Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
Hi JohnH,
P.63 of the EM does in fact state exactly what you have quoted. On pages 14,15 & 73 explanations are also given about the management fee but no mention is made there about the fees not being charged until after the 3c cash payment to Unit Holders.
More importantly though, I think the thing to consider is that the Explanatory Memorandum is not a legally binding document (otherwise WC might be in trouble over Unit Holders not getting their Oct. cash payment!).
The legally binding document (Trust Deed) is the Funds Constitution. The constitution states that the RE is entitled to 0.7%p.a. of the value of the total funds under management as determined with reference to the preceding month and the most recent audited accounts. This fee will be calculated and payable monthly in advance.
In other words, in calculating the fee, reference is made to the number of units in the Fund as per the previous month and the value of those units is determined with reference to the last audited accounts. This fee is payable monthly in advance - no reference is made to payment of this fee being dependent on distributions being made to Unit Holders.
The Constitution determines what WC is legally entitled to do (as voted on by Unit Holders), it does not matter what may or may not have been stated in the EM or anywhere else. The Constitution should be read carefully, especially by all those that voted in favour of it.
I am not stating that "this is going to happen" or "that's going to happen", I'm just stating the facts.
On the matter of fees, wonder what the "Handling Fees" will work out to be. These are the fees WC promised to financial advisors who got their clients to vote in favour of WC's resolutions.
Wonder who'll get paid first ?????
Hi JohnH,
P.63 of the EM does in fact state exactly what you have quoted. On pages 14,15 & 73 explanations are also given about the management fee but no mention is made there about the fees not being charged until after the 3c cash payment to Unit Holders.
More importantly though, I think the thing to consider is that the Explanatory Memorandum is not a legally binding document (otherwise WC might be in trouble over Unit Holders not getting their Oct. cash payment!).
The legally binding document (Trust Deed) is the Funds Constitution. The constitution states that the RE is entitled to 0.7%p.a. of the value of the total funds under management as determined with reference to the preceding month and the most recent audited accounts. This fee will be calculated and payable monthly in advance.
In other words, in calculating the fee, reference is made to the number of units in the Fund as per the previous month and the value of those units is determined with reference to the last audited accounts. This fee is payable monthly in advance - no reference is made to payment of this fee being dependent on distributions being made to Unit Holders.
The Constitution determines what WC is legally entitled to do (as voted on by Unit Holders), it does not matter what may or may not have been stated in the EM or anywhere else. The Constitution should be read carefully, especially by all those that voted in favour of it.
I am not stating that "this is going to happen" or "that's going to happen", I'm just stating the facts.
On the matter of fees, wonder what the "Handling Fees" will work out to be. These are the fees WC promised to financial advisors who got their clients to vote in favour of WC's resolutions.
Wonder who'll get paid first ?????
age 26 annual report: Since the end of the financial year, the bank debt, which had been incurred by the previous directors and which carried with it the threat of liquidation, has been repaid. Accordingly the threat of receivership from this source has been extinguished. To enable the repayment of the bank debt, the fund has entered into a new finance facility with a non-bank financial institution.:::: I read that as the remainder of the existing loan was refinanced. Seamisty
