Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

[Harald]

Good morning

If my memory serves me correctly financial advisors were paid an "administration fee" to assist in gathering up the support from their clients in the 2008 WC vote by WC.

If this is true I woinder what the views of these advisors are now and in round two of calling a meeting will they help by getting on the phones to get support for the removal of the RE from their clients.

As to ASIC stepping in last time the only issue they queried was the representation of WC about quarterly distributions.

They did not question the more fundamental issues of
- representing that the only alternative to WC was liquidation at 14 cents which was factually incorrect as only the members could of caused the liquidation. WC did not have this power.
- representing that the fund could be returned to $1.00 in three to five years which even a basic calculation when WC were proposing to make distributions and keep half the money in mortgages was impossible to achieve.

If ASIC had looked at the more serious issues at the time which were the representations made to induce the vote then things may have been different.

Having said that WC was paid millions to run a slick campaign.

AS to the comment about steel cap boots and attacking Doranboots take the time to go back to when WC first came on the scenes and look at the attacks on people like Jadel and Doranboots who saw through the c--p that was put out from WC and took a different stand to the majority. Talk about steel cap boots.

They could be crowing "I told you so" but instead want to, like everyone who contributes to this thread help in any way we can.

I while not been an investor talk to a number of people caught in this horrible mess and do the only thing I know how to do and keep complaining to ASIC in the hope that at some point the large number of complaints finally stir action against WC.

I had also initially wondered what was driving ASICK but after the detail provided about BT understand where he is comning from and think every comment and view point should be accepted as everyone is looking for one thing which is a positive outcome from here.

Maybe You should take a look in Your financiell records. I'm afraid that You are
in the same business as ASICK, being a financiell advisor, one of those who
landed us in this mess in the first place and.

Could it be that You and ASICK are posting on this tread in the hope to make
additional bucks and that this is the only motivation? As You stated, You are not
an investor.

 

[simgrund]

I do a lot of deleting and amending.

I respect alert minds.
Cheers,

 

[JohnH]

Seamisty, would you look at notifications please.

Cheers................ JohnH

 

[gardie]

No Harold

I am not a financial advisor and no I have no interest in trying make a buck from the horrifying cirmcumstances investors find themselves in.

I am appalled at the behaviour of WC, lack or action from ASIC, lacxk of action from NSX about the misleading announcements.

I was also appalled tha at the time financial advisors would accept payment to roll their clients over when if they did their job and analysed what was been said by WC and promises it would have been clear it could not be acheived.

 

[seamisty]

Gardie, I spoke to a few financial advisers, some who were skeptical of CasCap originally then changed their opinion as time went on. Others were the same as me, thought that we were doing the right thing initially by electing WC as opposed to liquidation. Now they realise that although yes they too believed at the time it was the better alternative and advised their clients to support WC, they could see that the PIF had certainly not performed as we all expected, quite the contrary.
I also believe that once the hiring of votes was exposed there were some who were willing to recontact their clients advising renewed support for CasCap.

In saying that I spoke with one adviser who said he only had the one client invested in the PIF and he wasn't wasting any time contacting them as their investment was ONLY $200,000

We know we had a lot of support and I think we can confidently rely on that support as being ongoing, which frees us up to concentrate on other areas.
Seamisty

 

[DoraNBoots]

Good morning

If my memory serves me correctly financial advisors were paid an "administration fee" to assist in gathering up the support from their clients in the 2008 WC vote by WC.

If this is true I woinder what the views of these advisors are now and in round two of calling a meeting will they help by getting on the phones to get support for the removal of the RE from their clients.
....

Yes, it's true. Financial advisors were told they would be paid up to 0.25% for handling any valid proxy forms, BUT only if the resolutions were passed. Not sure how this kind of bribery is considered acceptable.

Anyone know if this handling fee was paid to advisors? It was to be paid when the Dec 2008 cash payment was made, which never happened.

From the 2008 EM:

10.12 Handling Fees
Where a proxy form is stamped with the stamp of an adviser or has previously been noted as an adviser’s client, and proxy is valid, the responsible entity may pay a handling fee to the relevant adviser up to a maximum of 0.25% of the value of Units held by that particular unitholder calculated with reference to the current net asset backing of 45 cents per Unit. This will be paid in the event that the proposed resolutions are passed. Payment will occur at the time the December 2008 cash payment is made to Unitholders.

Anyone hear from RickH lately? I wonder what he thinks about the current situation.

 

[Harald]

I just got this crap from Wellington that JH announced on the NSXA as an update in
our letterbox.

I'm sure JH has put many thousand of dollars in her own pocket for this rubbish
and misinformation. Off course, she had to pay Armstrong Registry for their
services in supplying the investor list.

We must get rid of her!!!!

 

[Sutho81]

I just got the same crap letter too. I got two letters because two investors live in my house.

I have to admit it was seeing this rent a crowd, the fake reactrion group letters (I am sure Hutson was behind) as well as the lies and announcements to the NSX all done by Wellington that has fuelled my anger against them to the point where I am williing to donate my time and effort to helping remove Wellington by whatever legal means possible. Should another meeting be called I am more than happy to ring as many investors as possible and even contribute to a mass mail out informing investors of how bad Wellington really are.

 

[Jadel]

Yes, it's true. Financial advisors were told they would be paid up to 0.25% for handling any valid proxy forms, BUT only if the resolutions were passed. Not sure how this kind of bribery is considered acceptable.

Anyone know if this handling fee was paid to advisors? It was to be paid when the Dec 2008 cash payment was made, which never happened.

From the 2008 EM:


Anyone hear from RickH lately? I wonder what he thinks about the current situation.

Dora

Rick H ,Ranch, Goldfinger.

I am quite certain we will never hear from any of this trio again.

They did their work very effectively, for one reason only ,and have undoubtedly crawled back into the rotten woodwork , from whence they sprang.

 

[selciper]

It may be because I'm suffering from a condition called asic-anger at present, so possibly I'm wrong in in thinking that CasCap is unlikely to continue this frustrating journey.

 

[Duped]

Anyone know if this handling fee was paid to advisors? It was to be paid when the Dec 2008 cash payment was made, which never happened.

The financial advisor, who took me out onto this thin ice and then drove off, said they'd forward the payment to me. My vague recollection is I didn't get paid. That financial advisor might have been marginally less financially illiterate than me, but I'm sure they're not dishonest enough to welch on an express email agreement. But then again, my judgement is shot. 'Cos I believed Hutson for a long time.

 

[k.smith]

Maybe You should take a look in Your financiell records. I'm afraid that You are
in the same business as ASICK, being a financiell advisor, one of those who
landed us in this mess in the first place and.

Could it be that You and ASICK are posting on this tread in the hope to make
additional bucks and that this is the only motivation? As You stated, You are not
an investor.

No, I know that ASICK is not a financial advisor and your comment is completely wrong (and insulting)
I think you must re-read his 8449 post again, and then perhaps you may understand his commitment to helping investors in our much devastated funds (one of which effects both him and me)

Investors are learning the hard way that we can only depend on ourselves, so it is imperative that we educate ourselves as best we can....and without the benefit of expensive legal counsel,(which the fund manager has at their disposal) it is a monumental challenge, and we can really only help eachother.

There have been some invaluable contributions on this thread, and ASICK has done much to contribute to helping us unitholders with his legal background (and his considerable business experience)

 

[seamisty]

It is my understanding that a PIFAG update is being finalised which wil be sent to all members in due course, hopefully by tomorrow. A copy will also be available on the CasCap website www.cascap.com.au once the update has been released. Hopefully it will give us all some renewed optimism to resume the challenge of removing Wellington Capital as RE of our Fund. Frustration can be redirected back into effort, especially with all the extra offers of assistance!! Thanks for all the forum contributions which has kept us all logging on, unity is parramount to achieve our goals so stay cool!!! Seamisty

 

[DepressedDad]

There have been some invaluable contributions on this thread, and ASICK has done much to contribute to helping us unitholders with his legal background (and his considerable business experience)

Agreed. All information, opinions & especially ideas are most welcome here. I appreciated reading ASICK's long account this morning which must have taken some time to put together. The point must be made that, this is a very disturbing situation for all and the easiest way to not let it disturb us further, is to walk away. I'm speaking for myself when I say that when I read critical & pessimistic posts the wisest thing for my sanity appears to admit it is time to walk away & not upset myself by reading the thread & forget it all. This is how I feel when I read ' We are worse off now than we were this time last month' and similar posts that say JH has now closed the door on any more challenges.

P.S. I don't believe we are worse off since we know ASIC is well aware of the buy-a-vote and has attended court. Yes they move SLOWLY but there's no reason to believe they aren't gathering information now & won't move in the end with mounting pressure & complaints. This last month has seen WC/JH indisputably ousted for very unprofessional if not fraudulent bahaviour so I believe there have been gains this month.

My point is that critical pessimistic posts (and very personal personal attacks) drives investors away, such as me, who need to be retained to fight the fight. (There's only so much angst & bashing we can take before cutting our losses!) So could contributors please consider that in what and how they write so as to not undo all the good work that has been done, mobilising good numbers of people still ready to band together to get justice.

 

[Harald]

No, I know that ASICK is not a financial advisor and your comment is completely wrong (and insulting)
I think you must re-read his 8449 post again, and then perhaps you may understand his commitment to helping investors in our much devastated funds (one of which effects both him and me)

Investors are learning the hard way that we can only depend on ourselves, so it is imperative that we educate ourselves as best we can....and without the benefit of expensive legal counsel,(which the fund manager has at their disposal) it is a monumental challenge, and we can really only help eachother.

There have been some invaluable contributions on this thread, and ASICK has done much to contribute to helping us unitholders with his legal background (and his considerable business experience)

So ASICK is not a financial advisor - he is a SAINT. I apolgize

Without wanting to be cynical, my experience taught me that when something that seems to be to good to be true, than most probably it isn't true.

Hopefully ASICK is the exception.

 

[k.smith]

Remember this..??

http://www.theage.com.au/business/a...m-income-fund-unit-holders-20080911-4eri.html

''.....Many PIF investors believe the only options available are either to accept the Wellington Capital offer to run their fund, or watch it liquidated at 14 ¢ a unit. They have been led to believe a "no" vote means liquidation and therefore losses. This is wrong. ASIC needs to step in...''

''...PIF investors need to know they have other choices. In fact, they can dump Wellington altogether and appoint their own Responsible Entity (RE). The RE ought to be simply a manager that PIF's 10,000 unit holders can trust and that can preside over an orderly sale of their assets....''

A big problem in both the PIF and the PFMF (and no doubt, other funds) is that

"......................investors need to know they have other choices..............." other than what their responsible entity presents to them.

How do unitholders......

(a) get in contact with each other in the first place..... someone needs to find +/-$500 to "buy" the registry... and thats financial hurdle No.1

(b) succeed in getting a good,readable and workable copy of the registry... it's often been documented how difficult that can be.

(c) approach enough unitholders who are prepared to contribute to a mailout to all unitholders...and that's financial hurdle No.2 (10,000 investors = 10,000 @ $0.50 stamps (at bulk discount) + printing and mailing costs = $+/-$7000...)

(d) put forward the "other choices" (that Michael West was so aware investors in the PIF were NOT aware of) knowing that your financial resources, which are purely voluntary contributions from the burnt investors themselves, limit the attempt to just one or two mailouts(that's $7000 + $7000 = $14,000)

(e) fend off the "wild-cards" such as "low ball offers", rights issues, infiltration by vested interests into our forums that have a self interested agenda ....etc..

(f) scrutinise and evaluate every single word that fund managers' put forward...without the luxury of any help/aid/input of a legal team such as fund managers have at their disposal propagating their carefully constructed one-track agenda. And when it hits our letterboxes, all those carefully constructed words come with disclaimers like this...

http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/pif/updates/2008/Explanatory Memorandum.pdf
''....Neither the responsible entity, the Fund nor any other person gives any representation, assurance or guarantee that the results, performance or achievements expressed in or implied by the forecast statements contained in this Explanatory Memorandum will actually occur....'

In my mind, it all means that a fund manager can promise all and disclaim it, yet at the same time, marry these disclaimed promises to amended constitutions that are financially beneficial to the manager and that have no real relation the the future success or failure of our assets.(such as our PIF experience with the termination fee) Investors have no way of evaluating the implications of these amendments without seeking financial help, a considerable expense to a major percentage of unitholders who have already lost so much (and imo a fact that they are very well aware of)

so then were are stuck with (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) and the rest...
I hope some laws get changed...

 

[seamisty]

Hi All, I just received this:

Dear Investor



The below link provides an update on the Premium Income Fund



http://castlereagh.rlbrandmgmt.com.au/include/tiny_mce/plugins/filemanager/files/Update_No_6.pdf



Investor Relations



Tel 1300 661 651 Fax + 61 2 8263 2379

Level 30, Australia Square, 264 George Street, Sydney NSW 2000

www.cascap.com.au

 

[seamisty]

Gardie, I spoke to a few financial advisers, some who were skeptical of CasCap originally then changed their opinion as time went on. Others were the same as me, thought that we were doing the right thing initially by electing WC as opposed to liquidation. Now they realise that although yes they too believed at the time it was the better alternative and advised their clients to support WC, they could see that the PIF had certainly not performed as we all expected, quite the contrary.
I also believe that once the hiring of votes was exposed there were some who were willing to recontact their clients advising renewed support for CasCap.

In saying that I spoke with one adviser who said he only had the one client invested in the PIF and he wasn't wasting any time contacting them as their investment was ONLY $200,000

We know we had a lot of support and I think we can confidently rely on that support as being ongoing, which frees us up to concentrate on other areas.
Seamisty

I also forgot to mention Gardie that Ms Hutson did the rounds of some Financial Advisers and Fund managers in Melb and Syd before the EGM feeding them the 'same old rhetoric' of what a wonderfull job WC was doing etc. If any of them believed WC and advised their clients to support WC I would not be at all surprised if they have not since been inundated with highly indignant clients/investors who DO NOt want WC as RE once it was revealed in the media what actually happened at the EGM. I know this for a fact as I have spoken to several individuals since who are non too happy with having been advised to do nothing or vote for WC previously.
Seamisty

 

[simgrund]

Hello Duped,
Could you please free-up your Private Messages box.
Thanks & regards

 

[simgrund]

Thanks selciper.
Was that the only PM you got from me this evening?
I am limited to just 5 PM's per hour.
So I may have halucinated somewhere there.
Please let me know.
Cheers,