Managed fund co-operation group

[simgrund]

Hi Simgrund,

I just wanted to let you know that I sent the letter to Mr. Tanner's office.
His office has since advised me that the letter has been redirected sent to the Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law, Mr. Chris Bowen M.P.
A copy of the completed letter is at http://www.moneymagik.com/latest.pdf
I'm aware there are errors and that it doesn't meet the high standards of those amongst us who are skilled to remedy such errors, but in the end it was just a case of something being better than nothing.
I took your advice and put the suggested amndments at the back for document.
Thanks for your help. Allan.

It is good to have the letter out. Well done Mellifuos!

We all need to be reminded daily that only through unrelenting pressures like this combined effort will the slow wheels of supervisory conscience start turning in; if not in our favour today, than in favour of next generations if retirees.
I make a distinction between retirees wishing to secure sustainable income and investors/speculators who take conscious risks with disclaimer clauses written into "contracts".
Again, thanks, simgrund.

 

[simgrund]

.......................correction (Mellifuos!) Mellifuous;
(if retirees.) of retirees; and cancel one "at"
sorry, still learning.

 

[mellifuous]

.......................correction (Mellifuos!) Mellifuous;
(if retirees.) of retirees; and cancel one "at"
sorry, still learning.

Ah! another man whose fingers run behind his brain while typing.
It happens to me all the time - I look back and say to myself 'Did I really make those errors?', and I answer myself 'sadly, yes'.

By the way, I purposely misspell 'mellifluous' to 'mellifuous' because 'mellifluous' is so often taken as a handle - to keep consistent, I use the misspelled version.

:jump::jump::jump:

 

[mellifuous]

AN ANNUAL (OR BI-ANNUAL) GENERAL MEETING
FOR MANAGING FUNDS (LISTED/UNLISTED)

A very astute unit holder has come up with a very good idea - an annual general meeting for managed funds.

Companies have them - managed funds don't.

Write to the Hon Chris Bowen MP and request that the Corporations Act be amended to incorporate annual (or bi-annual) general meetings for managed funds.

A great idea.

http://www.chrisbowen.net/contact-chris-bowen/home.do

 

[prawn_86]

Managed funds are not listed companies, therefore there is no reason they should be opened up to their unit holders. If your going to try (unsuccessfully) to impose that, it means that to be fair every other company/business etc would be legally required to have one also...

When you invest in a managed fund you are putting your trust into those fund managers, and you should have done your research before hand. You are not buying a peice of the company, you are simply giving them your money to try and increase its value.

If you want the security and transperancy of a listed company buy an LIC like ARG or AFI.

 

[mellifuous]

Managed funds are not listed companies, therefore there is no reason they should be opened up to their unit holders. If your going to try (unsuccessfully) to impose that, it means that to be fair every other company/business etc would be legally required to have one also...

When you invest in a managed fund you are putting your trust into those fund managers, and you should have done your research before hand. You are not buying a peice of the company, you are simply giving them your money to try and increase its value.

If you want the security and transperancy of a listed company buy an LIC like ARG or AFI.

Yes, if I was as wise as you then I wouldn't be in this position - but, since I am in this position, then I'll do what I have to do.


Thanks.

 

[prawn_86]

Yes, if I was as wise as you then I wouldn't be in this position - but, since I am in this position, then I'll do what I have to do.


Thanks.

Im not saying anything about you, im merely saying that your wasting time and effort on tryng to get them to hold AGMs.

I think share holder/unit holeder activism is a great thing, and that management of companies should be much more accountable than they are, so i appluad you for chasing things up, as opposed to most apathetic Aussies, but i think there are some things you should focus your efforts on, rather than using a 'scattergun' approach trying to implement every idea you come across.

 

[mellifuous]

Im not saying anything about you, im merely saying that your wasting time and effort on tryng to get them to hold AGMs.

I think share holder/unit holeder activism is a great thing, and that management of companies should be much more accountable than they are, so i appluad you for chasing things up, as opposed to most apathetic Aussies, but i think there are some things you should focus your efforts on, rather than using a 'scattergun' approach trying to implement every idea you come across.

Well, with respect, you did - and it pi$$es me off. I know that I made a mistake, and I try my best to overcome it as best as I can.

Well, 'scattergun' or not, if I didn't think it was a good idea, then I wouldn't be bothered with it.

Hey, believe it or not, I don't try to implement 'every idea I come across' - I only try to implement those ideas that I think are good.

I worked hard for my money and I'll work hard to get it back.

Still, even a 'scattergun' is not a bad thing, many a clay (and live) target has fallen to the ground in pieces by way of a shot gun.

My greatest hope would be to see more investors get involved - you are right, without the numbers its a real long shot for any idea (especially with a 'scattergun').

I can afford to lose the whole of this investment (but, I don't want to) - others cannot - and strangely, it's those who will suffer the most that do the least to get their money back - maybe it's because of age, maybe because of other reasons.

Still, I'll beat my head against the wall of apathy

I must be crazy - I actually enjoy it.

 

[mellifuous]

AN ANNUAL (OR BI-ANNUAL) GENERAL MEETING
FOR MANAGING FUNDS (LISTED/UNLISTED)

A very astute unit holder has come up with a very good idea - an annual general meeting for managed funds.

Companies have them - managed funds don't.

Write to the Hon Chris Bowen MP and request that the Corporations Act be amended to incorporate annual (or bi-annual) general meetings for managed funds.

A great idea.

http://www.chrisbowen.net/contact-chris-bowen/home.do

**** CORRECTION ****

The heading should have been:-

AN ANNUAL (OR BI-ANNUAL) GENERAL MEETING
FOR MANAGED FUNDS (LISTED/UNLISTED)

My email has been sent to Mr. Bowen's office.

 

[k.smith]

"............When you invest in a managed fund you are putting your trust into those fund managers, and you should have done your research before hand. You are not buying a peice of the company, you are simply giving them your money to try and increase its value............"



Sure, we put our trust into "those fund managers"...

we expected them to perform their fiduciary duty, and act in the best interests of unitholders, as per the corporations act.

we were guided in our research by rating agencies, auditors reports, media presentations and speel from the funds themselves.

most of our complaints fall on deaf ears, and nitty gritty questions regarding fees and bank loans etc... put to fund managers are, in a lot of cases, left unanswered.

we didn't give them our money for them to "try and increase its value"...
we invested in "first mortgages" with an LVR of less than 80%....with an advertised rate of return.

unlike fund managers, unitholders do not have the benefits of input from the legal profession....we are very alone in this. There are so many of us. If we are amateurs in our approach in trying to make the best of our situation....we are all to willing to listen to the appraisals of the independant professional....! !

 

[seamisty]

'unlike fund managers, unitholders do not have the benefits of input from the legal profession....we are very alone in this.'

U bet we are alone k.smith, treated like a bunch of geriatric, senile old farts posing as mushrooms of inferior intellect!!! You can bet your butt though, that at the end of the day that it is the unitholder that ultimately gets to pick up the tab for all that very expensive 'input from the legal professionals', auditors, fund rating agencies etc.

It also appears that investors rely heavily on the media for any relevant information regarding their individual funds. Unfortunately that information is sometimes totally incorrect and on two occassions recently in the case of the Wellington Capital Premium Income Fund remained uncorrected even after the journalist and the source quoted had been informed of errors in the article which could be substantiated with the CORRECT information.

Conclusion:: Fund managers appear to want total control and irrespective of what was promised to gain that control, at the end of the day investors are just a means to an end. Seamisty

 

[mellifuous]

'unlike fund managers, unitholders do not have the benefits of input from the legal profession....we are very alone in this.'

More to the point, unit holders do not have access to the legal profession paid for by the fund.

The fund manager is in a much more powerful position that we are - when an issue arises, such as the variable unit price, then the manager can expend the fund's resources (for what I would say is the manager's own interests) to carry out constitutional amendments.

On the other hand, to defend against such a move, unit holders have to rely on their own wits and resources.

Yes, a very unfair situation - it seems that the legislature has placed far too much confidence in Corporations Act s.601FC(1)(c), that a manager will put unit holders interests ahead of its own.

 

[mellifuous]

Only one slight reference to Westpoint.

Over 50,000 investors with heavy losses.

That's it.

 

[mellifuous]

 

[k.smith]

What do burnt investors think about this...

My mother, who is in her late 80s, has $50,000 invested in the now Pacific First Mortgage Fund.
The units in the fund are classed as part of her assets by centrelink.
She has had no distributions/redemptions for nearly two years now.
She has just filled in yet another load of paperwork to let centrelink know that the units are now valued at 48cents...despite the FACT that she has STILL received no income from this investment for nearly two years.At the time this investment was returning around 8.5%pa, around $160.00 per fortnight.
The adjustment from the 63cent per unit value to the 48cents per unit value means a difference of an extra $36.00 per fortnight more in her pension for her.
This may all sound rather insignificant to a lot of readers, but this is the reality of what is happening to a lot of really elderly people.
They are distressed and confused as to how they could possibly have lost so much, with so little explanation.
They are distressed and confused as to why and how often they have to fill in paperwork to centrelink...86 years old, unbelievable ...
Is this the way that we treat elderly people, people who have worked all their lives, paid their dues and taxes and helped to build this country?
Why was this not addressed in the Rippoli Report?
When are we going to give the elderly investors the help and dignity that we owe them for their contribution to our country?
These people are the truly forgotten people in this mess, vunerable and without a voice.

 

[demodocus]

What do burnt investors think about this...

My mother, who is in her late 80s, has $50,000 invested in the now Pacific First Mortgage Fund.
The units in the fund are classed as part of her assets by centrelink.
She has had no distributions/redemptions for nearly two years now.
She has just filled in yet another load of paperwork to let centrelink know that the units are now valued at 48cents...despite the FACT that she has STILL received no income from this investment for nearly two years.At the time this investment was returning around 8.5%pa, around $160.00 per fortnight.
The adjustment from the 63cent per unit value to the 48cents per unit value means a difference of an extra $36.00 per fortnight more in her pension for her.

This doesn't sound quite right. Although the units are declared to Centrelink and form part of your Mother's assets under that organisations income test rules the units in PFMF are NOT taken into account in deriving the size of her pension under the "income rules". They were exempted from the "deeming" provisions by Minister Macklin on 23rd December 2008. If this is not happening in her case then hie thee at thy fastest footfall to Centrelink where they'll correct the error and pay a back slab of pension.
If she's assessed under the Assets Test then I'm not sure, but it's still worth a call to Centrelink. I've always found them helpful and co-operative.

 

[k.smith]

This doesn't sound quite right. Although the units are declared to Centrelink and form part of your Mother's assets under that organisations income test rules the units in PFMF are NOT taken into account in deriving the size of her pension under the "income rules". They were exempted from the "deeming" provisions by Minister Macklin on 23rd December 2008. If this is not happening in her case then hie thee at thy fastest footfall to Centrelink where they'll correct the error and pay a back slab of pension.
If she's assessed under the Assets Test then I'm not sure, but it's still worth a call to Centrelink. I've always found them helpful and co-operative.

Demodocus,
My mother is assessed under the Assets Test. These units are still assessed as to their now 48cent value, and each time their value changes there is another flurry of paperwork.
All the "helpful and co-operative staff" at Centrelink are not the issue here...it is the fact that very old people have to go through stressful and complicated processes to get their entitlements. Perhaps people who are assessed on their income are in a clearer position...that I do not know.

 

[demodocus]

demodocus,
My mother is assessed under the Assets Test. These units are still assessed as to their now 48cent value, and each time their value changes there is another flurry of paperwork.
..it is the fact that very old people have to go through stressful and complicated processes to get their entitlements.

What flurry of paperwork? I simply post a new Asset declaration together with a copy of the notification of change of value from Trilogy to Centrelink. Nothing stressful or complicated. I trade shares and have to advise them every time I buy and sell. Easy peasy although I do resent having to pay the $0.55 postage.

I'm old too and I can understand yr Mother not wanting to bother with all this fol de rol, but that's what you're there for, isn't it

 

[simgrund]

What do burnt investors think about this...

My mother, who is in her late 80s, has $50,000 invested .....................
Is this the way that we treat elderly people, people who have worked all their lives, paid their dues and taxes and helped to build this country?
Why was this not addressed in the Rippoli Report?
When are we going to give the elderly investors the help and dignity that we owe them for their contribution to our country?
These people are the truly forgotten people in this mess, vunerable and without a voice.

That is exactly why I am pushing for a proposal for a distinct "retiree only" financial product sitting just above bank deposit category but giving a more dignified return to this underprivileged class of investors. A category with "bullet proof" protective legislation behind it.
How about it?

 

[k.smith]

What flurry of paperwork? I simply post a new Asset declaration together with a copy of the notification of change of value from Trilogy to Centrelink. Nothing stressful or complicated. I trade shares and have to advise them every time I buy and sell. Easy peasy although I do resent having to pay the $0.55 postage.

I'm old too and I can understand yr Mother not wanting to bother with all this fol de rol, but that's what you're there for, isn't it

I guess for people who trade in shares and have the knowledge of the correct forms to fill out at their fingertips, this may very well be "easy peasy"..

lots of over eighties can't even walk to the letter box..
don't know about the correct "asset declaration" forms...
don't have that back-up family to lean on..
that is what I am talking about..
for those people it is not so easy peasy...