Yeah, we should all go 'commando style', that way we won't get our knickers in a knot! LOL
I don't think we need to get our knickers in a knot over this issue anyway, I would be very surprised if there will be any profit to split hairs over, more likely a loss. Seamisty
Well that would be absolutely freaking wonderful Dora if she has to pay that because then that would mean that the PIF was in a healthier state that most of its poor unit holders and we would be killing the pig. We wouldn't be on here bitching, we would be a cashed up bunch of happy little vegemites off spending our divvies. The only significance here of importance is wether JH can hold the PIF above water until the economy picks up and this Fund doesn't sink altogether. If you and your bunch of not so happy chappies can prove negligence or wrong doing by JH by all means do so. Innuendo and surmising doesn't quite hold up in court though, so make sure you have some concrete prove before you waste any money on legal representation. Meanwhile, I have to take the health of my fellow holders into consideration, G Dame has already expressed concern about holders topping themselves and JohnH is running out of pills so will TRY to be a bit more subtle in future. SeamistyIt’s hard to tell if Seamisty - a rep of the AG realises the significane of this. Here’s extract of an article with JH saying she expects OCV to get north of $20 million for the PIF...
For JohnH and Seamisty - I added the underline to the above article.
WC have to pay four times profit of WIM not four time profit of the PIF.
WC have to pay net tangible assets of WIM not of the PIF.
WIM is no longer the RE of any funds. It won't make a profit in the 12 month period following the acquisition. WC plan for WIM to no longer be a licensed RE and will probably have no assets by March 2009 when the price for the PIF will be calculated.
No its not rocket science, WELLINGTON CAPITAL IS AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN RESPOSIBLE FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE PIF NOT WIM!!!!!!:::::Seamisty & Co., please re-read Dora's post again and see if you can get the drift. Seamisty you posted the facts regarding the purchase price WC contracted to pay for the PIF. Read it carefully.
IT IS 4 X NET PROFIT OF OCTAVIAR INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS WELLINGTON INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED) FOR THE 1ST YEAR + NET TANGIBLE ASSET VALUE OF OIM (NOW WIM) AS AT 12MONTHS AFTER AQUISITION.
THE FUND'S PROFITS (LOSSES) HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT !!!
To repeat your own quote in your post 3626 when referring to someone elses comments - "IT'S HARDLY ROCKET SCIENCE".
If WIM were still the RE and they were to receive management fees before May 2009 (representing their net profit as all costs are paid by the Fund), then purchase price would be 4 x that amount.
WIM are no longer RE !! WIM will have no net profit !!!
Please also re-read Dora's post regarding the significance of this to PIF. If WC had to pay a purchase price (based on WIM's net profit) to OCV, then as the PIF is a creditor of OCV, it would mean more recovery of what we are owed.
Can you see a conflict of interest here (it's not rocket science).
Seamisty,
When posting information for the benefit of others, please try to ensure that you give complete and accurate information.
1. Management Fees - management fee of up to 0.7% p.a. inc.GST of the Gross Value of the Assets under Management. JH has stated that this value would be based on 45c/unit.
2. Other Management Costs - estimated at 0.32% or $1.32mil. We have already established that this estimate is way out. WC have already been given around $4.7mil to cover management costs.
3. Re-financed Loan - the loan of $9.5mil is a completely new loan provided by a "non-bank" lender (as stated in the Annual Report).
There is nothing written in the Fund's Constitution that legally obliges WC to accept anything less than book value of 'Gross Value of Assets under Management' when determining their fee. They have to take into account unit holding as at the end of the previous month, and the gross value as per the last audited set of accounts.
There is also nothing that legally stops them from commencing payment of their fees whenever they like.
Seamisty,
When posting information for the benefit of others, please try to ensure that you give complete and accurate information.
1. Management Fees - management fee of up to 0.7% p.a. inc.GST of the Gross Value of the Assets under Management. JH has stated that this value would be based on 45c/unit.
2. Other Management Costs - estimated at 0.32% or $1.32mil. We have already established that this estimate is way out. WC have already been given around $4.7mil to cover management costs.
3. Re-financed Loan - the loan of $9.5mil is a completely new loan provided by a "non-bank" lender (as stated in the Annual Report).
There is nothing written in the Fund's Constitution that legally obliges WC to accept anything less than book value of 'Gross Value of Assets under Management' when determining their fee. They have to take into account unit holding as at the end of the previous month, and the gross value as per the last audited set of accounts.
There is also nothing that legally stops them from commencing payment of their fees whenever they like.
So you believe their is a possibility that WC have devalued the assets substantially ???
Everyone agrees WC are responsible for the purchase price of the PIF. What are you saying needs clarification from WC? The following two statements are why we are referring to WIM...No its not rocket science, WELLINGTON CAPITAL IS AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN RESPOSIBLE FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE PIF NOT WIM!!!!!!::::::...
Lets put this one to rest, if you have any further enquiries please call the WC hotline. Seamisty
Look at http://www.wellcap.com.au/fundsman.html, WC has other interests apart from the PIF which are unrelated but included in the one billion under management. Seamistyso as well as the pif and the wholesale pif wc also is the re for cash enhanced fund, maximum yield fund, dynamic growth equity fund how much are these funds contributing to the wc coffers and are they subject to the same requirements as pif[i.e. dividens paid before fees collected] if not is the pif paying for their costs as well? also jh claimed that wc had one billion dollars under management where did that money come from and is the pif being charged for that adminstration as well?
20 cents in the dollar of our orginal investment that WC should be trying to get back is coming from OCV. It's WC's job to be hounding the admin of OCV to ensure OCV gets all money owed to it which would max our return. Is this not obvious?WHO CARES what WC may or may not pay OCV!!! Personally I couldn't give a toss as long as WC adds value to the fund and gets my money back while getting regular payments along the way..the rest is just meaningless crap really.
The explanatory memorandum states WCs intention for the other funds that WIM manages\managed. WC have stated that the max yield fund's value is $0.so as well as the pif and the wholesale pif wc also is the re for cash enhanced fund, maximum yield fund, dynamic growth equity fund how much are these funds contributing to the wc coffers and are they subject to the same requirements as pif[i.e. dividens paid before fees collected] if not is the pif paying for their costs as well? also jh claimed that wc had one billion dollars under management where did that money come from and is the pif being charged for that adminstration as well?
OMG!!What is the significance of this debate, if there is a profit WC will pay OCV four times that amount, and the value of NTA of assets of the PIF at the end of the 12 month period , regardless of who the RE is. End of story. Seamisty
My correction, not PIF, WIM.SeamistyOMG!!
A profit of what Seamisty? A profit of WIM!
No, they won't pay NTA of assets of the PIF. They will pay NTA of assets of WIM!
20 cents in the dollar of our orginal investment that WC should be trying to get back is coming from OCV. It's WC's job to be hounding the admin of OCV to ensure OCV gets all money owed to it which would max our return. Is this not obvious?
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?