- Joined
- 4 May 2008
- Posts
- 288
- Reactions
- 0
My lay analysis.
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.
Thanks Duped for the breakdown of losses. It just seems grotesque after all those initial promises made by WC. At this rate there'll be nothing left in a few years time. I sense that the situation is becoming dire.
Interesting that 'Trade & Other Payables" went from $2m (2008) to $5m (2009). I guess that's legal fees and W.C.'s expenses going up by millions. ...
NO NEWS IS …
CBD Sydney Morning Herald
SCOTT ROCHFORT
March 18, 2010
It seems the managers of some mortgage funds are wary of burdening their unit holders with any bad news.
The firm that took control of MFS's former Premium Income Fund in 2008, the Jenny Hutson-headed Wellington Capital, has released the fund's latest set of accounts with little fanfare.
Just in case you missed the results, which were disclosed to the Newcastle Stock Exchange at 8.39pm on Tuesday night: the fund reported a $35 million loss for the six months to December 31.
The fund has now written down its assets to about $270 million, compared with the almost $900 million it valued its assets before the implosion of its former manager, MFS.
Thanks Duped for the breakdown of losses. It just seems grotesque after all those initial promises made by WC. At this rate there'll be nothing left in a few years time. I sense that the situation is becoming dire.
Duped; #5359 said: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?
simgrund.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I can't understand why Octaviar liabilities to PIF have to be be written off; before realization of all assets? Were they "officially" disowned by WC PIF? -
I was careless with my terminology. Write downs should read 'impairments'. The assets are on the books. Minimising impairments doesn't seem to have helped the share price. The larger the impairments - the less WC gets paid. So at present it seems the bigger (read: more realistic) the impairments the better it is for us investors. IMLO
I'm guessing that realisation of losses of some of OCV liabilities to PIF is out of WC's hands. It's in the hands of the Administrator (Deloitte) or Liquidator (Bentley).
Tho I expect WC should be seeking to influence those decisions on PIF's behalf and in PIF's favour.
Hi mellifuous. See my post #5359. $3.7 mil increase in GST liabilities in the last 6 months. (Note 10 on page 33.) I.e. non GST payables went down. But that doesn't necessarily mean that service providers haven't agreed to delay invoicing. Time will tell. QUOTE]
Thanks Duped.
I'm still lost on the issue of the transfer from 'liability' to 'equity'.
Liability - a debt - that is, the fund owes investors money.
equity - an investment - that is, provision of capital.
I'm probably wrong, but I think that every investor in the PIF has already suffered a massive capital loss.
I make this guess based on the fact that each of you settled your debt (that is, your respective total units * $1.00) and then invested in the fund.
Page 26, Mid-term report PIF
"... EQUITY
Contributed equity (note) 4 (2009) 334,340 (2008) 334,340 ..."
As I understand it, you put in Total Number of Units * $1.00 = Initial investment (fund debt due and payable to investors), and then settled that debt when you invested in the fund with equity of $334,340,000. To my mind, the difference has been now written off.
If one invests in a fund and the unit price goes down, then that is not a loss - but when the unit is redeemed, then the capital loss is incurred. I think that the listing was an effective redemption by every investors of all of each investor's respective units which incurred an immediate capital loss.
Then, that residual was invested as capital back to the fund.
So, you've all redeemed all of your investments, and then you reinvested the residual.
If I'm right, then if anyone is intending to offset that capital loss with a capital gain, time has been ticking since the listing. I'd be pleased if I'm wrong.
Any comments?
Page 30, Mid-term report PIF
"... NOTE 4. NET ASSETS ATTRIBUTABLE TO UNIT HOLDERS
As stipulated within the Fund Constitution, each unit represents a right to an individual share in the Fund and does not extend to a right to the underlying assets of the Fund. There are no separate classes of units and each unit has the same rights attaching to it as all other units of the Fund. ..." (emphasis added)
This is why I wonder how W.C. is going to pay investors - no investor has any rights which "extent to the underlying assets of the fund", that is, when liquided, CASH.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?