Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

[LTD]

Hi Marcom,

2.
I got sidetracked the other day and found myself reading a Deloittes creditors report which included an estimate of only $9 to 79mil ? being possibly recoverable if preferntials were found... but directors would be
' OK 'as acting under advise.. That last point has been discovered in legal links about corporations, hasnt it?
I have taken this info out of context and it was written a while ago...excuse excuse...ie DYOR. and please dont rely on my ltd knowledge.

Thanks Duped,
I had better clarify that the above remarks made by me would relate to Octaviar and there are many types of OCV now....
That recoverable estimate probably has nothing to do with PIF..
I could find the link again if you need it?
I keep thinking as a shareholder, actually should be a creditholder and I'm talking to unit holders...Its taking years but slowly I am catching on.

I am coming from a shareholders perspective and if your reading as a unit holder ...it gets confusing. Sorry guys...I am interested in your situation but dont fully appreciate it.

Good Luck.

 

[charles36]

CHARLES36.

Marcom, enjoy your posts. I prefer to believe JH thought she could make a dollar out of the fund, because she hasn't received a fee she certainly has not starved. Plenty of expenses. Also "arms length deals" it will be interesting to wait and see for the next episode in this long running saga. Interesting times ahead for sure. Marry Christmas to all. I have a funny feeling we will have a better Christmas next year. Charles36.

 

[selciper]

It was pleasing to receive the latest AG update. It's always reassuring to know that the group is as active behind the scenes as ever and doing all they can to advance our interests. And membership numbers are still growing.

 

[seamisty]

ASIC copping more media bashing for being seen as next to useless. Whats the use of having 'power' if takes years to make a half aRssed attempt to deploy the so called 'power' if at all? No wonder few if any have a good word to say about them!! I am surprised they have not been referred to as a 'pawless pussy' rather than 'toothless tiger'!! Seamisty

http://www.smh.com.au/money/super-and-funds/power-to-act-20101207-18ngn.html

Power to act

The chairman of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), Tony D'Aloisio, has come out in defence of the regulator for failing to move earlier against those who it believes have engaged in wrongdoing.

Addressing a meeting in Sydney last week, D'Aloisio said the ultimate risk for the success or failure of an investment was a matter for the market. He said it was up to investors to assess the risk being taken and the reward on offer and to diversify their investments.

''This system and approach was well understood by institutional investors but [less so] by retail investors,'' D'Aloisio was reported as saying. ''As a result, some retail investors have been disappointed at ASIC's performance.''

Advertisement: Story continues below D'Aloisio maintains that at the heart of such disappointment is ''an expectation gap in risk taking''.

ASIC has come in for criticism over its handling of the mess created by the collapse of Storm Financial, a financial planning firm, in late 2008.

The firm's strategy was to double gear its clients into the sharemarket - once, by advising the clients to borrow against their house and then again, by putting those borrowed funds into a margin loan. Though the advice was always very risky and goes against the most basic principles of sound financial advice, the clients loved it because they made loads of money when the sharemarket was booming.

D'Aloisio says that Storm investors would not have reacted well to ASIC trying to close down Storm at a time when they were making such good money. He also argues that ASIC did not have the power to close down Storm.

But ASIC has plenty of powers to deal with poor financial advice. Despite ample opportunities over the years, the regulator has never tried to test the extent of its powers when it comes to shoddy financial advice.

ASIC can act under Section 945A of the Corporations Act. That is the part of the law that requires a planner to have a ''reasonable basis'' for the advice but the Act does not say what constitutes ''a reasonable basis for advice''.

You would think that Storm Financial's model of recommending that retirees use their life savings to gear into the sharemarket with their houses on the line would fall well short of the mark.

But the regulator has never run a test case before the courts to flesh out what this really means. Maybe Storm did not need to be closed down but rather forced to reduce the risks that its clients were taking, perhaps with the threat of substantial financial penalties.

Rather than trying to clarify the law, the regulator's preferred tool is the ''enforceable undertaking''. This is a legally enforceable contract where the naughty firm admits to no wrongdoing and crosses its heart and promises to do the right thing in the future. This also usually involves immediate restitution of some of the financial losses suffered by consumers.

Until the regulator tests the extent of its powers in the courts and seeks substantial fines against wrongdoers, it is hard to see how the regulator can be taken seriously by those intent on doing the wrong thing.

 

[seamisty]

I just thought I would post this on the forum to expell any existing guilt to PIF unitholders who are still questioning why they voted for Jenny Hutson of Wellington Capital investment management to be the Responsible Entity for our not so Premium Income Fund. We were expecting::

The responsible entity proposes three separate resolutions. Each resolution
is independent. If all three resolutions are approved:
The Fund will remain a going concern and Units in the Fund will be
able to be traded on the NSX;
Up to 37.75 million units in the Fund will be redeemed by the Fund
at 45 cents per unit by 18 September 2009;
Wellington Capital Limited will be the new responsible entity of the
Fund; and
Cash payments totalling 3 cents per Unit will be made to
Unitholders by 24 December 2008 and quarterly thereafter, with the
first payment to be made in October 2008.


HELLO JENNY!! WHERE ARE YOU???? It is Dec 2010 and we have not long received our first 1 cent return of capital and no quarterly payments EVER!!! No buyback and the NSX listing a pathetic failure!! Your proposed resolutions were a total non event and it is blatantly obvious Wellington Capital have FAILED miserably!! To add insult to the fact that the WC mouth was bigger than its anticipated capabilities (extremely well paid for in advance approved by previous associated business colleagues), we are deliberately being kept in the dark ( like dutiful mushrooms) while WC continue to rack up legal expenses (among other costs) to our detriment! Cough up or cop out!!

Seamisty

 

[marcom]

City Pacific and Storm in the news:City Beat:

Phil lives the high life
* James McCullough From: The Courier-Mail December 08, 2010 11:00PM
http://www.couriermail.com.au/busin.../story-e6freqmx-1225967850763?from=public_rss

THE founder and former chief executive of failed Gold Coast financier City Pacific is doing quite nicely for himself, thank you.

Phil Sullivan, a former bankrupt, still has a waterfront mansion at Broadbeach Waters and two Mercedes- Benz cars parked in the garage. Records show he serves as a director of two new entities, DCG Development Capital and DCG Development Capital No. 2. Sullivan resigned as CEO of City Pacific in November 2008, eight months before the company collapsed.

Meanwhile, more than 10,000 mostly elderly investors in a $1 billion mortgage fund once run by City Pacific and now by Balmain Trilogy have seen it lose more than half its value. They have also had huge trouble accessing their money with the fund frozen since 2008...

*STORM FRONT

IF anyone was under any illusion who the real winners from the Storm Financial debacle were, they could do worse than flick through the boxes of court documents working their way through the legal system.

As Storm moves into its third year, lawyers are coming up with more and more inventive ways to stall the process, including this little gem from Bank of Queensland's lawyers.

Responding to the seemingly innocuous claim that sharemarket values began to fall about mid-2007, the bank's lawyers refused to admit this was the case, because the defendants – of which one is a bank – "are uncertain as to its truth or falsity".

In the hope of expediting the legal case, City Beat has helpfully crunched the numbers: the All Ordinaries fell from 6456 points to 5670 points in July 2007. It then recovered before falling again in October to its nadir of 3111 points in March 2009.

 

[LTD]

.................in part

But meanwhile ASIC, the good cop, is luring us to drop our guard and herding us to its AFSL pushers.

It reminds me of that scene in The Dish were Kevin Harrington's character is talking to Sam Neill's character:
You remember that night at my place,
trying to sort out the contract with that fella from NASA?
"What about this? What about that?"
Two hours, and you finally speak.
"Gentlemen, this should be the contract.
"We agree to support the 'Apollo 1 1 ' mission."
That was it - one sentence. They couldn't believe it.
It was a wonderful moment.

.......continues

Thanks Duped..
I liked your post above...
Are you sycic or am I having another jump to conclusion moment?

I read that Apollo was in the hunt for Golden Tulip but didnt make it.
This was of interest to me...but possibly not interesting for PIN.
Remember HFA was bourne? from MFS or at least MFS had a stake at one time...

http://www.finalternatives.com/node/14805

I think everything is worth following...not that I understand much about these fund of fund things..
PS.
I dont mind being wrong.

 

[glendaw101]

Hi Seamisty

I like your attitude. Can I have yor permission to quote this in an email to Wellington. In fact if all unitholders bombarded Wellington with this sort of email Jenny may start to question her arrogance.

Cheers Glen

The responsible entity proposes three separate resolutions. Each resolution
is independent. If all three resolutions are approved:
The Fund will remain a going concern and Units in the Fund will be
able to be traded on the NSX;
Up to 37.75 million units in the Fund will be redeemed by the Fund
at 45 cents per unit by 18 September 2009;
Wellington Capital Limited will be the new responsible entity of the
Fund; and
Cash payments totalling 3 cents per Unit will be made to
Unitholders by 24 December 2008 and quarterly thereafter, with the
first payment to be made in October 2008.


HELLO JENNY!! WHERE ARE YOU???? It is Dec 2010 and we have not long received our first 1 cent return of capital and no quarterly payments EVER!!! No buyback and the NSX listing a pathetic failure!! Your proposed resolutions were a total non event and it is blatantly obvious Wellington Capital have FAILED miserably!! To add insult to the fact that the WC mouth was bigger than its anticipated capabilities (extremely well paid for in advance approved by previous associated business colleagues), we are deliberately being kept in the dark ( like dutiful mushrooms) while WC continue to rack up legal expenses (among other costs) to our detriment! Cough up or cop out!!/QUOTE]

 

[seamisty]

Hi Seamisty

I like your attitude. Can I have yor permission to quote this in an email to Wellington. In fact if all unitholders bombarded Wellington with this sort of email Jenny may start to question her arrogance.

Cheers Glen

The responsible entity proposes three separate resolutions. Each resolution
is independent. If all three resolutions are approved:
The Fund will remain a going concern and Units in the Fund will be
able to be traded on the NSX;
Up to 37.75 million units in the Fund will be redeemed by the Fund
at 45 cents per unit by 18 September 2009;
Wellington Capital Limited will be the new responsible entity of the
Fund; and
Cash payments totalling 3 cents per Unit will be made to
Unitholders by 24 December 2008 and quarterly thereafter, with the
first payment to be made in October 2008.


HELLO JENNY!! WHERE ARE YOU???? It is Dec 2010 and we have not long received our first 1 cent return of capital and no quarterly payments EVER!!! No buyback and the NSX listing a pathetic failure!! Your proposed resolutions were a total non event and it is blatantly obvious Wellington Capital have FAILED miserably!! To add insult to the fact that the WC mouth was bigger than its anticipated capabilities (extremely well paid for in advance approved by previous associated business colleagues), we are deliberately being kept in the dark ( like dutiful mushrooms) while WC continue to rack up legal expenses (among other costs) to our detriment! Cough up or cop out!!/QUOTE]

HAHA Glen, Feel free, thats the revised edited version, I couldn't take the risk of posting on the forum what I really think of Wellington Capital!! Seamisty

 

[Duped]

I agree Seamisty. WC should cough up or cop out. Failed to deliver.

Ltd, I have many friends in the Cth public service in Canberra and many are out of touch with the real world. Some wilfully. The funniest thing is that many are leftists and ridiculed Howard's apparent affinity for a 50s style Australia. Meanwhile they themselves subscribe, like ASIC, to 50s style notions of 'commercial morality'. They live in a fantasy world. They have coping issues.

As for D'Aloisio's latest remarks. He and ASIC are in total denial about the impact that their decisions and activities have on disrupting the market. Whether it's wilful denial or or a coping issue is open to debate.

I'm sure all those Cth public servants are excitedly investigating and debating about the moral hazard that the Cth deposit guarantee has had on banking in Australia. I'm sure they all agree that something must be done immediately to control bank behaviour. Banks need to be reigned in!!! Oh the moral hazard!!! They should have been left to fail if the market so decided!!! Oh no, this is the end for Australiaaaaaaaaah!! Bad banks! Bad banks. Sit. Good bank. Roll over.

But will they turn that magnifying glass on ASIC's Cth backing of the AFSL system and hence all those naughty financial planners? Not until they can find a scape goat IMO.

Although as you all know, I'm not entirely convinced that ASIC's dragging down the standards of licenced advice wasn't somewhat deliberate. To prize our free market sensitive wallets open to get the $ flowing through the economy faster and faster and faster and faster.

 

[LTD]

Heres a link reporting mismanagement of City Pacific FMF that I havent noticed anyone post.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/city-pacific-could-face-100mplus-legal-claims-20101206-18mww.html

Re ASIC ...I try to understand them...not exactly given much to work with,imo. NZ seem to be doing more...but they have a reputation of standing up for things,imo.

The trouble is the bad guys are telling the good guys what to do imo. and so the system is designed excluively for them whilst the little guys should just not trust anyone...Nothing has changed or looks like changing...unless theres folks like??
ie Wiki leaks

 

[simgrund]

PIF saga gets mentioned further afield:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/busin...reholder-protest/story-e6frede3-1225947442748
Last updated: December 09, 2010


PROFESSIONAL shareholders lodged a large protest against the re-election of Bendigo and Adelaide Bank's chairman Robert Johanson and director Terry O'Dwyer at the bank's annual meeting in Bendigo and Adelaide yesterday.

More than 30 per cent of shareholders voted against the re-election of Mr Johanson 32 million votes against and 102 votes for after an institutional investor raised concerns that the chairman had been a director for too long to remain independent.

Mr Johanson has been a Bendigo and Adelaide Bank director for 23 years and independent chairman for four.

Fellow director Terry O'Dwyer also received a strong protest vote; 19.5 million against his re-election compared with 114 million votes for, for his role as chairman of struggling public company MetalStorm and his association with failed finance company MFS as its former chairman.

Shareholder activist Stephen Mayne described MFS as a $1 billion debacle, ``classic Gold Coast white shoe brigade stuff''.

"I think we should send a message to the board so that Mr O'Dwyer can manage a quiet exit from the board as soon as possible,'' Mr Mayne said.

Mr Johanson said the bank traditionally had higher protest votes than other companies, a sign of an active and involved shareholder base. [emphasis added]

The bank held the meeting from Bendigo and Adelaide via video link up yesterday.

 

[Jadel]

I agree Seamisty. WC should cough up or cop out. Failed to deliver.

Ltd, I have many friends in the Cth public service in Canberra and many are out of touch with the real world. Some wilfully. The funniest thing is that many are leftists and ridiculed Howard's apparent affinity for a 50s style Australia. Meanwhile they themselves subscribe, like ASIC, to 50s style notions of 'commercial morality'. They live in a fantasy world. They have coping issues.

As for D'Aloisio's latest remarks. He and ASIC are in total denial about the impact that their decisions and activities have on disrupting the market. Whether it's wilful denial or or a coping issue is open to debate.

I'm sure all those Cth public servants are excitedly investigating and debating about the moral hazard that the Cth deposit guarantee has had on banking in Australia. I'm sure they all agree that something must be done immediately to control bank behaviour. Banks need to be reigned in!!! Oh the moral hazard!!! They should have been left to fail if the market so decided!!! Oh no, this is the end for Australiaaaaaaaaah!! Bad banks! Bad banks. Sit. Good bank. Roll over.

But will they turn that magnifying glass on ASIC's Cth backing of the AFSL system and hence all those naughty financial planners? Not until they can find a scape goat IMO.

Although as you all know, I'm not entirely convinced that ASIC's dragging down the standards of licenced advice wasn't somewhat deliberate. To prize our free market sensitive wallets open to get the $ flowing through the economy faster and faster and faster and faster.

Duped, Aloisio and most of the other top honchos in ASIC all come from the, Big End of town they are , ‘ made men’ to use the mafia vernacular of the sysem.. Aloisio is ex chairman of ASX his own son initiated Opus Prime from a company called Green Frog nominees by cleverly bypassing the normal protocols .

How in Gods name are you ever going to get a honest financial organization from individuals who are scions of that system and have as its core belief a doctrine of ‘minimal intervention.

 

[Jadel]

I agree Seamisty. WC should cough up or cop out. Failed to deliver.

Ltd, I have many friends in the Cth public service in Canberra and many are out of touch with the real world. Some wilfully. The funniest thing is that many are leftists and ridiculed Howard's apparent affinity for a 50s style Australia. Meanwhile they themselves subscribe, like ASIC, to 50s style notions of 'commercial morality'. They live in a fantasy world. They have coping issues.

As for D'Aloisio's latest remarks. He and ASIC are in total denial about the impact that their decisions and activities have on disrupting the market. Whether it's wilful denial or or a coping issue is open to debate.

I'm sure all those Cth public servants are excitedly investigating and debating about the moral hazard that the Cth deposit guarantee has had on banking in Australia. I'm sure they all agree that something must be done immediately to control bank behaviour. Banks need to be reigned in!!! Oh the moral hazard!!! They should have been left to fail if the market so decided!!! Oh no, this is the end for Australiaaaaaaaaah!! Bad banks! Bad banks. Sit. Good bank. Roll over.

But will they turn that magnifying glass on ASIC's Cth backing of the AFSL system and hence all those naughty financial planners? Not until they can find a scape goat IMO.

Although as you all know, I'm not entirely convinced that ASIC's dragging down the standards of licenced advice wasn't somewhat deliberate. To prize our free market sensitive wallets open to get the $ flowing through the economy faster and faster and faster and faster.

Duped, Aloisio and most of the other top honchos in ASIC all come from the Big End of town they are , ‘ made men’ to use the mafia vernacular of the sysem.. Aloisio is ex chairman of ASX his own son initiated Opus Prime from a company called Green Frog nominees by cleverly bypassing the normal protocols .

How in Gods name are you ever going to get a honest financial organization from individuals who are scions of that system and have as its foundation a doctrine of ‘minimal intervention, as its basic philosophy

 

[Duped]

...
Re ASIC ...I try to understand them...not exactly given much to work with,imo. NZ seem to be doing more...but they have a reputation of standing up for things,imo ...

Maybe becasue NZ isn't a big enough market for the 'smart money' to bother with. The 'smart money' being the ones who can fiddle with the law.

Jadel, well that little revelation just adds some weight of circumstantial evidence that wilful denial might be plausible.

 

[seamisty]

http://www.moneymanagement.com.au/news/retail-investors-unimpressed-by-asic
Retail investors unimpressed by ASIC
By Mike Taylor on 10 December 2010 0 comments A survey commissioned by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has given it a pass mark on its handling on the global financial crisis (GFC), but a less glowing assessment for its protection of retail investors.

The survey, the results of which have been released today, said that many responses suggested that stakeholders did not view the regulator as having done as well in protecting retail investors over the last two years as it did in managing the GFC.

It said that survey respondents had provided “sub-neutral” scores in regard to ASIC assisting retail investors and consumers and in protecting retail investors and consumers.

The survey analysis noted that post-survey interviews had resulted in some consumer bodies suggesting that retail investors were more likely to have become pessimistic about ASIC’s performance over the past two years because they do not fully understand the risks associated with the products in which they invested.

The analysis also suggested that another factor had been an increase in high-profile cases that had resulted in high-profile failures “with ASIC being unable to successfully prosecute”.

The analysis surrounding follow-up interviews suggested that one of the problems for ASIC in dealing with retail investor perceptions was that enforcement action with respect to companies such as Westpoint and Opes Prime took so long.

“It was noted that this is not entirely ASIC’s fault, but processes to reach a finding in Australia seemed to be much longer than in other comparable jurisdictions and delays reduced the effectiveness of enforcement, particularly as a deterrent,” the analysis said.

 

[ifracasb]

Slight change of subject from a newie.
Anyone notice that Armstrong Registry is reported to be changing auditors.
Is this legit?
What was the bit reported on NSX re electrical fault last month?
Records lost?
PS Can't download the latest Financial Report on this company from ASIC - seems like it was lodged in a back-dated fashion or some other reason I don't understand, not being an ASIC system expert.

 

[Duped]

...
The survey analysis noted that post-survey interviews had resulted in some consumer bodies suggesting that retail investors ... do not fully understand the risks associated with the products in which they invested. ....

Duh! And why? Because of ASIC's AFSL system. Financial advisor's carrying the Commonwealth tick of approval like doctors and lawyers.

Prior to the AFSL system, the free market system was far better at flushing out dodgy advisors and quickly putting them out of business. ASIC gives them a licence to continue practicing.

 

[LTD]

This is the crux of the matter re retail investors...
"do not fully understand the risks associated with the products in which they invested."

The products werent invented for investors benefit.Thats a problem.

Naturally the products were invented/produced by the experts for some-ones needs.PIF didnt need to invest in developments...they needed you and just had to entice you.
Thats why a storm model might benefit banks or advisors or the end place where funds get invested and overlook the retail investors RISK.
If you are the one inventing the products for your needs ie developers/financial middlemen/end point investments etc those schemes will be focused on those needs.

Unless you share in all the outcomes...theres bound to be inequality or a lack of protection for all sides of the investments,imo.

Retail investors only have the government, laws or ASIC like entities to watch over them and must be disappointed if they are expected to carry a disproportionate burden of the risk.

NZ is an important place for investment...Dosnt it act as a entry point to disguise where things/investment/immigrants etc actually origionate from.
Very important little place I think.
Just my perception of this.

 

[charles36]

I read with interest that investor's (I included myself) do not fully understand the risk of invesments etc. My view is there is always risk but when managers obviously seek to borrow money improperly from a company/fund for their own purposes it is not a risk that has been factored into any PDS that I have ever read. I also note that some CEO's are like butterflies, they flit from one defunct fund to another, no problems, apparently from the Regulatory authority. Perhaps new guidelines could be made compulsory for the production of future PDS'S disclosing the additional risks that will most likely be encountered by improper management by CEO'S judging by the massive workload of ASIC.