Same here, can i sell a block of land and claim capital loss on my wellington holdings?
Unitholders ask ASIC/NSX to ban cap raising
Monday, 9 May 2011 1:00pm
By Elise Burgess | In Investment
Premium Income Fund unitholders have requested regulatory bodies stop a planned capital raising, deeming the raising as 'unfair' to all unitholders.
In a letter to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and National Stock Exchange (NSX), the PIF Action Group, of which around 27 per cent of all fund unitholders are part of, said they believe the planned capital raising is in breach of the Corporations Act, the Scheme Constitution, NSX Listing Rules and not in the interests of Unitholders.
The raising, announced on May 6 by Wellington Capital, the responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund (PIF), is a placement of 113 million units at 10 cents to raise $11.3 million, which is equal to 14.97 per cent of units currently on issue.
k.smith the 'new money' was never about the best interests of unitholders, it was about the best interests of a panicked Responsible Entity knowing full well just how unpopular they are with the existing unit holders. It is all about the VOTING POWER!! WC know that without a certain amount of control over voting percentage they don't have a **** show in hell of staying on board as RE. This has nothing to do with value adding 3 vacant plots of ground, rather an admittance to the fact that Wellington Capital has not had the ability to generate ANY income from the existing assets! In the Dec 2008 PIF update it states that the PIF had $96,655,228million in Asset backed investments maturing between 2010 and 2012, this is apart from $305,994million worth of mortgage loans, the $15,417million of cash and cash equivalents, $5,599Million worth of units in managed investment schemes, $15,523million in Fixed interest securities and other assets worth$4,559 million!!! Yes, a total of $443,747million worth of assets!! What happened to all the non mortgage related assets?Thanks to all that have worked so hard on the AG..
I believe that any move by "new money" that dilutes the interests of investors that are victims of mortgage funds that have been used, abused, frozen, illiquid...etc... is not in the best interests of all unitholders...
Enneagram, Marcom is the name of the cult of which Wellington Capital was the jennorous benefactor who organisied the removal of the church to Andelaine on behalf of David Burke. That would be the same David Justin Burke who is often on site at Forest Resort Creswick, along with Jenny Hutson, probablly wondering why the resort is running at a loss? HELLO, how much does it cost us for you to stroll around our asset you took control of? Don't we already pay for an onsite manager? You, Wellington Capital are a complete waste of our money. Unfortunately for you WC, there are so many affected from your mismanagement that you probablly will be held accountable. Seamistycharles36 & breaker, Thankyou. I know you have both put a lot of effort into getting a better outcome for all PIF investors. I can't wait to see the backside of that bitch and the witches coven (or what ever religious group they call themselves) that currently administers our fund.
Numbers lining up against manager
Anthony Marx
From: The Courier-Mail
May 10, 2011 12:00AM
A REBEL group of investors claim they have the numbers to remove Brisbane merchant bank Wellington Capital, from its controversial oversight of a struggling $253 million mortgage fund.
All 10,700 mostly senior investors in the Premium Income Fund will be invited this week to a June 9 extraordinary general meeting in Sydney, where they will be able to vote on resolutions to oust Wellington.
PIF Action Group vice-president Charles Hodges said yesterday that investors, controlling more than 11 per cent of the 755 million units, had already flagged their support for the move.
The figure is more than double the 5 per cent required to call a meeting.
It may well be prudent to prepare a list of investors who are prepared to sign an affidavit confirming the RE's statement that non performance would mean that no exit fee would be paid. ................. You can count me in. .. John H
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?