Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF
- Thread starter breaker1
- Start date
- Joined
- 22 May 2008
- Posts
- 758
- Reactions
- 0
"An ASIC barrister, Doran Cook, cross-examined a Modena director, Peter Trad, who gave evidence about valuable assets which Justice Palmer said appeared to be unknown to the liquidator, Greg Hall of PricewaterhouseCoopers."
Is that the same PWC that audited PIF's 35c valuation?
Or .... what's the deal with corporate recovery in Australia?
:iamwithst :1zhelp: :nuts: :shake: :screwy: :bonk:
We have over 500,000 units in the PIF and wondering what I should now,
since reading what has transpired lately.
Senario 1:- If the Fund is going to be taken over by someone else.
(like ALF)
Sell all our units now, which are at 8c and lose thousands of dollars.
Senario 2:- If the Fund is raided by PTQ or other developers, etc., via legal
cases.
Sell all our units now, which are at 8c and lose thousands of dollars.
So, you see I want to know, do we sell now?
Is the Fund a sitting duck, that can be raided? And no money left in the fund?
Is WC under pressure now, to do something, like pay some money back?
We are totally confused now on what we should do. Do we keep waiting or
sell?
Please Seamisty or Breaker1, can you help urgently.
since reading what has transpired lately.
Senario 1:- If the Fund is going to be taken over by someone else.
(like ALF)
Sell all our units now, which are at 8c and lose thousands of dollars.
Senario 2:- If the Fund is raided by PTQ or other developers, etc., via legal
cases.
Sell all our units now, which are at 8c and lose thousands of dollars.
So, you see I want to know, do we sell now?
Is the Fund a sitting duck, that can be raided? And no money left in the fund?
Is WC under pressure now, to do something, like pay some money back?
We are totally confused now on what we should do. Do we keep waiting or
sell?
Please Seamisty or Breaker1, can you help urgently.
Lawry
I sympathize with your predicament. As you will no doubt be aware a great many investors are in the same situation .
However, it is not possible ,or even fair to expect any one individual to give financial advice to another investor, on what to do with their investment in the current circumstances .
That is why we have paid Financial Advisors ( ask Duped)
Perhaps you should contact ASIC to find out if the people behind this offer are trustworthy.
I sympathize with your predicament. As you will no doubt be aware a great many investors are in the same situation .
However, it is not possible ,or even fair to expect any one individual to give financial advice to another investor, on what to do with their investment in the current circumstances .
That is why we have paid Financial Advisors ( ask Duped)
Perhaps you should contact ASIC to find out if the people behind this offer are trustworthy.
Good advice Jadel. It is indeed fortunate that the tongue is the fastest bodily organ to heal!!!!
PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF and now Equititrust
MFS and Equititrust link:
just saw this in the paper about David ANDERSON an ex MFS exec who with David Kennedy - also an ex MFS exec - now run Equititrust Ltd - a holder of $300million of public funds, in a similiar structure to what MFS was..... is this someone we want minding our money - we might get offerred a dollar as well:-
MFS directors made 'dollar deals' KATE LAHEY
June 16, 2010
.MORE than a year after investment group MFS collapsed with $1 billion in inter-company loans and owing creditors $2.5 billion, directors were still making deals through its entities, in one case giving away a third of a company to one of the men for nothing, a court has heard.
As examinations by liquidator Kate Barnet resumed in the New South Wales Supreme Court yesterday, two former directors were questioned about the sale of one particular company, MFS Alternative Asset Ltd (AAL) last year.
BusinessDay has previously revealed that AAL now has a stake in a company, Aurora, which is preparing to float. The sole director and a shareholder of AAL today is former MFS chief financial officer David Anderson.
In June last year, Mr Anderson asked two directors of McLaughlin Financial Services (an original MFS entity) to sell its 33 per cent stake in AAL to Mr Anderson's own company, Management Finance Pty Ltd, for $1. His company would then bill AAL a $1 administration fee, the court heard.
MFS and Equititrust link:
just saw this in the paper about David ANDERSON an ex MFS exec who with David Kennedy - also an ex MFS exec - now run Equititrust Ltd - a holder of $300million of public funds, in a similiar structure to what MFS was..... is this someone we want minding our money - we might get offerred a dollar as well:-
MFS directors made 'dollar deals' KATE LAHEY
June 16, 2010
.MORE than a year after investment group MFS collapsed with $1 billion in inter-company loans and owing creditors $2.5 billion, directors were still making deals through its entities, in one case giving away a third of a company to one of the men for nothing, a court has heard.
As examinations by liquidator Kate Barnet resumed in the New South Wales Supreme Court yesterday, two former directors were questioned about the sale of one particular company, MFS Alternative Asset Ltd (AAL) last year.
BusinessDay has previously revealed that AAL now has a stake in a company, Aurora, which is preparing to float. The sole director and a shareholder of AAL today is former MFS chief financial officer David Anderson.
In June last year, Mr Anderson asked two directors of McLaughlin Financial Services (an original MFS entity) to sell its 33 per cent stake in AAL to Mr Anderson's own company, Management Finance Pty Ltd, for $1. His company would then bill AAL a $1 administration fee, the court heard.
I have analysed the ALF takeover offer bid.
Essentially the main points of interest are:-
1. ALF PIF Fund(the one taking over) will be an Unlisted company on the ASX.
2. You will get 2 types of ALF shares. Preference shares and Ordinary shares.
2.1. You will receive 0.1 Preference unit shares for eack PIF unit. (eg if you have 100,000 PIF units, then you get 10,000 Preference ALF Shares)
2.1.1 ALF PIF will then buy these Preference shares back from you at $1.50 a Preference share (eg on 10,000 Preference ALF Shares, you get $15,000 cash)
2.1.2 But the catch is that ALF PIF will have 2 years to pay up.
2.2 You will receive 0.05 Ordinary unit shares for each PIF unit (eg if you have 100,000 PIF units, then you get 5,000 Ordinary ALF Shares)
3. So in summary, from the 100,000 current PIF units, you will maybe get $15,000 cash within 2 years, and 5,000 Ordinary ALF Shares(which will be under $1.00 value).
That adds up to approximately $18,000, if you are lucky.
4. The only saviour with this offer, is that you will be within the ASX confines(not NSX as is now). ALF reckon they will list on the ASX eventually?
I personally think the ASX is more viable than the NSX, as the NSX has far less interest, and so hard to sell units quickly.
The final thing unit holders have to way up, is whether to stay with Wellington PIF, and receive nothing for the next few years, unless you sell on the NSX(at a unit value of 8cents).
If you sell on the NSX 100,000 units at 8cents, you get $8,000 cash. Cannot see the 3cent distribution happenning, unless the ALF offer sparks WC into action. But they will probably borrow money from somewhere to do it, and thus the PIF is more debt.
Not sure whether the ASIC or Class Action will give back any money at all. If so, not much? Can someone enlighten me, on the what 100,000 PIF units(original from 2008), will get back from the ASIC or Class Action?
Surely someone should give us answers to this basic question.
We need a ball park figure at least.
Essentially the main points of interest are:-
1. ALF PIF Fund(the one taking over) will be an Unlisted company on the ASX.
2. You will get 2 types of ALF shares. Preference shares and Ordinary shares.
2.1. You will receive 0.1 Preference unit shares for eack PIF unit. (eg if you have 100,000 PIF units, then you get 10,000 Preference ALF Shares)
2.1.1 ALF PIF will then buy these Preference shares back from you at $1.50 a Preference share (eg on 10,000 Preference ALF Shares, you get $15,000 cash)
2.1.2 But the catch is that ALF PIF will have 2 years to pay up.
2.2 You will receive 0.05 Ordinary unit shares for each PIF unit (eg if you have 100,000 PIF units, then you get 5,000 Ordinary ALF Shares)
3. So in summary, from the 100,000 current PIF units, you will maybe get $15,000 cash within 2 years, and 5,000 Ordinary ALF Shares(which will be under $1.00 value).
That adds up to approximately $18,000, if you are lucky.
4. The only saviour with this offer, is that you will be within the ASX confines(not NSX as is now). ALF reckon they will list on the ASX eventually?
I personally think the ASX is more viable than the NSX, as the NSX has far less interest, and so hard to sell units quickly.
The final thing unit holders have to way up, is whether to stay with Wellington PIF, and receive nothing for the next few years, unless you sell on the NSX(at a unit value of 8cents).
If you sell on the NSX 100,000 units at 8cents, you get $8,000 cash. Cannot see the 3cent distribution happenning, unless the ALF offer sparks WC into action. But they will probably borrow money from somewhere to do it, and thus the PIF is more debt.
Not sure whether the ASIC or Class Action will give back any money at all. If so, not much? Can someone enlighten me, on the what 100,000 PIF units(original from 2008), will get back from the ASIC or Class Action?
Surely someone should give us answers to this basic question.
We need a ball park figure at least.
Article on July 9 2010 from NZ
http://www.economicmanagementexperts.com/archives/876
Excerpts from article; see full article in the link above.
"The Fall of MFS
July 9th, 2010
Amongst the numerous investment funds and financial institutions falling victim to the global credit crunch, one that surely need not and should not have succumbed was New Zealand-based MFS Pacific Finance Limited."
"Lessons
Unfortunately MFS Pacific Finance is beyond rescue as an operating unit in its original form and its passing is a genuine loss to the New Zealand finance company sector. In addition to offering investors currency diversification, MFS Pacific carried the potential to set a new benchmark of financial support for finance company borrowings through the “Put Option”. To date no other parent/subsidiary relationship of companies listed on the New Zealand Debentures Exchange has instigated a similar enforceable guarantee. Perhaps the new “Global Credit Crunch” reality will empower investors to demand just that.
In addition, as more intricate trading mechanisms such as margin trading, stock borrowing and short selling evolve, it becomes clear that disclosure of such potentially dangerous practices must become a mandatory requirement imposed by stock exchanges or legislation if markets are to be open and informed. Private investors have quite enough risks to contend with, without the secret avarice of their own company’s directors and executives exposing them to even more.
But while the mandatory objective may prove an optimistic goal in the short term, ordinary shareholders and fixed interest investors alike can take their own action immediately, wasting no time in sending the “totally unacceptable” message loud and clear to directors and executives where margin trading is concerned."
http://www.economicmanagementexperts.com/archives/876
Excerpts from article; see full article in the link above.
"The Fall of MFS
July 9th, 2010
Amongst the numerous investment funds and financial institutions falling victim to the global credit crunch, one that surely need not and should not have succumbed was New Zealand-based MFS Pacific Finance Limited."
"Lessons
Unfortunately MFS Pacific Finance is beyond rescue as an operating unit in its original form and its passing is a genuine loss to the New Zealand finance company sector. In addition to offering investors currency diversification, MFS Pacific carried the potential to set a new benchmark of financial support for finance company borrowings through the “Put Option”. To date no other parent/subsidiary relationship of companies listed on the New Zealand Debentures Exchange has instigated a similar enforceable guarantee. Perhaps the new “Global Credit Crunch” reality will empower investors to demand just that.
In addition, as more intricate trading mechanisms such as margin trading, stock borrowing and short selling evolve, it becomes clear that disclosure of such potentially dangerous practices must become a mandatory requirement imposed by stock exchanges or legislation if markets are to be open and informed. Private investors have quite enough risks to contend with, without the secret avarice of their own company’s directors and executives exposing them to even more.
But while the mandatory objective may prove an optimistic goal in the short term, ordinary shareholders and fixed interest investors alike can take their own action immediately, wasting no time in sending the “totally unacceptable” message loud and clear to directors and executives where margin trading is concerned."
- Joined
- 4 May 2008
- Posts
- 288
- Reactions
- 0
Has anybody NOT received Wellington Capitals "Target's Statement" yet in the mail (with the red/balck cover page & 31 pages long)?
Has anybody received the ALF Offer Statement yet in the mail?
thanks
Has anybody received the ALF Offer Statement yet in the mail?
thanks
- Joined
- 5 June 2008
- Posts
- 105
- Reactions
- 0
There's quite a juicy article by Dean Paatch in The Age, page 7 this am. Too big to transfer here.... but a good read.
- Joined
- 5 June 2008
- Posts
- 105
- Reactions
- 0
Sorry...it's on holding company directors and investment professionals accountable.
- Joined
- 11 January 2010
- Posts
- 16
- Reactions
- 0
Breaker, I have not received the ALF offer in the mail yet, but have received the emial from PIF action Group.
Seamisty, where are you, what are we going to do?
Seamisty, where are you, what are we going to do?
- Joined
- 11 January 2010
- Posts
- 16
- Reactions
- 0
Lawry1dog, thanks for your analysis. I agree with you, surely someone should be able to give us some advice!!!!!
I think Jadel's advice - "Perhaps you should contact ASIC to find out if the people behind this offer are trustworthy." is very relevant.
Better the devil we know.................. etc., etc.,
I'm still here!!! I personally will not be taking up the ALF PIF offer, talk about 'out of the frying pan into the fire'!!!!
I called ASIC on Friday as I am frustrated at their apparent lack of response to several PIF related issues I have raised with them and was assured that they (ASIC) are not 'sitting idly by', in fact I just now received another call from ASIC while typing this, they apologise for not responding earlier, but they are closely monitoring all aspects/issues I have previously raised and they will hopefully respond/answer soon. (I won't get too excited, I hope it is not an intended fob me off, shut me up and hope I go away tactic!)
Some of the issues are::
(sent to ASIC 12/11/2009)
In the event that ASIC is successful in recovering monetary compensation on behalf of Premium Income Investors behalf where will that money be channelled?
1. will it be paid to Wellington Capital as the current Responsible Entity of PIF
2. held by the Court in escrow for determination
3. ordered by the Court for prorata distribution to members
Apart from the concerns as to the increasing lack of confidence in our current RE to do anything other than sell PIF assets and absorb the proceeds in operating expenses, there are many who have been forced to sell their units for far less than the original cost.
There is concern that if any compensation is directed back to the current RE to be reinvested in the PIF that those investors who have had to sell will be financially penalised and the benefit will be given to those who bought units at a heavily discounted price.
I have raised many other issues, including pending litigation not being disclosed etc, and was assured on the 11/5/2010 that ASIC would 'respond shortly'.
Is it any wonder ASIC has such a poor reputation and not highly regarded?
While I recognise that our situation is extremely complex and that outcomes from current proceedings may need to be concluded before some decisions are made, it does not alter the fact that ASIC could have offered/answered some of my issues I raised. I was also told on Friday that every PIF investor had the right to 'contact ASIC' in relation to Fund related queries. ( after previously being discouraged from sending in any more complaints
)WE KNOW THAT!!! It's answers we need!!So please, if you have questions for ASIC, contact them, as regulators it is their role to offer advice and I would hate them to think all PIF investors are satisfied with:
1. Current management
2. Proposed takeover bid
3. ASIC's role to date
Thanks Breaker for an excellent Action Group update, apparently there may be a problem with links not opening, hopefully this will be rectified?
Seamisty
f the ALF offer is rejected, WC would be very silly to interpret such a result as a vote of confidence in WC! Personally, I am fed up with WC's handling of our multifarious problems. A reading of Breaker's latest newsletter demonstrates just how obscure WC's replies to important investor questions can be - that is, if they deign to reply. Anyway, it was good to read that the CA is moving ahead.
And thanks, Seamisty for your great efforts.
And thanks, Seamisty for your great efforts.
An interesting read, I am sure there are many in need of a refresher course!!
http://www.moneymanagement.com.au/article/The-financial-services-commandments/520145.aspx
'If you are a trustee and responsible entity of a registered managed investment scheme, you probably don’t doubt that you should (among other things) act honestly, exercise the degree of care and diligence that a reasonable person would exercise if they were in your position, and act in the best interests of the members above your own interests. These obligations are enshrined in section 601FC of the Act'
'Below is an amalgam of some of the obligations set out in sections 912A and 47 that licensees must adhere to. It would pay to ask yourself, on an ongoing basis, whether your business:
Is providing its financial services honestly and fairly?
Has adequate resources to provide its services?
Is maintaining the competence of its responsible managers, as well as its other representatives, to provide its services? Is everyone adequately trained to provide these services?
Is well placed to deal with unsatisfied clients? And, given a worst-case scenario, does it have the resources and arrangements in place to compensate consumers found to have been negatively impacted by its operations?
Has arrangements to identify and manage conflicts of interest? Are these arrangements adequate?
Has systems for managing risk? Are they adequate?
Complies with the conditions of its AFSL and the financial services legislation that impacts it? Does it take reasonable steps to ensure that its representatives do the same?'
http://www.moneymanagement.com.au/article/The-financial-services-commandments/520145.aspx
'If you are a trustee and responsible entity of a registered managed investment scheme, you probably don’t doubt that you should (among other things) act honestly, exercise the degree of care and diligence that a reasonable person would exercise if they were in your position, and act in the best interests of the members above your own interests. These obligations are enshrined in section 601FC of the Act'
'Below is an amalgam of some of the obligations set out in sections 912A and 47 that licensees must adhere to. It would pay to ask yourself, on an ongoing basis, whether your business:
Is providing its financial services honestly and fairly?
Has adequate resources to provide its services?
Is maintaining the competence of its responsible managers, as well as its other representatives, to provide its services? Is everyone adequately trained to provide these services?
Is well placed to deal with unsatisfied clients? And, given a worst-case scenario, does it have the resources and arrangements in place to compensate consumers found to have been negatively impacted by its operations?
Has arrangements to identify and manage conflicts of interest? Are these arrangements adequate?
Has systems for managing risk? Are they adequate?
Complies with the conditions of its AFSL and the financial services legislation that impacts it? Does it take reasonable steps to ensure that its representatives do the same?'
- Joined
- 22 May 2008
- Posts
- 758
- Reactions
- 0
I agree selciper. I suspect WC won't interpet the results as such. But a separate question is: will WC use it as spin?
- Joined
- 4 May 2008
- Posts
- 288
- Reactions
- 0
Will fix - thanks
