Does anyone have any definate dates on when the tax statements will be issued by wellington.
Last time I made a direct call to their customer automated answering machines I got return message which said we'd get our statements in a couple of weeks.... That was 5 weeks ago.
without me calling their machines again Has anyone heard anything new from wellington.......... is it that perpetual are still being relaxed in their attitude in doing their ever well paid job for the PIF.
I am fortunately far from desperate Communique, and I can assure you I am supporting WC because I personally believe that the best outcome for the Fund (therefore myself) is as a going concern under a committed team of professionals. Nothing to do with desperation, wood or trees with my decision, and I know of others in the same position as me who are of the same view. Regards, SeamistyIt is easy for someone not to see the wood for the trees, particularly when they are desperate.
I am fortunately far from desperate Communique, and I can assure you I am supporting WC because I personally believe that the best outcome for the Fund (therefore myself) is as a going concern under a committed team of professionals. Nothing to do with desperation, wood or trees with my decision, and I know of others in the same position as me who are of the same view. Regards, Seamisty
I am pretty sure the AG is not in corporated Communique, it is an option still open to it, if and when it becomes neccessary (please confirm this Breaker1). I left the number crunching up to someone more qualified than me and the return of the anticipated annual return of 6 cent per unit on 45cents was 13 1/2% I think. JH personally told someone I spoke to who also was at the meeting last week that the 6 cents 'was doable' without any unexpected or unforeseen hurdles. The fact of the matter was that no one could guarantee a unit price if the Fund was wound up, orderly or otherwise.Nothing is guaranteed here, I just know that now is not the time to be selling property of any description, unfinished or otherwise. WC also has the job of renegotiating a deal on behalf of the PIF with OCV now that it is in voluntary liquidation. I have had legal advice regarding the PIF and meet with a AMP Financial Planner every six weeks, the uncertainty out there is nothing short of scary!! No one is prepared to commit to anything, that is why I have a high regard for WC. They are prepared to put their name on the line here when no one else gave the Fund a second look (if not a first). This is only my opinion, but I think it is an honest one with what information is available.Please do not be influenced by it, do your own research the same as me. (I am not a dictator) SeamistyYou obviously did a lot of research Seamisty and I didn't realise your Action Group was incorporated - sorry! Forgive me for not digging back through the posts but I would appreciate some advice. To help me make my decision would you just confirm when you weighed up the alternatives to WC which I guess was winding up the scheme independently from WC did you come up with an figure of what the return would be. This would be helpful to compare with over a period of time with WC and her team of professionals at the helm.
Thanks in advance.
You can interrupt the playground whenever you like Communique. I spoke with ASIC and I spoke with one of the people who contacted ASIC on behalf of the PIFI. Their intervention was a direct result from PIFI related actions. Unit holders relate that directly to added unwarranted expenses that ultimately will have some impact on the PIF so when some of us see the remnants of PIFI still agitating, we are inclined to get extremely angry and feel like we have to put the BOOTS in. You have no idea how much anguish and stress those actions caused! You obviously did not receive the amount of phone calls and e-mails I personally I had to deal with or you would realise the extent of ill feeling towards a few individuals that exists. I don't recall you posting in regard to some of the anti Wellington childish nasty posts and no one is asking you to agree with anyone.Regards, Seamisty (the dictator)
I repeat your words HOLD ON TO YOUR UNITS THEY WILL BE WORTH $1 IN 3 to 4 YEARS Realy & truely now we both know that cant happen For a start the fund is being depleted by 6 cents a year handing out that income I am game to say the fund will be worth the same as what it is right now in 3 to 5 years selling on the exchange for about 20 cents You cant get a big 6 cents income & expect to get growth also it dont work that way sorry ////Who knows. I am not a fortune teller. Might even be worth more for all we know. I don't know, you don't know. No guarantees in this world. All I know is that our units would be worth jack if JH did not step in and prevent those other mongrels liquidating it.
I and the majority here say give Jenny a go. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. You should do the same as the majority really has spoken and you are just :horse:
ASIC would not have told Seamisty that PIFI made a complaint as that type of information is confidential. ASIC aren’t even allowed to comment on the case at the moment, so unless you were at the hearing or get the transcript you won’t know what happened. You could take WC's word for it however, it’s their conduct that is in question.
If a member of PIFI made a complaint that does not mean that PIFI made a complaint. The unit holders making complaints are not responsible for the deceptive or misleading information. WC is responsible and they were given the opportunity to correct this without going to court however, they decided to challenge ASIC and they LOST. If you want to blame someone for all your personal phone calls look to WC. It is worth noting that ASIC did not seek court costs from WC (to which they were entitled) as this would not have been in the unit holder's best interests. WC on the other hand will be passing costs onto the fund as a result of their own misconduct.
The point of an AG is to keep the RE in check. What’s the point of asking an AG member for information if they are just going to spout off what they have been told by WC without checking the facts first. If anyone has an issue with the content of post #2782 please let us all know what it is. Who does not see the value of clarifying misleading information?
Discrediting the RE is not in anyone's best interest however, if by bringing the facts to light they are discredited then so be it. It is more important to ensure unit holders are fully informed rather than protect the RE.
I repeat your words HOLD ON TO YOUR UNITS THEY WILL BE WORTH $1 IN 3 to 4 YEARS Realy & truely now we both know that cant happen For a start the fund is being depleted by 6 cents a year handing out that income I am game to say the fund will be worth the same as what it is right now in 3 to 5 years selling on the exchange for about 20 cents You cant get a big 6 cents income & expect to get growth also it dont work that way sorry ////
ASIC would not have told Seamisty that PIFI made a complaint as that type of information is confidential. ASIC aren’t even allowed to comment on the case at the moment, so unless you were at the hearing or get the transcript you won’t know what happened. You could take WC's word for it however, it’s their conduct that is in question.
If a member of PIFI made a complaint that does not mean that PIFI made a complaint. The unit holders making complaints are not responsible for the deceptive or misleading information. WC is responsible and they were given the opportunity to correct this without going to court however, they decided to challenge ASIC and they LOST. If you want to blame someone for all your personal phone calls look to WC. It is worth noting that ASIC did not seek court costs from WC (to which they were entitled) as this would not have been in the unit holder's best interests. WC on the other hand will be passing costs onto the fund as a result of their own misconduct.
The point of an AG is to keep the RE in check. What’s the point of asking an AG member for information if they are just going to spout off what they have been told by WC without checking the facts first. If anyone has an issue with the content of post #2782 please let us all know what it is. Who does not see the value of clarifying misleading information?
Discrediting the RE is not in anyone's best interest however, if by bringing the facts to light they are discredited then so be it. It is more important to ensure unit holders are fully informed rather than protect the RE.
-----
"Hey I'm on a pay phone, so if you're there pick up, pick up, pick up, pick up, pick up, pick up, pick up, pick up, well OK, call me back."
:horse:
Sorry Cable Guy, but you are wrong on several counts:
WC did challenge ASIC, and on the matters that they were defending ie. EM, they did NOT lose as JH clearly explained to YOU at the meeting, as YOU did not stay till the end of the hearing as YOU admitted.
The judge in fact dismissed all ASIC claims that the material put to unit holders was deceptive or misleading, so why do YOU keep saying that here and at the meeting. It baffles me of your continued stubborness!!
The ONLY thing the judge stipulated was clarification of the quaterly distributions. How has the RE been discredited? You are misleading the people of this forum by your inaccurate 'facts'. That was not the actual judgement, though I feel it is the judgement that YOU and the other PIFI member(s) that accompanied you in the QSC were praying for. Basically the 3 of you that put your hands up against supporting WC.
Did you think that the 3 of you would take control of our fund LOL!!
You are really are whipped!! :whip
Thank you Maverick, you must have been at the court. Please tell the forum exactly what the judge said, not what Jenny said.
If the court had discredited JH then we would be having to do a complete new vote on resolutions, but we are NOT. So what Jenny says IS true. Move on.
You wont be sued Duped because your DEAD RIGHT what you saySee my posts on 1st September #2157 (page 108) and #2164 (page 109)
Post #2164 is about the annual % returns WC would need to achieve to return 1$ to us after 3/5 years as a COMBINATION of 6c a year and an exit value.
My calcs could be wrong so don't sue me if I'm wrong.
You wont be sued Duped because your DEAD RIGHT what you say
Bloody shame others cant understand /////////////
Sorry Cable Guy <snip>
The judge in fact dismissed all ASIC claims that the material put to unit holders was deceptive or misleading <snip>
The only information that was deceptive and misleading was concerning the quaterly distributions. This is now being cleared up by WC. End of story!!
Maverick,
How could you possibly make and believe such a statement!!! not unlike a one eyed supporter of a football team which can do no wrong and blames the opposition for everything under the sun LOL!!!!
I refer you to CableGuy's post no. 2782, and others along the same lines,where he capably and objectively outlines the statements from WC on one column and the Reality on the other e.g Why did JH decline to put in writing her comment that the 2% fee will not be charged due to poor performance? If she was genuine and above board why wouldn't she agree to put it in writing? Would you not consider this to be deceptive or misleading ????
JH stated that the 2% removal fee is REASONABLE whilst Lonsec advises that a reasonable fee should be approx. 0.7% JH wants 3 times as much!!!!!!!
Are you and other like minded supporters prepared to pay such exorbitant fee ???
Further to the above , how can you honestly say "the only information that was deceptive or misleading was concerning the quarterly distributions"
Is that not sufficient/bad enough for you? you seem to be dismissing it as a triviality !!!
Are the above matters not sufficient for you, and other like minded supporters, to place even some doubts on JH's intentions/ integrity ???
As the the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink it !! not to mention "flogging a dead horse" as has been depicted on here a number of times
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?