Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
Yes it does represent hope! ... and I agree that the editing misrepresents!
Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF
- Thread starter breaker1
- Start date
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
Seamisty, apologies if it is not apparent to you that this is not the full article. The full article is at the top of the page.
I have taken the liberty of short-cutting the typing involved in posting my comments on the article. Sorry, thought it would be obvious.
And before you start, I am entitled to express my opinions about what I find to be contradictory statements.
Seamisty, apologies if it is not apparent to you that this is not the full article. The full article is at the top of the page.
I have taken the liberty of short-cutting the typing involved in posting my comments on the article. Sorry, thought it would be obvious.
And before you start, I am entitled to express my opinions about what I find to be contradictory statements.
- Joined
- 22 May 2008
- Posts
- 758
- Reactions
- 0
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
WC mentioned the $9.5M outstanding debt in the 28 October letter to Investors. Received mine just over a week ago. http://newpif/investor_updates/NSX Release - 28.10.2008.pdf
As for the 20%. See page 26 of the annual report: http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021720709.PDF
WC mentioned the $9.5M outstanding debt in the 28 October letter to Investors. Received mine just over a week ago. http://newpif/investor_updates/NSX Release - 28.10.2008.pdf
As for the 20%. See page 26 of the annual report: http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021720709.PDF
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
No one is disputing the fact that you can express your own opinion, but I would not like other posters to take the liberty of inserting their own ramblings on my original post and not accept responsibility for it by re posting it as an original quote. We all like to keep things accurate and transparent on here. All openess and honesty and no misleading information. Seamisty
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
So we asked then to forego the right of redemption and in three to five years we will liquidate the assets at a better price.”
There are 32 assets in the fund and Hutson said her company has ruled out foreclosures on the mortgagees if they get into trouble.
Ok lets have openess and honesty and no misleading statements
As I understand it we are paying somebody to manage 32 mortgage Assets in the fund and them liquidate them after 3 to 5 years a cost of 2% per annum or lets say approximately 8 million a year
The rest of the assets are in managed investments and shares and I believe she has outsourced the bonds portfolio .You do not need to manage this stuff it looks after itself and any added value is almost entirely due to macro economic factors .
That means JH will suck about 40million or more out of the Fund for looking after 32 mortgages and them selling them after 5 years , something an Administrator with an investor advisory panel could do at a fraction of the cost..
Of course we all know property values can remain dormant for decades but JH will wave her magic wand and invest in property investments that gets or money back in exactly 3 to 5 years while at the same time paying out 13% dividend yields consistenly from our remaining assets
l
So we asked then to forego the right of redemption and in three to five years we will liquidate the assets at a better price.”
There are 32 assets in the fund and Hutson said her company has ruled out foreclosures on the mortgagees if they get into trouble.
Ok lets have openess and honesty and no misleading statements
As I understand it we are paying somebody to manage 32 mortgage Assets in the fund and them liquidate them after 3 to 5 years a cost of 2% per annum or lets say approximately 8 million a year
The rest of the assets are in managed investments and shares and I believe she has outsourced the bonds portfolio .You do not need to manage this stuff it looks after itself and any added value is almost entirely due to macro economic factors .
That means JH will suck about 40million or more out of the Fund for looking after 32 mortgages and them selling them after 5 years , something an Administrator with an investor advisory panel could do at a fraction of the cost..
Of course we all know property values can remain dormant for decades but JH will wave her magic wand and invest in property investments that gets or money back in exactly 3 to 5 years while at the same time paying out 13% dividend yields consistenly from our remaining assets
l
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
Jadel I wonder if this is another example of inaccurate media reporting and that should read::::'There are 32 MORTGAGES in the fund and Hutson said her company has NOT ruled out foreclosures on the mortgagees if they get into trouble.'::: I was under the impression that a couple of assets had already been repossesed when the loans could not be re paid and these were projects that were being finished by the PIF as income became available. (refer page 23 explanatory memorandum) A lot of these loans are short term and due to mature in 12-18 months and the money re invested into other projects which will be turned over regularly. Not sit there for the whole duration. We have mortgages(32) and asset backed loans. Big difference. I think the article is perhaps a bit misleading in itself due to the reporting, but that is just my interprtation. Seamisty
Jadel I wonder if this is another example of inaccurate media reporting and that should read::::'There are 32 MORTGAGES in the fund and Hutson said her company has NOT ruled out foreclosures on the mortgagees if they get into trouble.'::: I was under the impression that a couple of assets had already been repossesed when the loans could not be re paid and these were projects that were being finished by the PIF as income became available. (refer page 23 explanatory memorandum) A lot of these loans are short term and due to mature in 12-18 months and the money re invested into other projects which will be turned over regularly. Not sit there for the whole duration. We have mortgages(32) and asset backed loans. Big difference. I think the article is perhaps a bit misleading in itself due to the reporting, but that is just my interprtation. Seamisty
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
There are 32 assets in the fund and Hutson said her company has ruled out foreclosures on the mortgagees if they get into trouble.
“If a mortgagee gets into trouble, we will try and work with them as a joint venture partner to trade out of the problem,” she said.
Just to clarify, this is an extract from the article (unedited).
There are 32 assets in the fund and Hutson said her company has ruled out foreclosures on the mortgagees if they get into trouble.
“If a mortgagee gets into trouble, we will try and work with them as a joint venture partner to trade out of the problem,” she said.
Just to clarify, this is an extract from the article (unedited).
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
2.2 The Portfolio
Mortgages
Thirty two mortgages comprise this section of the portfolio of investments of the Fund. Each loan is
secured by a registered first ranking mortgage. There are 12 complying loans in the portfolio. These
loans are as at 31 May 2008 complying with all relevant elements of the lender/borrower
arrangements. The Fund has in relation to two loans totalling $15.52 million become mortgagee in
possession and taken control of the assets provided as security. The balance 18 loans are complying
with renegotiated arrangements. The portfolio continues to be managed to ensure the best possible
outcome for the Fund
Yes of course this is the better option if it is possible. Is this a qoute from the article you found to be proof of misleading information Burnt?The following is from page 23 of the explanatory memorandum(unedited):::::
2.2 The Portfolio
Mortgages
Thirty two mortgages comprise this section of the portfolio of investments of the Fund. Each loan is
secured by a registered first ranking mortgage. There are 12 complying loans in the portfolio. These
loans are as at 31 May 2008 complying with all relevant elements of the lender/borrower
arrangements. The Fund has in relation to two loans totalling $15.52 million become mortgagee in
possession and taken control of the assets provided as security. The balance 18 loans are complying
with renegotiated arrangements. The portfolio continues to be managed to ensure the best possible
outcome for the Fund
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
Seamisty, the reason for my post was to respond to your post where you thought that JH may have been misquoted and the article should have read that JH stated her company has NOT ruled out foreclosures. I think her second sentence confirms that she was not misquoted.
Seamisty, the reason for my post was to respond to your post where you thought that JH may have been misquoted and the article should have read that JH stated her company has NOT ruled out foreclosures. I think her second sentence confirms that she was not misquoted.
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
Hi seamisty,
Your interpretation may be correct however you have not addressed the major issue brought up by Jadel namely the outrageous fee of over $40 m to manage 32 mortgages and dispose of them in a 5 year (approx) period. Not bad hi?? I am sure many would have gladly taken that on and, even after paying the appropriate people to manage it, could have made a handsome profit!!
Hi seamisty,
Your interpretation may be correct however you have not addressed the major issue brought up by Jadel namely the outrageous fee of over $40 m to manage 32 mortgages and dispose of them in a 5 year (approx) period. Not bad hi?? I am sure many would have gladly taken that on and, even after paying the appropriate people to manage it, could have made a handsome profit!!
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
Wellington's fee is .7% p.a. of the funds under management. Presumably this year will be valued at 45cents a unit which gives about $2,350,000. With a staff of 30 plus overheads, I don't see that as a fortune. To make any real money, they have to make the fund increase in worth. - Isn't that we all want???
Wellington's fee is .7% p.a. of the funds under management. Presumably this year will be valued at 45cents a unit which gives about $2,350,000. With a staff of 30 plus overheads, I don't see that as a fortune. To make any real money, they have to make the fund increase in worth. - Isn't that we all want???
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
I think Jadel may have made an error in his calculation of WC's fees.
They are entitled to .7% p.a. of funds under management. If this is based on a 45c/unit value, the fee would be approx. $2.5 mil per year. If it is based on $1/unit value it would be approx. $5.3mil per year.
JH stated at the meetings that the fee would be based on 45c valuation (even though market value is currently 20c), however this is not stated in the constitution.
The constitution also provides that all WC's costs (including income tax) will be paid by the Fund.
Therefore, their fees represent net profit.
I think Jadel may have made an error in his calculation of WC's fees.
They are entitled to .7% p.a. of funds under management. If this is based on a 45c/unit value, the fee would be approx. $2.5 mil per year. If it is based on $1/unit value it would be approx. $5.3mil per year.
JH stated at the meetings that the fee would be based on 45c valuation (even though market value is currently 20c), however this is not stated in the constitution.
The constitution also provides that all WC's costs (including income tax) will be paid by the Fund.
Therefore, their fees represent net profit.
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
Thanks for picking up this mathematical error and putting this discussion back into perspective JohnH. It never ceases to amaze me how many experts there aren't around to disect the figures and correct a post when there is a bias against WC regarding misinformation from certain posters, but plenty of opinions to back up negative sentiment .Seamisty
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
I was just reading the MFS PIFannual report for 2007 where it cost us approx $16.9 million dollars to manage the PIF for that financial year, a far cry from the pittance WC can expect for the privledge of picking up the pieces and copping the blame for the current position of the fund from a select few. I know JH has stated this will be a no frills fund under WC management, but surely the budget can be stretched to shout a few 'mental enenema' vouchers for those in extreme need of a good clean out. Seamisty
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
Seamisty, it was obviously convenient for you to overlook my post correcting Jadel's innocent mistake. How typical of you to take the opportunity to ridicule others.
Seamisty, it was obviously convenient for you to overlook my post correcting Jadel's innocent mistake. How typical of you to take the opportunity to ridicule others.
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
Seamisty, 2007 accounts show that $16.09mil was paid in management fees that were earnt after costs and distributions (i.e. productivity based).
2007 accounts show that $66.9mil net profit was made by PIF (as opposed to $379.3mil loss in 2008), and the $66.9mil was distributed to unit holders in 2007 financial year. Unit holders were happy to receive the income they were expecting.
In the 2008 financial year $6.1mil was taken from the fund in management fees when the fund made a net loss of $379mil.(obviously taken before the fund froze distributions & wrote off assets).
In the 2009 financial year, WC may take $2.4mil. in fees plus costs & taxes, what amount will be shown as distributions, what will the net loss be? (and there will be a loss).
No one with any financial accounting knowledge would bother comparing these figures. To make a true & fair comparison, the same rules would have to apply - i.e. productivity based fees. If this were the case, bugger all fees would be paid to WC in the 2009 financial year.
Thought we were only posting concise facts here.
BTW what the hell is a "mental enenama" ? Who is it that needs a good clean out. Please stop resorting to badmouthing unit holders. For once can you adopt a perspective that supports the protection of unit holders and not WC.
Seamisty, 2007 accounts show that $16.09mil was paid in management fees that were earnt after costs and distributions (i.e. productivity based).
2007 accounts show that $66.9mil net profit was made by PIF (as opposed to $379.3mil loss in 2008), and the $66.9mil was distributed to unit holders in 2007 financial year. Unit holders were happy to receive the income they were expecting.
In the 2008 financial year $6.1mil was taken from the fund in management fees when the fund made a net loss of $379mil.(obviously taken before the fund froze distributions & wrote off assets).
In the 2009 financial year, WC may take $2.4mil. in fees plus costs & taxes, what amount will be shown as distributions, what will the net loss be? (and there will be a loss).
No one with any financial accounting knowledge would bother comparing these figures. To make a true & fair comparison, the same rules would have to apply - i.e. productivity based fees. If this were the case, bugger all fees would be paid to WC in the 2009 financial year.
Thought we were only posting concise facts here.
BTW what the hell is a "mental enenama" ? Who is it that needs a good clean out. Please stop resorting to badmouthing unit holders. For once can you adopt a perspective that supports the protection of unit holders and not WC.
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
Sorry, one more point regarding correcting other peoples posts (if we want to be clear and accurate) and putting things into perspective.
JohnH posted that WC's costs would be bourne by WC i.e. inferring that WC would pay costs out of their fees. This is not true.
I'm sure this is an innocent mistake that anybody might make & I would not for one moment want to ridicule or demean him for making this mistake.
BUT, all costs (including taxes) are bourne by the Fund, not WC.
Hope this clarifies things for JohnH and Seamisty. Everyone makes mistakes, we are all only human.
Sorry, one more point regarding correcting other peoples posts (if we want to be clear and accurate) and putting things into perspective.
JohnH posted that WC's costs would be bourne by WC i.e. inferring that WC would pay costs out of their fees. This is not true.
I'm sure this is an innocent mistake that anybody might make & I would not for one moment want to ridicule or demean him for making this mistake.
BUT, all costs (including taxes) are bourne by the Fund, not WC.
Hope this clarifies things for JohnH and Seamisty. Everyone makes mistakes, we are all only human.
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
I was not ridiculing anyone specifically Burnt, you have no sense of humour !!! Seamisty
- Joined
- 30 May 2008
- Posts
- 328
- Reactions
- 0
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
I know JH gives the impression at members meetings that she is running the PIF for nothing until management fees kick in but WC are able to take all expenses out of the fund. They do not have to wait till they have paid us our 3 cents, and on top of this were given $3,750,000 to help run the fund. It’s likely WC are charging the PIF charge out rates which earn WC a margin so no need to feel sorry for WC. The .7% they will get in management fees is pure cream as even the tax they pay on it can come out of the fund.
John, in your post #2967 you also commented inline. Don’t be so petty.
