Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

[charles36]

Zixo WC thought the PIF AG would be calling for an EGM in early April after the AG started contacting investors and told them to expect a document package relating to the calling of an EGM with the purpose of replacing Wellington Capital with an alternative RE.
Hypothetical scenario?
WC knew that unitholders had to be given 21 days notice of an EGM which I presume threw WC into a frenzy because after having had virtually no NSX announcements apart from the belated Dec 2010 investor update, another REJECT announcement and the required financial report BANG!! It was like a long sleeping bear coming out of hibernation. One announcement after another towards the end of Mar early April, WC is keen to help investors in the Class Action, WC has finally got a strategy option in place, review fees, make another 1 cent payment( due to be paid to coincide with the expected EGM date to be announced, BLAH BLAH BLAH, look how freaking pro active we are, then oh sh1te, there was no EGM announcement!!! Whew, we have time to announce a placement and rights issue to cover our bottoms because we are in deep trouble here and need to shore up some votes!!!
Oh no, in our haste we stuffed up, never mind, lets just change the constitution!! Meanwhile better get a few more announcements out there, weve got to look like we are indispensible, ah yes, tell the suckers that if WC do not remain RE, the contracts could fall over!! The problem is WC, its not you that own those assets, its the PIF unitholders!! If the proposed sale is a genuinely negotiated contract to a genuine buyer, what difference does it make who the RE is? It would be nice to think that we were on a level playing field here, achieving votes on merit as opposed to buying them, totally oblivious to the impact the action will have on existing unitholders. We are finally getting the transparency we were promised so long ago but the rose coloured glasses are no longer worn by the majority and most will see right through this pathetic charade.

Well said, contracts fall over, that would be good news because they like all other investments were probably not in the best interest of unit holders. I think I am missing something though. I received a cent return of MY OWN MONEY. The total cost to the fund ,7.5 million dollars. Soon afterwards WC sell 75 million units which adds to the total units in OUR fund , 830 million units up from 755 million.. Why? The opinion has been expressed to me countless times , "WC are trying to 'cobble' together votes for the forthcoming election with no regard to the interest of unit holders as required by the Corporations Act (Cth). To pay a return of our capital to the new unit SOPHISTICATED BUYER, who by the way is still anonymous like the mysterious lender of 5 million dollars we, OUR fund borrowed at 25%, our asset will be depleted far more than the one cent we received. I am having trouble working this out, I know our RE has never embarked upon an Economic venture without an outcome but would'nt we have been better off to not receive the one cent distribution of our own money. This would enable our RE to spend the 7.5 million on whatever it is alleged to be required for and not deplete our asset by well more than one cent. Puzzled you bet I am. BUT WAIT, "THERE IS MORE" IF THE RIGHTS ISSUE is successful our assets will be further diluted, instead of having 830 million units on issue we will have something in the order of 1.2 billion units. A distribution of one cent of OUR OWN MONEY INSTEAD OF COSTING 7.5 MILLION, IT WILL COST 12 MILLION. I could go on and on about the merits of this ECONOMIC VENTURE. What is wrong with borrowing money from the bank by way of individual mortgages, say 15% instead of the 29% WC is intent on doing. However, I will defer to greater minds other than listen to WC. My parting remark, If you owned a business would you run it in this fashion. don't think so. Would you dismiss the your manager I am sure so!!!

 

[Duped]

@ thekids. You wrote: "At the Melb meeting today one unit holder said he was concerned that unit holders have given up and lost interest because 3yrs ago at a unit holder meeting in Melb there were 300 people present and today there were only about 30-35 people present. This is an issue for all of us, I dont know everything going on behind the scenes but i hope the Action Grp can turn this around...."

I went three years ago but won't go to the Castereagh presentation. Simple really. Castlereagh presented the information up front and in writing. And the audio for the first meeting has promptly made available online. There's no need for me to go to a the meeting. Now that's efficiency. I'm behind Castlereagh already.

 

[Duped]

I have holdings under my name and holdings held in BT wrap funds (administered by financial advisers). I have been advised that because of the way wrap funds are structured, I do not have voting rights for the wrap fund holding. All PIF related correspondence has been addressed to my holdings outside wrap, never a word through BT.
So why is JH visiting financial advisers?

Because plenty of people like me were steered into direct ownership in this fund by their AFSL (Cth branded) financial advisors. Some of us have swallowed our Advisor's Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free-Card excuse: it's because of the GFC. Others .... well.... I'm guessing mine has the guilts and is trying to make good or wants to abate my compulsion to take legal action against him.

Welcome flyinghigh. Have you received any communication from BT to convert your 'units' into real units that give YOU the voting rights? IOOF have offered this option to its clients. I'm not sure about Asgard. Perhaps your interests would be better served by moving your business to IOOF.

I.e. see http://www.ioof.com.au/files/docsFo...id=A08A3129E5262B7CD642D5A4163217D4.external2

This is what IOOF say:

"WPIF units have been exchanged for Premium Income Fund (PIF) shares for all super/pension members and those IDPS investors who opted into the exchange. PIF shares trade on the NSX under
the code PIN. Investors wishing to sell their PIF shares should refer to the communication issued by IOOF. Any IDPS investor who did not opt into the exchange will need to contact IOOF to arrange
for their WPIF units to be exchanged for PIF shares before they can instruct IOOF to sell these shares on the NSX."

PS I'm with Colonial First State.

 

[reasonable]

@ thekids. You wrote: "At the Melb meeting today one unit holder said he was concerned that unit holders have given up and lost interest because 3yrs ago at a unit holder meeting in Melb there were 300 people present and today there were only about 30-35 people present. This is an issue for all of us, I dont know everything going on behind the scenes but i hope the Action Grp can turn this around...."

I went three years ago but won't go to the Castereagh presentation. Simple really. Castlereagh presented the information up front and in writing. And the audio for the first meeting has promptly made available online. There's no need for me to go to a the meeting. Now that's efficiency. I'm behind Castlereagh already.

I too would have gone to the Melbourne meeting but the internet version was excellent and gave me all I needed.

A word to the action group: Do not become complacent nor underestimate the gutter tactics that WC may stoop to to remain RE.

 

[Duped]

Hi Flyinghigh

Financial advisors should be working in your best interests. But you have a right to say which way you would like your vote to go.
Perhaps its an idea that anyone who have financial advisors should tell them which way they would like them to vote. thats the democratic way. If they don't vote which way you would like whats their purpose other than getting better commissions and under the table bribes from Wellington.

Flyinghigh. The recent Ripoll enquiry recommended that financial advisors be forced to have a duty of care to put the financial interests of their clients in front of their own financial interests. They are fighting against the implementation of this recommendation. Says it all really.

 

[Bumblebee]

Just a short comment re attending the Castlereagh meetings around the country.
The Brisbane meeting will be on shortly this morning. Even though I read this thread almost daily and have read and digested Castlereagh's information, I will be attending the meeting.
I look forward to showing my support to Fellow shareholders and thanking Castlereagh personally for their work and effort so far.
Even if you have decided and voted there still may something new to learn, new investors to meet by attending a meeting near you. And positive attendance numbers will contribute to keeping the energy moving forward to topple JH from her throne.

 

[Duped]

Interesting reading thebear. How confident are you that this is a complete record?

 

[seamisty]

Here are the details of the remaining PIF unitholders information meetings and the EGM to be held by Castlereagh Capital on behalf of the PIF AG:


Monday, 6 June 2011 Brisbane 11:00:00 AM Souths Leagues Club Davies Park, Jane Street, WEST END QLD 4101 contact Barbara McClelland


Wednesday, 8 June 2011 Port Macquarie 1:30:00 PM Port Macquarie Race Club "Near corner of Oxley Highway and Lady Nelson Drive
PORT MACQUARIE NSW 2444


Thursday, 16 June 2011 Sydney 11:00:00 AM SMC Conference Centre (Masonic Centre) 66 Goulburn Street, SYDNEY NSW 2000

 

[Duped]

Good point Bumblebee.

 

[Unfortunate Inv]

I have 'FINALLY' received a phone call from Wellington Cap' where they were trying extremely hard to convince me that they at WC have our best interest at heart in their operations of the PIF.
I asked the question as to why is 'Armstrong Registry' billing the PIF a rate of $500,000.00 when other registries can do the same for around $100,000.00. The answer given was that the previous registry, in Computershare, were charging the PIF nearly $700,000.00 to do the same duties, plus additional fees for name changes and the like, so the swap to Armstrong Registry meant a saving to the PIF. Can anyone confirm this issue?

 

[Unfortunate Inv]

Wellington Cap also informed me that the bid by ALF PIF has now been quashed.
Is this true?

 

[JohnH]

I have just read the tawdry, anonymous flyer. Whoever addressed the envelopes must have had recourse to the register. The infuriating contents only increase my admiration for the AG executive. That they should be subject to such innuendos is appalling.

Hi Seamisty, Just received my "reaction group" garbage. This one was stamped, but also interestingly has an HRMC postmark dated 31st May.

HRMC is I believe the "Hunter Region Mail Centre"............ so that should narrow it down a bit.

Cheers, John H.

 

[reasonable]

I have decided to apply for more units to avoid dilution. I want to use these to vote WC out but have already sent off the proxy form to Computershare.

Presumably I will have to send the no-vote to Armstrong as Computershare will not have the new units on their register. Does anyone know?

Thanks

 

[Duped]

What gets me Marcom is why, all of a sudden WC is offering PIF unitholders the opportunity to have their say at a meeting to consider an ammendmant and vote on something Who will be at the meeting to vote, the NEW as yet UNAMED professional and sophisticated investors who would just LOVE to have the opportunity to vote on being included in the spoils!! Was there some kind of sweetner offered to these NEW unitholders that may have indicated they could be included in the divvy up of funds hopefully recovered from OUR Class Action. How would we ever know? Wellington Capital has already demonstrated that they couldn't give a stuff what unitholders wanted previously by taking it upon themselves to change the constitution to allow WC to introduce a placement and rights issue which will dilute the existing unitprice by another 8 cents. WC did this without unitholders consent on the grounds that it was in the best interests of PIF unitholders! Suddenly WC are indicating that they want to give us a chance to vote on something? I'll be voting all right, at the EGM on the 16th June for Castlreagh Capital.

What has Wellington Capital got NEW now to offer the Class Action that they have not had previously? Oh yes thats right, some NEW INVESTORS!! How silly of me, does anyone really still think Wellington Capital is doing a good job

Seamisty

WC wrote "so that those Unitholders who were members of the Premium Income Fund on 15 October 2008, and remain members at the time of the finalisation or settlement of the claim, are pro-rata the beneficiaries of the proceeds."

I read nothing in this text that makes it clear I have to be a member for the whole duration. I.e. I could sell out and help put downward pressure on the NSX price and then buy in again.

But if WC does want to argue that ownership will need to be continuous then this will be against the interests of long suffering PIF investors wanting to realise capital losses to offset against other capital gains. A clever way of removing the downward pressure on the NSX price.

Oh and Seamisty. $100 that WC will spring a couple of other items to be voted on at that EGM. Items that are in WC's interests. Like WC did last time with the $5M removal fee.

 

[Duped]

I have decided to apply for more units to avoid dilution. I want to use these to vote WC out but have already sent off the proxy form to Computershare.

Presumably I will have to send the no-vote to Armstrong as Computershare will not have the new units on their register. Does anyone know?

Thanks

Might be cheaper to just buy them on the NSX. That way you'll also put upward pressure on the price of your other units.

 

[thekids]

@ thekids. You wrote: "At the Melb meeting today one unit holder said he was concerned that unit holders have given up and lost interest because 3yrs ago at a unit holder meeting in Melb there were 300 people present and today there were only about 30-35 people present. This is an issue for all of us, I dont know everything going on behind the scenes but i hope the Action Grp can turn this around...."

I went three years ago but won't go to the Castereagh presentation. Simple really. Castlereagh presented the information up front and in writing. And the audio for the first meeting has promptly made available online. There's no need for me to go to a the meeting. Now that's efficiency. I'm behind Castlereagh already.

Duped that's good to know, i understand i also watched the online video which was really good but wanted to go to the meeting to listen to the Q & A at the end of the session. I was just shocked and worried when someone said how low the numbers were compared to 3yrs ago. I hope everyone does hop online to watch the video. Castereagh mentioned that they will try to video again at the next Sydney session too.

 

[seamisty]

Hi Reasonable, here is the link in relation to the takeovers panel decission re ALF PIF
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724072.PDF
Perhaps you could call WC and ask what the go is re voting with the new units for those participating in the rights issue and post the answer on here for others. Maybe also ask WC for a costs summary of what was included in the $700,000 charged by Computershare that Armstrong can supply for $500,000 and then we will know what to get other quotes on. With all this new found transparency I am sure WC would oblige

Remember these are the same people who were instructing their hotline staff to infer that the PIF AG and Castlereagh Capital were aligned with ALF PIF which was totally untrue. Some unitholders were also told that PIF AG reps were possibly being financially rewarded for their efforts!! UMMNNN, who by? Whoever is meant to be compensating me must have the wrong address, perhaps the 'reaction group' could supply the correct one now that they access to the complete PIF register containing everyones personal contact details.

Seamisty

 

[Duped]

Hi,
I am a small holder of PIF units, to be honest I'd already written this off as just another GFC disaster. I've known about this thread for a while, but there's too much detail for me to worry about my few dollars. I have received papers for the board meeting, both a pink and a yellow version and then today I get a school quality one page flyer telling me not to trust the same posters who are here talking, Seamisty, Breaker and Charles36. One thing I am concerned about is what Ferriers have to do with it. Not a great track record there.
Anyway in a nutshell what should I be doing for this meeting. After today's market I really have bigger fish to fry than this.

We got called 'diehards' too. I wear that as a badge of honour. Although I'm not quite sure what to do with the connotation about wanting unitholders to die.

You have to make your own decision pgbbeme.

Stuart Wilson, CEO of the ASA, wrote in the Australian on 8 July 2008: "The fund is a sick dog that needs to be put down, not kept on life support to generate fees for the new manager."

See the full article for his full prescient but sobering opinion: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/octaviar-is-a-sick-dog/story-e6frg9q6-1111116849271

We didn't react well to that here on ASF. Talk about a cold shower. But given WC's performance, he appears to be correct. Who's better placed to return unit holder value?

 

[thebear]

here is a link to that page i found
http://www.delisted.com.au/Company/6654/PORT DOUGLAS REEF RESORTS LIMITED
thats is i could find
still undecided which way to vote

 

[thekids]

Hi Reasonable, here is the link in relation to the takeovers panel decission re ALF PIF
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724072.PDF
Perhaps you could call WC and ask what the go is re voting with the new units for those participating in the rights issue and post the answer on here for others. Maybe also ask WC for a costs summary of what was included in the $700,000 charged by Computershare that Armstrong can supply for $500,000 and then we will know what to get other quotes on. With all this new found transparency I am sure WC would oblige

Remember these are the same people who were instructing their hotline staff to infer that the PIF AG and Castlereagh Capital were aligned with ALF PIF which was totally
untrue. Some unitholders were also told that PIF AG reps were possibly being financially rewarded for their efforts!! UMMNNN, who by? Whoever is meant to be compensating me must have the wrong address, perhaps the 'reaction group' could supply the correct one now that they access to the complete PIF register containing everyones personal contact details.

Seamisty

Maybe you could also ask just how did the Reaction grp get our personal details, not happy Jen! and why doesn't she stand down as the RE when she is fully aware that the unitholders no longer have faith in her ability to run OUR funds.