- Joined
- 5 June 2008
- Posts
- 105
- Reactions
- 0
Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF
- Thread starter breaker1
- Start date
- Joined
- 12 July 2008
- Posts
- 416
- Reactions
- 0
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
Dear Comrades,
With all due respect, but all these outings will not translate into realization of our shared goals. The only OUTING I personally wish to materialize is a transparent contact with the elected IAC. All of our discordant discontent delivered ad lib via forum runs the risk of being further marginalized by the very targets we aim at.
Please, if anybody has or had any contacts with any or all of the elected members of IOC, please let PIF AG know.
As regards the u-holders numbers, I took them from post #2983 page 150.
They speak for themselves; that indeed a smaller number of u-holders control a larger proportion of fund holdings.
Regards simgrund
Dear Comrades,
With all due respect, but all these outings will not translate into realization of our shared goals. The only OUTING I personally wish to materialize is a transparent contact with the elected IAC. All of our discordant discontent delivered ad lib via forum runs the risk of being further marginalized by the very targets we aim at.
Please, if anybody has or had any contacts with any or all of the elected members of IOC, please let PIF AG know.
As regards the u-holders numbers, I took them from post #2983 page 150.
They speak for themselves; that indeed a smaller number of u-holders control a larger proportion of fund holdings.
Regards simgrund
- Joined
- 22 May 2008
- Posts
- 758
- Reactions
- 0
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
Sent you a message seamisty.
Sent you a message seamisty.
- Joined
- 4 May 2008
- Posts
- 288
- Reactions
- 0
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
Ripoll inquiry needs to shout, not whisper
Comment on this article | See what others are saying
Wet, wet, wet. That's the best description for the Ripoll inquiry's final report into financial products and services delivered this week. After months of hearings and more than 400 submissions, the best this group of politicians could come up with was that financial planners should have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of their clients.
Sydney Morning Herald - 28th Nov 2009 - Annette Sampson
Wet, wet, wet. That's the best description for the Ripoll inquiry's final report into financial products and services delivered this week. After months of hearings and more than 400 submissions, the best this group of politicians could come up with was that financial planners should have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of their clients.
Well, golly gee. Don't they realise it came as a nasty shock to most investors to be told this year (ironically enough by the Financial Planning Association, which was proposing such a duty be required from its members) that such a duty doesn't already exist?
Clients' expectations of their financial planners, and the reality of much of the industry, are now so far apart that even the industry was expecting more from Ripoll. The fact that the report was almost universally welcomed by the industry shows just how industry-friendly it was.
No recommendation to ban on-the-nose commissions, just that the Government work with the industry to develop "the most appropriate mechanism by which to cease payments from product manufacturers to financial advisers" - whatever that may turn out to mean.
No crackdown on conflicts of interest generally, just a recommendation that they be disclosed more prominently in marketing material, along with any restrictions on the advice that can be given. As if disclosure overload wasn't already a problem, with most consumers either switching off or not understanding the information they get. No minimum standards for advisers, or recognition that some so-called advisers are really just salespeople in disguise. Flick-pass that one to a new professional standards board that ASIC should set up in consultation with the industry.
No recommendation that some complex products - such as the securities lending agreements that gave Opes Prime clients so much grief - should simply not be allowed to be sold to retail investors.
The committee reckons investor awareness and scepticism following recent collapses should stymie future offerings, along with increased reluctance from the banks to do this sort of business, laws bringing margin loans into ASIC's regulatory arena, and increased obligations on financial planners.
But to be fair, the committee did recommend ASIC be given the power to ban individuals from the industry, to deny, cancel or suspend a licence where it had a "reasonable belief" the licensee might not comply with its obligations (though how you prove that will be interesting to test), and that it be appropriately resourced to effectively police the advice given by planners - including annual shadow shopping exercises. (One industry group has already expressed concerns about that one.)
Oh yes. There was also a final recommendation for ASIC to develop more effective education for those likely to be seeking financial advice for the first time - as though the regulator's website is not already littered with such advice (including advice on conflicts of interest), which is apparently ignored by the many it targets.
It's not that requiring financial advisers to act in their clients' interest is a bad thing. In fact the only real question is why it wasn't required long ago.
But trusting that this alone will ensure all financial planners behave ethically smacks of either naivety or political expediency.
The fact is that the bulk of the 246-page report, was commissioned after the collapse of groups such as Storm financial and Opes Prime, presents a compelling case that parts of the industry don't meet the current, less stringent requirements.
The Corporations Act already requires personal advice to have a reasonable basis and be appropriate for the client.
As the report points out, advisers must know their client, know the product and/or strategy they are recommending, and ensure that the product and/or strategy is appropriate to the clients' particular needs. It doesn't require that the advice be ideal, perfect or "best" - but those are subjective terms anyway. In the case of Storm, one of the serious issues identified by the inquiry was its "one-size-fits-all" approach to financial planning. While investors might have assumed they were getting tailored personal advice, it was all coming out of the company's head office in Townsville.
As the group's former accountant told the inquiry: "No advisers were permitted to undertake their own financial planning modelling. Rather, their role was to explain the Storm model to clients who were interested and ensure clients who were not comfortable with this did not become a client."
Under questioning about whether the advice offered was really like a factory churning out the same result for everyone, the company's founder, Emmanuel Cassimatis, agreed it was like selling a car - those who wanted it could buy it and those who didn't could go somewhere else.
The advice was typically for clients to borrow against their home to invest in share-based index funds, then borrow further through margin loans.
Appropriate? Certainly the investors nearing retirement or on lower incomes didn't think so when the whole thing came tumbling down. Even if the advice was appropriate for some clients, it beggars belief that it was appropriate for all, despite the supposed self-selection Storm claimed occurred.
If ASIC couldn't identify or act on this, can we really have faith that it will have the will or muscle to pick up advice that falls short of the proposed fiduciary standard?
Or will its main effects be to provide unscrupulous planners with yet another comfort that they can spin to prospective clients - "I'm legally required to act in your best interests" - and to make prosecuting them a little easier after the damage is done.
The Government is also awaiting a final report from the Cooper review, which will look at fees, charges and other issues in relation to super. Let's hope it has a few more teeth.
Let's hope, too, that the industry's own efforts to get rid of the bad eggs, orchestrated through the FPA, proves more than a token effort. By embracing the recommendation for a fiduciary duty of care, the industry has shown it can talk the talk.
But it will need to go further than the Ripoll report's recommendations to walk the walk
Ripoll inquiry needs to shout, not whisper
Comment on this article | See what others are saying
Wet, wet, wet. That's the best description for the Ripoll inquiry's final report into financial products and services delivered this week. After months of hearings and more than 400 submissions, the best this group of politicians could come up with was that financial planners should have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of their clients.
Sydney Morning Herald - 28th Nov 2009 - Annette Sampson
Wet, wet, wet. That's the best description for the Ripoll inquiry's final report into financial products and services delivered this week. After months of hearings and more than 400 submissions, the best this group of politicians could come up with was that financial planners should have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of their clients.
Well, golly gee. Don't they realise it came as a nasty shock to most investors to be told this year (ironically enough by the Financial Planning Association, which was proposing such a duty be required from its members) that such a duty doesn't already exist?
Clients' expectations of their financial planners, and the reality of much of the industry, are now so far apart that even the industry was expecting more from Ripoll. The fact that the report was almost universally welcomed by the industry shows just how industry-friendly it was.
No recommendation to ban on-the-nose commissions, just that the Government work with the industry to develop "the most appropriate mechanism by which to cease payments from product manufacturers to financial advisers" - whatever that may turn out to mean.
No crackdown on conflicts of interest generally, just a recommendation that they be disclosed more prominently in marketing material, along with any restrictions on the advice that can be given. As if disclosure overload wasn't already a problem, with most consumers either switching off or not understanding the information they get. No minimum standards for advisers, or recognition that some so-called advisers are really just salespeople in disguise. Flick-pass that one to a new professional standards board that ASIC should set up in consultation with the industry.
No recommendation that some complex products - such as the securities lending agreements that gave Opes Prime clients so much grief - should simply not be allowed to be sold to retail investors.
The committee reckons investor awareness and scepticism following recent collapses should stymie future offerings, along with increased reluctance from the banks to do this sort of business, laws bringing margin loans into ASIC's regulatory arena, and increased obligations on financial planners.
But to be fair, the committee did recommend ASIC be given the power to ban individuals from the industry, to deny, cancel or suspend a licence where it had a "reasonable belief" the licensee might not comply with its obligations (though how you prove that will be interesting to test), and that it be appropriately resourced to effectively police the advice given by planners - including annual shadow shopping exercises. (One industry group has already expressed concerns about that one.)
Oh yes. There was also a final recommendation for ASIC to develop more effective education for those likely to be seeking financial advice for the first time - as though the regulator's website is not already littered with such advice (including advice on conflicts of interest), which is apparently ignored by the many it targets.
It's not that requiring financial advisers to act in their clients' interest is a bad thing. In fact the only real question is why it wasn't required long ago.
But trusting that this alone will ensure all financial planners behave ethically smacks of either naivety or political expediency.
The fact is that the bulk of the 246-page report, was commissioned after the collapse of groups such as Storm financial and Opes Prime, presents a compelling case that parts of the industry don't meet the current, less stringent requirements.
The Corporations Act already requires personal advice to have a reasonable basis and be appropriate for the client.
As the report points out, advisers must know their client, know the product and/or strategy they are recommending, and ensure that the product and/or strategy is appropriate to the clients' particular needs. It doesn't require that the advice be ideal, perfect or "best" - but those are subjective terms anyway. In the case of Storm, one of the serious issues identified by the inquiry was its "one-size-fits-all" approach to financial planning. While investors might have assumed they were getting tailored personal advice, it was all coming out of the company's head office in Townsville.
As the group's former accountant told the inquiry: "No advisers were permitted to undertake their own financial planning modelling. Rather, their role was to explain the Storm model to clients who were interested and ensure clients who were not comfortable with this did not become a client."
Under questioning about whether the advice offered was really like a factory churning out the same result for everyone, the company's founder, Emmanuel Cassimatis, agreed it was like selling a car - those who wanted it could buy it and those who didn't could go somewhere else.
The advice was typically for clients to borrow against their home to invest in share-based index funds, then borrow further through margin loans.
Appropriate? Certainly the investors nearing retirement or on lower incomes didn't think so when the whole thing came tumbling down. Even if the advice was appropriate for some clients, it beggars belief that it was appropriate for all, despite the supposed self-selection Storm claimed occurred.
If ASIC couldn't identify or act on this, can we really have faith that it will have the will or muscle to pick up advice that falls short of the proposed fiduciary standard?
Or will its main effects be to provide unscrupulous planners with yet another comfort that they can spin to prospective clients - "I'm legally required to act in your best interests" - and to make prosecuting them a little easier after the damage is done.
The Government is also awaiting a final report from the Cooper review, which will look at fees, charges and other issues in relation to super. Let's hope it has a few more teeth.
Let's hope, too, that the industry's own efforts to get rid of the bad eggs, orchestrated through the FPA, proves more than a token effort. By embracing the recommendation for a fiduciary duty of care, the industry has shown it can talk the talk.
But it will need to go further than the Ripoll report's recommendations to walk the walk
- Joined
- 22 May 2008
- Posts
- 758
- Reactions
- 0
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
IMO the only reason the Federal Government is getting off it's butt to do something about this is for its own self interest. It gave a huge helping hand to the problem through it's compulsory super system. The Fed has skin in the game.
When people like us start popping out the end of the Fed's system without enough to live on, the Fed will still have to cough up. We'll be knocking on Centrelink's door by the million despite all those financial service providers having got fat off the system.
From Business Spectator
Alan Kohler
'A Grim Outlook for Commissions'
"Just because the report from the joint parliamentary committee on financial services did not explicitly recommend banning commissions, don’t think that they don’t have to go.
That’s the message financial planning luminaries have been getting this week as they troop around Canberra, cooling their heels in lobbies and waiting rooms, infesting Parliament House cafes.
The financial services industry has had just one thing on its mind this week: finding out whether the Ripoll Report will mean an end to commissions for financial planners.
It was unclear in the recommendations. The joint committee recommended an explicit fiduciary duty for financial planners (putting clients first), and that the government should consult with the industry to develop the “most appropriate mechanism by which to cease payments from product manufacturers to financial advisers”.
The immediate reaction from the commission-payers was that commissions and volume bonuses were compatible with a fiduciary duty, and that life would go on. The word “consult”, it was thought, means finding loopholes and ways around things. Phew.
But the message in Canberra this week has been quite different. As I understand it, the heads of all the industry bodies, as well as the lobbyists for the banks, AMP and AXA, are hearing the same thing from Bernie Ripoll, head of the inquiry, the Minister Chris Bowen, the Shadow Minister Chris Pearce, and from Treasury: commissions have to go.
It’s just that the politicians on both sides, as well as Treasury, don’t want to legislate for that – they are insisting that the industry leaders do it themselves (under threat of legislation).
The reason for this is quite interesting, and logical – and not a million miles from that other story in Canberra this week: the deal over the CPRS legislation and the convulsions in the Liberal Party.
It’s about compensation. Legislation that destroys private wealth requires compensation or risks ugly High Court lawsuits and damage to sovereign investment standing.
The focus of the negotiations over the CPRS has been on compensation for power generators and coal miners because of the legislation that reduces the value of their assets. They’ve got more compensation, but they’re still complaining it’s not enough.
A legislated ban on commissions would wipe out colossal amounts of wealth among financial planners. A firm that earns steady trailing commissions is worth 3-4 times revenue when it is sold; a firm that charges by the hour or a fixed rate for a financial plan gets one times annual revenue on sale.
Even if such a scheme were grandfathered, so that existing commission arrangements could continue, they would have to end when dealerships were sold, so value would still be destroyed.
Financial planners around the country are in a state of panic and uproar about this; their own retirement plans are going up in smoke and it’s clear they won’t go down without a fight.
Unlike other industry bodies, the Financial Planning Association has been working for years to persuade members to move away from commissions and finally, in October, the board approved the new policy from CEO Jo-Anne Bloch. But even that hard-fought victory only involves a transition beginning in 2012, and it’s only for FPA members.
Interestingly, ASIC has now dealt itself out of this discussion with a radical submission to the Ripoll Inquiry, recommending a legislated ban on commissions as well as percentage-based fees paid by clients. Like your correspondent, ASIC is now regarded as a terrorist.
As a result, Treasury has now become the key bureaucratic player in the progress towards reform, with politicians on both sides demanding an end to commissions and all other payments from investment product manufacturers to financial planners – smoothly, and without compensation. Somebody has to negotiate this, and it will be Treasury, not ASIC.
Reform will be tricky and require leadership from the top of the industry that has so far not been evident, except from the FPA.
But the alternative is bad legislation, because legislation is always bad. Just look at the mess known as the CPRS. "
IMO the only reason the Federal Government is getting off it's butt to do something about this is for its own self interest. It gave a huge helping hand to the problem through it's compulsory super system. The Fed has skin in the game.
When people like us start popping out the end of the Fed's system without enough to live on, the Fed will still have to cough up. We'll be knocking on Centrelink's door by the million despite all those financial service providers having got fat off the system.
From Business Spectator
Alan Kohler
'A Grim Outlook for Commissions'
"Just because the report from the joint parliamentary committee on financial services did not explicitly recommend banning commissions, don’t think that they don’t have to go.
That’s the message financial planning luminaries have been getting this week as they troop around Canberra, cooling their heels in lobbies and waiting rooms, infesting Parliament House cafes.
The financial services industry has had just one thing on its mind this week: finding out whether the Ripoll Report will mean an end to commissions for financial planners.
It was unclear in the recommendations. The joint committee recommended an explicit fiduciary duty for financial planners (putting clients first), and that the government should consult with the industry to develop the “most appropriate mechanism by which to cease payments from product manufacturers to financial advisers”.
The immediate reaction from the commission-payers was that commissions and volume bonuses were compatible with a fiduciary duty, and that life would go on. The word “consult”, it was thought, means finding loopholes and ways around things. Phew.
But the message in Canberra this week has been quite different. As I understand it, the heads of all the industry bodies, as well as the lobbyists for the banks, AMP and AXA, are hearing the same thing from Bernie Ripoll, head of the inquiry, the Minister Chris Bowen, the Shadow Minister Chris Pearce, and from Treasury: commissions have to go.
It’s just that the politicians on both sides, as well as Treasury, don’t want to legislate for that – they are insisting that the industry leaders do it themselves (under threat of legislation).
The reason for this is quite interesting, and logical – and not a million miles from that other story in Canberra this week: the deal over the CPRS legislation and the convulsions in the Liberal Party.
It’s about compensation. Legislation that destroys private wealth requires compensation or risks ugly High Court lawsuits and damage to sovereign investment standing.
The focus of the negotiations over the CPRS has been on compensation for power generators and coal miners because of the legislation that reduces the value of their assets. They’ve got more compensation, but they’re still complaining it’s not enough.
A legislated ban on commissions would wipe out colossal amounts of wealth among financial planners. A firm that earns steady trailing commissions is worth 3-4 times revenue when it is sold; a firm that charges by the hour or a fixed rate for a financial plan gets one times annual revenue on sale.
Even if such a scheme were grandfathered, so that existing commission arrangements could continue, they would have to end when dealerships were sold, so value would still be destroyed.
Financial planners around the country are in a state of panic and uproar about this; their own retirement plans are going up in smoke and it’s clear they won’t go down without a fight.
Unlike other industry bodies, the Financial Planning Association has been working for years to persuade members to move away from commissions and finally, in October, the board approved the new policy from CEO Jo-Anne Bloch. But even that hard-fought victory only involves a transition beginning in 2012, and it’s only for FPA members.
Interestingly, ASIC has now dealt itself out of this discussion with a radical submission to the Ripoll Inquiry, recommending a legislated ban on commissions as well as percentage-based fees paid by clients. Like your correspondent, ASIC is now regarded as a terrorist.
As a result, Treasury has now become the key bureaucratic player in the progress towards reform, with politicians on both sides demanding an end to commissions and all other payments from investment product manufacturers to financial planners – smoothly, and without compensation. Somebody has to negotiate this, and it will be Treasury, not ASIC.
Reform will be tricky and require leadership from the top of the industry that has so far not been evident, except from the FPA.
But the alternative is bad legislation, because legislation is always bad. Just look at the mess known as the CPRS. "
- Joined
- 22 May 2008
- Posts
- 758
- Reactions
- 0
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
Note also that 1.5 million units will get you well into the top 20. Apart from the Wholesale PIF, no individual entity had much more than half a % of the fund at 1 Sep 08.
But it looks like the top 20 doesn't take account of multiple holdings. There are two 2 million holdings for the same super fund held by the same trustee. One trustee is spelt with a 'Limited' the other with a 'Ltd'.
With only just under 4 million units traded, the situation probably hasn't changed that much. Can't account for off market transfers though. As for block voting - who knows what holders are still under the spell of their advisors.
When does WC have to update the top 20?
Note also that 1.5 million units will get you well into the top 20. Apart from the Wholesale PIF, no individual entity had much more than half a % of the fund at 1 Sep 08.
But it looks like the top 20 doesn't take account of multiple holdings. There are two 2 million holdings for the same super fund held by the same trustee. One trustee is spelt with a 'Limited' the other with a 'Ltd'.
With only just under 4 million units traded, the situation probably hasn't changed that much. Can't account for off market transfers though. As for block voting - who knows what holders are still under the spell of their advisors.
When does WC have to update the top 20?
- Joined
- 4 May 2008
- Posts
- 288
- Reactions
- 0
- Joined
- 12 July 2008
- Posts
- 416
- Reactions
- 0
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
This is the sort of "show of hand" we need to conduct to present as a % out of PIF's 10,387 potential retirees who wanted to be self funded.
Now they draw full or partial social benefits.
If it is revealed that such number is significant, the Ripoll recommendations; real, implied or strengthened, will definitely be fast tracked.
This is the sort of "show of hand" we need to conduct to present as a % out of PIF's 10,387 potential retirees who wanted to be self funded.
Now they draw full or partial social benefits.
If it is revealed that such number is significant, the Ripoll recommendations; real, implied or strengthened, will definitely be fast tracked.
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
Sorry PIF holders, I have been really busy with off forum related work issues, but thanks to all investors that have posted and registered their interest/participation of our thread. Your continued support by taking the time to respond to forum posts is acknowledged and hope you all continue to support the AG and concerned PIF investors in the ongoing efforts of which we hope will result in a better outcome for all concerned. Thank you for your continued interest and support. Seamisty
Sorry PIF holders, I have been really busy with off forum related work issues, but thanks to all investors that have posted and registered their interest/participation of our thread. Your continued support by taking the time to respond to forum posts is acknowledged and hope you all continue to support the AG and concerned PIF investors in the ongoing efforts of which we hope will result in a better outcome for all concerned. Thank you for your continued interest and support. Seamisty
- Joined
- 6 June 2008
- Posts
- 427
- Reactions
- 0
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
In the AFR today 2/12/09:
Bentleys gets $140m from Octaviar
Bentleys Corporate Recovery has secured almost $140 million in funds from the collapsed Gold Coast finance group Octaviar since it took over the company's liquidation two months ago....
There was a creditors meeting yesterday - can not find any media release from Bentley's.
In the AFR today 2/12/09:
Bentleys gets $140m from Octaviar
Bentleys Corporate Recovery has secured almost $140 million in funds from the collapsed Gold Coast finance group Octaviar since it took over the company's liquidation two months ago....
There was a creditors meeting yesterday - can not find any media release from Bentley's.
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
Here is Decembers list of scheduled Class Action court appearances. Cheers, Seamisty
03-Dec-2009 9:30 Directions Justice Perram
16-Dec-2009 10:15 Hearing Justice Perram
18-Dec-2009 10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram
Here is Decembers list of scheduled Class Action court appearances. Cheers, Seamisty
03-Dec-2009 9:30 Directions Justice Perram
16-Dec-2009 10:15 Hearing Justice Perram
18-Dec-2009 10:15 Part Heard Justice Perram
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
Here is an article from The Age 2/12/09 about LLA; things are looking up for LLA thanks, partly, to the negotiated debt reduction by JH on behalf of the PIF investors! Need I say more!
http://www.businessday.com.au/busin...wner-expects-strong-growth-20091201-k406.html
"Melbourne Aquarium owner expects strong growth
PHILIP HOPKINS
December 2, 2009
LIVING and Leisure Australia (LLA), the owner of the Melbourne Aquarium, has dramatically cut losses and debt, and expects strong cash flow and growth driven by its key tourism assets.
Chief executive John Schryver told the annual meeting in Melbourne that the group's net loss in 2008-09 was $15.4 million, compared with a loss of $74.8 million the year before. Total revenue was $123.5 million, a rise of 8.8 per cent. ''All business units are profitable and generating cash,'' he said.
LLA, previously an offshoot of failed property trust Octaviar, the former MFS Ltd, is now controlled by its rescuer, Arctic LES, owned by James Packer's Consolidated Press Holdings, after a $100 million recapitalisation underwritten by Arctic.
LLA's key Australian assets are the Melbourne Aquarium, skiing operations at Falls Creek and Mount Hotham, and the Otways and Illawarra treetop walks.
Chairwoman Julanne Shearer said the recapitalisation reduced LLA's debt, allowing the group to consolidate its business and operations.
''We refinanced more than $200 million of current debt and entered a new senior secured-term and working capital facilities arrangement with ANZ Banking Group,'' she said. ''We also restructured unsecured debt with long-term mezzanine facilities to reduce our gearing from 50 per cent to 30 per cent.''
Mr Schryver said that LLA expected continued growth this financial year. The focus remained on marketing and branding, the organic growth of each business, low-risk and high-return improvement of existing assets, and the continued strengthening of LLA's cash position to pay down debt."
Source: The Age
Here is an article from The Age 2/12/09 about LLA; things are looking up for LLA thanks, partly, to the negotiated debt reduction by JH on behalf of the PIF investors! Need I say more!
http://www.businessday.com.au/busin...wner-expects-strong-growth-20091201-k406.html
"Melbourne Aquarium owner expects strong growth
PHILIP HOPKINS
December 2, 2009
LIVING and Leisure Australia (LLA), the owner of the Melbourne Aquarium, has dramatically cut losses and debt, and expects strong cash flow and growth driven by its key tourism assets.
Chief executive John Schryver told the annual meeting in Melbourne that the group's net loss in 2008-09 was $15.4 million, compared with a loss of $74.8 million the year before. Total revenue was $123.5 million, a rise of 8.8 per cent. ''All business units are profitable and generating cash,'' he said.
LLA, previously an offshoot of failed property trust Octaviar, the former MFS Ltd, is now controlled by its rescuer, Arctic LES, owned by James Packer's Consolidated Press Holdings, after a $100 million recapitalisation underwritten by Arctic.
LLA's key Australian assets are the Melbourne Aquarium, skiing operations at Falls Creek and Mount Hotham, and the Otways and Illawarra treetop walks.
Chairwoman Julanne Shearer said the recapitalisation reduced LLA's debt, allowing the group to consolidate its business and operations.
''We refinanced more than $200 million of current debt and entered a new senior secured-term and working capital facilities arrangement with ANZ Banking Group,'' she said. ''We also restructured unsecured debt with long-term mezzanine facilities to reduce our gearing from 50 per cent to 30 per cent.''
Mr Schryver said that LLA expected continued growth this financial year. The focus remained on marketing and branding, the organic growth of each business, low-risk and high-return improvement of existing assets, and the continued strengthening of LLA's cash position to pay down debt."
Source: The Age
- Joined
- 2 February 2006
- Posts
- 14,009
- Reactions
- 2,894
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
Hi everyone on this very busy thread. If you have time there is a vote at The Bull for the best forum of 2009. If you have a moment to vote it is at: http://www.thebull.com.au/the_stockies_list.php?c=Forums
Our lead has crumbled somewhat in the last few weeks and your vote is needed in the final run in - Thank You!
Hi everyone on this very busy thread. If you have time there is a vote at The Bull for the best forum of 2009. If you have a moment to vote it is at: http://www.thebull.com.au/the_stockies_list.php?c=Forums
Our lead has crumbled somewhat in the last few weeks and your vote is needed in the final run in - Thank You!
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
Have scanned the AFR article today re Bentleys recovering $140m from Octaviar but have had no success in including the attachment. Will try again! Don't know what's the problem but will retype the article if I have to.
Have scanned the AFR article today re Bentleys recovering $140m from Octaviar but have had no success in including the attachment. Will try again! Don't know what's the problem but will retype the article if I have to.
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
Have tried again to include the Bentleys $140m article. It's still not working to include an attachment...so here goes!
Source: The Australian Financial Review 2/12/09
"BENTLEYS GETS $140M FROM OCTAVIAR
Michelle Singer
Bentleys Corporate Recovery has secured almost $140 million in funds from the collapsed Gold Coast finance group Octaviar since it took over the company's liquidation two months ago.
A group of about 15, all members of the creditors committee, met in Brisbane yesterday for an update on the investigations being carried out by Bentleys, which took over from receivers Deloitte in October.
Bentleys has told the Australian Securities and Investments Commission the company's liabilities are estimated to be about $2.24 billion, with the main reason behind the group's collapse being "poor strategic management of business".
Following yesterday's meeting, a Bentleys spokesman said the group was undertaking substantial investigation work to recover funds on behalf of the creditors with $138.2 million already recovered to date.
"Cash flow, including all costs, will have more recoveries than expenses for the foreseeable future," the spokesman said.
The Australian Taxation Office has ordered $60 million of those funds to be frozen, although it is understood that Bentleys has submitted a freedom of information request to the ATO regarding its decision.
The brief meeting is also understood to have covered the litigation under way, including ASIC's charges against the former directors and the Public Trustee of Queensland's appeal to the High Court in relation to the $19.5 million Fortress debt.
Previously, the Court of appeal had unanimously overturned the original decision, which held the Fortress security was valid.
Bentleys is understood to still be considering what to do with Octaviar's only remaining asset, a child-care business worth about $35 million, which owes about $33 million to St George Bank."
Have tried again to include the Bentleys $140m article. It's still not working to include an attachment...so here goes!
Source: The Australian Financial Review 2/12/09
"BENTLEYS GETS $140M FROM OCTAVIAR
Michelle Singer
Bentleys Corporate Recovery has secured almost $140 million in funds from the collapsed Gold Coast finance group Octaviar since it took over the company's liquidation two months ago.
A group of about 15, all members of the creditors committee, met in Brisbane yesterday for an update on the investigations being carried out by Bentleys, which took over from receivers Deloitte in October.
Bentleys has told the Australian Securities and Investments Commission the company's liabilities are estimated to be about $2.24 billion, with the main reason behind the group's collapse being "poor strategic management of business".
Following yesterday's meeting, a Bentleys spokesman said the group was undertaking substantial investigation work to recover funds on behalf of the creditors with $138.2 million already recovered to date.
"Cash flow, including all costs, will have more recoveries than expenses for the foreseeable future," the spokesman said.
The Australian Taxation Office has ordered $60 million of those funds to be frozen, although it is understood that Bentleys has submitted a freedom of information request to the ATO regarding its decision.
The brief meeting is also understood to have covered the litigation under way, including ASIC's charges against the former directors and the Public Trustee of Queensland's appeal to the High Court in relation to the $19.5 million Fortress debt.
Previously, the Court of appeal had unanimously overturned the original decision, which held the Fortress security was valid.
Bentleys is understood to still be considering what to do with Octaviar's only remaining asset, a child-care business worth about $35 million, which owes about $33 million to St George Bank."
