- Joined
- 4 May 2008
- Posts
- 288
- Reactions
- 0
An Action Group investor received a phone call from his brother Stuart who applied for early redemption. Even just a small sum to keep him going. This Action Group member has written this note in the hope that I might put it on the Aussie Stock Forums for them.
" I pity anyone trying to get an early redemption under the hardship offer. My brother received a curt letter dated June 5 refusing his request. Not even an offer of $5000.00 out of $195000.00 to help him out. He has no cash and lives on handouts from friends and family. This might indicate the condition of the fund and type of people we are dealing with. Letter was signed by Guy Hutchins
BRING IN THE ADMINISTRATORS A.S.A.P!"
or I might add - another RE.
I would agree that the criteria for at least partial redemptions should be re-evaluated by Wellington Capital for investors in serious need, especially now that Octaviar no longer run the show. I will be putting to Jenny on Monday that she on humane grounds, should immediately begin a fairer criteria for partial redemption or distribution payments for people in Stuarts position. That is, not an unfair priority, it is simply humane. This means WC making a business judgement on fairdinkum positions of hardship. If someone can prove hardship, but not on the previous rediculous criteria (half dead on a slab with few to no assets) - then that persons distributions should recomence. This would disadvantage the rest of us very little, as it would appear distributions may recommence in several months, all going well, anyway.
The problem is while I am sympathetic to all holders that can demonstrate hardship, the majority of holders have arranged their budgets and structured their incomes to incorporate the income they thought they were going to receive from their investment in the PIF. Every single holder is experiencing financial hardship in some form. Many do not have the back up from government pensions because they do not meet the criteria.The best solution is for the fund to resume distributions. We have to concentrate on an outcome beneficial for everyone as soon as possible in my opinion. Seamisty
Zixo I don't think this is correct because if the wholesale funds had cashed out on behalf of institutional investors there would have been a lot less than $690 million remaining in the PIF and I have spoken personally to people who invested through managed funds who are in the same position as 'mum and dad' investors. Also individual investors who have substantial holdings in the PIF are classified as 'wholesale investors' as in they could negotiate a better rate of return. I think that when all is revealed I will be very surprised if the majority of the original loan of $200 million outstanding to the RBOS was not lent to MFS itself to prop up related company/subsiduaries. It is my understanding there was a loan of $50 million to the MFS subsiduary Causeway, a boutique fund manager and $67million to LLA . Regards, SeamistyHi,
I was wondering if anyone can clarify this
I have been told the ONLY Reason The Premium Income fund was put under strain was because of the WHOLESALE Premium Income fund ( which we were never told was Linked). The Wholesale Investors suddenly redeemed their Money which is their right under their arrangement.
The Wholesale Premium Income Fund comprised of Institutional Investors who deposited more than $500,000.00.
In my opinion the ONLY reason MFS/Octaviar and all its affiliated companies exist is because or the PIF. Cash that was injected by mum and dad investors is what has made it a popular fund. The assets held by the fund were working beautifully up until the point the mother company started having problems.
Seamisty is right. To start sorting out who or who is not undergoing hardship is not a good idea. It will deflect WC from the real game - looking after everybody! It will just give them time to string out the whole mess for a longer period while they ruminate about who is doing it hard. Every time I use my ATM I wince. Let's concentrate on getting the this entire fiasco behind us and all of our money back immediately. WC have done nothing so far to prove themselves as the solution to our massive problem. Are they retaining the advisers who got us into this crisis in the first place?
Seamisty is right. To start sorting out who or who is not undergoing hardship is not a good idea. It will deflect WC from the real game - looking after everybody! It will just give them time to string out the whole mess for a longer period while they ruminate about who is doing it hard. Every time I use my ATM I wince. Let's concentrate on getting the this entire fiasco behind us and all of our money back immediately. WC have done nothing so far to prove themselves as the solution to our massive problem. Are they retaining the advisers who got us into this crisis in the first place?
For those concerned about the vagueness of the PIF net assets:
If WC wants to list the PIF on the NSX (a budget version of the ASX) - then the PIF will have to be fully audited before the NSX will even allow the PIF to list on it.
This might be the main reason Jenny has contracted PWC to do an audit.
After this audit, any shortfalls in the PIF should be there to be seen by all investors.
Good morning Comminique, it seems the general consenus of opinion, at this time, is that this action will not be acceptable to holders. This could be a key issue for holders, and this being the case, the Action Group is going to need very strong support to block/fight this. As many investors of the PIF that can possibly make it should attend the proposed Wellington Capital meetings/forums and voice their concerns. Perhaps Jenny Hutson's intentions are not to take this path with the PIF in the immediate future , this being the case we need to be informed either way. I am of the understanding Breaker1 is hoping to speak with her on Monday and will inform members of the outcome from this via e-mail. For investors who have not registered their details with the Action Group and would like to, please contact breaker1@aapt.net.au Regards, SeamistyBreaker, Are you alluding to the fact that we may be paid back in shares? If you are, that is not how we invested. That would be unfair and manipulative.
Great work Marcom, we think that all action group members should wear a badge to their respective meetings with 'ASK ME FOR DETAILS' and the investor id on it.Thought the Action Group might need a logo for consistency in presentation. Let me know what you think.
It is my understanding Breaker will be speaking with Jenny Hutson today and will contact members by e-mail with an update after that. I think he was going to try and reply to some new members yesterday and prepare himself for today's contact with JH. It is hard to know what direction to take as a group until we have all the correct information regarding the PIF. The important thing is that we have as many members as possible on standby in the event that we will need to take extreme action regarding the management rights of the Fund, being the Resposible Entity. I personally am hoping this will not be necessary and that Wellington Capital prove to be competent and trustworthy and continue to run the Fund as it was originally intended. This does not include publicly listing the PIF. Love the logo Marcom! Regards, SeamistyHas anyone heard from Breaker, we are waiting for instructions and have heard nothing.
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?