Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

[seamisty]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

I know that many PIF investors follow this thread and I am very interested to get an idea as to a general overview from investors like myself that initially supported and elected JH and her team of experienced professionals to take our fund forward and deliver promised distributions, buybacks, transparancey, legal action to recoup losses and rebuild our unit value etc who no longer have confidence in WC's ability to honour those empty promises. Instead of regular investor updates, the majority of our information is sourced from media articles, including unit price sensitive data which by right should be announced on the NSX, the listing of which was forced upon us. Yes, I agree, JH's use by date is up and I also agree Jenny 'we is me', BUT I have earned that right!!! It was not derived from being handed something for nothing!! I worked hard and saved hard and was subsequently semi retired as a result of that effort!! 'We is me' was a reward of my own efforts and personal achievements and NOT from sitting back and taking credit and monetary gain for something I took for granted, relying on others to do the work, I had already earnt my money which was stolen from me, we and every single person who
invested in the PIF and who was under the misguided impression that you, Jenny was going to do your utmost to help us recover and rebuild that Fund. Not hinder and prolong outcomes implemented by others that we consider was your responsibility to pursue originally. IMO you have not delivered and I personally will be surprised if you do. I think the spelling of we in 'me is we' should be WEE!!! A disgusted, disillusioned Seamisty

 

[seamisty]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

This is extracted from a media article from the GCB published in Mar this year:::::http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/03/25/62815_gold-coast-news.html:::::::"Wellington Capital's Premium Income Fund, as second mortgagee, is owed $20 million, a loan that has been in default since October.

Jenny Hutson, Wellington's chairman, yesterday said the receivership provided breathing space to achieve a better price for the Sheraton Mirage after discussions with the two potential buyers had stalled.

It has been suggested St George may not be in a rush to offload the property at a discount.

"There's a fair dose of commonsense on this," said Ms Hutson.

"Everybody's interests are aligned here in terms of trying to get the best outcome. There is total co-operation between us, St George and their receivers."

Ms Hutson said a new campaign to sell the property was some time away.

"Step one is about the receivers understanding the property and maximising what the property delivers for everyone's benefit," she said.

The Premium Income Fund needs a price of $80 million to meet 95 per cent of the $20 million it is owed by Raptis.

Ms Hutson yesterday stamped her faith in the property yesterday, describing it as one of the 'best bits of real estate on the eastern seaboard'.

She said at the asking price, there was a 'fortune to be made' for a potential purchaser.

"There is just not a question about that," she said.

"If the consequence of the St George receivership is that the property is held for some time, when it does come on to the market it is going to be at a number that is much, much higher than that because the world would have moved."::::::::

If the media is correct in the following article in today's GCB, who knocked back the supposedly $70mill offer for the Sheraton mirage in Jan 2009 from Don O'Rorke before it was placed in receivership by St George bank in Mar, Raptis, the bank or our RE? JH is conspicuous in her absence in this article and still no update to investors regarding another huge financial blow to the PIF. Seamisty

Flying dollar to help repel foreign raids
Nick Nichols, business editor | November 10th, 2009

GOLD Coast developers just cannot win a trick as foreign investors continue to beat them to the punch on big-ticket properties.

But it could all come to an end thanks to a resurgent Australian dollar.

Despite the currency putting the brakes on big deals, most market players agree that the latest offshore spending spree has been a confidence boost for the city's flagging property market.

"It's some relief to the local development industry (that) new money is finally starting to filter into Australia," said DTZ's Gold Coast managing director Cameron Wilson.

His comments come on the heels of The Gold Coast Bulletin revealing last week that an Indian property giant had snared the Sheraton Mirage for less than $60 million.

The deal is $40 million less than the price expected by receivers to the ageing hotel property more than a year ago, and $20 million less than the price Casuarina Beach developer Don O'Rorke was willing to pay in January.

Mr O'Rorke is one of several Coast property players who have missed out on bargain deals this year.

His problem is understood to have been a lack of enthusiasm by financiers amid tightened credit conditions.

For others, like cashed-up developer Sunland Group, it has been due to zealous buying from foreign investors.

Sunland was second in line to pick up the Pacific Beach site, which was part of the failed City Pacific empire.


An undisclosed Chinese buyer has signed an $80 million contract for the Surfers Paradise site, around twice the price offered by Sunland to City Pacific's receivers.

The Coast is now awash with foreign money, mainly from Korea, China and now India, all vying for a limited piece of the Coast pie.

CB Richard Ellis's Mark Witheriff, who negotiated the Sheraton and Pacific Beach sales, was confident the wave would continue despite the strong dollar.

"There is no question there's more money coming this way from offshore," he said.

While Colliers International's Gold Coast boss Stewart Gilchrist said the rising dollar had caused a cooling of interest from Hong Kong and Singapore, he was confident domestic institutions could take up the slack.

Listed property groups and fund managers have raise about $16 billion in capital in the past year, and Mr Gilchrist said some of this would make its way to the Coast.

"We're seeing value on the Coast and more so than in the capital cities," he said.

DTZ's Mr Wilson said the Sheraton Mirage sale last week to New Delhi-based Pearls Group was a classic example of receivers deciding it was time to shift bad debt from bank balance sheets.

"They've realised the market has found its natural level, that there are only so many buyers for these assets and they're accepting the only real offers on the table," he said.

 

[seamisty]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

cookie 1 I think they have got the wrong person - Guy Hutchings came from the UK and worked for Tower Financial, along with Watts. Do not think he was in Aust at that time. Shows you the standard of journalism in this country!

It's our GUY, Marcom!!! Seamisty

TAM replaces its CIO
Monday, October 29th 2001, 1:02PM
Tower Asset Management (TAM) has made several new appointments to strengthen its Australian investment operations.
Guy Hutchings has taken over as general manager, investments, for Australia. He will have specific responsibility in Australia for integrating client strategy with portfolio design and structure, manager selection and monitoring.
Hutchings was a senior investment manager with the BHP Pension Plan in Melbourne for the past four years and prior to that was an Australian equity manager for FAI.
Source::http://www.goodreturns.co.nz/article/976486729/tam-replaces-its-cio.html

 

[communique]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

I know that many PIF investors follow this thread and I am very interested to get an idea as to a general overview from investors like myself that initially supported and elected JH and her team of experienced professionals to take our fund forward and deliver promised distributions, buybacks, transparancey, legal action to recoup losses and rebuild our unit value etc who no longer have confidence in WC's ability to honour those empty promises. Instead of regular investor updates, the majority of our information is sourced from media articles, including unit price sensitive data which by right should be announced on the NSX, the listing of which was forced upon us. Yes, I agree, JH's use by date is up and I also agree Jenny 'we is me', BUT I have earned that right!!! It was not derived from being handed something for nothing!! I worked hard and saved hard and was subsequently semi retired as a result of that effort!! 'We is me' was a reward of my own efforts and personal achievements and NOT from sitting back and taking credit and monetary gain for something I took for granted, relying on others to do the work, I had already earnt my money which was stolen from me, we and every single person who
invested in the PIF and who was under the misguided impression that you, Jenny was going to do your utmost to help us recover and rebuild that Fund. Not hinder and prolong outcomes implemented by others that we consider was your responsibility to pursue originally. IMO you have not delivered and I personally will be surprised if you do. I think the spelling of we in 'me is we' should be WEE!!! A disgusted, disillusioned Seamisty

Don't forget the people who didn't vote for JH. I remember a few people being ridiculed for questioning the vote for JH. I have learnt a few golden rules from this fiasco.
1. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
2. Always do your own research.
3. Have a healthy distrust for anybody with light coloured shoes.
4. Never ridicule an opposing point of view
and if all the above fails watch the movie "FLAWLESS" again.

 

[lawry1dog]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

I am glad that everybody is so passionate about our fund.

I am hoping like everybody else that we get most of our money back.

I appreciate all your invaluable information that comes forth here, but
at the end of the day we want our money back.

I personally do not think anything will come of the IMF Class and ASIC legal
actions, as most or all of the money will go to the lawyers and back to IMF.
This can be backed up by the last bulletin from the IMF:-

First IMF PIF Update
(b) will seek in any settlement to have all class members receive the same percentage of their claims by way of net settlement, after payment of all costs, including the cost of IMF’s funding.

Proceedings commenced by ASIC
11. The amount of compensation that ASIC can recover for investors is uncertain as it depends upon the financial positions of the parties being sued and the existence of any insurance polices which may respond to ASIC’s claims.

I hoping that the NSX unit value will increase in value the next couple of years.
I do not expect WC to pay any distributions in that time.

Also what happened about Andrew Peacock? Should he be part of the ASIC
action?
Or is this a conspiracy, where the Labor Government, when they got into power just as our Fund went bust, decided to crucify the Fund because
the blue blood Liberal Andrew Peacock was on the board.
The Rudd Government probably assumed the unit holders were all Liberals and
were too greedy.
Of course as time has past, they have relented and decided to keep us satisifed by a ASIC action. Not that, I am a Liberal.

 

[Jadel]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Ahhhh!!! Perpetual Nominees.
My favourite itch.
ASIC must be made aware by whatever means necessary that a definitive description MUST be formulated by them of the role, responsibilities and accountabilities of a "CUSTODIAN".
All PIFers without exception were snared by the presence of Lloyd's insurances and a custodian to guard our backs.
Tell me Jadel, could Carneys insert this into the CA proceedings to ask the court to make such determination for the benefit of the new financial environment. Any other way we could make this happen?

Hi Simgrund

Let me first congratulate you on how greatly your English expression has improved

I can remember you telling us that you were using the forum to improve your skills.

In regard to Perpetual I think that somebody with the expertise of IMF or Carneys should indeed examine the legal implications. In any event the transfer of such a large amount of money in the blink of an eye demonstrates a complete lack of any responsibility or accountability. I can therefore see can see no logical reason whatsoever to retain these people on the enormous fees that they are charging to our fund. .

Many investors had the experience (as I did )of being repeatedly informed by MFS staff that our money was as safe as the gold in, ‘Fort Knox” at Perpetual .This was even confirmed in a telephone conversation by one of the Perpetual staff, prior to the collapse. Subsequently their attitude completely changed to a defensive posture, whereby they now gave self work descriptions as no more than postal clerks, no doubt fearing any kind of legal repercussions.

By the way Simgrund, I also seem to remember that in one of your posts you stated that you had a letter signed personally by Andrew Peacock guaranteeing the return of your investment. I think you should pass that letter on to Carneys Solicitors or perhaps even the media to highlight the deception of the Octavier directors.

 

[Bessie223]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hi Seamisty This is my first post. Yes there are those who watch this forum closely. We also made our hard earned savings from the fishing industry and invested it in the PIF only to have someone steal it from us. We also voted for J.H and W.C. and are now sorry we did so. In all this time she has not delivered on one promise but sits and watches what is left of our money slowly dwindle away. Thankyou to all the people who post on this forum and who work tirelessly to keep us informed. Thankyou to those who worked hard to get Asic moving and for the class action. All this work is very much appreciated. I too hope King and his Buddies rot in Hell and are held accountable for the misery they have caused so many people. J.H. is now adding to this misery. Please keep the information coming on this forum as this is the only place that it is coming from. Thanks

 

[seamisty]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Thanks for posting Bessie223!! Jadel, I know someone else who also received a signed letter from Peacock saying they would be repaid in full or something similar. I think she got the letter in May 2008, I will follow it up. Seamisty

 

[selciper]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Just a thought about the "results" of the Investor Advisory Committee election process.

1. We (PIF) obviously paid for it - mailouts, processing etc.

2. As no figures have been provided, surely we cannot be fully confident in the result.

3. If a Body Corporate election announcement did not reveal figures alongside candidates' names to owners when requested, there would be an uproar. Body Corporate members would immediately appeal to the Dept of Fair Trading or its equivalent.

4. Does Queensland have an authority to whom the AG could appeal on this matter?

 

[Cookie1]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

We have an email from our financial adviser indicating MFS told them we would receive our February 2008 redemption the end of February as requested but they couldn't give us a date for the January 2008 redemption at that time. This was in January 2008 after the :fan and before redemptions were frozen. I'll need to find out if the info was received from MFS in writing or verbally.

 

[seamisty]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

It appears there are lots of relevant PIF questions that deserve answers and are not being satisfactorily responded to by the Wellington Capital hotline or JH. I suggest we collate investor queries on a monthly basis from contact we receive re the forum or email as in my opinion this forum is still the only independent contact and information point and send them directly to our RE requesting adequate responses. If the issues are not addressed and answered satisfactorliy and promptly , we then have the right to lodge a formal complaint with ASIC who are already 'on the case' and should take on board these issues and deal with them appropriately.


Also, in our investor ranks do we have some one qualified to simplify the latest IMF report as I have had several enquiries as to what the implications are re Wellington Investment Management Ltd still being named a respondent in the IMF Class Action as a result of their lack of cooperation with our lawyers, contrary to what JH indicated she would do in exchange for being removed from the same .Thanks, seamisty

 

[zixo]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Just a thought about the "results" of the Investor Advisory Committee election process.

1. We (PIF) obviously paid for it - mailouts, processing etc.

2. As no figures have been provided, surely we cannot be fully confident in the result.

3. If a Body Corporate election announcement did not reveal figures alongside candidates' names to owners when requested, there would be an uproar. Body Corporate members would immediately appeal to the Dept of Fair Trading or its equivalent.

4. Does Queensland have an authority to whom the AG could appeal on this matter?

I totally agree.
We never had an independent evaluation done on the vote when our advisory committee was processed , nor for that matter when JH and wellington weasled their way into controlling our money.
It was all done in house.

Perpetual are also past their used by date and I think they still stink from the mfs theft. For the life of me I dont know why we are still using Perpetual
Is there any chance we can at least have those morons flicked as they are as useless as what wellington is now.

 

[Duped]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Industry body for 'custodians' is ACSA. See www.custodial.org.au.

Perpetual is a member.

I think a lot of us were led to misunderstand the role of a custodian. They're effectively a safety deposit box. A VERY VERY expensive safety deposit box service. Amonst other things they hold the physical legal papers e.g. deeds to land we hold mortgages over. They release them when an authorised person turns up and follows an authorised process. No questions asked about where the assets (paper/cash) goes. In their eyes, that's not their problem. They probably wouldn't have a clue what was in the PDS.

The client (MFSIM/PIF in our case) writes the authorisation rules and nominates the authorised signatories.

All the 'custodian' does is prevent one staff member taking off with the assets and moving to Majorca. I'm fairly sure that Perpetual would have allowed Hutchings to move cash into an account in his own name if the authorisation rules allowed it.

We of course, were led to believe otherwise.

However it may be that Perpetual had some say in writing or vetting the authorisation rules. If so, then they've just brought the value of the service their industry provides down to the lowest possible rung.

Or worse, Perpetual didn't police PIF's rules.

I mean handballing $130m straight from RBOS over to MFS Administration without any reason or paper assets being given to Perpetual? What sort of "Custodial " service is that? Sets a benchmark marginally above useless?

Anyone know a reporter we can raise this issue with to embarrass ACSA, or better still, Perpetual?

 

[k.smith]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Industry body for 'custodians' is ACSA. See www.custodial.org.au.

Perpetual is a member.

I think a lot of us were led to misunderstand the role of a custodian. They're effectively a safety deposit box. A VERY VERY expensive safety deposit box service. Amonst other things they hold the physical legal papers e.g. deeds to land we hold mortgages over. They release them when an authorised person turns up and follows an authorised process. No questions asked about where the assets (paper/cash) goes. In their eyes, that's not their problem. They probably wouldn't have a clue what was in the PDS.

The client (MFSIM/PIF in our case) writes the authorisation rules and nominates the authorised signatories.

All the 'custodian' does is prevent one staff member taking off with the assets and moving to Majorca. I'm fairly sure that Perpetual would have allowed Hutchings to move cash into an account in his own name if the authorisation rules allowed it.

We of course, were led to believe otherwise.

However it may be that Perpetual had some say in writing or vetting the authorisation rules. If so, then they've just brought the value of the service their industry provides down to the lowest possible rung.

Or worse, Perpetual didn't police PIF's rules.

I mean handballing $130m straight from RBOS over to MFS Administration without any reason or paper assets being given to Perpetual? What sort of "Custodial " service is that? Sets a benchmark marginally above useless?

Anyone know a reporter we can raise this issue with to embarrass ACSA, or better still, Perpetual?

Michael West wrote this article about "custodians" a few weeks ago...
Below the link are a few exerpts from the article..

http://www.businessday.com.au/busin...-doing-their-jobs-properly-20091021-h96r.html

"......Custody lies at the core of the financial system. The integrity of the system comes with the trust that an independent party, a custodian, knows where your assets are at a given point in time....."

".....Custody, where the big dollars are safeguarded, has been the one remaining refuge of true independence. The system can hardly do with a custodial blow-up......"

"...The custodian is the equivalent of the vending machine. The machine protects the drinks (assets). You can only get the can of drink out (the asset) if you put in something valuable (cash).

Custodians look after the contents of trusts. They essentially are the machine and they are meant to be unbreakable because they have trillions inside - not just a few cans of soft drink.

They can ill afford to leave the key in the machine. And they should know what is inside......"

 

[marcom]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Article in the Australian about frozen funds:

Freeze makes no sense, says investor

* Anthony Klan
* From: The Australian
* November 12, 2009 12:00AM

ROY Abrams is one of the estimated 25,000 investors caught out when $25 billion of investment funds were frozen last year amid the meltdown caused by the global financial crisis.

Mr Abrams, who has about $450,000 frozen in AMP funds, said many of those frozen funds were highly compromised as they were reluctant to sell assets to repay investors because it would slash their fee earnings.

As an aggrieved investor, his comments carry considerable weight.

Mr Abrams is a former chief executive of the Rabbit Photo chain and, unlike many of the thousands of small investors burned by the asset freezes, has a solid grasp of finance.

"I understand business and I understand investments, but a lot of what is going on in the current market with these frozen funds just doesn't make sense," Mr Abrams said.

"These funds have an incentive not to sell down their assets and repay investors because many of them derive their income from charging management fees based on the size of the funds.

"This is particularly the case where funds have cash and easily transferable equity investments, which they are not selling despite huge demand from investors to withdraw funds."

Zenith Investment Partners senior investment analyst Dugald Higgins said many funds charged fees based on gross assets and faced potential conflicts of interest in selling down assets.

Those potential conflicts had also raised eyebrows during the boom years, with question marks over the motives behind some groups, he said. "You could argue as far as the funds go, most managers seemed to be reluctant to dispose of assets . . . which could be driven by their desire to increase funds under management," Mr Higgins said.

However, the current market posed a range of problems for fund managers and there were many reasons why funds could be reluctant to sell assets, he said.

Property funds, in particular, were reluctant to sell assets now because commercial property markets had fallen by about 25 per cent from the peak of the market and sentiment was slowly improving, Mr Higgins said. Other funds were reluctant to sell assets because they were embroiled in legal battles and some were in negative equity.

"Some funds have an ability to sell and some don't. There are some very high-risk and high-return funds holding very high levels of debt, which could further complicate things," Mr Higgins said.

Funds would be unwilling to take a hit to management fees by selling assets and repaying investments if it could cause the fund to collapse.

"Then everybody loses."

 

[seamisty]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

extracted from an article in todays SMH titled Birthday boy keeps his presence SCOTT ROCHFORT
November 13, 2009
DEBT RECKONINGThe company secretary of the Octaviar Group, David Anderson, has attempted to settle any confusion among the imploded Gold Coast financial engineer's legion of creditors, who are owed around $1.7 billion.

The former chief bean counter of the company, who was paid $940,000 by MFS's former administrator and liquidator Deloitte in consultancy fees, has explained he was actually not involved in the decision making at the company over that time.

''At no time since 3 October 2008 have I been in control of the affairs of the company or had transparency as to the assets and liabilities of the company or the transactions undertaken,'' explained Anderson, whose firm Business Puzzle Solutions had been invoicing Deloitte for helping piece together the riddle that was MFS (aka Octaviar).

In a statement of affairs issued by Octaviar's new liquidator Bentleys Corporate Recovery, Anderson explained he was not involved in the payments made to one of the group's creditors, Fortress, by Deloitte. Anderson also said he had no details of the claims from former and present Octaviar employees, ''as not only would … these [have] been subject to natural fluctuations since October 3, 2008, but I understand the voluntary administrators or deed administrators had settled with one or more past employees regarding their claims.'';;;;;;;;


Business Puzzle Solutions biggest job may very well be in finding solutions and explanations as to what went on at OCV for the 6 years the David Mark Anderson was company secretary there. If the allegations from ASIC regarding his alledged involvement with the missapropriation of PIF money is proved correct he possibly will be needing that money he received from Deloittes to pay his fines!!!! Seamisty

 

[marcom]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

John Fish chases $200m investors

Nick Nichols, business editor Gold Coast Bulletin | November 13th, 2009

GOLD Coast property developer John Fish is snubbing the banks and planning to create a new financial powerhouse to kickstart the tourism strip's flagging construction industry.

Mr Fish, who is one of the city's few major developers still standing after the global credit crisis, is launching a new finance vehicle to target the distressed assets of fellow developers.

Fish Capital is planning initially to raise $200 million from up to 400 investors during the next four months to capitalise on 'once in a generation' opportunities.

The venture, which will enlist local high-end investors as well as sovereign wealth funds from Asia, is intended to fill a gaping hole in the financial landscape created by the loss of second-tier mortgagees such as City Pacific.

"The banks have hijacked all second-tier lenders, sending them to the wall," said Mr Fish.

He said with development finance gone, many prime construction sites were close to worthless even with approvals in place.

While this was placing added pressure on southeast Queensland's housing supply, Mr Fish said it also created unique development opportunities, supplemented by an estimated 25 per cent drop in construction costs.

"Southeast Queensland has in-built demographic (pressures), a huge undersupply of housing due to the global financial crisis and no funding for developers," he said.

"This is the best buying opportunity for real estate for the past 16 years.

"Whoever gets money first is going to win.

"Over the next 18 months, my aim is to start an finish 750 apartments and 200 house and land packages."

Fish Capital is solely targeting residential projects, including subdivisions, apartments and townhouses, all of which Mr Fish said would be 'firewalled' from his existing development empire.

Mr Fish, known as Mr Fix-it in some quarters, is hoping his reputation for buying low and adding value to assets will encourage investors to climb on board.

The former real estate agent from Ipswich built a fortune from the sale of the Martha Cove project to City Pacific, on top of his interest in the Hope Island resort to billionaire property man Lang Walker.

"Dealmaking is what I'm best at, and restructuring assets is my forte," said Mr Fish.

Fish Capital is focusing almost exclusively on Gold Coast opportunities.

The opportunities would be 'deal specific' and undertaken by specially created entities.

"I'm going to have my money in every one of these deals," said Mr Fish.

He said Fish Capital could offer a solution for frozen mortgage funds still carrying debt-laden assets linked to failed Gold Coast companies MFS and City Pacific.

Stressed Raptis Group assets also were on the radar.

Over the past month, some of these assets have been bought by offshore bargain hunters, including the Sheraton Mirage which has sold for less than $60 million to an Indian development giant.

Mr Fish said the plan was to recapitalise targeted projects, restructure them and take them to completion.

Fish Capital has been on the drawing board for more than two years, since well before the financial crisis hit.

The company secured a financial services licence in September 2007.

 

[marcom]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Today in the Brisbane Supreme Court - Court of Appeal - FORTRESS CREDIT CORPORATION (AUSTRALIA) 11 PTY LIMITED -v- OCTAVIAR LIMITED & others (Mention) at 9.30am.

 

[seamisty]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

From the Business Spectator::::::ASIC tackles ratings agencies::::The corporate regulator says it will hold credit rating agencies accountable for the ratings they give on investment products by imposing strict new licence conditions and removing the exception shielding them from legal action.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) released its long-awaited statement about its plans to reform to the way the major ratings agencies - Standard & Poor's, Moody's and Fitch Ratings - are regulated, on Thursday.

The agencies will be required by the federal government to hold Australian Financial Services (AFS) licences from next year, which forces them to manage conflicts of interest in the same way that others in the industry already do.

ASIC said agencies holding a licence will be required to have adequate resources to manage the scale and complexity of their business, ensure credit analysts are properly trained to issue ratings that should be provided efficiently, honestly and fairly, as well as having risk management systems in place.

If the agency offers ratings for products available to retail investors, dispute resolution systems must also be installed.

Additionally, ASIC said the agencies will not be able to "notch" up ratings for an anti-competitive purpose.

The agencies, which have largely operated outside the regulatory framework, have been labelled by some as the, as yet, unpunished contributors to the global financial crisis.

The industry has been accused of aggravating the problem by offering strong ratings to subprime-linked investments that turned out to be far more vulnerable.

For the last 14 years, ratings agencies have been exempt from being sued in Australia for the ratings they give for various financial products.

The loophole occurs when banks offer investment products as debt obligations with strong ratings given by the agencies, indicating the investment was sound.

But, even if the ratings weren't accurate, the agencies did not have to give consent to the banks for using the ratings in their disclosure statements, and were thus protected from legal action.

Ratings agencies will now be required to give consent to their ratings being used, which imposes on them greater control and responsibility for the ways their ratings are promoted.

Apparent conflicts of interest have also damaged the industry's reputation.

The conflicts arose from fees paid to the agencies by the companies issuing the products being assesses, which gives the impression that fees can buy a better rating.

Standard & Poor's and Moody's said they would examine the proposals and continue to co-operate with ASIC::::: Looks like ASIC has a new set of dentures!!!! Seamisty

 

[simgrund]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hi Simgrund.....................
.....................By the way Simgrund, I also seem to remember that in one of your posts you stated that you had a letter signed personally by Andrew Peacock guaranteeing the return of your investment. I think you should pass that letter on to Carneys Solicitors or perhaps even the media to highlight the deception of the Octavier directors.

Hello Jadel.
Phenominal memory you got there.
It was #4033 and the letter was from Guy Hutchings; the slum dweller of Elyssian hinterlands.
What about getting our forces behind an effort to STOP any recovered funds to be placed with existing (and dwindling) PIF in the NSX???
This is really and extremely urgent to make our strong objections known.
WC can be nominated for prorata distribution of any funds recovered directly to members. JH owes us this service on a "gratis" basis having failed us so many emotions ago.

WHERE ARE THE ELECTED COMITTEE MEMBERS? PLEASE SURFACE; WE NEED YOU!!!