Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

[DoraNBoots]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Question to Wellington Capital Limited
1: Resolution 3 Appointment of Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity
If we vote NO to this will we still have to pay 2% to remove the responsible entity?

I received this “we not have to pay 2% to remove the responsible entity”

We will be voting YNN
Wolfgang

Hi Wolfgang,
If you vote Yes to resolution 1 you had better be happy to pay WC the 2% removal fee in the case they become RE and then get removed. Resolution 3 is only one way WC have of changing the RE. I’m sure they have a backup plan. Why else would they insist on updating the constitution with this clause even if Resolution 3 is rejected. If WC apply to the court to change the RE and can show it is in the unit holders best interest (lets say it’s necessary for litigation purposes against OCV) then you won’t be able to complain the 2% is not in your best interest if you agree to it now.

 

[JohnH]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hi Wolfgang,
If you vote Yes to resolution 1 you had better be happy to pay WC the 2% removal fee in the case they become RE and then get removed. Resolution 3 is only one way WC have of changing the RE. I’m sure they have a backup plan. Why else would they insist on updating the constitution with this clause even if Resolution 3 is rejected. If WC apply to the court to change the RE and can show it is in the unit holders best interest (lets say it’s necessary for litigation purposes against OCV) then you won’t be able to complain the 2% is not in your best interest if you agree to it now.

Dora ... according to the EM page 14 that is not correct. It clearly states that "In the event that Wellington Capital Limited is appointed.................. etc etc." If Wellington Capital is not appointed as RE where does it state that Wellington Investment Management would be entitled to the 2%???

 

[Wolfgang]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hi Wolfgang,
If you vote Yes to resolution 1 you had better be happy to pay WC the 2% removal fee in the case they become RE and then get removed. Resolution 3 is only one way WC have of changing the RE. I’m sure they have a backup plan. Why else would they insist on updating the constitution with this clause even if Resolution 3 is rejected. If WC apply to the court to change the RE and can show it is in the unit holders best interest (lets say it’s necessary for litigation purposes against OCV) then you won’t be able to complain the 2% is not in your best interest if you agree to it now.

Hi DoraNBoots
After weighing up all the pros and cons reading all the posts this is it for us it may be wrong but the best of luck to all.

Wolfgang

 

[seamisty]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hi All just read above Post And boy do i feel rotten now after reading it Looks like i can kiss good by to 90% of my money now IF that looks like the way the voteing is going Cheers / Dane //

I feel rotten too Dane after delving into the constitution, reading stuff like that in the event of liquidation of the Fund, after all associated and anticipated expenses have been covered and the net proceeds can be distributed in installments, the final payment must be made no later than prior to the 80th anniversary of the date of the constitution!!! Think I will stop reading it, too scary and confusing. Nothing short of a lawyer would be qualified to disect this document correctly in my opinion.

 

[DoraNBoots]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Dora ... according to the EM page 14 that is not correct. It clearly states that "In the event that Wellington Capital Limited is appointed.................. etc etc." If Wellington Capital is not appointed as RE where does it state that Wellington Investment Management would be entitled to the 2%???

Hi John,
I'm not saying Wellington IM are entitled to the 2%, I'm saying if Res 1 is passed then the constitution will be updated to enable Wellington Capital to received this removal fee if they become RE. My point was that not passing Res 3 doesn't guarantee WC will not become the RE at a later date.

 

[JohnH]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hi John,
I'm not saying Wellington IM are entitled to the 2%, I'm saying if Res 1 is passed then the constitution will be updated to enable Wellington Capital to received this removal fee if they become RE. My point was that not passing Res 3 doesn't guarantee WC will not become the RE at a later date.

OK but they still have to be elected as RE. Why would we then wish to fire them? They would only be paid if there is no negligence or fraud. I accept that "negligence" could or could not cover a multitude of sins, but they would have to fight like hell to prove they were not negligent.

 

[BootsnAll]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

I have just spoken to ASIC. They are aware of & keeping tabs on PIF. WC is asking investors to approve changes to the constitution. As RE they are entitled to do so. Ultimately if you are not happy with the changes then vote NO NO NO

 

[DoraNBoots]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

I have just spoken to ASIC. They are aware of & keeping tabs on PIF. WC is asking investors to approve changes to the constitution. As RE they are entitled to do so. Ultimately if you are not happy with the changes then vote NO NO NO

Yep, just got the same response from ASIC! It's a democratic process and just vote no if you don't like the changes.

 

[newwwtrader]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

The most unfortunate aspect of this whole debacle is who the unitholders are. They are those who can probably least afford to be without the income that the PIF was to afford them.

Due to this I feel that JH will ultimately be successful. And that does upset and anger me. JH/WC have painted a very very bleak picture of this whole thing.

They have made it seem to these people there is no alternative. There are.

The only thing the other options are not in JH/WC best interests.

My predictions for the future about this will be. JH will win 2 out of three at least. The only uncertain one is the changing the RE title, but that is neither here or there in the grand scheme.

PIF will list on the NSX. Price will crash. My prediction is it will hover in the 8 - 15 cent range. Those who can afford will pick up many many many units and may be a way off offsetting previous losses (maybe in ocv).

After the dust has settled in a couple of months, I predict that there will be a further capital raising or something of that ilk. Those who can afford will once again top up there holdings (therefore not having their interest dilluted). Those who cannot afford will have their interest dilluted.

In a couple of years the price will rise. Those who were able to buy in will have benefited greatly (offsetting previous losses). Those who were there from the beginning maybe will be able to sell around the 45c mark.

That is my theory!!

Just hope that people see sense and my story unravells at the first hurdle and WC lose on Res #1. If they do WC will definetly come back with an alternative plan.

Dont be fooled by the threats that they will walk. They want this bad.

 

[seamisty]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Yep, just got the same response from ASIC! It's a democratic process and just vote no if you don't like the changes.

So unitholders, there you have it, you either go with RES1 and get your anticipated 3cent distribution by Xmas and a further anticipated 6cent annual return for the next year paid quarterly, or you vote no and hope that all the insinuations and vague references alluding to something better comes to fruition without another long drawn out saga with an unknown alternative.I have spoken to some pensioners that will be happy with the 45cent buyback as they have been with the Fund for so long that they will not be losing anything by taking the $4,500 on the 10,000 units if they need a lump sum before Xmas as well as the distribution. At the end of the day, it is up to each individual to vote (those that haven't already) as to how they will achieve the greatest benefit and peace of mind relating to their own personal circumstances. Perhaps we can now put this issue to rest. Seamisty:run:

 

[DoraNBoots]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

I have spoken to some pensioners that will be happy with the 45cent buyback as they have been with the Fund for so long that they will not be losing anything by taking the $4,500 on the 10,000 units if they need a lump sum before Xmas as well as the distribution. Seamisty:run:

Who on earth would be happy accepting a return of 45c if they originally paid a dollar?

A buyback before Christmas? that's news to me!

Seamisty, what are you talking about??

Boots

 

[seamisty]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Who on earth would be happy accepting a return of 45c if they originally paid a dollar?

A buyback before Christmas? that's news to me!

Seamisty, what are you talking about??

Boots

Sorry Dora, my mistake ,the buyback if voted will take place within 12 months of listing on the NSX, so before next Xmas!! Glad you are on to it. Some of us made money on other mfs investments prior to investing in the PIF. At least Half of our money invested in Pif units was generated from other MFS schemes, so without even taking the monthly distribution into account, which we did not re invest with MFS(we have averaged 9% for nearly 10 years) our units owe us less than 50cents. One other AG member told me he will lose nothing at 45cents per unit. There are a great number of investors that have been with MFS since inception. As JH has said, this was a great investment vehicle for a long time. Why do you think so many people invested in it and so many stayed and trusted the board? Because they had made so much money with them! Extremely sad for new investors who did not participate in the good times.Many of us are willing to trust JH because we know the potential of these Funds under good management!!!

 

[Mutchy]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hi Mutchy, please also read clause 4.11 and 4.14 & 4.15. There seems to be plenty of opportunity for the RE to suspend redemptions for whatever period if they feel it is in the best interests of unitholders. Also as Dora says, the constitution can be amended to accommodate the best interests of unitholders.

Hi Burnt.
Yes there is plenty of opportunity for the RE to exercise judgement as to actions in the best interest of the unit holders. However as I read it the present constitution has a number of constraints, the overall constraint being clause 4.9. The following clause 4.10 refers to this time frame as being the maximum allowable suspension. The section from Clause 4.2 to 4.11 is headed "Liquid Scheme" and assumes the RE has cash reserves. Clause 4.9 deals with situations necessitating cessation of redemption payments where insufficient reserves are held - which is the case now - and includes any other event as well which is, as you say, a broard licence to act in any way the RE sees fit.
Clause 4.11 refers to the delay of payments to suit the incoming cash flow where the entitlement to redemption of units themselves has not been suspended. It refers to days and times of payments.
Clauses 4.14 and 4.15 appear under a heading of Suspension by RE. Clauses 4.14 as I read it refers to the suspension of redemption of units where it is impractical to calculate the redemption price. Clause 4.15 allows a maximum of 30 days suspension in this case unless the RE sees fit to extend the suspension. Another broard licence but caught by the maximum period specified in Clause 4.9 IMHO.
It would appear that this is also WC's interpretation. The operative word in Clause 4.9 is "must". In my experience of 22 years as a construction project manager this word has the greatest gravity in contractual terms and I expect that it also does here.

Quote:Having just re read the constitution I presume you mean 4.16. That whole section is open for multiple interpretation IMO. I guess at the end of the day, the best lawyer wins. As a matter of interest, did anyone have an investment in the Fund that was not due to be redeemed prior to MAR 09? Seamisty

Sorry Seamisty I did mean 4.16.
Mutchy

 

[DoraNBoots]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hi,

As mentioned in a post a week ago. I meet with JH and came out of the meeting with a lot of info which needed to be followed up. I sent an email and received the reply as follows:

1. You said that all unit holders would have their first 10,000 units bought back if they choose to participate in the proposed buy back. Can you please let me know how this would be possible, because if all the 10,000 (plus) unitholders only had the minimum investment of 5,000 units that would exceed the 37 mill units you have allocated for the buy back. (i.e 10,000 unit holders multiply by 5,000 units = 50 mill units needed for the buy back)
There was an answer which was pretty much a cut and paste from the EM which didn't explain how it would be possible to buy back a min of 10,000 units per investor. I would therefore not assume you will be getting back $4,500 until this is clarified. Can anyone tell me if the wording of this next sentence is a guarentee that a min of 10,000 will be bought? "The proposal is to enable Unitholders to be able to accept for the first 10,000 units and then on a pro rata basis."

2. You also said that 6,000 unit holders would be able to be paid out in whole if they choose to fully participate in the buy back proposal. …. Can you please explain this discrepancy?
This was not answered at all.

3. I raised what I consider to be a discrepancy between the Explanatory Memorandum and the proposed constitution for the proposed changes to the quorum section. The EM states the quorum section will only be changed if both resolution 1 and resolution 3 are both passed but the constitution reads like the quorum section will be changed if only resolution 1 is passed (regardless of resolution 3). Please confirm that this has been investigated by Wellington and let me know if either of these documents has been updated.
This was not answered at all. The answer they provided relates to the RE removal fee rather than the quorum section.

4. I asked you on Friday if the PIF is liquid. You replied “yes”. Can you please explain this as my understanding of the Corporations Act section 601KA would indicate that the PIF is currently not liquid.
The answer is that the board considers the PIF is liquid but is currently experiencing liquidity difficulties . Interesting to note the EM says "and the current illiquidity of the fund".

5. You said that a liquid scheme cannot have it’s redemptions delayed longer that 360 days by law. I asked if this is a law in the Corporations Act and you said “yes”. Can you please send me the section of the Corp Act that covers this? Please also let me know if this law still applies if a scheme is not liquid.
This was not answered.

6. You said that there are xx odd hardship cases representing about x% of the PIF. Can you please let me know if these numbers reflect the number of cases you are accepting as being hardship cases and if so how many other hardship requests (and what proportion of the fund) you will be denying.
This was not answered, the reason being privacy of the unitholder.

7. One of my fellow unitholders was told by the Wellington hotline that he cannot vote in person at the up and coming meeting dated 18th September 2008 but that he could only vote by sending in the proxy form by 16th September 2008. Can you please clarify this as page 7 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that members can vote at the meeting.
The answer is that you can in fact vote at the meeting as mentioned on page 7 of the EM.

I have requested the questions which were not answer to be addressed and will keep you posted.

 

[waleroo]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Please People what the hell how are we supposed to vote when all you
can do is
RAVE ABOUT HOW WE HAVE BEEN SUCKED IN AND ROBBED AND HOW THEY DID IT AND HOW GOOD THEY ARE LIVING CUT THE **** AND DECIDE WHAT THE HELL WE SHOULD TO TRY TO SAVE SOMETHING FROM MESS PLEASE ADVISE ME AND ALL THE OTHER SUCKERS WHO READ THIS FORUM LOOKING FOR A LITTLE BIT OF HELP AND COMMON SENSE AND SANITY WHAT F??? DO WE DO

Waleroo

 

[Burnt]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Please People what the hell how are we supposed to vote when all you
can do is
RAVE ABOUT HOW WE HAVE BEEN SUCKED IN AND ROBBED AND HOW THEY DID IT AND HOW GOOD THEY ARE LIVING CUT THE **** AND DECIDE WHAT THE HELL WE SHOULD TO TRY TO SAVE SOMETHING FROM MESS PLEASE ADVISE ME AND ALL THE OTHER SUCKERS WHO READ THIS FORUM LOOKING FOR A LITTLE BIT OF HELP AND COMMON SENSE AND SANITY WHAT F??? DO WE DO

Waleroo

Simple answer, VOTE NO, NO, NO. This way your money won't be locked away indefinately and your rights to change things will not be diminished. We will have another chance to vote on alternatives that will benefit US.
As I've said before, if you are not 100% sure that voting yes is going to be in your best interests - vote no.

 

[seamisty]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Simple answer, VOTE NO, NO, NO. This way your money won't be locked away indefinately and your rights to change things will not be diminished. We will have another chance to vote on alternatives that will benefit US.
As I've said before, if you are not 100% sure that voting yes is going to be in your best interests - vote no.

Burnt if you are prepared to recommend a confused investor to vote no, no, no, please also advise him of the alternatives that are presently available that will deliver a better outcome. If there was something better, I would be the first to promote it, so please enlighten me. I only want what is best for unit holders. Seamisty

 

[Wolfgang]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

I spoke to a Wellington Capital Limited yesterday and one question I asked was if Resolution 1 did not pass what will happen?. The answer “we will liquidation of the Fund, the fund will not go into an orderly wind up, and the constitution will not be looked at again”

Wolfgang

 

[SPLITPIN]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

To all PIF Unit Holders (Members)

I have been requested to inform you that the QLD PIF Action Group is to be incorporated in QLD as an Association to be named PIF Initiative Incorporated – “PIFI”

PIFI is posting out to PIF members, documentation regarding the meeting of the Premium Income Fund on 18 September 2008.

Please note the only official contact email for PIFI is PIFInitiative@gmail.com

Regards

Splitpin

 

[sugar3157]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Burnt if you are prepared to recommend a confused investor to vote no, no, no, please also advise him of the alternatives that are presently available that will deliver a better outcome. If there was something better, I would be the first to promote it, so please enlighten me. I only want what is best for unit holders. Seamisty

Hi Seamisty...I am so confused..I was going to vote Y>Y>N....but now I have no idea what to vote....HELP please...Sugar