Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

simgrund said:

Mellifuous, good day to you!
Firstly thanx to Dexter for backing me up on facts of "OFFER" in Feb '08 (not '09, JohnH).
It will help to clear our minds as to which payments we refer to:
1. those from JH operations
2. those anticipated from current ASIC and CA actions.
In the case of the first, the twice promised 3cents was ALWAYS a payment out of our personal holding in PIF; nominal or otherwise. Not an interest or income payment.
AND in second case, the "any amount" potentially recovered with CA action needs to be classed outside the PIF holding and distributed to u-holders prorata.
We need action on that to prevent this potential recovery falling into the NSX pot.
As to ASIC potential recoveries, this too needs clear statement now. Hopefully, these are agreeable urges.
Regards, simgrund

Click to expand...

Simon,

Ok... I understand about the $0.03c payment, but how do you get money from the J.H. operations and ASIC (if it's successful)?

Investors no longer have access to fund assets, so any money which comes into the fund, belongs to the fund, not to investors - so, you'll get nothing there.

If the ASIC action recovers anything, then that will be go to the fund also - it's the fund's money - so, nothing there either.

Of course, the CA action has nothing to do with the fund, so you'll share any windfall.

My guess is that there will be some surprises up the path, and they won't be good ones.

Even the offer to buy back units at $0.45c seems to be a smoke and mirrors trick - using the fund's money to by back shares in the fund, the shares will become the fund's assets, and then in wind-up/liquidation (if it happens), they'll again be shared between the shareholders.

IMO, it would seem crazy not to accept the offer if its made - I couldn't imagine the fund rising to $0.45c/unit, but time will tell.

An interesting proposition, offering to buy back shares with one's own money (or, with what was once one's own money).

so, we stand with a difference of opinion - let's see.

thanks for the reply - it satisfies my curiosity.

Allan.

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

simgrund said:

Mellifuous, good day to you!
Firstly thanx to Dexter for backing me up on facts of "OFFER" in Feb '08 (not '09, JohnH).

Crossed wires Simon - I was referring to the NSX $70k trade, which (as we are all sadly aware) listed in October 08

Click to expand...

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Cookie -

Thanks for the inspection you undertook and the report. Sounds like the old familiar story.

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Thanks Cookie, I am over being concerned as to the current RE management and marketing strategies of OUR assets, I am now ALARMED!!! PIF Investors are watching their few remaining assets being whittled away and proceeds absorbed by the very people who promised us they would achieve far better results if they were elected to take control of our fund , and yes thats you, JENNY HUTSON of WELLINGTON CAPITAL!!

Dora or anyone else, what percentage do we need re investor numbers or unit holder percentage to call an EGM please? Is it 5% representation of units held or 100 PIF investors or either? Does WC have to pay for the meeting expenses which is ultimately us? The current situation is unacceptable and contrary to what PIF investors 'overwhelmingly voted' for. Does anyone actually think JH will still 'deliver'? This is a serious question and responses valued. Thanks, Seamisty

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

mellifuous said:

Now that the fund has listed, I think unit holders are effectively separated from their investments - so, after listing any payments to share holders will be deemed as a 'financing cost' (an expense to the fund) paid as 'distributions'. ...
Seems the fund was listed to avoid winding it up by way of liquidation - so, the dream (at least for the manager) will live on.

Click to expand...

We didn't change from being 'unit holders' to 'share holders' upon listing on the NSX.

What we buy and sell through the NSX are "Security Type: 06 - Trust Units"

Does this change your conclusions? I'm not a finance person so I need the big print version. Phrases like 'tax deferred' and 'accrual basis' are a bit gobbledegook to me so I can't draw conclusions from them.

IMO this issue of whether or not we need to pay income tax on any cash WC sends us is MASSIVE.

Can WC structure the PIF so we don't need to pay income tax on the cash we get from PIF? If so then why wouldn't WC do it?

If any cash 'distributions' are tax free then wouldn't that have a MASSIVE effect on the attractiveness of our units on the NSX and hence help push the price up?

Anyone?

(BTW forget about logic when it comes to tax in Australia)

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Duped said:

We didn't change from being 'unit holders' to 'share holders' upon listing on the NSX.

What we buy and sell through the NSX are "Security Type: 06 - Trust Units"

Does this change your conclusions?

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't change my view. J.H. is not obligated to give you guys any of the fund's assets other than the 3% promised, the 'buy-back', and any meager 'distribution' (which is fact, as she puts it, an expense relating to 'cost of the facility').

It's true that you 'own' it, but you can't 'get' it.

However, if you delist, then of course, everything would be as it was before the listing.

The listing 'isolated' members from their capital - and that is that - believe it or not.

How investors would benefit if the $147.5m was paid back to the fund, would be that the unit price on the NSX would rise - but that would be tempered by the fact that you receive no income from your shares/units.

The CA may give some bouyancy to the units/shares.

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

seamisty said:

Duped, I used to ask regularly what the strategy was to take the PIF forward, hence all the quotes notated in my diary. I stopped asking when in my veiw, it was becoming increasingly obvious that those promises were made on the strength of recovering a lump sum of $44.5million from OCV to pay a 3 cent return of capital to investors, open the coffers for management fees and have some money left to finish a couple of projects like Wollongong, Aston Hill etc. Everything changed when that cash payment from OCV DOCA was not forthcoming and the PTQ put a spanner in the works IMO.

....

I can honestly say that to date all these skills do not appear to have benefitted PIF investors, quite the contrary IMO. I am interested to see a list of the remaining PIF assets, their current book value and a STRATEGY of how our unit values will be restored to full value in 3-5years because IMO it is not going to happen if there are not changes made to the'current strategy' that is being implemented, but I am just an average person, what would I know? Seamisty

Click to expand...

Thanks for the comprehensive answer Seamisty. I hear ya.

But I think we all need to still ear-bash WC about releasing their business plan/strategy for PIF. (Selling everything and returning the cash to unit holders is NOT a business plan - its administration.)

It'll be an uphill battle to get PIF back onto a straight path using legal means. JH has got a head start and will throw all her legal muscle against those who threaten her business.

We need to hedge ourselves and keep the pressure on WC to run PIF like it should be run, like a business for the benefit for the PIF investors. And not to treat the funds assets like legal footballs for the benefit of WC's investors. Its disgraceful. That's the sort of behaviour we suffered under from the previous RE.

My view is, obviously, that without a business plan to grow PIF, the sell down means the fund is, for all intents and purposes, in Administration.

If we ignore the Madoff/Cassimatis style 'trust me' campaign that WC rolled out (don't you worry your little heads about the complex details) then we have nothing and JH's aims and goals for the fund have no credibility. We need to pressure test WC's business credibility.

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

mellifuous said:

No, it doesn't change my view. J.H. is not obligated to give you guys any of the fund's assets other than the 3% promised, the 'buy-back', and any meager 'distribution' (which is fact, as she puts it, an expense relating to 'cost of the facility').

It's true that you 'own' it, but you can't 'get' it.

However, if you delist, then of course, everything would be as it was before the listing.

The listing 'isolated' members from their capital - and that is that - believe it or not.

How investors would benefit if the $147.5m was paid back to the fund, would be that the unit price on the NSX would rise - but that would be tempered by the fact that you receive no income from your shares/units.

The CA may give some bouyancy to the units/shares.

Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that because the fund is not "obligated" to give our money back then no matter how WC structure the finances of the fund, we nust pay income tax on any cash we're given from the fund.

I'm not convinced that we can't call a meeting and vote to wind up the fund.

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

mellifuous said:

However, investors would benefit if the $147.5m was paid back to the fund, could be that the unit price on the NSX would rise - but that would be tempered by the fact that you receive no income from your shares/units.

The CA may give some buoyancy to the units/shares.

Click to expand...

just an amendment .. 'how' should have been 'however'.
'would' should be 'could'

--- old touch typists simply make too many mistakes.

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Duped said:

So what you're saying is that because the fund is not "obligated" to give our money back then no matter how WC structure the finances of the fund, we nust pay income tax on any cash we're given from the fund.

I'm not convinced that we can't call a meeting and vote to wind up the fund.

Click to expand...

Please understand, I'm not qualified to give advice here - you really should seek some professional advice.

However, J.H. is not obligated to give you any more than she promised in the proposal.

Even the first payment of 3% has tax implications (deferred tax - of which I know nothing about), but the remainder of 'distributions' will be taxable (IMO).

I read this thread regularly, and it's helped me understand funds and managers.

I think many here have the view that J.H. is going to give them their capital back, but it's my view that J.H. will not.

If you want to wind up the fund, then you should amend the constitution to remove the clause on page 15 of the Explanatory Memorandum:-

"... Fees upon removal
The removal fee of 2% is payable if Wellington Capital Limited becomes the responsible entity of the Fund and is subsequently removed without consent. If this occurs, this payment would adversely affect the Fund’s net assets as the fee would be paid from available cash or through the liquidation of assets of the Fund. ..."

Whether it be wind up, liquidated, or change of manager, the fee would probably still apply.

My view is (1) delist, (2) drop the clause in the constitution that supports the removal fee, (3) wind up or change manager. Mere serious talk about a delisting will cause the manager some concern - in the event that the fund was delisted then that would reflect negatively on J.H.

A lawyer would give you the proper advice for not too much of a fee.

I think this is where the Corporations Act fails investors like ourselves who are locked away in these stuffed-up funds - there should be some sort of entity that is able to wind the fund up over time, while generally administering the fund (a pseudo-manager).

That's one of the reasons why I wrote the letter to the Finance Minister.

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Seamisty - I would vote in a flash for an EGM. I'm sure many others would too. We should demand one and see the response from the former Businesswoman of the Year. We can't allow this situation to drag on. We need a meeting where the Wellington "team" face investors in the flesh.

If an EGM is refused, the authorities may listen to an investors' appeal.

Nothing to lose by demanding an EGM and much to gain from such a potential confrontation.

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Seamisty - the only thing Hutson is going to deliver is increasing fees to WC at our expense. I agree that an EGM is needed immediately; the very fact that an investor has to say "we should keep the pressure on WC to run the PIF like it should be run" (thank you, Duped) tells us that she is not the right person to be at the helm.

We have been deceived, our fund has been hi-jacked in the name of self-interest, and once sufficient of our assets have been dumped to enable Hutson to pay the promised "distribution" - which will not really be that at all, just a return of capital, and she is able to start charging management fees, it will be rapidly downhill from thereon.

I believe, if things are allowed to get to that point, that we will not see any more of our hard-earned. I believe the fund should be de-listed, and a new manager appointed. I also think that if we end up having to pay Hutson a 2%fee to get her out, it would be a worthwhile investment - much better than seeing the lot disappear.

Bring on an EGM NOW - we will vote in favour, and attend, as I'm sure many others will. If we have the numbers to demand this, and don't get rapid agreement, we surely have grounds to refer the matter to ASIC who finally seem to have woken up to what is going on.

While we don't post here very often, we are AG members, and read the posts daily, and once again thank all contributors for their intensive research and comments.

On the subject of the Class Action, here is a quote which may be of interest:
"The judge said that the complaint, if true, would show BankAtlantic's executives acted with scienter - the intent or knowledge of wrongdoing that is the key to a plaintiff's argument in a class action complaint."
Brian Bandell; Judge Lets Class Action Suit Proceed Against BankAtlantic Bankcorp; South Florida Business Journal; May 22, 2009.

I wonder how many of our friends acted with "scienter" in the sorry saga of MFS, Octaviar, WCIM, et al? Any guesses?

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

pixierich said:

"... to pay the promised "distribution" - which will not really be that at all, just a return of capital ..."

Click to expand...

This is what I hate about the darn grossly-impaired funds - the managers talk about 'distributions' but the the reality is that it can never be any more than your own capital coming back to you - and if it's paid back as a 'distribution', then tax is applicable.

It's the same as the 'buy-back', all that can be used is your own money as it comes back - and such an offer would split you all up - between those who would take it, and those who wouldn't - some will lose, some will win (depending on the outcome).

So, why the offer sounds nice, it's really bullsh1t - it would have been better to say 'a repayment of $37.5m of unit holders capital back to them (without tax implications)".

Also, the first 3% should have be a repayment of unit holder's capital too.. there is no need to get into tax implications with your own money.

I'm sure we've all learned a lot on these forums.

I hope what I've contributed is correct and of use to you.

Sometimes it's a little easier to see things from 'outside the box' (so to speak).

It might also be useful to contact your manager and ask about the tax situation IF 'distributions' are made.

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

I read these posts regularly and occasionally I will post something on this forum but it is becoming increasingly obvious to me that there are only a handful of people who care enough to join in.
Obviously there are people out there who read this forum either on a regular basis or just intermittently and we do know that there are a good number of us who have joined the class action.
What concerns me is the apparent lack of real numbers on this forum as the same old recycled names keep appearing.
I recently wrote to JH pushing hard for her to show more transparency and I asked her why the PIF updates were not being shown on the WC website,in addition I asked her why she was blocking information requested by Carneys.
I received a response from one of the WC client service personnel and she took the tack that this forum was made up of a small number of 'diehard's' who held misconceived grudges against either WC or JH or both,she went on to say that the vast majority of unitholder's in the PIF were backing JH and WC and the forum was just a minor annoyance which most people wouldn't bother reading as it was too negative and had little impact and neither she,WC or JH are reading the forum any longer as it simply throws a negative shroud over all the positive things that JH was trying to do for the fund.
I was told that a distribution was definitely coming in 2010 and the reason that they are withholding information from Carney's is due to the fact that it involves legalese that can only be decided in Court and it is lawyer against lawyer in that regard.
I was also told that they are not giving updates on their website until they have something positive to report and,unlike this forum which constantly waffles on with the same old negative recycled rhetoric,they live in the real world of fact not fiction and only see things from a legal standpoint and it would be pointless for them to join in and answer to a handful of individuals who do not represent the bulk of the fund's unit holders.
So there you have it..........This is their attitude ( not necessarily mine)however it would be intriguing to find out how many people read the forum and also intriguing to know their own viewpoints on the day to day matters discussed by the most prolific posters.
Any views on how this can be accomplished?
I am aware of the IMF letter to CA members recently,which was step in the right direction.
Blueboy1

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Blueboy1 said:

I read these posts regularly and occasionally I will post something on this forum but it is becoming increasingly obvious to me that there are only a handful of people who care enough to join in.
Obviously there are people out there who read this forum either on a regular basis or just intermittently and we do know that there are a good number of us who have joined the class action.
What concerns me is the apparent lack of real numbers on this forum as the same old recycled names keep appearing.
I recently wrote to JH pushing hard for her to show more transparency and I asked her why the PIF updates were not being shown on the WC website,in addition I asked her why she was blocking information requested by Carneys.
I received a response from one of the WC client service personnel and she took the tack that this forum was made up of a small number of 'diehard's' who held misconceived grudges against either WC or JH or both,she went on to say that the vast majority of unitholder's in the PIF were backing JH and WC and the forum was just a minor annoyance which most people wouldn't bother reading as it was too negative and had little impact and neither she,WC or JH are reading the forum any longer as it simply throws a negative shroud over all the positive things that JH was trying to do for the fund.
I was told that a distribution was definitely coming in 2010 and the reason that they are withholding information from Carney's is due to the fact that it involves legalese that can only be decided in Court and it is lawyer against lawyer in that regard.
I was also told that they are not giving updates on their website until they have something positive to report and,unlike this forum which constantly waffles on with the same old negative recycled rhetoric,they live in the real world of fact not fiction and only see things from a legal standpoint and it would be pointless for them to join in and answer to a handful of individuals who do not represent the bulk of the fund's unit holders.
So there you have it..........This is their attitude ( not necessarily mine)however it would be intriguing to find out how many people read the forum and also intriguing to know their own viewpoints on the day to day matters discussed by the most prolific posters.
Any views on how this can be accomplished?
I am aware of the IMF letter to CA members recently,which was step in the right direction.
Blueboy1

Click to expand...

Hi Blueboy, I can tell you I receive many complaints and concerns from other investors either by ph, private message or email in relation to PIF. Over the past month I have received contact from numerous investors I have never been in touch with previously, ALL of them are seriously concerned with the lack of PIF performance even though they choose not to post on the forum, (though I encourage them to do so.) They have ALL offered their assistance if needed and are ALL extremely unhappy with our current situation. I am not surprised of the answer you received from WC but I can assure you the sentiment and views relayed by the 'few anti JH die hards' posting on the forum is backed up and supported by many hundreds of individual PIF investors. Everone who follows this thread will know that I was an avid JH supporter initially along with many others. I can think of only one who still holds a glimmer of hope but also thinks it neccesary to call a meeting with JH to discuss issues. I seriously doubt JH would get an overwhelming yes vote at the present time. There are no splinter groups of investors anymore and there are many working together to find solutions and alternatives to adress investor concerns and achieve the best possible outcomes for the future of the PIF. It is very encouraging to see support from IMF and Carneys and others outside of the PIF who continue to offer us assistance with information and opinions.

There has been over 1500 hits to this thread since Friday, I doubt they are all from a handfull of disgruntled posters. Why would we expect regular updates as promised, good news or bad, we didn't get anything else that was promised either!

I can assure you for certain, if I thought for one minute this thread was NOT monitored by WC staff, there would be a lot more information posted on it!!!!!Regardless of a few of us 'constantly waffling on with the same old negative recycled rhetoric', this thread is still our one main source of contact and information. Cheers, Seamisty

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Blueboy1 said:

"... she took the tack that this forum was made up of a small number of 'diehard's' who held misconceived grudges against either WC or JH or both ..."

Click to expand...

Well, I gotta tell you, I'm an outsider here, and I've never seen a group of unit holders sent out 'into the cold' so easily before in my life - I'm really happy that the FMF was spared a listing - the whole of the PIF has achieved nothing by being listed - IMO it's been a waste of time and money.

"... she went on to say that the vast majority of unitholder's in the PIF were backing JH and WC and the forum was just a minor annoyance which most people wouldn't bother reading as it was too negative and had little impact and neither she,WC or JH are reading the forum any longer as it simply throws a negative shroud over all the positive things that JH was trying to do for the fund. ..."

Well, what she didn't say was that forums allow an exchange of ideas and views, and to a certain degree, they are educational. Where unit holders sit at home in their own little worlds, waiting for the 'good news', they're easy to manipulate, and quite frankly, in most cases they simply don't have a clue what's going on - and yes, as a consequence they have to have great faith in the manager.

None of these managers like criticism - they see themselves as saviors of the little packages (managed funds) they pick up with not much effort at all. The funds are shattered and the investors are begging for help - help doesn't come from the government, it comes from 'folk' like J.H. and B/T (BalmainTrilogy).

"... I was also told that they are not giving updates on their website until they have something positive to report and,unlike this forum which constantly waffles on with the same old negative recycled rhetoric,they live in the real world of fact not fiction and only see things from a legal standpoint and it would be pointless for them to join in and answer to a handful of individuals who do not represent the bulk of the fund's unit holders. ..."

What they don't say is that they live in their own world, and it's a world very different to unit holders - these managers seem to relish in withholding information.

The real problem is that people on the forums are aware of the realities of their circumstances but they fail to make contact with the 'bulk of the fund's unit holders' to counterbalance the nonsense that comes from the managers.

Nearly every case of radial reform/change comes about by the diligent few, not by the brain-numbed multitudes who have to pushed along like a herd of cattle: managed funds will not change either until the pushing begins.

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

seamisty said:

Hi Blueboy, I can tell you I receive many complaints and concerns from other investors either by ph, private message or email in relation to PIF. Over the past month I have received contact from numerous investors I have never been in touch with previously, ALL of them are seriously concerned with the lack of PIF performance even though they choose not to post on the forum, (though I encourage them to do so.) They have ALL offered their assistance if needed and are ALL extremely unhappy with our current situation. I am not surprised of the answer you received from WC but I can assure you the sentiment and views relayed by the 'few anti JH die hards' posting on the forum is backed up and supported by many hundreds of individual PIF investors. Everone who follows this thread will know that I was an avid JH supporter initially along with many others. I can think of only one who still holds a glimmer of hope but also thinks it neccesary to call a meeting with JH to discuss issues. I seriously doubt JH would get an overwhelming yes vote at the present time. There are no splinter groups of investors anymore and there are many working together to find solutions and alternatives to adress investor concerns and achieve the best possible outcomes for the future of the PIF. It is very encouraging to see support from IMF and Carneys and others outside of the PIF who continue to offer us assistance with information and opinions.

There has been over 1500 hits to this thread since Friday, I doubt they are all from a handfull of disgruntled posters. Why would we expect regular updates as promised, good news or bad, we didn't get anything else that was promised either!

I can assure you for certain, if I thought for one minute this thread was NOT monitored by WC staff, there would be a lot more information posted on it!!!!!Regardless of a few of us 'constantly waffling on with the same old negative recycled rhetoric', this thread is still our one main source of contact and information. Cheers, Seamisty

Click to expand...

Hi Seamisty,
Yes, I think it’s time to test the strength of numbers of people who not only contribute, but read this forum.
I suggest that we all add our names to a list together with our number of units. This will give us an indication of our strength, (and the number of votes we represent.) Anonimity will be maintained, as we all publish under our nom-de-plumes.
Click on the “quote” button and then add in your forum name, and your holding.
As we know from past experience, the administrators of this site are vigilant if people log on under different names....... so let’s keep it honest, and accurate!
Here is mine for starters:-
Forum Name
John H. ------- 100,000

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

JohnH said:

Hi Seamisty,
Yes, I think it’s time to test the strength of numbers of people who not only contribute, but read this forum.
I suggest that we all add our names to a list together with our number of units. This will give us an indication of our strength, (and the number of votes we represent.) Anonimity will be maintained, as we all publish under our nom-de-plumes.
Click on the “quote” button and then add in your forum name, and your holding.
As we know from past experience, the administrators of this site are vigilant if people log on under different names....... so let’s keep it honest, and accurate!
Here is mine for starters:-
Forum Name
John H. ------- 100,000

Click to expand...

Pixierich ------- 222,000

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

pixierich said:

Pixierich ------- 222,000

Click to expand...

K.Smith 55,000

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

JohnH said:

Hi Seamisty,
Yes, I think it’s time to test the strength of numbers of people who not only contribute, but read this forum.
I suggest that we all add our names to a list together with our number of units. This will give us an indication of our strength, (and the number of votes we represent.) Anonimity will be maintained, as we all publish under our nom-de-plumes.
Click on the “quote” button and then add in your forum name, and your holding.
As we know from past experience, the administrators of this site are vigilant if people log on under different names....... so let’s keep it honest, and accurate!
Here is mine for starters:-
Forum Name
John H. ------- 100,000

Click to expand...

Cookie1 ------- 245,000