Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

MFS MONEY TRAIL::http://www.smh.com.au/business/debt...ubai-to-new-poetic-heights-20091129-jysf.html

Creditors of the collapsed MFS Limited (aka Octaviar) are expected to push tomorrow for the liquidator of the Gold Coast finance group to dig deeper into transactions undertaken by the group before its collapse and when it was in the hands of its former administrator Deloitte.

Of particular interest are the $940,000 in consultancy fees paid by MFS to a firm set up by the group's former chief financial officer, David Anderson, over an 11-month period when it was under the control of Deloitte.

A nine-member committee representing creditors of the fallen investment group will hold a meeting in Brisbane tomorrow to discuss the next steps they want the court-appointed liquidator, Bentleys Corporate Recovery, to take.

Last week Bentleys issued an update to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission that estimated the group had $2.24 billion of liabilities. Heading Bentley's list of reasons for MFS's collapse: ''Poor strategic management of business.''

Some creditors are also believed to be interested in the $2 million-odd in wages paid out by Deloitte when it was in charge, even though the company was running on a skeleton crew.

One of the crew members is believed to have been Craig Chapman, who was appointed chief executive when the former MFS shareholder Chris Scott led a management and board coup of the company. Scott also happens to be a former colleague of one of the creditor committee members meeting tomorrow, Jenny Hutson. Her firm Wellington Capital took management control of MFS's Premium Income Fund early last year, which happened to be owed money from its parent MFS.

Other transactions that may attract interest are the payments to a Gold Coast document shredding business, Shred X Pty Ltd. Deloitte took more than $1 million in fees.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

You can add my 400,000 units. By the way I would like those interested to click onto http://www.youtube.com/watchpv=hb55qEY8RAE. This video was presented to a lavish Christmas party at the Sebel Hotel, The Rocks, Sydney on the 27 November, 2007. You will note the date for the very next day the 200 million or so borrowed from RBOS was siphoned off to related party entities. HOW HONEST IS THAT The party was attended by selected investors and no doubt potential investors. I wonder how many people got conned that day. No, I was not invited but sure as hell you can bet we all contributed towards the cost. Keep up the good work everyone, I am sure as hell doing my best.

Interesting video - just a couple of days before City Pacific Limited de-consolidated the FMF from its accounts (name change on 31 November 2007 and de-consolidation on 1 December 2007), an act that commentators were to say was for their own protection:-

"... "It smells like the company is doing everything possible to make things look like they are OK," trader Daniel Loeb said. "But off balance sheet vehicles and a cash loss/accounting profit do not make for investor comfort.

"The reality is that their mortgage funds are likely to be hiding bad debts and this is the real reason for the deconsolidation. Why would you go to this hassle if there wasn't a loss pending? All they do now is charge hefty management fees from the fund – and for what?" ..."
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23298694-3122,00.html

Sadly, this statement come on 29 February 2008, just a few days before the FMF was frozen on 3 March 2008.

There must have been a feeling in the air that wafted through these managers' offices to cause them to go out and give grandiose presentations in a declining market.

Here's City Pacific's effort:-

http://www.moneymagik.com/20080331_City_Pacific_Update_-_March_2008.pdf
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnH
Quote John.H ::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
Pixierich------- 222,000
KSmith -------- 55,000
Cookie1 ------- 245,000
Marcom ------- 615,000
Seamisty ---- 2,180,000
Selciper ------ 300,000
Dexter ------- 880,000
To Trusting ---150,000
Wally3218----- 90,000
Janiss --------1499000
astevo -------- 40350
atlas1950 ------ 323,000
BABIHTAN ------ 490,000
charles36 ------- 400,000
Bessie223------ 140,000
Alan Lowther--- 1,172,363
BootsnAll-------- 826,695 Total so far 9731408 or 1.29% of fund
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

IMPORTANT NOTE

The call on the ASF for unit numbers is NOT authorised by the PIF AG representatives and was not instigated by the PIF AG

I am even getting email asking if the PIF Action Group is using the ASF to call an EGM - WE ARE NOT!

The PIF AG if conducting any important matters would advise it's members via direct group email

It would appear this numbers call has come about as a spur of the moment attempt to get Wellington attention - this has NOT been authorised by the PIF AG representative committee.
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnH
Quote John.H ::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
Pixierich------- 222,000
KSmith -------- 55,000
Cookie1 ------- 245,000
Marcom ------- 615,000
Seamisty ---- 2,180,000
Selciper ------ 300,000
Dexter ------- 880,000
To Trusting ---150,000
Wally3218----- 90,000
Janiss --------1499000
astevo -------- 40350
atlas1950 ------ 323,000
BABIHTAN ------ 490,000
charles36 ------- 400,000
Bessie223------ 140,000
Alan Lowther--- 1,172,363
BootsnAll-------- 826,695 Total so far 9731408 or 1.29% of fund

Interesting reading John H: So far there are 18 unit holders holding a total of 9731408 units,an average holding of 540633 units each.
The average unit holding for the (approx)10400 unit holders in the fund is very roughly 72,000 from memory.
If this is the case (so far) the majority of unit holders are not utilizing this forum but the most aggrieved (those that lost more than the average) are doing so.
The above average unit holding of 540633 is 468633 units above the average holding in the fund,this is a considerably more and suggests that people only start contributing to this forum when they have lost nearly half a million.
It is also of interest that 0.173%(18 people) approx, of all the unit holders in the fund hold nearly 1.3% of the total units and a vague picture is starting to emerge as to the size of the following on this forum and how it scales in relation to the size of the fund.
Blueboy1
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Interesting reading John H: So far there are 18 unit holders holding a total of 9731408 units,an average holding of 540633 units each.
It is also of interest that 0.173%(18 people) approx, of all the unit holders in the fund hold nearly 1.3% of the total units and a vague picture is starting to emerge as to the size of the following on this forum and how it scales in relation to the size of the fund.
Blueboy1

These were the numbers prior to NSX listing:

203 with holdings $1,000 to 5,000
1230 5,001 10,000
7437 10,001 100,000
151387 100,001 and over
(total 10,387)
I suppose that is how it is still represented in WC books
Sourced from one of the update tables; unable to cut & paste.
Regards, simgrund
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

These were the numbers prior to NSX listing:

203 with holdings $1,000 to 5,000
1230 5,001 10,000
7437 10,001 100,000
151387 100,001 and over
(total 10,387)
I suppose that is how it is still represented in WC books
Sourced from one of the update tables; unable to cut & paste.
Regards, simgrund

Last No of holders should be 1517 100,001 and over
 
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

IMPORTANT NOTE

The call on the ASF for unit numbers is NOT authorised by the PIF AG representatives and was not instigated by the PIF AG

I am even getting email asking if the PIF Action Group is using the ASF to call an EGM - WE ARE NOT!

The PIF AG if conducting any important matters would advise it's members via direct group email

It would appear this numbers call has come about as a spur of the moment attempt to get Wellington attention - this has NOT been authorised by the PIF AG representative committee.

Thanks Breaker. I confirm I'm not under the impression that the test of numbers is a call for an EGM.

Similarly, I don't see the test of numbers as muscle flexing. Merely, an exchange to see how loud our squeak is. Not very. As WC pointed out to Blueboy1, allegedly. WC certainly do seem to have all the FACTS, as reported by Blueboy1. I just wish they'd share more of them with me.

To be clear the 100,000 I posted should read 'at least 100,000'. I'm not taking any chances that someone won't break the law and use the unit holder register to identify me. I don't have the resources to take legal action. My annonymity is the only defense at my disposal against the aggressive and unethical big-end-of-town.
 
Top