Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF
- Thread starter breaker1
- Start date
- Joined
- 22 May 2008
- Posts
- 758
- Reactions
- 0
Another brilliant quote from that article selciper: "She said the continued assault on the Premium Income Fund by predators was creating a "very challenging and frightening time for our unitholders"."
Hmmm and WC didn't realise that units trading on the NSX at around 25% of audited NTA would make PIF a target? Talk about red rag to a bull. Wouldn't even have to be a particularly motivated or predatory bull. Just an opportunistic bull.
If WC didn't realise then .... well... perhaps in my lay opinion WC is not competent to be our RE.
How much of our capital has WC then gone on to spend defending our capital against such opportunists?
Hi all, I believe some investors have started to receive their document package from the PIFAG relating to the EGM on the 16th June. I also note a few more key dates have been lodged re the Class Action on the Commonwealth Courts Portal as follows:
Date Time Reason Presiding Officer(s)
19-Jul-2011 10:15 Notice of Motion Justice Perram
18-Jul-2011 10:15 Notice of Motion Justice Perram
25-May-2011 9:30 Return of Subpoena Registrar Hedge Court Room 18B
A few more subpoenas, affidavits and notice of motions have been filed also:https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/NSD324/2009/actions
Interesting times, Seamisty
Date Time Reason Presiding Officer(s)
19-Jul-2011 10:15 Notice of Motion Justice Perram
18-Jul-2011 10:15 Notice of Motion Justice Perram
25-May-2011 9:30 Return of Subpoena Registrar Hedge Court Room 18B
A few more subpoenas, affidavits and notice of motions have been filed also:https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/NSD324/2009/actions
Interesting times, Seamisty
The amount of material pouring out of the Hutson HQ is becoming stupefying. Heavens, there's even a new IAC election being organised! The back-room "team" must be reaching the critical point of being severely overworked. Gone are the endless months of stubborn WC silence. The "team's" days of weekend visits to NZ to participate in a Hutsonian selection of adventure sports may be all over.
WC staff probablly spend their time reading the job opportunity columns these days selciper! Interesting how WC previously prided themselves on NOT RESPONDING to negative press etc, seems some things simply just cannot be ignored. Is there such a thing as a 'steel capped handbag'? Seamisty
- Joined
- 12 July 2008
- Posts
- 416
- Reactions
- 0
This WC update has Nomination Form for IAC.
Can we have a PIF AG team selections disclosed here so we can make a unified volume of nominations firmed? Or formed?
Regards
Hopefully this will not be necessary, as WC will be long gone when the election is due.
However, I believe that the new RE should ensure that IAC representatives are contactable by PIF unit holders, and encouraged to play an active part in monitoring the performance of our fund.
ASIC rejection of complaints re: placement
It seems that ASIC feels that W.C.s placement is fair.
I think it's not fair, because pre-existing investors are not able to bargain/protect their interests on an equal footing to new institutional/sophisticated investors on the following bases:
(a) existing investors are unable to exit the fund if unhappy with the placement (unless they wish a real haircut on the NSX),
(b) the demographics of pre-existing investors - a large number of the fund's investors are probably > 60 years old and are probably unwilling to take further risks,
(c) pre-existing investors are more likely to be unable to buy in on the unit offering because of a diminished income stream caused by the inability of the fund to pay income distributions, and;
(d) many investors have their life savings tied up in the fund and therefore lack the financial strength to buy more units.
Sure, if the fund wasn't frozen, then investors could vote with their feet and leave the fund: they can't do that. Sure, if many were younger, they might take more risk: but they're not. Sure, if the fund was paying distributions, they might be able to buy more units: but they probably can't. Sure, if they didn't invest so much of their wealth in the PIF they'd have cash to buy units: but they probably did.
Yes, many members will want to buy units in a desperate effort to maintain the balance of power investors feel they have to maintain, but I think only a small number of investors will have the capacity or the will to actually buy.
It seems that ASIC feels that W.C.s placement is fair.
I think it's not fair, because pre-existing investors are not able to bargain/protect their interests on an equal footing to new institutional/sophisticated investors on the following bases:
(a) existing investors are unable to exit the fund if unhappy with the placement (unless they wish a real haircut on the NSX),
(b) the demographics of pre-existing investors - a large number of the fund's investors are probably > 60 years old and are probably unwilling to take further risks,
(c) pre-existing investors are more likely to be unable to buy in on the unit offering because of a diminished income stream caused by the inability of the fund to pay income distributions, and;
(d) many investors have their life savings tied up in the fund and therefore lack the financial strength to buy more units.
Sure, if the fund wasn't frozen, then investors could vote with their feet and leave the fund: they can't do that. Sure, if many were younger, they might take more risk: but they're not. Sure, if the fund was paying distributions, they might be able to buy more units: but they probably can't. Sure, if they didn't invest so much of their wealth in the PIF they'd have cash to buy units: but they probably did.
Yes, many members will want to buy units in a desperate effort to maintain the balance of power investors feel they have to maintain, but I think only a small number of investors will have the capacity or the will to actually buy.
And also the voting results are disclosed and not kept a closely guarded secret that only reinforced the view of many that the whole IAC exercise was nothing short of a pathetic investor pacifying scam followed through by Wellington Capital Ltd as it was the only promise they attempted to keep from the many being touted pre the big con. Wellington Capital couldn't even conduct a simple vote that was transparent. Once we are rid of Wellington Capital I would consider nominating, certainly not while ever they are at the helm as in my opinion nothing would change, WC would appoint whoever they thought could be easily manipulated not, who got the highest vote. Mind you I think finding 3 pro WC investors would becoming rather difficult these days.
Seamisty
- Joined
- 6 June 2008
- Posts
- 427
- Reactions
- 0
Time for a little light relief:
MY APPLICATION FOR THE PIF INVESTOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE (in 100 words or less)
Jenifer Joan, darling, please accept my application for the surprise vacancies (hope there wasn’t too much bloodletting) on this vital administrative organ. As a just arrived 10 cent per share investor I pledge to throw all my weight (and I have accumulated quite a bit from 15 years with a corporate credit card) behind deflecting the interests of those much less fortunate $1 per share investors.
I too have had a rewarding career in Merchant Banking – but, that was until the GFC! I now have a lot more spare time to devote to deserving causes like PIF - that is in between attending to those meddlesome summonses and court appearances brought on by pesky former clients.
Yes I was also a woman revered in the profession. Every day I was out there on the battlefield, up to my bra straps in mergers and acquisitions, IPOs, flogging CDF’s and CDO’s like there was no tomorrow. Charging clients like a wounded rhinoceros, madly minimising tax like the best of them and inflating the ego with wads of cash. Yes, those were the days, but alas all good things had to come to an end.
I was driven with a passion to reach the corporate lofty heights – I trampled over the meek, the incompetent and the honest ones to achieve fame and fortune, without the slightest hint of remorse. I was a woman destined to be at the top and stay at the top no matter what. I am not sure where I gained such an unmitigated lust for power, but as a child, I will have to confess, I gained an extreme sense of pleasure from ripping the wings and legs from small insects.
As far as educational qualifications go, we both know that an MBA or a Doctorate won’t make you money. What really counts is pure cunning, and a thorough lack of morals – that’s the stuff of real business leaders!
Jenny, I need a challenge and you have provided it with the PIF IAC. I will give my all to this task to dominate subordinate investors with my 10 fold voting power, and to shove it up that class action lawyer who referred to me in court last week as a MERCHANT WANKER!
PS Jenny I also want to embrace the religious movement that permeates your office. As a woman I too have one of those every two years at the local clinic – but to elevate that to the status of a religion is sheer genius!
MY APPLICATION FOR THE PIF INVESTOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE (in 100 words or less)
Jenifer Joan, darling, please accept my application for the surprise vacancies (hope there wasn’t too much bloodletting) on this vital administrative organ. As a just arrived 10 cent per share investor I pledge to throw all my weight (and I have accumulated quite a bit from 15 years with a corporate credit card) behind deflecting the interests of those much less fortunate $1 per share investors.
I too have had a rewarding career in Merchant Banking – but, that was until the GFC! I now have a lot more spare time to devote to deserving causes like PIF - that is in between attending to those meddlesome summonses and court appearances brought on by pesky former clients.
Yes I was also a woman revered in the profession. Every day I was out there on the battlefield, up to my bra straps in mergers and acquisitions, IPOs, flogging CDF’s and CDO’s like there was no tomorrow. Charging clients like a wounded rhinoceros, madly minimising tax like the best of them and inflating the ego with wads of cash. Yes, those were the days, but alas all good things had to come to an end.
I was driven with a passion to reach the corporate lofty heights – I trampled over the meek, the incompetent and the honest ones to achieve fame and fortune, without the slightest hint of remorse. I was a woman destined to be at the top and stay at the top no matter what. I am not sure where I gained such an unmitigated lust for power, but as a child, I will have to confess, I gained an extreme sense of pleasure from ripping the wings and legs from small insects.
As far as educational qualifications go, we both know that an MBA or a Doctorate won’t make you money. What really counts is pure cunning, and a thorough lack of morals – that’s the stuff of real business leaders!
Jenny, I need a challenge and you have provided it with the PIF IAC. I will give my all to this task to dominate subordinate investors with my 10 fold voting power, and to shove it up that class action lawyer who referred to me in court last week as a MERCHANT WANKER!
PS Jenny I also want to embrace the religious movement that permeates your office. As a woman I too have one of those every two years at the local clinic – but to elevate that to the status of a religion is sheer genius!
Indeed, sheer genius Marcom................. you have my vote!!!
HAHAHA Marcom, you make my night posts look tame!! I love it, You have my IAC vote!!! I bet your post will be discussed over a cuppachino and cream cake or two at WC smoko tomorrow. Seamisty
I refer in part to a letter received by an investor in your fund from ASIC. ASIC responded because of a complaint made by the investor in relation to the placement, "... Section 601GC(1)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 (the Act) provides that a responsibile entity may alter a scheme's constitution if it reasonably considers the change will not adversely affect members' rights. At law, the question is not a general question whether members would be 'worse off' if the change is made (for example, it is not a general question of prejudice or financial disadvantage). It is a specific question that goes to the narrow matter of the affect of the amendments on members' rights as set out in the constitution, for example, a member's right to vote or a member's right to withdraw from the fund. ..."
ASIC doesn't concede that the amendment cause members to be 'worse off' but then on the other hand, it doesn't state they are not 'worse off'.
The above excerpted paragraph is then closed with, "... Of course, in making the amendment, the responsibile entity must act honestly and in the best interests of members in accordance with section 601FC of the Act. ..."
In my view, Section 601FC is shattered when a manager causes a diminution of members' interests in the fund by merely amending the constitution.
With regard to section 601FC, 'interests' is not narrowly defined, but rather broadly defined. ASIC did not make a determination as to whether 601FC is breached by the amendments, and ASIC should have.
Astounding! On the one hand ASIC purports to restict the broad meaning of "interests' in section 601FC by the narrow meaning of 'interests' in section 601GC(1)(b).
To my mind, ASIC should have also determined whether the manager complied with section 601FC which might have brought ASIC to an entirely different conclusion.
If "...it is not a general question of prejudice or financial disadvantage...." what would stop an issue of units for a "1000 for a penny"? Where are the boundaries?What happened to the purpose of the act ?
Just an observation ASICK, what is your interest in the PIF? I presume you are not an investor but curious as to your constant input on our thread and what you perceive your postings will achieve? I totally appreciate all input to this thread, but also like to know that if you are so concerned to our plight, are you also following up on your concerns personally to ASIC or just stirring a pot that is already boiling over? While the majority of us are not sophisticated investors, we certainly do the very best to follow up on our concerns. We know ASIC has failed us, quoting sections of acts does not alter our current predicament. If you feel so strongly about ASIC's failure to act on our behalf, please, by all means take your concerns to them and the reason you are so concerned on our behalf and let PIF investors know why you are so concerned? We appreciate all support. Seamisty
You will note that I posted in regard to a reply from ASIC, a reply which I understand a number of members have received. ASIC is good at sending the same letter out to many complainants. You will also note that ASIC raises the sections of the Act and I merely reply to them. Every decision by ASIC is appealable to ASIC, and then to the Financial Ombudsman, but with the meeting drawing near, an appeal to the Ombudsman is probably impracticable.
I should add that trying to deal with the two issues of (1) the proposals put forward at the meeting, and (2) the constitutional amendments is not 'stirring a pot which is already boiling over'. The stirring of that boiling pot is done well enough by discontented fund members (including yourself) who are understandably upset by the fund's manager.
My motivation is purely one of wishing to support both my friend who is caught up in your fund, as well as any other investor who might find even the smallest degree of discovery from my postings.
I'm a little surprised by your comment about the motivation for the postings, rather than any real comment about the content of same. You, or any other member, might have found motivation or grounds to seek an appeal from a decision by ASIC on the matter. There's certainly no harm in giving it a go.
I'm assured that my friend will seek an appeal for ASIC to reconsider its decision.
RE independence a must: Equity Trustees
Investors at risk when REs, promoters too close
By Victoria Tait
Tue 24 May 2011
The Premium Income Fund's management conflict is the latest example of investors having to fend for themselves.
Full article:http://www.investordaily.com.au/11695.htm
Extract from article:'The group has called for Castlereagh Capital to manage PIF. The group would sidestep a $5 million removal fee payable to Wellington by convincing unit holders to change the fund's constitution at a meeting on 16 June.'
Investors at risk when REs, promoters too close
By Victoria Tait
Tue 24 May 2011
The Premium Income Fund's management conflict is the latest example of investors having to fend for themselves.
Full article:http://www.investordaily.com.au/11695.htm
Extract from article:'The group has called for Castlereagh Capital to manage PIF. The group would sidestep a $5 million removal fee payable to Wellington by convincing unit holders to change the fund's constitution at a meeting on 16 June.'
Hi all,
I need some HELP and ADVISE. I am overseas at the moment and will be away till the end of July. I cannot get any mail from Sydney, but I do wish to vote for the dismissal of WC.
Can anybody tell us ( for those people who cannot be there to vote or register there proxy) the phone numbers that we can ring, so that we can register our proxy vote, and to be part of the meeting that is been called for in June.
Please advise as soon as possible. I don't want to waste my vote.
Michael
I need some HELP and ADVISE. I am overseas at the moment and will be away till the end of July. I cannot get any mail from Sydney, but I do wish to vote for the dismissal of WC.
Can anybody tell us ( for those people who cannot be there to vote or register there proxy) the phone numbers that we can ring, so that we can register our proxy vote, and to be part of the meeting that is been called for in June.
Please advise as soon as possible. I don't want to waste my vote.
Michael
Hi Michael, I have left phone messages for you but now I know why they remain unanswered. If we have your email address on record I will ensure you get documents. If not perhaps you could leave your email address by private message in the notification section. This message can apply to any person in similar circumstances who may be reading this post.
Hi Charles36,
Thankyou for trying to reach me by phone, but as you can now see, I am away till end of July. I REALLY need help to make sure that my vote counts. I just don't want to waste it. Ever vote counts as far as I am concerned.
Please send info into my email address. If you don't have it on record, it is as follows.
beaches@bigpond.net.au
Once I receive it, I will respond to let you know that I got it.
Keep up the wonderful work that you, Breaker1 and many others are doing.
Michael
Thankyou for trying to reach me by phone, but as you can now see, I am away till end of July. I REALLY need help to make sure that my vote counts. I just don't want to waste it. Ever vote counts as far as I am concerned.
Please send info into my email address. If you don't have it on record, it is as follows.
beaches@bigpond.net.au
Once I receive it, I will respond to let you know that I got it.
Keep up the wonderful work that you, Breaker1 and many others are doing.
Michael
