Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

breaker1 · 30 August 2008

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

kennas said:
Please ladies and gents, no more personal attacks.

If I see even the slightest personal insult or taunt, accounts will be suspended.

Cheers,
kennas

Dear Kennas,

First of all, let me thank the founders and administrators of ASF for making this great forum service available to investors such as ourselves. I find it a brilliant site.

I would ask all post contributors to this MFS/OCV/WC PIF thread to take care not to cross the line of reasonable relational behaviour. Remember this thread is supossed to be basically self regulated. Lets give ASF moderators the conviction that we are doing so.

However I would ask ASF moderators to appreciate the severe financial pressure some of we PIF investor contributors are under and that at present there are differing ideas of what will be best for maximising investor return from a terrible position of PIF management abuse leaving us with a prospect of anly getting 14c back in the dollar, some losing possibly millions.

I would also like to point out that this thread is VERY popular, with now over 110,000 hits and over 2000 posts, surely this high contribution makes ASF admistrators well satisfied and see the prospect for your advertisers being even more pleased with the prospect of more customers.

Accordingly, I would assume that no sudden suspensions will take place without a personal warning to any offending account.

I personally consider some of the posts, even though very strong in opinion, at times quite entertaining. We don't want to be regulated to the point of morbidity, so lets all get the balance right.

JohnH · 30 August 2008

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Quote:
Originally Posted by kennas
Please ladies and gents, no more personal attacks.

If I see even the slightest personal insult or taunt, accounts will be suspended.

Cheers,
kennas

If I can also add to Breaker1's wise statement - The difference between abuse and banter is a very thin line - and this after all is Australia!

great dame · 31 August 2008

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Iceman said:
Hi All

Just following on from the projected returns I have tried to make an annual table below of projected position of the fund based on the WC bench mark allocations of our funds and numbers they have provided.

Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Opening .45 .41 .44 .47 .51 .55 .60 .67

Distribution -.06 -.06 -.06 -.06 -.06 -.06 - .06 -.06

Income (10% pa on 55%) .02 .02 .02 .03 .03 .03 .03 .04
Growth (25% on 45%) 0 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .06

Closing .41 .42 .44 .45 .46 .48 .50 .53

My assumptions are that NTA is 45 cents
We get 6 cents a year paid out to us.
On 55% of our money we get no growth just 10% income
On 45% we get a annual return of 25% income and growth
Growth portion is calculated on closing previous year balance so it does compound.

So based on WC own numbers and benchmarks set out in information booklet and a very generous 25% growth factor on the money they want to invest in growth assets our NTA will remain by year seven 53 cents.

For an ASX listed fund with a clean history currently many are trading below NTA.

Why for the next 7 years is this thing price going to rise above 45 cents through having as a listed fund. WC are not magicians and these are their own numbers although I dont even think they would say they could get 25% so the above numbers would get worse.

Where does the $1.00 come from ?

Their own document if you read it carefully says that an alternative moritorium and work out could be put to unit holders. It just remains very well hidden in how the phrase it.

This would get us 45 cents back in 3 years with some upside if existing asset values improved and OCV claim maximised.

This has to be in investors best interests but it is not in WC best interests as a permanent listed fund adds permanent income for them which adds to WC wealth by 10s of millions.

The only reason you would not vote no no no is if you believe WC that it is their proposal or liquidation which is simply not true.

In fact if you vote no yes no you would get the buy back which given there will be 3 cents available according to WC would allow us to get some money by christmas while either WC agreed or another RE was put in place to conduct orderly realisation and quarterly return of our money.

Its weird but no yes no option does not seem to be considered in WC booklet but I will look again.

Anyway looking forward to comments from others on the above numbers.

Hello Iceman Thanks for that wonderful info I can see your a real thinking person Everyhink your saying is on the money Exceot the 25% growth is a long shot But you are forgetting the one big Problem and its the NTA our only way of getting to any money at all So lets say the funds NTA ls 53 cents in 7 years You would be kidding ourselfs if we think we will get that closer to 25 cents As i keeping saying its not what the fund is worth its whats you can get for it on the exchange /Dane //

DoraNBoots · 31 August 2008

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

seamisty said:
Well Newtrader, I hope you are right, because I put that to WC and was told that they won't make any money until distributions resume and that will not happen until WC get full control of the Fund. Seamisty

Hi Seamisty,
Can you please explain "until WC get full control of the fund"?

They have full control of the fund, they are the RE. What they don't have yet is a constitution which allows them to disregard our rights and give them unreasonable rights, but they sure are working hard to get us to sign off on that.

Can you explain why WC won't start distributions? Distributions were stopped because the RBOS had a hold on the fund and didn't allow them. Now you seem to be telling me distributions won't start until WC get their own way! If the money is there and there are no creditor holds over our money, then how dare WC hold back OUR money!

DoraNBoots · 31 August 2008

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

breaker1 said:
Dear Kennas,

First of all, let me thank the founders and administrators of ASF for making this great forum service available to investors such as ourselves. I find it a brilliant site.

...

I personally consider some of the posts, even though very strong in opinion, at times quite entertaining. We don't want to be regulated to the point of morbidity, so lets all get the balance right.

Breaker1, Did you see what Maverick wrote? I found it insulting and it wasn't even directed at me. If someone is insulting on here then I have no problem notifying the moderators and letting them know.

DoraNBoots · 31 August 2008

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Rance said:
DoraNBoots
I agree with you re asking for $14,000 to produce a list of unit holders!!!

...

Hi Rance,
Our right to inspect and obtain a copy of a register is covered in the Corporations Act section 173. The Yahoo! group has details in the Legal folder.

Rance · 31 August 2008

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

DoraNBoots said:
Hi Rance,
Our right to inspect and obtain a copy of a register is covered in the Corporations Act section 173. The Yahoo! group has details in the Legal folder.

Thank you Dora. Will look it up.

Rance

zixo · 31 August 2008

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hi all,

I'm still collating a list how many people have written to federal MPs or Senator Nick sherrys Office and if they have bothered to respond.

I would also like to start compiling a list of how many complaints ASIC has had, since they seem to be so slow on coming up with any kind of statement.

Email is zixo7@hotmail.com

Cheers

Mutchy · 31 August 2008

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Burnt said:
Hi Mutchy , I think the point of the posts regarding voting issues is to highlight that fact that once again WC has not been 100% truthful and straightforward in what they are saying.

Hello Burnt,
My previous post covered voting issues. This post covered errors in the voting forms, the Explanatory Memorandum, and possibly errors in the proposed constitution. The nomination of a proxy and hence the voting which has to be declared for that person to exercise that vote, must be done by the means specified by the RE and the RE has no option under the Corporations Act other than to use their registered address for replies.

My previous post:
"As I read it, Section 252Z(2) of the Corporations Act says that the nomination of a proxy must be returned to the RE's registered office or any other place nominated in the notice of meeting and the RE can specify where and by which means the nomination of a person as a proxy will be accepted.
Also Section 252Z(4) says that sending the nomination to any other place and by any other way means that the nomination of proxy is "ineffective" (the Acts word)

It appears that we have no alternative but to send the nomination of proxy ie the whole voting form as directed in the notice of meeting.

The Corporations Act can be found here:
<http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/0/D67570263332A334CA257498001DB56C?OpenDocument>"

Cheers
Mutchy

Maverick2802 · 31 August 2008

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Tuart I have no issue.
I have an agenda as an investor in this fund.
Pretty easy to see by now what that agenda is.
I just ask one simple question that noone can answer.
What is the name of the competent RE (with experience in managing a fund)that is the alternate RE which is there in place to take on that role for WC should they not get the 75% vote?
I am not talking figures now, forget that for a moment.
Just give me something to give cred to all you recommending we do not vote for WC. That's all.

Now I have a question for you Tuart.
You say 'we'. Per your early posts you admit you are not an investor in this fund. You have NO money at stake.
So what is your agenda???

DoraNBoots · 31 August 2008

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Maverick2802 said:
...Show me concrete proof that if we vote no no no there is another alternative. Another RE or administrator ...

Maverick2802 said:
...
What is the name of the competent RE (with experience in managing a fund)that is the alternate RE which is there in place to take on that role for WC should they not get the 75% vote?
...

It is not a vote for or against the RE. The RE is JH and co and a No vote won't remove them as RE. All the No vote (for resolution 1) will do is say we don't agree with the changes you are asking us to sign off on.

seamisty · 31 August 2008

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Quote page 15 of the eplanatory memorandum::" In the event Unitholders do not vote in favour of the proposed changes to the Constitution (RES1), the
Fund’s Units will not be traded on NSX, and the changes which are proposed will not be made. The
current board is of the view that redemption requests would only be able to be met if the assets of the
Fund were sold. It is expected that this would be completed by early 2009 and Unitholders would
receive approximately 14 cents per Unit. This resolution must be passed as a special resolution of the Fund’s Unitholders i.e.
passed by at least 75% of the votes cast by Unitholders in the Fund who are
entitled to vote, in proxy or in person at the meeting.
Each of the directors of the current responsible entity have carefully considered all
of the current circumstances, and recommend that Unitholders vote in favour of
the resolution

Sean K · 31 August 2008

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

This thread will be suspended if members can not argue the points objectively without resorting to personal attacks.

It's really not that hard.

Cheers,
kennas

DoraNBoots · 31 August 2008

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

seamisty said:
Quote page 15 of the eplanatory memorandum::" In the event Unitholders do not vote in favour of the proposed changes to the Constitution (RES1), the
Fund’s Units will not be traded on NSX, and the changes which are proposed will not be made. The
current board is of the view that redemption requests would only be able to be met if the assets of the
Fund were sold. It is expected that this would be completed by early 2009 and Unitholders would
receive approximately 14 cents per Unit. This resolution must be passed as a special resolution of the Fund’s Unitholders i.e.
passed by at least 75% of the votes cast by Unitholders in the Fund who are
entitled to vote, in proxy or in person at the meeting.
Each of the directors of the current responsible entity have carefully considered all
of the current circumstances, and recommend that Unitholders vote in favour of
the resolution

We would not be saying we don't want the constitution to be changed we would just be saying No to the changes WC have proposed.

Page 6 of the EM:
"Unitholders have a right under the constitution to call a general meeting and consider other alternatives."

Mutchy · 31 August 2008

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Iceman said:
Hi All

Just following on from the projected returns I have tried to make an annual table below of projected position of the fund based on the WC bench mark allocations of our funds and numbers they have provided.

Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Opening .45 .41 .44 .47 .51 .55 .60 .67

Distribution -.06 -.06 -.06 -.06 -.06 -.06 - .06 -.06

Income (10% pa on 55%) .02 .02 .02 .03 .03 .03 .03 .04
Growth (25% on 45%) 0 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .06

Closing .41 .42 .44 .45 .46 .48 .50 .53

My assumptions are that NTA is 45 cents
We get 6 cents a year paid out to us.
On 55% of our money we get no growth just 10% income
On 45% we get a annual return of 25% income and growth
Growth portion is calculated on closing previous year balance so it does compound.

SNIP..........

Hello Iceman.
Thanks for your work on this matter. Your contribution is most valuable and I am somewhat surprised at the outcome.

I intend to do my own spreadsheet to investigate some different scenarios but before I do I need to clarify the iterative part of your calculation. Normally spreadsheets which evaluate yearly iterative functions move the year end result from one year to the start of the next year. I can not see where your calculation does that transposition. I can see year 0 result (.41) going to the start of year 1 but then the result of year 1 (.42) is not transposed to the start of year 2 but becomes .44 . Likewise there is a discontinuity for all the following years.

Can you please explain?

This financial analysis is extremely valuable and most appreciated.
Mutchy

2CentsWorth · 31 August 2008

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hi Flatback,
You are very welcome to join in or reply to any post i make, regardless to whom it may be initially addressed.

The way words can be couched in legal-speak has always been a bane to me. It is only by reading them over several times, and then dissecting the sentences into into the meanigful pieces, can one begin to see what is really meant. Even then, a Lawyer may still need to be consulted.

The phrasing in the EM of what would be the result if Res (1) is NOT passed, is a case in point. Much of the talk and most of the wrting concerning the issues dealing with this whole affair, have been put forward using legal-speak form. The correct meanings are there, but prima facie, they appear to be warnings of things that your mind has been cleverly led to, but actually, do not exist.
A NO vote for Res (1) does not lead down the path of total destruction, It merely calls us all back to the table, to consider mutually agreeeable alternative ideas.

I am currently considering changing my vote to: (1)NO (2)YES (3)NO.

However, Many members, including myself, are now very weary of all this, and we just need some money in our pockets for now, with a reasonable income flow for the future, and see what happens further down the road.

Best wishes to all.

Burnt · 31 August 2008

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

zixo said:
Hi all,

I'm still collating a list how many people have written to federal MPs or Senator Nick sherrys Office and if they have bothered to respond.

I would also like to start compiling a list of how many complaints ASIC has had, since they seem to be so slow on coming up with any kind of statement.

Email is zixo7@hotmail.com

Cheers

Hi Zixo,
Can I please openly ask what you intend doing with this information ?

RickH · 31 August 2008

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hi DoraNBoots,
It is interesting to hear that you believe JH would stay as RE after losing the vote because the RE business will still make its 0.7% fee until the PIF is sold down over the next year as a simple liquidation service. That is not her business. What happens to her staff after the PIF is closed. Personally I would expect her to walk away as quickly as possible as I do not believe that simple liquidation is part of her business model.

It appears to me that her personal goals are to help the PIF investors recover their money and continue to receive distributions. But her business goal is probably to create a long term managed fund that would eventually list on the ASX.

I do not think that JH is really short of money.

How many other REs are interested in PIF. It is not an absolutely fabulous business opportunity. Unit holders are running everywhere and anywhere - Solicitors, ASIC, Courts, Politicians etc. - does not sound like a normal group of happy investors to me.
Consider - Yes, Yes, No.
Regards, RickH:couch

DoraNBoots said:
It is not a vote for or against the RE. The RE is JH and co and a No vote won't remove them as RE. All the No vote (for resolution 1) will do is say we don't agree with the changes you are asking us to sign off on.

zixo · 31 August 2008

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Burnt said:
Hi Zixo,
Can I please openly ask what you intend doing with this information ?

Hi Burnt,

Sure you can ask.
Am wondering with all the exchange of information thats being traded through this forum if anyone has actively been chasing the people in government who can actually make changes to investments like this so a situation like ours will never happen again.

Perhaps we can eventually see someone locked in a cage for whats happened

We've been diddled, robbed and held to ransom and after reading how the previous Government and asic handled westpoint its any wonder that not much political attention is being drawn to this and the same thing will keep on happening to more unsuspecting Investors

I think It's important this example is somewhere where we can actively make a difference Just wondering if you written to a politician or contacted Asic and how interested they have been?

Cheers

email me on zixo7@hotmail.com

JohnH · 31 August 2008

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Oh Dear! Somebody at the end of this debacle is going to be able to say "I told you so." - For or aginst JH - who knows? - But by then it will be too late!

Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

breaker1

JohnH

great dame

DoraNBoots

DoraNBoots

DoraNBoots

Rance

zixo

Mutchy

Maverick2802

DoraNBoots

seamisty

Sean K

Moderator

DoraNBoots

Mutchy

2CentsWorth

Burnt

RickH

zixo

JohnH

Similar threads

Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

Moderator

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency