This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

Jump to new
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

I find this article in todays Gold Coast Bulletin extremely flawed and misleading. Any PIF investors there on the Coast feel like giving Nick Nichols the facts?
City Beach???:screwy:
The sale of 48,279 units up from 16cents to 19cents and 20,000 units at 19.5 cents out of a possible pool of approx 755 MILLION units eqautes to a SURGE of activity and price increase?
A sale of $38million on the never never when the PIF was owed just under $58million plus interest as at the 19th Mar 2007 is not considered a fire sale price? The Near Complete Ocean Front Hotel + Apartments
60-62 HARBOUR STREETWOLLONGONG HOTEL was passed in at auction for $40.5 million pending further negotiations on May 7th 2008.
"The PIF missed out from any cut from the $60mill sale of the Sheraton Mirage". You bet your **** we did Nick, down another $20million plus interest that was due in Dec 2007 and had to read about it in the paper with still no word from our Responsible Entity regarding another big hit.
Jenny Hutson may not be available for comment but I am Nick!!! Seamisty


$38m Wollongong sale some relief for PIF's investors
Nick Nichols, business editor | November 20th, 2009

PREMIUM Income Fund unitholders are finally seeing some value returning to their investment after the sale of a Wollongong residential project this week for $38 million.

The fund's units surged 21 per cent yesterday to close at 19.5c, after wallowing for the past year at just above 10c.

The units, which are listed on the National Stock Exchange, are still well below the $1 they owe original investors, who bought when the fund was under the control of failed Gold Coast financial services empire MFS.

More than 68,000 units changed hand yesterday, although most buying orders were at less than 10c.

The surge follows news that the City Beach sale, the first major asset disposal since the fund was frozen last year, would lead to a cash payment to investors next year.

It would be their first return from their investment in at least two years.

City Beach has 168 hotel rooms, 75 apartments and 10 luxury penthouses, and it is still to be completed.

Jenny Hutson, whose Wellington Capital now manages the fund, has long insisted City Beach would not be sold at a firesale price.

The fund missed out on any cut from the $60 million sale of the Sheraton Mirage.

As second mortgagee to the former Raptis Group asset, it needed a price of $80 million to get back most of the $20 million it is owed.


Ms Hutson could not be contacted for comment last night. The Premium Income Fund has about about $755 million in mainly retirees' savings tied up.

At yesterday's close, their investment is now worth $147.2 million.

The corporate watchdog has launched legal action against several former MFS directors, seeking to recover about $147 million it alleges was illegally transferred from the fund.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hi, Carney's and IMF have all our email addresses. Is there anyway possible through their mailing list or next update that PIF Investors could be guided to this forum ? I also think that we need heaps of Media Exposure and I am certainly not happy with the way our fund is heading. Thanks for all the information. It is certainly not coming from W.C.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

"Ms Hutson could not be contacted for comment last night..." - GGB Mike Nicholls. Keep ringing, Mike.

(A story is told as much by silence as by speech - Susan Griffin US author)
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

I wonder if there are still any PIF investors who may have confidence in the way JH and her merry men have been handling the fund since she took over.

There must be an awful lot of us out there considering she claims to have won our support by such a large margin.

How many thumbs up would she get from PIF investors given the way she is "legally" handling her way into our demise.

Perhaps its time to call in liquidators - with WC in charge this is proven to be a slow death of cuts by a thousand knives.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/11/21/160895_gold-coast-business.html

Escape plan for frozen funds
Nick Nichols, business editor | November 21st, 2009

FROZEN mortgage funds have been given a new option to release unitholders from their troubled investments without the need to pay them out.

The National Stock Exchange, which already has the former MFS-controlled Premium Income Fund on its boards, has devised a trading window for the distressed funds.

NSX companies manager Ian Craig, who was on the Gold Coast yesterday promoting the initiative, said the window offered a six-week timeframe for unitholders to sell out of their investment.

The window would open twice a year, two weeks after the release of the funds' financial results.

Mr Craig said the NSX had talked to several law firms operating managed funds, and many had expressed interest in the proposal.

Mortgage funds, in particular, have been hardest hit by the global economic meltdown, including a raft of Gold Coast operations.

Many unitholders have been prevented from cashing in their investment for more than a year, with some closer to two years.

The Premium Income Fund, now controlled by Jenny Hutson's Wellington Capital, has a full listing on the NSX.

Its units have languished just above 10c each for most of the past year at a fraction of the most recent valuation of 39c a unit.

Mr Craig said that the trading window was less likely to depress unit prices because of its limited timeframe.


"What it does is concentrate liquidity in that period," he said.

Legal firm McCullough Robertson has praised the plan.

Partner in the projects and property group, Kristan Butler, described it as an 'innovative solution for property managers'.

"Our experience has shown us that there is a need for a focused liquidity facility for property managers of frozen funds that is yet to be answered by the traditional frameworks," she said.

"The innovation proposed by the NSX is a sensible solution to a long-standing problem."

Mr Craig said the proposal would be implemented by the NSX within the next few weeks.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hutson defends PIF Gong sale http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/11/21/160905_gold-coast-business.html
Nick Nichols, business editor | November 21st, 2009

Related Links
How the Holiday Inn stacks up against the Sheraton
JENNY Hutson has hosed down Premium Income Fund unitholders' criticism of a $38 million property sale in Wollongong this week.

Although the City Beach hotel-apartment project had found a $40.5 million buyer after auction earlier this year, that deal fell through after a 'very short' due diligence, said Ms Hutson who controls the fund through Wellington Capital.

"This ($38 million deal) represents the best value we can find in the market, having been in discussions up to and beyond the auction date," said Ms Hutson of the sale to Harbour Street Developments.

Ms Hutson also said the deal had been struck at book value, dismissing concerns by some unitholders that the sale would diminish their already-eroded investment in the fund.

"We're not selling anything less than book value. That's been our philosophy."

City Beach is at least five months from completion.

The first phase of construction will deliver 75 apartments, with Ms Hutson hopeful the settlement of those sales will bring the $38 million cash from the sale into the fund.::::::


The $40.5 million deal fell through!!!!! Of course it fell through, you didn't accept it Jenny!!!!!! The PIF could have had that money 6 months ago. WC announced on the 9th of May 2008 that it had entered into a call option deed which is exercisible by WC up to and including 31 August 2008. Does anyone know exactly when that option deed was exercised by WC? Why wait so long to take Wollongong Hotel to auction originally and then not accept a deal which once again we read in the press appears to have been better than book value? My fish smell like roses compared to this deal!!! Seamisty
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

How the Holiday Inn stacks up against the Sheraton http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/11/21/160885_gold-coast-business.html
Nick Nichols, business editor | November 21st, 2009



MORTGAGE funds controlling the Holiday Inn Surfers Paradise will be hoping for better sentiment among property investors after the $60 million sale of the Sheraton Mirage Resort earlier this month.

The deeply discounted deal for the former Raptis Group asset compares with the $100 million being sought for the Holiday Inn by six mortgage funds, many of them based on the Gold Coast.

The strata-titled Holiday Inn, also part of the Raptis Group and now in the hands of receivers, may have 100 more rooms than the absolute beachfront Sheraton, but it has nowhere near the location premium or land component.

One of the biggest financiers of the property, Wellington Capital's Premium Income Fund (PIF), failed to make a dent in the debt it is owed on 104 hotel suites that went to auction two weeks ago, the same day the deal for the Sheraton was signed with Indian property group Pearls Infrastructure Projects.

The suites did not receive a single bid, but Wellington's chair Jenny Hutson said yesterday that talks had continued with several parties since the auction.

"We've had discussions with people who are interested in more than (our) 104 apartments," she said.

PIF is seeking about $250,000 per hotel suite, while the Sheraton has sold for just under $205,000 per room.

The Holiday Inn has 404 suites, all controlled by six mortgage funds: LM Investments, Guardian Securities, Resimac, Securecorp, Shakespeare Haney and PIF.

They are owed a total of $72.2 million plus costs, according to government records.

PIF is the biggest secured creditor at $22.6 million, followed by LM Investments ($21.1 million), Shakespeare Haney ($16.8 million) and Securecorp ($7.4 million)

Despite the big price difference between the Sheraton and Holiday Inn, both properties are priced at similar yields.

Based on an annual income of $5 million, the Sheraton Mirage sale has been struck at an 8.3 per cent yield, while the Holiday Inn, with income of $7.5 million, is just shy of that at 7.5 per cent.

Ms Hutson yesterday said the Holiday Inn's occupancy had 'continued to perform really well', thanks to a major refurbishment by Raptis in 2007.

The Sheraton will need a significant overhaul by its new owners if it is to regain its mantle as one of the tourism strip's premier hotels.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hi Duped
The property in Main Beach is a 12 unit three storey walk up which was fully leased.
The tennants vacated about 18 months ago.
It is now covered in graffiti and at one stage had squatters. The windows are either smashed or boarded up.
The maximum height for redevelopment was 7 levels.
Raptis did a deal with the Gold Coast Council to approve17 levels in return for $1.5 million to spend on Cable Park a small area next door.
The property is accross the road from the beach.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

'Although the City Beach hotel-apartment project had found a $40.5 million buyer after auction earlier this year, that deal fell through after a 'very short' due diligence, said Ms Hutson who controls the fund through Wellington Capital.'
Hutson defends PIF Gong sale http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/...-business.html

This is BS, the last bid was for $40.5million and was PASSED IN not found AFTER the auction. This is a FACT!!!! Further negotiations continued AFTER the auction. The facts are that $40.5million could have been accepted on the day of the auction. Not looking too good in the transparency department as usual!! Seamisty
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hi Duped
That is the property.
According to local Real Estate Agent the property was sold to Raptis on Feb 07 for $10m.
PIF has a first mortgage exposure of $14,318.669 as far as I can see.
Current value is what someone is prepared to pay. Which is anyones guess.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

I wonder what the proposal in the quoted article - if it comes to fruition - might mean to happless PIF Investors down the track!
Nowadays, I when I see the " trade" offering innovative schemes to Investors I wonder who will be the ultimate beneficiaries - while there is a carcase the voracious sharks will keeping tearing off strips until there's nothing left.

"Qte" :-

Escape plan for frozen funds

Nick Nichols, business editor | November 21st, 2009

FROZEN mortgage funds have been given a new option to release unitholders from their troubled investments without the need to pay them out.

The National Stock Exchange, which already has the former MFS-controlled Premium Income Fund on its boards, has devised a trading window for the distressed funds.

NSX companies manager Ian Craig, who was on the Gold Coast yesterday promoting the initiative, said the window offered a six-week timeframe for unitholders to sell out of their investment.

The window would open twice a year, two weeks after the release of the funds' financial results.

Mr Craig said the NSX had talked to several law firms operating managed funds, and many had expressed interest in the proposal.

Mortgage funds, in particular, have been hardest hit by the global economic meltdown, including a raft of Gold Coast operations.

Many unitholders have been prevented from cashing in their investment for more than a year, with some closer to two years.

The Premium Income Fund, now controlled by Jenny Hutson's Wellington Capital, has a full listing on the NSX.

Its units have languished just above 10c each for most of the past year at a fraction of the most recent valuation of 39c a unit.

Mr Craig said that the trading window was less likely to depress unit prices because of its limited timeframe.

"What it does is concentrate liquidity in that period," he said.

Legal firm McCullough Robertson has praised the plan.

Partner in the projects and property group, Kristan Butler, described it as an 'innovative solution for property managers'.

"Our experience has shown us that there is a need for a focused liquidity facility for property managers of frozen funds that is yet to be answered by the traditional frameworks," she said.

"The innovation proposed by the NSX is a sensible solution to a long-standing problem."

Mr Craig said the proposal would be implemented by the NSX within the next few weeks.
"Unqte"
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF




Well, here we are, floundering in the mire of a highly impaired, debt ridden non-liquid managed fund. In an article relating to listing managed fund, a solicitor stated (among other things) "... "Our experience has shown us that there is a need for a focused liquidity facility for property managers of frozen funds that is yet to be answered by the traditional frameworks," she said. "The innovation proposed by the NSX is a sensible solution to a long-standing problem." ...". (emphasis added)

Now, what the solicitor means is that the 'traditional framework' (the corporations act) doesn't show us how to get out of the non-liquid state for managed funds which have suffered impairments and carry debt.

This solicitor believes that the problem could be solved if the link between investors and their investments could be severed. City Pacific thought that too - in fact, even in the face of report they themselves had commissioned that indicated it would disasterous for investors, City pressed on with much gusto - even after they desisted with the listing, they still indicated they had not lost their urge to list the fund in the future.

On report cited (in part) :-
http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2008/08/20/15273_gold-coast-business.html

"... But it said the issue was an 'important step by City Pacific to ensure the ongoing inflow of income from the fund'. City Pacific generates about $50 million in fees from the fund a year.

"City Pacific's key objective is to ensure the fund continues to fund existing developments to ensure projects are completed, thereby maximisig the potential value of the fund," said Aegis. ..." (emphasis added).

Contrary to what many investors thought, City's 'key objective' was to '... ensure the fund continues ...'. The key objective was not to give investors money back - unit holders might have inferred that was City's motivation was to get money to investors suffering hardship, but it wasn't the key objective at all - getting their greedy hands on what was left our money was their objective.

Here we start to see the dichotomy of views - from the unit holders perspective it's the return of capital, and for City it was the fund - the self-interested developments, and the management fee. It didn't matter about defaults, a dwindling market, debt, and the Aegis reports, City continued with the listing - City did well, it took over $20m from the fund in one of the worst economic climates in Australian business history.

Unit holders on the other hand got zilch - with the pleasure of a 50% potential loss on their investments.

Another reported cited (in part):-
http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2008/09/04/15852_gold-coast-business.html

"... Aegis has warned previously that the shares are likely to trade at a significant discount to the $1 investors effectively would have paid for the stock. ..." (emphasis added)

"... "The success ... of the restructure of the mortgage fund has a significant bearing on whether City Pacific can recover from the considerable difficulties it experienced throughout the 2008 financial year," it said. ..."

The reality is that this last excerpt is true today for the fund as it was true for City Pacific (and the fund), and I imagine that the new manager is acutely aware of it too. I would imagine that B/T's 'key objective' is the longevity of the fund too - one only has to look at the public statements made by B/T to see that it's reasonable to make such an assessment.

The tension between investors wanting to get their money back on the one hand, and the manager's desire to the keep the money on the other hand, has to be resolved.

There are three ways that a manager might resolve this tension, (1) to wind up the fund in an orderly manner, (2) the manager devises ingenious ways of keeping unit holder money in the fund, or (3) a balance between (1) and (2).

Option (1) does not sit well for a manager because it means an ever reducing fund value accompanied by an ever reducing management fee.

I'd guess options (2) and (3) would be more to a manager's liking, with option (2) of more interest than option (3).

A manager might reduce a $1.00 unit price to a variable unit price and thereby improve the changes that investors would reject offers in the hope of an improved unit price, especially if the air was full of unsubstantiated statement of a wonderful and glorious future for a fund.

A manager might attempt to list a fund - for the FMF, this is not an option that the manager can persue, but nothing is to stop a group of investors proposing such a path.

The Corporations Act 2001 states (in part):-
"... CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601FC
Duties of responsible entity

(1) In exercising its powers and carrying out its duties, the responsible entity of a registered scheme must ... (c) act in the best interests of the members and, if there is a conflict between the membrs' interests and its own interests, give priority to the members' interests; and ..."
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s601fc.html

To my mind, this section of the act should direct the manager's mind towards the return of our capital in as short as period as reasonably possible - option (1).

I believe that the correct path is to write down the debt as soon as practicable, and then as assets are sold and the value of cash in the fund exceeds the value required to maintain the obligations of the fund, then the excess should be returned to unit holders based on a set percentage [pro-rata] of each member's holdings [unit price = $1.00).

I believe that the framers of the Corporations Act 2001 did not really anticipate the calamity that has befallen us, rather they expected that impaired managed funds would simply trade back or wind up - yet, they did not provide a 'switching' mechanism to determine whether a fund should be wound up or trade back If there was a 'point of no return', then the FMF is certainly past that point.

Some managers try to overcome this deficiency in the act by finding ways to retain the capital rather than give the money back from a failed enterprise - I think that such activity is contrary to s. 601FC(1)(c) because it really is putting their interests before investors' interests.

The PDSs of these non-liquid funds have long been withdrawn and investors are trapped inside the funds.

But I ask one question 'would any investor trapped in a managed fund invest in that fund if he/she knew that the fund would be listed (that is, the investor would not have future access to his/her investment)?'

I guess the answer is 'NO' - so, since it was a step never anticipated by investors, then it is a step that should never be taken by managers.

If a manager has a dream of of wonderfully bright future for a badly impaired, debt ridden, non-liquid fund, then that manager should wind up the fund over the necessary time frame to protect investors' money as far a possible, and then start another fund lauding their success in winding the damaged one.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

TIME TO SEPARATE US FROM OUR MONEY
by http://www.moneymagik.com

BIND UP THE INVESTOR
FREE THE CAPITAL
A MANAGER'S DELIGHT

This is an interesting article because, at least to me, it shows how entities see the manipulation of investors funds as being beneficial. No one would doubt that investors in MFS PIF (Octaviar) have had no returns from their shares on the NSX, in fact the average price paid for the shares (once $1.00) is about $0.10c. The listing has been what many might regard as a disaster.

In the following article, the NSX is proposing a new way to list non-liquid funds - now, one can't blame them for making a buck just as B/T have done, but I think the NSX's self-interest seems to completely disregard the reality of the plight of investors in badly impaired, debt-ridden non-liquid managed funds.

However, in making comment on the proposal, a law firm which is a 'nominated advisor' on the NSX's website, suggests that listing these damaged funds is a way to gain liquidity for the manager. To me, the law firm's perspective sums up the concerns of managers and discloses the very essence of the dichotomy of needs and concerns that exists between managers and investors.

A narrow window of trading

"... FROZEN mortgage funds have been given a new option to release unitholders from their troubled investments without the need to pay them out. The National Stock Exchange, which already has the former MFS-controlled Premium Income Fund on its boards, has devised a trading window for the distressed funds.

NSX companies manager Ian Craig, who was on the Gold Coast yesterday promoting the initiative, said the window offered a six-week timeframe for unitholders to sell out of their investment. The window would open twice a year, two weeks after the release of the funds' financial results.

Mr Craig said the NSX had talked to several law firms operating managed funds, and many had expressed interest in the proposal. ..."

Yes, might this have something to do with drumming up some business for the NSX? I'm guessing it has all to do with doing just that - it's just a croc for investors.

"... Mortgage funds, in particular, have been hardest hit by the global economic meltdown, including a raft of Gold Coast operations. ..."

Well, if one was to believe this, then one might as well fly with the fairies - it is simply not true to blame the GFC, and we all know that - many of these funds were poorly managed by a lot of self-interested managers who didn't give a hoot about investors.

"... Many unitholders have been prevented from cashing in their investment for more than a year, with some closer to two years. ..."

Yes, that's true, and listing with the NSX didn't help the Premium Income Fund either - so, listing a badly impaired non-liquid managed is not the answer either. We can only feel some comfort in the fact that the FMF was not listed - it's a disaster for investors to be separated from their capital (as listing do, and, by the way, as a variable unit price will do).

"... The Premium Income Fund, now controlled by Jenny Hutson's Wellington Capital, has a full listing on the NSX. Its units have languished just above 10c each for most of the past year at a fraction of the most recent valuation of 39c a unit. ..."

Yes, the PIF (Code PIN on the NSX) has languished - not even a decent part of 1% of the fund has traded in over twelve (12) months. The smart thing for PIF investors would be to delist and get a new manager.

Oh, by the way, the manager of the PIF is a 'nominated adviser' to the NSX too.

Oh, and we shouldn't really be surprised, but so is Hynes Lawyers (of Investaguard fame)

"... Mr Craig said that the trading window was less likely to depress unit prices because of its limited timeframe."What it does is concentrate liquidity in that period," he said. ..."

Well, what an amazing statement - Investors would wait for the returns to be published and there would a massive demand to invest in badly impaired non-liquid funds - what qualifications to these guys hold to make these statements? I make a disclaimer because I don't want anyone to be misled by my nonsense - where are their disclaimers? I don't recall law school, or perhaps any school teaching anything about marketing shares of highly impaired debt ridden non-liquid managed funds on a stock market in Steel City, Australia.

What about reporting? no reporting; no chance to take advantage of good news in the market from time to time? So, if some good news comes along, an investor can't sell, and then if that good news if followed by bad news prior to publication of the next return, then the opportunity is lost.

Are these guys nuts? How could they expect investors to risk what is left of their life savings like that?

Anyway, investors who voted to list their funds on the NSX (or ASX) didn't vote to list in a 'window of opportunity', they voted for a listing - I'm guessing if fund managers like Wellington think this is a good idea, then Wellington will have to go back to investors/shareholders with a proposal to do so, otherwise, no can do.

Oh, what a mess. What some folks can dream up for their own benefit.

"... Legal firm McCullough Robertson has praised the plan. Partner in the projects and property group, Kristan Butler, described it as an 'innovative solution for property managers'. "Our experience has shown us that there is a need for a focused liquidity facility for property managers of frozen funds that is yet to be answered by the traditional frameworks," she said. "The innovation proposed by the NSX is a sensible solution to a long-standing problem." ..." (emphasis added)

Yes, McCullough Robertson - an NSX Nominated Adviser

One has to read the words 'a focused liquidity facility for property managers' - it's not a benefit for investors, it's a benefit for managers - yuk!

Yes, get the funds listed - then the pool of investors' money stays with the fund - banishing investors out to the unkind free market environment that investors in the PIF have endured without reward for over a year.

What's that saying 'a fool and his money are easily parted'?

That might have worked once, but now, I'll go with Pres. George W. Bush:-

"... There's an old saying in Tennessee ”” I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee ”” that says, fool me once, shame on ”” shame on you. Fool me ”” you can't get fooled again. ..." ”” President George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

"... Mr Craig said the proposal would be implemented by the NSX within the next few weeks. ..."

Let's hope it's a non-starter.

ALL OF THESE WISE WORDS TRANSMITTED BY MR. NICHOLS
WITHOUT ONE WORD FROM AN IMPARTIAL
SUITABLY QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL

NO WONDER INVESTORS GET LOST IN IT ALL



 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

seamisty said:
http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/11/21/160895_gold-coast-business.html

Escape plan for frozen funds
Nick Nichols, business editor | November 21st, 2009
...
Click to expand...

Thanks Seamisty and others.

There's that phrase again 'innovative solution'. Makes me want to run a mile.

So basically what JH has said was she wants to return our money. Great. Nice objective. The nice sounding lady at WC told me on the phone that while at S8, JH helped return shareholder wealth multiple fold. Awesome.

But what's the business plan? Apart from selling everything - can anyone remind me if I've missed it.

  • What's the business plan? The PDS has been withdrawn right?
  • What's the business plan? Start lending out again? (Banks are more risk averse now so doesn't that mean more opportunities?)
  • What's the business plan? Buying defaulted mortgages and using the RE's expertise to extract value?
  • What's the business plan? Buy other frozen funds?

With a business plan of merely 'sell everything at the right price' combined with the NSX listing, the share price is just a bet between buyers and sellers on how much of the 39c valuation (plus any of ASIC's winnings; less the cost of capital; less some sort of profit margin) WC is going to return to shareholders. A bet based on what - JH's word? Currently the market is saying: 50%.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

There are no prizes for guessing whose husband has connections to the NSX and is a senior partner in McCullough Robertsons, the law firm recommending the NSX as our salvation.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Dexter said:
There are no prizes for guessing whose husband has connections to the NSX and is a senior partner in McCullough Robertsons, the law firm recommending the NSX as our salvation.
Click to expand...

It is hoped that every potential signee to the NSX "lifeboat" looks very closely at at the PIF sorry story, which is being spruced up by NSX and other self interested parties (dare I say "related") as a very prized convert for its self promotion.
BEWARE!!!
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Simgrund I suggest you contact Nick Nichols business editor of the Gold Coast Bulletin personally nicholsn@gcb.newsltd.com.au) It is time he recognised there is the need to listen to PIF investors to get the correct information and not let his media articles be influenced from word of incorrect mouth information from the PIF RE as opposed to well researched and documented evidence readily available to those with the dedication and effort needed to source and compile facts related to all PIF related issues, those people being , 'the victims', past and present. Before I sign off, a few words of wisdom from 'Teddy', Theodore Roosevolt:::::

"We demand that big business give the people a square deal; in return we must insist that when anyone engaged in big business honestly endeavors to do right he shall himself be given a square deal."
Letter to Sir Edward Gray, November 15, 1913


Regards, Seamisty
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Jenny better put forward a business plan for PIF before she signs us up for this NSX trading window 'experiment'.

How about a bit of good old fashioned work before we go experimenting with 'innovative solutions'?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MA1 - MA Credit Income Trust
Replies
3
Views
500
Dona Ferentes
DGT - DigiCo Infrastructure REIT
Replies
8
Views
1K
Dona Ferentes
Coolabah Capital
Replies
5
Views
1K
divs4ever
VBTC - VanEck Bitcoin ETF
2 3
Replies
40
Views
4K
Garpal Gumnut
November 2024 DDD
2 3
Replies
53
Views
6K
ducati916
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...