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
You were paying MFS 2.35% every year PLUS any overs in the fund. Not just if they proved incompetent. You paid this every year, so 0.7% is CHEAP, with hopefully a lot of work to make the fund healthy. You have misread the Lonsec report, read it again. They say the % are within a reasonable range. ...
MFSIM probably borrowed money from the PIF to buy them as well, Duped.Under the new renumeration structure, they were also entitled to receive surplus funds from the trust. I have been told WC will not be doing this. SeamistyActually, MFSIM's fee was around that figure too, for many years. From memory it was 0.7%. Then the unit holders voted yes to MFSIM's proposal to remove the 0.7% flat fee and install a 'performance only' fee + the Support Mechanism.
The current fee structure had only been in place for about (from memory) 18 months before the big freeze.
Little did we know that MFS would artificially jack up the 'performance' by buying massive numbers of units, i.e. 60M units the day before the end of the 06/07 financial year. Or at least it looks like that in the Annual report.
MFSIM probably borrowed money from the PIF to buy them as well, Duped.Under the new renumeration structure, they were also entitled to receive surplus funds from the trust. I have been told WC will not be doing this. Seamisty
You're absolutely correct Seamisty. My post wasn't clear. The 'performance' Management Fee was the surplus income generated by the fund at the end of every month after the distributions, withdrawals and expenses were "satisfied". Whatever this really meant, the end result is MFSIM got a bucket load more.
My point still stands though. If anyone thinks 0.7% is cheap then so was MFSIM in the earlier days. 0.7% seems good to me but I'm no 'Financial Advisor' with their presumably extensive level of knowledge of these things.[/QUOTE]
Hopefully it will prove to be inexpensive rather than "cheap"!
Hopefully it will prove to be inexpensive rather than "cheap"!
City Pacific wanted to pay $5mill for our PIF with further instalments depending on the performance of the PIF loan portfolio back in February, but the $5mill was to be paid in CIY shares which were valued at approx $3.20 then and are now worth 16cents. Wonder what our PIF would be worth now if CIY had of got its hands on it. SeamistySlightly off topic but related nonetheless, City Pacific has announced the proposal for their First Mortgage Fund to list on the ASX.
City Pacific wanted to pay $5mill for our PIF with further instalments depending on the performance of the PIF loan portfolio back in February, but the $5mill was to be paid in CIY shares which were valued at approx $3.20 then and are now worth 16cents. Wonder what our PIF would be worth now if CIY had of got its hands on it. Seamisty
City Pacific wanted to pay $5mill for our PIF with further instalments depending on the performance of the PIF loan portfolio back in February, but the $5mill was to be paid in CIY shares which were valued at approx $3.20 then and are now worth 16cents. Wonder what our PIF would be worth now if CIY had of got its hands on it. Seamisty
It is my understanding it was for the Fund. Plus further payments based on performance, still trying to find the articleSeamisty$5M for the RE or the fund itself?
I wonder if she was suprised someone wanted to even take it on board in its damaged state!!!!I shudder to think. I remember reading the interest of CIY at the time and my stomach turned and I prayed that they would not take over PIF.
Hey Y, do you think this is why Kalinda Cobby said we could do a lot worse than having our fund in the hands of Jenny Hutson after the first Sydney investor forum?
Well lets hope that JH can negotiate a better deal for the PIF than the proposed $44mill previous cash offer. Shame she can't say "We'll settle for the 35% of stella in exchange for the PIF debt", since the figure bandied around the value of that was around $215mill. Before anyone jumps on my case, there is no harm in wishfull thinking, JH being such good friends with CS and all.:dance:SeamistySeamisty, I understand that much. See my post #2724; page 137. (Viewed from our perspective the decision looks like an invitation for PTQ to have a go: "But at least at present, that is no indication of insolvency in 2006 and the Public Trustee’s suggestion involves mere speculation. Ultimately the submission for the Trustee went no higher than that a
liquidator would be interested to enquire about the solvency of Octaviar in
mid-2006, and that something might emerge. As to the call made in February 2008, it is difficult to see that it could constitute an uncommercial transaction, but if so it is comfortably within a two year period on any alternative.")
But as you know the part of the offer to creditors that relates to PIF covers more than $147.5M + $50M. From recollection there's about another $35M.
What about all these, and other transactions? And does it effect PIF's $147.5M claim - in any way?
The creditor meeting at Deloittes was supposed to be at 10.30 this morning so there might be an announcement soon.
I don't know who makes that ruling Sugar, I would have thought if there was actual evidence it would have been trotted out by now.Justice McMurdo made the decision in the Supreme Court of Brisbane for OCV not to go into liquidation. It would sure open a can of worms though, since OCV shares were still trading on the ASX until 22 JAN this year. Who is responsible ASX, ASIC? One would think all the companies, banks, institutions etc who loaned OCV millions during this period of time would have done due dilligence. SeamistyHi Seamisty all, does anyone know whether MFS/ Octaviar was insolvent prior to Nov 2007?
Hi All,
As per the financials of the MFS PIF fund dated the 31 December 2007,
below are investments with related parties of the MFS PIF.
The independence of the auditors was not compromised.
$ 000
1.MFS Living and Leasure Group $57,489
2.MFS Pacific Finance LTD $23,586
3.MFS Causeway Private Debt opportunties Fund $23,180
Further to the above the RE of the PIF have also invested our funds in what they term equity securites which are investments in the following related entities.
$000
1.MFS Living and Leasure Group $ 5,906
2.MFS Diversified Group $34,469
3.MFS Blue Sky Development Trust $ 2,265
4.MFS Property Trust no.7 $ 1,056
5.MFS Maximum Yield Fund $85,000
--------------
Total exposure of the PIF to MFS/Ocv $232 ,951 ,000.00
This amount was as 31 December 2007.
erniel:
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?