Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

[Cookie1]

http://www.tradingmarkets.com/news/...s-centres-attract-strong-interest-844847.html

Sunkids centres attract strong interest
Mar 14, 2010 (The Australian Financial Review - ABIX via COMTEX) --

There has been strong interest in the Sunkids child care centres held by failed financial group, Octaviar. The portfolio consists of 45 centres around Australia, either owned or leased, and 12 development sites. Real estate agent Jones Lang LaSalle received about 67 strong expressions of interest for the centres, with similar interest in the leased properties and the development sites.

Published Mar 15, 2010

 

[selciper]

Sydney Morning Herald article about aspects of ASIC. (Today.)

http://www.smh.com.au/business/time...to-the-world-of-the-living-20100314-q650.html

 

[seamisty]

ASIC frees up frozen funds

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...n-funds-pd20100316-3KPF3?OpenDocument&src=hp9

 

[seamisty]

I found the below an interesting read. Seamisty


http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=52044469-0f71-49a0-bf84-68aae650938e


From the article:
The REL case is unique in that it was brought by a company subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement. More importantly, the case:

shows that companies can make claims against former directors and seek monetary compensation for losses incurred during their directorships, if breaches of duties are established
reinforces the fact that if breaches of duties are established against company directors, the Courts can and will impose orders requiring the directors to pay indemnities or contributions towards losses incurred by companies
puts directors on notice that in addition to imposing civil penalties under the Act, the Courts can and will refer matters to ASIC and request that consideration be given to possible criminal proceedings against directors.

 

[selciper]

Scott Rochfort, SMH, fires another shot at ASIC.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/asic-action-better-late-than-never-20100315-q9ro.html

 

[seamisty]

Does this mean Phil Adams of Agilis Global Ltd in Dubai is no longer a registered business?




Public Register - Firm



Agilis Global Limited
Firm Details | Individuals


Legal Status: DIFC Company
DFSA Reference Number: F000918
Address: DIFC, Gate Village Building 1,Unit 3, Level 1, PO Box 506704, Dubai, UAE
Telephone Number: 971 4 323 1377
Fax Number: 971 4 323 1344
Date of Licence: 24 July 2008
Financial Services: Arranging Credit or Deals in Investments
Investments: Credit Facilities, Shares, Debentures, Warrants, Certificates, Options, Units, Futures, Rights or Interests, Designated Investments
Financial Services: Advising on Financial Products or Credit
Investments: Credit Facilities, Shares, Debentures, Warrants, Certificates, Options, Units, Futures, Rights or Interests, Designated Investments
Conditions: none
Restrictions: none
Islamic Financial Business Endorsement:
Date of Withdrawal: 18 January 2010




Perhaps Mr Adams is preparing to return to Australia for some forth coming court appearances?


Seamisty

 

[Duped]

Perhaps Mr Adams is preparing to return to Australia for some forth coming court appearances?

It could mean anything. According to the FCA decision this week the MFS/Octaviar group had in the order of 400 companies.

RE ASIC. Feels like it acts a bit like a janitor. Tidies up after everybody has picked up what they want/can and has gone home. Australian Securities and Investment Cleaners

I shouldn't be too harsh. ASIC are going up against the mighty army of corporate lawyers backed by the might of the Australian corporate sector. 1700 odd ASIC staff v tens (?) of thousands of corporate lawyers.

 

[Blueboy1]

The truth about frozen funds

"Money Management"
15 March 2010 | by Dominic McCormick

Too Long to post, here's the link:-
http://www.moneymanagement.com.au/article/The-truth-about-frozen-funds

Regards,Blueboy1

 

[Blueboy1]

Sorry!
The link did not transcribe properly here it is again:-
www.moneymanagement.com.au/article/The-truth-about-frozen-funds

Blueboy1

 

[Blueboy1]

And again!
www.moneymanagement .com.au/article/The-truth-about-frozen-funds

 

[marcom]

Blueboy 1 here is a working link to this very interesting article :
http://www.moneymanagement.com.au/Article/The-truth-about-frozen-funds/513358.aspx

Some pertinent quotes:

"In the meantime, managers continue to collect full fees on these assets, in some cases on net asset valuations that are somewhat questionable. After all, if they were forced to provide immediate liquidity and sell assets, the valuations and fees are likely be lower. But even if this is not the case, there is a legitimate question as to whether investors should be paying the same level of fees they were when the fund had daily liquidity. While it is true that the small print always allowed the fund manager to suspend redemptions, most investors are today paying fees on something very different (and inferior) to what they thought (and were told) they were initially investing in...

Why has there been so little pressure for solutions for these ‘frozen funds’? Is it still the ongoing shock of the GFC that allowed fund managers to get away with actions not tolerated in ‘normal’ times? Is it just blind hope that things will return to ‘normal’ even though we now know things were anything but normal in 2006-07. Once again, conflicts across our industry appear to be impeding greater scrutiny of this issue by the media, research houses, financial planners and even the industry bodies.

No wonder the reputation of this industry has been so badly hurt by the GFC.


It needs to be accepted that in many cases investor losses that have been or will be made on the current crop of ‘frozen funds’ will never be recouped. Coming up with liquidity solutions for investors will in most cases involve a loss of funds under management and fees for the industry. Some of these solutions will still take years. But investors need clarity about solutions, and this will go some way to addressing the level of distrust that this aspect of the GFC has generated. It is investors’ money. The past isn’t coming back. The industry has to find solutions now that work for investors, not themselves."


It is not surprising that this Financial Advisor focused article fails to mention the best way for investors to recoup losses is to sue the pants off Directors/Officers/AND Advisors! And as far as lost commissions go - keep on dreaming all you income starved advisors!

 

[Duped]

NSX Listing Rule 6.10 (http://www.nsxa.com.au/documents/listing_rules/NSXLR2004.pdf)

"CHAPTER 6: ISSUER’S CONTINUING OBLIGATIONS

INTERIM REPORTS AND PRELIMINARY ANNOUNCEMENTS

Six-monthly reports

6.10 No later than 75 days after the end of the half year accounting period the issuer must send an electronic copy of its six monthly accounts containing at least the information specified in Appendix 3 and any half yearly financial statements it is required to give to the ASIC under the Corporations Act or provide to the equivalent regulatory authority under the law of the place in which the issuer is incorporated, and to the Exchange, for dissemination by the Exchange as soon as these are available."

Today is day 75 by my calculations. Am I wrong? Why am I counting? Am I a masochist?

 

[Duped]

... "No wonder the reputation of this industry has been so badly hurt by the GFC." ...

It is not surprising that this Financial Advisor focused article fails to mention the best way for investors to recoup losses is to sue the pants off Directors/Officers/AND Advisors! And as far as lost commissions go - keep on dreaming all you income starved advisors!

Too true marcom. Using the expression "so badly hurt" seems to demonstrate the author's bias for the industry. Far too generous IMLO.

'When the tide goes out, we see who isn't wearing swimmers'.

The industry's reputation (as a whole) hasn't been hurt, it has (as a whole) been exposed for what it is.

Right along side used car sales and real estate sales. Yes you get good ones but ...

Maybe we'll see the days again of door to door sales of Kirby vacuum cleaners.

 

[Cookie1]

PIF Half Yearly Report posted on the NSX

http://www.nsxa.com.au/announcements_list.asp?nsxcode=PIN

I haven't read through it yet; am looking for a new unit value but a cursory look didn't show it. Perhaps I just missed it; will print it out and have another look.

 

[JohnH]

I wouldn't read it if you want a decent nights sleep tonight!

Interesting that amongst Price Waterhouse disclaimers is included " Our review did not involve an analysis of the prudence of business decisions made by directors or management."

 

[JohnH]

PIF Half Yearly Report posted on the NSX

http://www.nsxa.com.au/announcements_list.asp?nsxcode=PIN

I haven't read through it yet; am looking for a new unit value but a cursory look didn't show it. Perhaps I just missed it; will print it out and have another look.

As far as I can make out Cookie it's 35.11 cents. i.e. 270.145M/755.111M

However, I would assume that the assets include the Octavier stuff.

 

[Cookie1]

I wouldn't read it if you want a decent nights sleep tonight!

Interesting that amongst Price Waterhouse disclaimers is included " Our review did not involve an analysis of the prudence of business decisions made by directors or management."

Don't worry, John; I'm not about to read it before going to bed tonight! I don't want another sleepless night!

Cheers, Cookie1

 

[Cookie1]

As far as I can make out Cookie it's 35.11 cents. i.e. 270.145M/755.111M

However, I would assume that the assets include the Octavier stuff.

Thanks, John.

Cheers, Cookie1

 

[breaker1]

Yes! Your right!

WC has managed to oversee another $35M loss bringing our new net asset value to $265M [originally $755M]

Our unit value is now @ 35c down approx 4.5c from 39c.....that is a total loss of 10c during Wellingtons management which initially claimed the fund value @ 45c in October 2008

I said in my post a couple of pages back that a conservative figure may be
35c and not 39c. Who expected the bad news? I know I did!

 

[Duped]

My lay analysis.

Unit value is 35c. See 20.1 'Net tangible asset backing per ordinary security' on page 15 of the PDF. At 30 June 09 it was 39.2c. A drop of 4.2c.

Unit value change is given at 1.10 and 1.11. A drop of 2.06 + 2.06 = 4.12 cents. Is that right?

Calculated from the $35 mil loss for the 1/2 year. Shouldn't that be a drop of 4.6c (755.033 million units according to item 14.32) Doesn't really matter tho.

The $35 mil loss includes:

$3 mil in increased liabilities. See Item 3.8 'Trade and Other Payables'. Most of it is GST. See Note 10 on page 33. How is it that we've racked up a GST liability of $3.845mil? I.e. $3.7 mil in the last 6 months. Does that come off the sale price of OceanViewCityBeach Wollongong?

$18.7 mil losses on the Mortgage Loan (See page 33). I.e. despite all the massive impairments to date we still took a massive $18.7 mil hit when assets were realised. Most of that loss, I'm guessing, is from the sale of OceanViewCityBeachWollongong. Accounts say a lot without saying much.

$4.3 mil further write downs of the Mortgage Loans. Which ones I wonder.

$6.6 mil loss on 'Other Financial Assets'
plus
$6.3 mil further impairment of the 'Other Financial Assets' (Why is it $6.313m 'Impairment of loans and other financial assets' at 6.8 but it's $6.252m 'Impairment of other financial assets' at 7.1 and at page 25?)
Again, more losses despite all the massive writedowns to date. Surely WCL hasn't kept any of the Octaviar related assets on our books? Surely not.

How much further can we stretch these 'fair valuation' disclaimers? For how long too? Far enough to still cover the Raptis loans including the $20 odd mil 2nd mortgage on the Sheraton. Long enough until WCL starts getting paid?