Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
........ Any idea what that 3605 represents in unit holdings?
........ Any idea what that 3605 represents in unit holdings?
Latest count updated today > 3605 have voted 97% in favour of Wellington Capital.
If you take that as a survey for the remainder yet to vote, that is NOT looking good for the NO voters! - and that's quite a survey!
To get the complete picture we would need to know what unit holding the YES and NO votes represent. This is just another example of partial information being provided which is biased towards the RE.
As the RE is only providing half the picture, we could assume that the 3% of NO votes represent a greater proportion than 3% of the unit holding.
Perhaps the next person requesting this info from the RE could also get the unit holding that the YES and NO votes represent.
........ Any idea what that 3605 represents in unit holdings?
Hi JohnH,WC just told me they would contact Computershare and if they can get the information would get back to me. Cheers, Seamisty........ Any idea what that 3605 represents in unit holdings?
........ Any idea what that 3605 represents in unit holdings?
If the anti-NSX stance is the strategy PIFI will be pushing the top 2700 investors, I feel you will be in a bit of a dilemma.
The NSX is the least of the problems for the top tier investors, they have the most cash. They will have the highest levels of financial resilience. They would probably welcome the NSX in the hope that your gloomy 10-20c trading prediction, to buy up and make up possible loses. Not that I feel there will be many selling at these levels, that is just scare mongering or wishful thinking depending on what side of the fence you are at. ....
They probably wouldn't tell us I am thinking:::Hi Maverick2802, I beleive that WC will be receiving 3 proxies this week,all in the 7 figure unit holding that will be a Y Y N vote. These votes could even push the WC for vote to 98%. Regards, Seamisty
To get the complete picture we would need to know what unit holding the YES and NO votes represent. This is just another example of partial information being provided which is biased towards the RE.
As the RE is only providing half the picture, we could assume that the 3% of NO votes represent a greater proportion than 3% of the unit holding.
Perhaps the next person requesting this info from the RE could also get the unit holding that the YES and NO votes represent.
Seamisty could you tell us all the names of Stockbrokers that are giving for casts for the fund if it becomes listed I as a market investor would love to know who they are & what they are for casting & don't say ring WC i tried them had no luck there I hope i am not kicking a dead horse asking questions like this / Dane //
It still seems to be happening. Lots more posts full of rubbishing comments and no constructive information. Again ! more unsubstantiated rumours and hearsay !!!
Let me respond again to those that persist in stating false information regarding RE walking away and the fund being placed into forced liquidation.
THE RE MUST REMAIN THE RE UNTIL ANOTHER RE IS REGISTERED WITH ASIC. BEFORE A NEW RE CAN BE REGISTERED WITH ASIC, THE UNIT HOLDERS HAVE TO VOTE TO APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT. Secondly, WC cannot afford to walk away. They are due to pay Octaviar in June 2009 the purchase price for taking over the RE company. This payment basically equals 4 years worth of management fees.
NO ONE IS PROMOTING LIQUIDATION AND LIQUIDATION CANNOT BE FORCED UPON THE FUND. UNIT HOLDERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE ON ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS.
Just had a return call from WC and was told as all the votes are immediately passed on to Computershare, they only know the number of proxies recieved, not the number of units represented and Computershare is not divulging that information. Regards, SeamistyHi JohnH,WC just told me they would contact Computershare and if they can get the information would get back to me. Cheers, Seamisty
Hi Burnt,It still seems to be happening. Lots more posts full of rubbishing comments and no constructive information. Again ! more unsubstantiated rumours and hearsay !!!
Let me respond again to those that persist in stating false information regarding RE walking away and the fund being placed into forced liquidation.
THE RE MUST REMAIN THE RE UNTIL ANOTHER RE IS REGISTERED WITH ASIC. BEFORE A NEW RE CAN BE REGISTERED WITH ASIC, THE UNIT HOLDERS HAVE TO VOTE TO APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT. Secondly, WC cannot afford to walk away. They are due to pay Octaviar in June 2009 the purchase price for taking over the RE company. This payment basically equals 4 years worth of management fees.
NO ONE IS PROMOTING LIQUIDATION AND LIQUIDATION CANNOT BE FORCED UPON THE FUND. UNIT HOLDERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE ON ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS.
It still seems to be happening. Lots more posts full of rubbishing comments and no constructive information. Again ! more unsubstantiated rumours and hearsay !!!
Let me respond again to those that persist in stating false information regarding RE walking away and the fund being placed into forced liquidation.
THE RE MUST REMAIN THE RE UNTIL ANOTHER RE IS REGISTERED WITH ASIC. BEFORE A NEW RE CAN BE REGISTERED WITH ASIC, THE UNIT HOLDERS HAVE TO VOTE TO APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT. Secondly, WC cannot afford to walk away. They are due to pay Octaviar in June 2009 the purchase price for taking over the RE company. This payment basically equals 4 years worth of management fees.
NO ONE IS PROMOTING LIQUIDATION AND LIQUIDATION CANNOT BE FORCED UPON THE FUND. UNIT HOLDERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE ON ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS.
Even though this question was directed to someone else, I'd like to offer an answer.
Wellington bought up all the shares in Octaviar Investment Management Limited (PIF RE) from a wholly owned Octaviar subsidiary and they are due to pay that subsidiary company the purchase price in June 2009. This price is 4 x the net profit of WIM (WIM took on four other funds when purchasing OIM) for the 12 months following the acquisition, + Net Tangible Asset Value of WIM at the end of that 12 mths.
In other words, Wellington will be handing back 4 years worth of management fees to Octaviar. This is why they want to lock themselves in for an indefinite period and be paid a huge exit fee if removed. Considering that all costs are reimbursed to them (even taxes), WIM's net profit would have to equal their management fee.
Hi Burnt
This is not a rubbishing comment or more unsubstantiated rumours and hearsay.
I spoke to a Wellington Capital Limited last week 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”
You are entitled to your opinions and I am passing on the information I got.
Wolfgang
I've read the PIFI material posted to me. It would be terrific to have a real choice in this matter. but the PIFI documentation doesn't convince me to lend the group my support. Nor am I totally satisfied with WC's set-up, but it's the safer way to go.
Excellent post Burnt. Goes somewhat towards possibly explaining why WC is risking losing PIF entirely (i.e. appearing to be cutting off its nose to spite its face) in proposing the changes to quorum clauses and the addition of the 2% termination fee. It suggests WC is not making the decision to include those changes flippantly. Fair enough but WC could have put a time limit on the 2% clause - although that would have further complicated the constitution.
All. I recall a decade or 2 ago that it was quite common for funds to apply exit fees in the order of 2% to investor withdrawals. And recall that ASX broker fees were up around the 1.5% too. Long before the $30 trade. I remember the $30 trade matching by Commsec ruffled a lot of feathers, namely flightless incumbents that had grown large on the easy pickings. Does my memory fail me? Can anyone confirm to the contrary? If not then the 1.5% NSX commission and the 2% WCL termination fee don't seem so extreme and outrageous but just - unattractive when compared to competitors current products.
Still confused.
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?