- Joined
- 4 May 2008
- Posts
- 288
- Reactions
- 0
PIF Holder
Of course you are not less important than other investors mate
Believe me if we could have written to all 10300 unit holders we would have done so
We are certainly more than prepared to email you our voting forms to your good self or anybody else on this Forum that requests one
I will not go into the full story with you here but am prepared to do so privately with you
Certain people reliably informed us that Jenny Hutson was prepared to offer us a fair and eqitable Redemption plan after the fund had stabilised over a three to five year period ,thinking and that JH would surely listen to what was a very reasonable plan to at least give older investors some of their money back at Net Tangible Asset value we pulled out of a crucial meeting with our Solicitor at the last minute several weeks prior to this date
What we got was an insult to the intelligence 5% or the first 10000 units
that is miniscule JH does not intend to make any compromises to anybody
Had that meeting taken place we would not be in a last ditch effort to inform investors of their democratic rights and the one sided plan that will almost certainly give JH control of the fund in perpetuity regardless of wether or not you vote no for option 3
Please understand that hidden in the Constitution is an amendment that is cunningly contrived to make it almost imposible to remove WC if you vote for option 1
I am of the understanding that The Original PIF AG had no knowledge what so ever of this article and its contents which appears to have been submitted by the break away group QLD PIFI. The article in todays AFR ( the post with the attatched article seems to have vanished )appears to have been submitted with the deliberate intention of misleading Action Group members and the Public that it was sanctioned by the AG and NOT the QLD PIFI !!! They must be extremely insecure and lacking in numbers to try and recruit votes and create more confusion to the mostly elderly investors in the PIF by taking this underhand action. I am extremely dissapointed with whoever was resposible (or irresposible) I believe the original Action Groups intention was to form a united support facility committed to helping unit holders. If some of these members feel they would prefer to take a different path, or have another agenda, that is fine, they have that right, but not under the guise of the AG banner. Very sneaky and underhand in my opinion. SeamistyIs your PIFI group responsible for atributing the AFR article recommending PIF investors:
"reject the plan (from WC)..."
and "The Action Group is instead pushing for the fund...to conduct an orderly sale of assets.."
and "that all 3000 investors contacted by the PIF Action Group reject Ms Hutsons proposals, it could be enough to liquidate the fund..."
to the PIF Action Group - Yes! OR NO! ???
Breaker
Dennis Jackson is our media spokesman and on the PIFI committee
he is terminally ill with Emphysemia and short of breath
If he stated PIFI over the telephone with some journalist who has a deadline to write a story it may have been hard to hear
Please give it away mate and let everybody decide on the issues.
PIFholder, I can assure that the QLD PIFI do not have the support or represent anything like 3000 unitholders, top or bottom of the list!!!!! They are in desperate need to swell their numbers to pay for any future legal representation and give them the numbers needed to force the Fund into liquidation. That is the ultimate aim of the QLD PIFI, to WIND UP THE PIF. I guess now it will be left up to a few AG members to bring out the bucket and mop and clean up this mess, or I could be entirely wrong and if the use of the AG banner was unintentional, then the QLD PIFI can get a retraction published. Either way, the media will have to be contacted to be made aware of this complete mis -representation of the AG. SeamistyJadel,
The group is certainly organised - I'm not questioning that.
But I've heard that it costs money to join? Isn't that isolating the little people who can barely afford to buy their groceries, let alone pay out more money? Does PIFI just represent the top 3000 unitholders?
What I want to know is if I follow the Initiative's instructions and vote no - what is the alternative? Will I get a distribution before Christmas?
I just need to understand -
If I vote yes - I get Wellington, with all of its bumps and lumps
If I vote no - PIFI says PIF won't lqiuidate. If PIFI is right, then what do I get as the PIFI atlernative, and what if PIFI legal advise is wrong?
PIFHolder
Breaker i am speaking for my self not the PIFI Group realy i dont know what all the fuss is about What your saying its ok for WC to to write to the top investers but not OK for the PIFI that sounds a bit unfair to me You say it could Liquidate the fund I rather call it a controlled wind down over 2 to 3 years And yes you will still get your 3 cents B4 Xmas Relax its no big deal / Dane //Is your PIFI group responsible for atributing the AFR article recommending PIF investors:
"reject the plan (from WC)..."
and "The Action Group is instead pushing for the fund...to conduct an orderly sale of assets.."
and "that all 3000 investors contacted by the PIF Action Group reject Ms Hutsons proposals, it could be enough to liquidate the fund..."
to the PIF Action Group - Yes! OR NO! ???
Who said WC contacted the top investors Dame.Where did you get your information? I was never contacted. SeamistyBreaker i am speaking for my self not the PIFI Group realy i dont know what all the fuss is about What your saying its ok for WC to to write to the top investers but not OK for the PIFI that sounds a bit unfair to me You say it could Liquidate the fund I rather call it a controlled wind down over 2 to 3 years And yes you will still get your 3 cents B4 Xmas Relax its no big deal / Dane //
Breaker i am speaking for my self not the PIFI Group realy i dont know what all the fuss is about What your saying its ok for WC to to write to the top investers but not OK for the PIFI that sounds a bit unfair to me You say it could Liquidate the fund I rather call it a controlled wind down over 2 to 3 years And yes you will still get your 3 cents B4 Xmas Relax its no big deal / Dane //
The article doesn't say PIFI has 3000 members.PIFI 3000 members? Any contributor to this forum knows that this a ridiculously high figure!
....
Breaker i am speaking for my self not the PIFI Group realy i dont know what all the fuss is about What your saying its ok for WC to to write to the top investers but not OK for the PIFI that sounds a bit unfair to me You say it could Liquidate the fund I rather call it a controlled wind down over 2 to 3 years And yes you will still get your 3 cents B4 Xmas Relax its no big deal / Dane //
Gold Coast.com.au release says: " This comes despite rumblings from the PIF Initiative, an action group headed by Dennis Chapman, that investors are being 'bullied' into backing the proposals."
Is Dennis Chapman the "head" of the PIFI or not? If not, does he hold any position in the PIFI or not. If not is he a member of the PIFI?
Please confirm if Dennis Jackson is the one responsible for the article in the AFR or Dennis Chapman ?
May I ask how responsible you yourselves as investors feel for the dismal results that Octaviar MFS has delivered for you.
ASF is a forum for people to learn from their successes as well as their failures.
Is there anything that you hapless folk could have done to avoid this catastrophe.
Please illuminate us.
gg
There is no benefit for PIFI to be incorrectly reported as an 'action group' as it makes the PIFI more difficult for like minded investors to locate and register with. It appears to be a reporting issue. As you will note 'action group' is in lower case which means it is not being quoted as the name of anything. Besides, 'PIF AG' is not owned or registered by anyone. If you have an issue with their reporting you should contact AFR in person.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?