Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

[DoraNBoots]

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

WC are playing hardball with their scare tactics. If you accept Res 1 you will only give them more power to push us around in the future. Unitholders will not permit a liquidation by WC.

People should start recording conversations with WC hotline staff to see if they are willing to BS for the record. I think you may need let them know you are recording the conversation to begin with to make it binding. Does anyone have the capability to do this?

Boots

 

[seamisty]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

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

Sugar, please check your private message box. Regards, Seamisty

 

[Wolfgang]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

WC are playing hardball with their scare tactics. If you accept Res 1 you will only give them more power to push us around in the future. Unitholders will not permit a liquidation by WC.
Boots

I also asked Wellington yesterday if they are using scare tactics. The answer “no we are not using scare tactics”

I also asked if they are going to go on investing in the future. The answer “Yes when the time is right, we want to make the fund a going concern again”

 

[seamisty]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

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

I will be sending my vote this week sugar and I will voting Y Y N. I have been told by others who have Fund Managers and Financial Advisors that this is also the way they have been recommended to vote as there has been no better alternative put foward. Regards, Seamisty

 

[JohnH]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

I will be sending my vote this week sugar and I will voting Y Y N. I have been told by others who have Fund Managers and Financial Advisors that this is also the way they have been recommended to vote as there has been no better alternative put foward. Regards, Seamisty

Hi Seamisty (and other interested parties) - as you have probably calculated, I will also be voting Y-Y-N

 

[2CentsWorth]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

I will be sending my vote this week sugar and I will voting Y Y N. I have been told by others who have Fund Managers and Financial Advisors that this is also the way they have been recommended to vote as there has been no better alternative put foward. Regards, Seamisty

Good morning Seamisty, hope the fish are biting.

I too, after further consideration brought on by current postings, have decided not to change from from my original vote of Y>Y>N.
Wolfgang has eclipsed me by one day, in directly asking WC those very same questions.... Well done Wolfy ! and all the best.

John.

 

[marcom]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

I will be sending my vote this week sugar and I will voting Y Y N. I have been told by others who have Fund Managers and Financial Advisors that this is also the way they have been recommended to vote as there has been no better alternative put foward. Regards, Seamisty

We have already voted Y-Y-N

Regards
MARCOM

 

[seamisty]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Good morning johnH and 2CentsWorth. Seems to have settled down on the forum a bit, hopefully everyone has gathered enough information to vote accordingly as to how they see fit. The boat is awaiting parts which did not arrive on this mornings plane so we have a crew with long faces doing maintenance jobs instead. I did however have a kind offer of a pair of size 9 gumboots with two holes in the right toe off another AG member in exchange for several hours of very constructive advice in regard to the PIF and it appears I was the only fish biting LOL!!! Regards, Seamisty

 

[DoraNBoots]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

I will be sending my vote this week sugar and I will voting Y Y N. I have been told by others who have Fund Managers and Financial Advisors that this is also the way they have been recommended to vote as there has been no better alternative put foward. Regards, Seamisty

Seamisty, the other alternative that you cannot see is right under your nose. Maintain our current rights rather than give them away to WC!

That is our choice right now. There is plenty of time. If you reject WC's proposal other opportunities will present themselves. If you accept, you are selling us all short.

Boots

 

[great dame]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

HI ALL Its going to take a lot will power not to tell all you good folk out there who voted Y Y N in maybe a years time WELL I TOLD YOU SO injoy your day Cheers / Dane //

 

[seamisty]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Seamisty, the other alternative that you cannot see is right under your nose. Maintain our current rights rather than give them away to WC!

That is our choice right now. There is plenty of time. If you reject WC's proposal other opportunities will present themselves. If you accept, you are selling us all short.

Boots

All I am giving WC at present is the Ok to demostrate her abilities, unhindered, that have already been recognised by being awarded Queensland Business Woman of the year 2007. I trawled the net for days looking for any information that would deter me from going with WC and found nothing but praise for the woman!!! If there was one skerrick of scandal or wrong doing it would have been plastered all over this thread by all and sundry. The other opportunities waiting to present themselves are heavily disguised and too slow off the mark. It's too late, the majority off investors have made their decision, many from as far back as the forums where they were satisfied with what they saw and were prepared to accept whatever was put to them from WC. At least I can recognize a dead horse when I see one. Seamisty:horse:

 

[Burnt]

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

Please contact PIF Initiative at above email address. There are alternatives to being locked into plans that benefit others and not yourself. Excercise the rights you currently have before they are taken away from you.
Don't go along with opinions and advice that are being paid for and don't be fooled by threats and scare tactics.

 

[selciper]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

I've read all the recent posts. My thanks to those who have done so much research in their own valuable time and shared it with us. I'm voting YYN - with misgivings. WC don't quite measure up, especially as they do dodge questions, but nobody has been able to produce another company or bank who want PIF. Had that been the case, we would have had a real choice. At present we now need some kind of shelter. We won't be lonely individuals again, thanks to the AG which will be quick to act if things don't look right. After this protracted process, WC have put their future reputation on the line and they've a big job to do if they want to gain anything resembling total PIF investor confidence. Fingers crossed.

And I do think that the AG should raise $10000 for any urgent matters that may arise, such as necessary legal consultations.

 

[Rance]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Don't go along with opinions and advice that are being paid for and don't be fooled by threats and scare tactics.

I've voted Y/Y/Y, so I guess my pay cheque is in the mail... You little beaudy!! Hopefully the first of many from Jenny, Robert and Mary-Anne....

Rance :chimney:jump:

 

[ozzy]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

What happens if the proxy form (vote) is not sent at all? What does option 1,2 and 3 default to?

 

[2CentsWorth]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

What happens if the proxy form (vote) is not sent at all? What does option 1,2 and 3 default to?

Ozzy,
your votes unfortunately will not be counted. WC only requires 75% of votes that are returned, or give in at the meeting on the 18th.
Cheers.

 

[Rance]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

What happens if the proxy form (vote) is not sent at all? What does option 1,2 and 3 default to?

Nothing; if you don't vote, you don't vote...

Rance

 

[seamisty]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

What happens if the proxy form (vote) is not sent at all? What does option 1,2 and 3 default to?

The outcome will be determined by those who choose to vote. Those who don't vote will ultimately have to take the path of whatever the majority vote for who do vote.WC will need to get a 75% for vote on Res1(of those who do vote) for the Fund to remain a going concern as per proposed changes.Seamisty

 

[Rance]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Ozzy,
your votes unfortunately will not be counted. WC only requires 75% of votes that are returned, or give in at the meeting on the 18th.
Cheers.

Pedantic correction, 2Cents Worth... "WC only requires 75% of the votes that are returned AND given in at the meeting..."
Now I'm being legalistic...Bah!
I think I've been reading this thread too long.

Rance

 

[Mutchy]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hello All,
I see a lot of unit holders have voted already. The following is my opinion only. I am not advising anyone as to how to vote.
WCIM is Wellington Capital Investment Management, the present Responsible Entity, previously known by other names including MFS Investment Management. WC is Wellington Capital of which WCIM is a subsidiary company. WC is named as the new R E in Item 3 of the proxy voting form commonly referred to as Resolution 3.

There are valid arguments for and against the proposals from WCIM. JH has a good reputation sullied somewhat by a perceived close association with some previous MFS board members. I think her intentions are well placed and the goals of WCIM are admirable. Of course the goals we are aware of will be only those that she thinks we need to know of. Others may be deduced from the evidence in the changes to the constitution and statements in the explanatory memorandum. I am alarmed that there are no provisions in the proposed constitution to allow the operation of the 10,000 unit redemption scheme nor the Investor Advisory Committee. Hence I am suspicious that WC may not really intend to honour these promises. There is further disparity between the Deed Poll cited in the proposed constitution and reality and the explanatory memorandum. I am deeply suspicious that WC has an agenda far different from ours.

The mathematics of the WCIM touted recovery reveal that the recovery in the WCIM anticipated timeframe, nominally six or seven years,is very difficult to achieve and by no means certain even if we were to immediately enter economic conditions the same as the last seven or so years prior to last October. Earnings in excess of 25% on the proportion of our portfolio which is capable of doing so are required. A lot of outstanding debt has to be recovered from building construction loans, at least 20 going back to November 2005.

There is another option which WCIM has not discussed in the explanatory memorandum nor given us the opportunity to vote upon and that is of an orderly wind up. This would not be to WCIM's benefit as the income to be made from this option as far as I can make out is costs and expenses only. Remember that at present WCIM have not made any income from PIF and have been managing the scheme from 3 million paid to WC by MFS(Octavia). WCIM make no fees until the first dividend is paid. This is proposed to be in October with a further amount to give return of 6% by the end of the financial year. We cannot count on the exact yields because WCIM have the power to determine the exact sums depending on circumstances at the time of payment. We could get anything but so that WCIM can begin to be paid from the PIF scheme they will make a dividend payment as soon as possible.

An orderly wind up which involves selling the assets at going market value without undue haste could take three years or more depending on the commercial property market and the stock market. Unit holders are entitled as I see it to returns during this period at the discretion of the RE. At present the PWC assessed value is 65 cents per unit. If unit holders could vote and pass a resolution to mandate this course with or without having voted in favour of the present voting options we would receive according to the mathematical model evolved by Iceman and verified by others, 65 or so cents per unit in 7 years but with a return of 6% in the meantime. If the resolutions we have before us are approved YYY then after seven years we can sell our units on the NSX and get 65 cents per unit. WCIM will have surrendered the RE job to WC and they may have decided that they no longer want to be RE and then jump ship earning 2% of our money for doing so. They could even do this almost immediately the ink is dry on the paperwork giving WC the RE's job in a few weeks time.

If the resolutions are not approved ie voted NNN I believe that WCIM will have to propose another option to pay some dividend to us in order to commence an income stream for themselves, and a different proposal will be needed from them for management of the scheme.

So there is the situation as I see it. I would like to have an orderly wind up because I want my money returned so that I can do something with it. Otherwise I fear it will earn a relatively poor return and then I will get the same value by sale on the NSX in seven years as I can in three or maybe four years by orderly wind up . I also see that WC intend to open the scheme to more investors so diluting the value of our holdings further. I am very skeptical that we will ever see units valued at 1$ again.

A strategy for achieving a vote by all members for an orderly wind up of the scheme follows.
Because a motion for adjournment of a general meeting must be heard first at the meeting (assuming the chair has been appointed) then I propose:
1) that the RE be requested to notify all members that a special resolution is to be put at the meeting. This request has to be made by at least 100 members in writing or members holding at least 5% of the units. Because this notice is after the notice of meeting that you already have and the forms cannot be sent simultaneously, the cost of doing so could possibly be at the requesting members' expense.
2) that the resolution request:
a)the adjournment of the meeting until the RE has explained the benefits and risks of an orderly wind up of the scheme as an option and has included these details in an explanatory memorandum.
b)the inclusion of the option of an orderly wind up of the scheme in a proxy voting form
c)the reimbursement by the RE to the requesting members of costs, if any, of the distribution of the notice of special resolution
d)the meeting be reconvened at the earliest opportunity after unit holders have received proxy voting forms and the associated explanatory memorandum.

The meeting can then be held with the orderly wind up option on the table.

Of course members can ask for a meeting to approve an orderly windup at any time including after the present vote has been taken and the resolutions dealt with whatever happens. If we want to act now then a motion for adjournment is the only option I can see which will postpone the taking of the present vote. This would postpone, under a successful YYY vote, the replacement of WCIM by WC as the RE and the adoption of a constitution which penalises our fund if the RE is replaced, removes our rights to redemptions and lists our units on the NSX.

I suggest that members of the Action Group or PFIF who wish to support an adjournment motion as outlined above could indicate their support to Breaker1. Should we have sufficient numbers we could then proceed with the precise wording of the request generally as outlined above, circulate it to all supporters for signature (Corp Act allows many signed copies, each copy has to be identical) and put it to WCIM for action.

I hope this assessment is helpful. I would like to see considered comment not facile interjections.
Mutchy