions to help restructure the embattled $413 million Premium Income Fund once operate by failed financier Octaviar (formerly MFS).

Supreme Court Justice Philip McMurdo sided with arguments by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission that unitholders could be confused about proposed quarterly cash payments in the new year following a promised 3c payment by late December.

"It is likely that many unitholders would be affected in their consideration of the resolutions," Justice McMurdo said.

Wellington chair Jenny Hutson said she hoped to re-schedule another meeting within a month and would send out new proxy forms after consulting with ASIC. "I'm disappointed for the unitholders," she said.

Ms Hutson said her firm had been engaged in extensive talks with ASIC since August about the proposed changes to the fund constitution and the corporate regulator had never previously raised concerns about lack of clarity in quarterly payments. ASIC had even approved the 80-page explanatory memorandum sent to investors, she said.

Wellington had proposed giving unitholders a 1.5c payment in October and another 1.5c payment in December and "quarterly thereafter" - wording that Justice McMurdo ruled could be interpreted to mean 1.5c or 3c per quarter.

Ms Hutson said no figure was promised because market conditions are so uncertain and she warned that the October payment may now be endangered because of the delay in holding the meeting. The fund's planned listing on the National Stock Exchange tomorrow will also have to be deferred.

Ms Hutson estimated that Wellington would have to bear another $120,000 in costs because of the delay and that yesterday's court tab would reach $50,000. Investors travelling to the Gold Coast will also be out of pocket and severely inconvenienced.

ASIC counsel Jean Dalton argued that Wellington provided investors with error-ridden documents and had failed to make clear its fee structure, including a potential $8 million windfall if removed as the fund's responsible entity.

The fund was originally worth $755 million but has declined sharply in value because of nearly $200 million owing from MFS and the falling value of assets.

----
"Hey I never made a slam dunk before. Thanks for the boost."

 

[Duped]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

$170,000 is 0.0225c per unit.
I.e. $2.25 per 10,000 units

 

[breaker1]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Here’s why Washington’s $1 trillion bailout is little more than a band-aid on a massive wound ...

Why more than 1,000 banks are still in danger of collapsing no matter what Washington does ...

Why scores of household-name companies are still at risk for huge stock losses or even bankruptcy ...

How badly this will affect Australia I do not know, but it took about 4-6 months for the sub prime problem to reach us in the credit squeeze that brought down MFS/City Pacific/Donovan Oats Hannoford

Breaker



Dear BREAKER,

It was a surreal moment: Senator Christopher Dodd told ABC’s “Good Morning America” that Treasury Secretary Paulson and Fed Chief Bernanke had just informed Congressional leaders “We’re literally days away from a complete meltdown of our financial system.”

Things got even scarier when he told CNN, “There was dead silence in the room for five to 10 seconds. The oxygen went out of the room.”

No wonder Congress is falling all over itself to pass the $700-billion bailout bill to buy toxic mortgages!

Combined with the $25 billion spent to bail out Bear Sterns, $100 billion each for Fannie and Freddie and $85 billion for AIG, Washington has now pledged more than $1 TRILLION to fight this crisis so far ”” and still, it’s only the beginning:

Yesterday, Paulson announced he’s adding another $50 billion to ensure the money market funds ...


He’s also expanding the bail-out to include car loans, credit card debt and more ...


And Democrats in Congress are clamoring for hundreds of billions more for a second economic stimulus package, for a bailout of homeowners at risk for losing their homes and more!
And still ”” even if Congress gives Paulson everything he asks for and more ”” there’s still one, glaring, “inconvenient truth” nobody’s talking about ...

None of these unprecedented actions
are enough to end this massive debt crisis!

1. They do little to guarantee that more financial institutions won’t fail: Sure ”” Washington is going to buy toxic loans from the institutions that invested in them. But don’t think for a moment banks and other companies are going to get top dollar for the poison in their portfolios.

Although the details of the bailout are still sketchy, it’s clear that Washington will pay a deeply discounted price for that bad paper. That means the financial institutions that own those lousy investments are still going to take huge losses.

And in many cases, those losses are likely to be large enough to push many of these teetering firms over the brink.

Our forecast: Despite this massive, historic, unprecedented bailout, you will still continue to see a chain reaction of bank failures and corporate bankruptcies.

2. They do little to slow the explosion in mortgage defaults that caused this mess in the first place: With the economy slowing, unemployment surging, home values still plunging and monthly payments on six million adjustable rate mortgages set to rise, the tidal wave of mortgage delinquencies and defaults we’ve seen so far is almost certain to grow larger, not smaller.

As Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, told FOX News Sunday, “If you don't solve the mortgage crisis, you're not going to solve the financial crisis.”

3. They do nothing to address the $180-trillion derivatives time bomb at U.S. commercial banks: Thirty years of deregulation have allowed a parallel financial system to arise in America in which more than $180 trillion dollars in derivatives are held and traded by U.S. banks with scant government supervision or accounting.

The truth is, no one has any idea of the magnitude of the deleveraging ahead or the size of the debts that will ultimately have to be written down!

4. They do virtually nothing to cause lenders to end the credit drought that’s spreading the contagion to other sectors: To survive, banks are desperately raising credit requirements ... slashing lines of credit for corporations and spending limits on credit cards ... turning down all but the most highly qualified borrowers.

And that’s what’s causing so much pain at companies making products that consumers buy on credit: Autos, home improvement products, electronics and other high-end merchandise.

BOTTOM LINE: As massive as it is, the Paulson-Bernanke plan can’t even begin to resolve this crisis. In fact ...

This $1 trillion bailout virtually guarantees
this crisis will spin wildly out of control!

Look: Until last week, the White House projected that the 2009 federal deficit would be $482 billion. Now, just with the bailouts announced and proposes so far, Congress is tacking on 1 trillion to that number, or even more.

That means plunging prices for Treasury notes and bonds plus soaring interest rates. And that, in turn, means rapidly rising payments on ARMs ”” a coup de grâce for millions of homeowners who are barely clinging to their homes as it is.

It also means the recession will be deeper and longer than it otherwise might have been. And it means scores of U.S. companies that manufacture and sell products requiring consumer credit will be hit even harder.

Sincerely,

Martin D. Weiss, Ph.D.

 

[Maverick2802]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

The only information that was deceptive and misleading was concerning the quaterly distributions. This is now being cleared up by WC. End of story!!

 

[like2ski]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

The only information that was deceptive and misleading was concerning the quaterly distributions. This is now being cleared up by WC. End of story!!

Maverick,
How could you possibly make and believe such a statement!!! not unlike a one eyed supporter of a football team which can do no wrong and blames the opposition for everything under the sun LOL!!!!
I refer you to CableGuy's post no. 2782, and others along the same lines,where he capably and objectively outlines the statements from WC on one column and the Reality on the other e.g Why did JH decline to put in writing her comment that the 2% fee will not be charged due to poor performance? If she was genuine and above board why wouldn't she agree to put it in writing? Would you not consider this to be deceptive or misleading ????
JH stated that the 2% removal fee is REASONABLE whilst Lonsec advises that a reasonable fee should be approx. 0.7% JH wants 3 times as much!!!!!!!
Are you and other like minded supporters prepared to pay such exorbitant fee ???
Further to the above , how can you honestly say "the only information that was deceptive or misleading was concerning the quarterly distributions"
Is that not sufficient/bad enough for you? you seem to be dismissing it as a triviality !!!
Are the above matters not sufficient for you, and other like minded supporters, to place even some doubts on JH's intentions/ integrity ???
As the the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink it !! not to mention "flogging a dead horse" as has been depicted on here a number of times

 

[Maverick2802]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Maverick,
How could you possibly make and believe such a statement!!! not unlike a one eyed supporter of a football team which can do no wrong and blames the opposition for everything under the sun LOL!!!!
I refer you to CableGuy's post no. 2782, and others along the same lines,where he capably and objectively outlines the statements from WC on one column and the Reality on the other e.g Why did JH decline to put in writing her comment that the 2% fee will not be charged due to poor performance? If she was genuine and above board why wouldn't she agree to put it in writing? Would you not consider this to be deceptive or misleading ????
JH stated that the 2% removal fee is REASONABLE whilst Lonsec advises that a reasonable fee should be approx. 0.7% JH wants 3 times as much!!!!!!!
Are you and other like minded supporters prepared to pay such exorbitant fee ???
Further to the above , how can you honestly say "the only information that was deceptive or misleading was concerning the quarterly distributions"
Is that not sufficient/bad enough for you? you seem to be dismissing it as a triviality !!!
Are the above matters not sufficient for you, and other like minded supporters, to place even some doubts on JH's intentions/ integrity ???
As the the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink it !! not to mention "flogging a dead horse" as has been depicted on here a number of times

You were paying MFS 2.35% every year PLUS any overs in the fund. Not just if they proved incompetent. You paid this every year, so 0.7% is CHEAP, with hopefully a lot of work to make the fund healthy. You have misread the Lonsec report, read it again. They say the % are within a reasonable range.

At the meeting JH stated that the 2% fee was imposed for corporate raiders down the track. She obviously feels that the fund will be very successful in years to come and if some other company wants to come along and take it over, they will have to pay the person who worked so hard to get it there.

So the answer to you is NO I don't have doubts over her intentions OR her intergrity and that is the way I voted, you will obviously vote differently, good luck to you as I feel more people are prepared to give JH a go than not.