Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
Yes it does represent hope! ... and I agree that the editing misrepresents!
Yes it does represent hope! ... and I agree that the editing misrepresents!Does this article represent hope ? Represents proof of misleading information if you ask me.
Burnt would you please clarify who edited the article posted by Juan Mortyme? Seamisty
demodocus -
Your information is usually very good. so what's the source of your latest news about the $9.5m? Is it on a website somewhere?
No one is disputing the fact that you can express your own opinion, but I would not like other posters to take the liberty of inserting their own ramblings on my original post and not accept responsibility for it by re posting it as an original quote. We all like to keep things accurate and transparent on here. All openess and honesty and no misleading information. SeamistySeamisty, apologies if it is not apparent to you that this is not the full article. The full article is at the top of the page.
I have taken the liberty of short-cutting the typing involved in posting my comments on the article. Sorry, thought it would be obvious.
And before you start, I am entitled to express my opinions about what I find to be contradictory statements.
Yes of course this is the better option if it is possible. Is this a qoute from the article you found to be proof of misleading information Burnt?The following is from page 23 of the explanatory memorandum(unedited):::::There are 32 assets in the fund and Hutson said her company has ruled out foreclosures on the mortgagees if they get into trouble.
“If a mortgagee gets into trouble, we will try and work with them as a joint venture partner to trade out of the problem,” she said.
Just to clarify, this is an extract from the article (unedited).
There are 32 assets in the fund and Hutson said her company has ruled out foreclosures on the mortgagees if they get into trouble.
“If a mortgagee gets into trouble, we will try and work with them as a joint venture partner to trade out of the problem,” she said.
Just to clarify, this is an extract from the article (unedited).
Jadel I wonder if this is another example of inaccurate media reporting and that should read::::'There are 32 MORTGAGES in the fund and Hutson said her company has NOT ruled out foreclosures on the mortgagees if they get into trouble.'::: I was under the impression that a couple of assets had already been repossesed when the loans could not be re paid and these were projects that were being finished by the PIF as income became available. (refer page 23 explanatory memorandum) A lot of these loans are short term and due to mature in 12-18 months and the money re invested into other projects which will be turned over regularly. Not sit there for the whole duration. We have mortgages(32) and asset backed loans. Big difference. I think the article is perhaps a bit misleading in itself due to the reporting, but that is just my interprtation. Seamisty
So we asked then to forego the right of redemption and in three to five years we will liquidate the assets at a better price.”
As I understand it we are paying somebody to manage 32 mortgage Assets in the fund and them liquidate them after 3 to 5 years a cost of 2% per annum or lets say approximately 8 million a year
l
Hi seamisty,
Your interpretation may be correct however you have not addressed the major issue brought up by Jadel namely the outrageous fee of over $40 m to manage 32 mortgages and dispose of them in a 5 year (approx) period. Not bad hi?? I am sure many would have gladly taken that on and, even after paying the appropriate people to manage it, could have made a handsome profit!!
Thanks for picking up this mathematical error and putting this discussion back into perspective JohnH. It never ceases to amaze me how many experts there aren't around to disect the figures and correct a post when there is a bias against WC regarding misinformation from certain posters, but plenty of opinions to back up negative sentiment .SeamistyWellington's fee is .7% p.a. of the funds under management. Presumably this year will be valued at 45cents a unit which gives about $2,350,000. With a staff of 30 plus overheads, I don't see that as a fortune. To make any real money, they have to make the fund increase in worth. - Isn't that we all want???
I was just reading the MFS PIFannual report for 2007 where it cost us approx $16.9 million dollars to manage the PIF for that financial year, a far cry from the pittance WC can expect for the privledge of picking up the pieces and copping the blame for the current position of the fund from a select few. I know JH has stated this will be a no frills fund under WC management, but surely the budget can be stretched to shout a few 'mental enenema' vouchers for those in extreme need of a good clean out. SeamistyWellington's fee is .7% p.a. of the funds under management. Presumably this year will be valued at 45cents a unit which gives about $2,350,000. With a staff of 30 plus overheads, I don't see that as a fortune. To make any real money, they have to make the fund increase in worth. - Isn't that we all want???
Thanks for picking up this mathematical error and putting this discussion back into perspective JohnH. It never ceases to amaze me how many experts there aren't around to disect the figures and correct a post when there is a bias against WC regarding misinformation from certain posters, but plenty of opinions to back up negative sentiment .Seamisty
I was just reading the MFS PIFannual report for 2007 where it cost us approx $16.9 million dollars to manage the PIF for that financial year, a far cry from the pittance WC can expect for the privledge of picking up the pieces and copping the blame for the current position of the fund from a select few. I know JH has stated this will be a no frills fund under WC management, but surely the budget can be stretched to shout a few 'mental enenema' vouchers for those in extreme need of a good clean out. Seamisty
Thanks for picking up this mathematical error and putting this discussion back into perspective JohnH. It never ceases to amaze me how many experts there aren't around to disect the figures and correct a post when there is a bias against WC regarding misinformation from certain posters, but plenty of opinions to back up negative sentiment .Seamisty
I was not ridiculing anyone specifically Burnt, you have no sense of humour !!! SeamistySeamisty, it was obviously convenient for you to overlook my post correcting Jadel's innocent mistake. How typical of you to take the opportunity to ridicule others.
I know JH gives the impression at members meetings that she is running the PIF for nothing until management fees kick in but WC are able to take all expenses out of the fund. They do not have to wait till they have paid us our 3 cents, and on top of this were given $3,750,000 to help run the fund. It’s likely WC are charging the PIF charge out rates which earn WC a margin so no need to feel sorry for WC. The .7% they will get in management fees is pure cream as even the tax they pay on it can come out of the fund.Wellington's fee is .7% p.a. of the funds under management. Presumably this year will be valued at 45cents a unit which gives about $2,350,000. With a staff of 30 plus overheads, I don't see that as a fortune. To make any real money, they have to make the fund increase in worth. - Isn't that we all want???
John, in your post #2967 you also commented inline. Don’t be so petty....and I agree that the editing misrepresents!
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?