Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

In the latest PIn announcement:Investor Advisory Committee
Two members of the Investor Advisory Committee have indicated their intention to resign. Wellington
Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund has decided to hold elections early.
The purpose of the Investor Advisory Committee is to ensure investor input into the future decision making
process of the Premium Income Fund. The Investor Advisory Committee meets with Wellington Capital
Limited as responsible entity of the Fund through formal meetings by teleconference and other
communications and comprises three elected unitholders.
In order for all investors in the Premium Income Fund to make an informed decision as to the representatives
appointed to the Committee, following is a nomination form for completion and return to Wellington.
The current timetable for election to the Investor Advisory Committee is as follows:
2 July 2011 Nomination forms returned to Wellington
July 2011 Collation of nominations and preparation of investor mailout
August 2011 Postal ballot conducted – booklet of nominees details provided to each investor
together with voting form
The completed nomination form must be provided to Wellington by no later than 5.00pm 2 July 2011.

No mention who the remaining rep is and what a waste of time and expense going through the whole useless exercise again. Perhaps it would have been better to actually ask PIF investors if they wanted to continue the IAC farce than just assume that they would, considering that there is a strong chance WC could well not even be in control of the PIF (hopefully) in July.

Another nail in the coffin, now I shall continue reading the rest of the announcement http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724017.PDF Seamisty

Lets compare original amounts owed and those realised on the properties featured in the latest PIN announcement:

Principal and
interest as at Interest Rate Original maturity amount
31 May 2008 per annum date realised

Hastings Point NSW $14,392,282 11% 25 June 2008 $12.66mill

Sylvania NSW $34,365,429 11% 29 August 2007 20.02mill

Creswick VIC $2,952,680 11.5% 25 September 2008 2.43mill

Brooklyn West VIC $846,655 11.25% 30 April 2008 0.5 mill

St Leonards NSW $9,214,843 11.25% 9 January 2009 8. mill

Blacktown NSW $2,563,140 11.25% 29 December 2008 1.8 mill

Narrabeen NSW $2,646,905 11.75% 6 October 2006 1.5mill

Seddon VIC $9,012,542 11.25% 19 February 2008 8.5mill

Chatswood NSW $4,608,231 11.75% 8 September 2007 1.8mill

Mackay QLD $9,215,142 11% 1 September 2008 5.5mill

Wollongong NSW $57,993,841 10.75% 19 March 2007 15. mill
(to date)
Yeppoon QLD $9,891,863 11.4% 6 June 2007 4.mill

Pt Macquarie NSW $22,825,382 11.25% 18 July 2007 1.3mill
(to date)

HMNN, no wonder the original amounts owing were not included!! Not exactly an outstanding achievement for nearly 3 years effort Wellington Capital, considering PIF investors have only received a return of two cents of their own capital and WC needs to raise money???? Seamisty

seamisty said:

Lets compare original amounts owed and those realised on the properties featured in the latest PIN announcement:

Principal and
interest as at Interest Rate Original maturity amount
31 May 2008 per annum date realised

Hastings Point NSW $14,392,282 11% 25 June 2008 $12.66mill

Sylvania NSW $34,365,429 11% 29 August 2007 20.02mill

Creswick VIC $2,952,680 11.5% 25 September 2008 2.43mill

Brooklyn West VIC $846,655 11.25% 30 April 2008 0.5 mill

St Leonards NSW $9,214,843 11.25% 9 January 2009 8. mill

Blacktown NSW $2,563,140 11.25% 29 December 2008 1.8 mill

Narrabeen NSW $2,646,905 11.75% 6 October 2006 1.5mill

Seddon VIC $9,012,542 11.25% 19 February 2008 8.5mill

Chatswood NSW $4,608,231 11.75% 8 September 2007 1.8mill

Mackay QLD $9,215,142 11% 1 September 2008 5.5mill

Wollongong NSW $57,993,841 10.75% 19 March 2007 15. mill
(to date)
Yeppoon QLD $9,891,863 11.4% 6 June 2007 4.mill

Pt Macquarie NSW $22,825,382 11.25% 18 July 2007 1.3mill
(to date)

HMNN, no wonder the original amounts owing were not included!! Not exactly an outstanding achievement for nearly 3 years effort Wellington Capital, considering PIF investors have only received a return of two cents of their own capital and WC needs to raise money???? Seamisty

Click to expand...

I did have all the figures in line but they seem to have moved from typing the post to actually posting it, hope you can read it!

seamisty said:

It is great to see some old contributors returning to the forum as well as some new ones. Hopefully there will be confirmation of the date etc of the proposed meeting shortly.
Interesting to see what the reason for the Trading Halt is, maybe Wellington Capital are changing the constitution again? Seamisty

Click to expand...

Hi Seamisty,
as far as I know, the Trading halt is in place to allow the 113million Unit Placement that was carried out last Friday, the 13th.,to Sophisticated Investors. A day of infamy and barstardry for all PIF members!!
It would be absolutely wonderful if ASIC would take a leaf from the book of the Singapore watchdogs, and make her reverse the whole deal!!
Best wishes to all.

So there it is!!! http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724019.PDF

Pay particular attention to Part 1 item 4 and also the Quotation agreement item 2

ASIC where are you????

seamisty said:

I did have all the figures in line but they seem to have moved from typing the post to actually posting it, hope you can read it!

Click to expand...

Unfortunately we CAN read it seamisty

Seamisty, Interesting reading regarding the investor advisory committee
They have never presented a single piece of advice as far as I can recall.
I wonder if they will be more open for interviews now that they have been unshackled by JH in her dungeon of secrecy and deceit.

Actually, have they proven themselves to be so totally useless and ineffectual that Ive forgotten their names.

I have had numerous calls and emails from PIF unitholders this afternoon re the two Wellington Capital duly appointed Investor Advisory Committee members resigning and other WC related issues.

Perhaps they were also totally disgusted at the blatant grab by WC to shore up some voting support at the expense of existing PIF investors by further diluting their holdings by a third?

Other investors were bewildered at the sudden attempt by Wellington Capital to be seen as proactive and transparent and could only conclude that it is because WC are seriously concerned as to the support the PIF Action Group has received from investors who cannot wait to see the END of the current RE!!

Perhaps now the two IAC reps might contact the PIF AG? I would sincerely like to know if any of my emails directed to the IAC were ever tabled.

'What is the role of the Investor Advisory Committee? http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/pif/updates/20090311_NSXRelease_IAC.pdf
The purpose of the Investor Advisory Committee is to ensure investor input into the decision making process of the Fund into the future.
Members of the committee will have an opportunity to discuss current issues with the board and management team and the outcome of each committee meeting will be provided to all unitholders in the following Investor Update.'


I would like to know if the IAC reps were ever given the opportunity or had 'investor input' to discuss changing the constitution and issuing more shares? I would think not.

Seamisty

zixo said:

Seamisty, Interesting reading regarding the investor advisory committee
They have never presented a single piece of advice as far as I can recall.
I wonder if they will be more open for interviews now that they have been unshackled by JH in her dungeon of secrecy and deceit.

Actually, have they proven themselves to be so totally useless and ineffectual that Ive forgotten their names.

Click to expand...

They were Chris Mangan, Alana Woodford and Bronwyn Andrejic Zixo. I always thought Ms Woodford was actually fictitious LOL!! Thats why it would be great to know who actually resigned. Seamisty

MOVING CLOSER

The manager of the Premium Income Fund has found an interesting way to generate value for the long-suffering unitholders in the MFS-founded mortgage scheme.

The Jenny Hutson-headed Wellington Capital yesterday announced it had raised $7.55 million from a highly dilutive 10 ¢-a-unit placement - which was priced at a 70 per cent discount to the fund's net tangible asset backing. Or a 90 per cent discount to the original value of its units.

The placement, which fell short of its original aim to raise $11.3 million, was made to a group of unnamed ''professional and sophisticated investors''.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/no-j...racy-theory-20110517-1erdt.html#ixzz1MdOlRSBy

JohnH said:

So there it is!!! http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724019.PDF

Pay particular attention to Part 1 item 4 and also the Quotation agreement item 2

ASIC where are you????

Click to expand...

This is beyond the pale!!!!!
John, Marcom, Jadel, IAC; aren't there requirements to put such proposals to shareholders?
Not just A'SICk, but ACCC together with complete umbrella of regulatory bodies
must take immediate action.
Can a petition be started?

In utter indignation,
Regards,

Hello Seamisty (and others).

As usual your research and summary of all matters PIF/WC is excellent. In light of your review (above) of the WC performance in relation to realisation of profit/loss on the PIF property portfolio transactions to date (interesting reading... if you're a manic-depressive), I thought I would make a couple of passing observations on your recent comments re "impeccable credentials" etc. In the interests of brevity let's call them IC so that I can continue to confuse everyone with an ever increasing plethora of acronyms.

Exactly who has IC (by your definition) in the current business environment for managing your fund's assets? Did the original MFS managers have IC when you guys bought in, or did WC/JH possess these impressive attributes when they assumed absolute control of your $$? Do you consider that the various individual managers, consultants, solicitors, advisors and other porcine proboscises along the way have had IC? Any of them? Do ASIC and it's various directors/managers/investigators qualify under your definition, or did you consider that they had IC prior to your pleas for intervention with PIF?

What do you think of the IC of the various players now?

My point is that things change, and they can change very quickly. It's absurdly easy for everyone to appear to be a financial genius when times are good - especially with your money. Property investors make a killing on every deal and are driving a Mercedes, stockbrokers are bullet-proof and driving a Ferrari..... and fund managers are raking in deposits from investors and are driving a Bentley.

The real test of a competent fund manager is how they perform when the substance hits the fan, and it's obvious that it's you guys who have now been well & truly splattered - not them. Exactly what pain have WC or others acknowledged or shared in the obliteration of your unit value? As you have noted, history seems to indicate a simple strategy of "take whatever you can get" for the assets without any consideration of alternatives. Of course, these are only the opinions of observers because one isn't given access or input to the machinations of the decision making process - is one?

Do WC have experience in property development/management, and more particularly, in maximisation of returns from "distressed" assets in difficult financial/property environments? Are they managing your fund to your approval and in the absolute interests of your investment growth? Do they have access to the necessary resources of experienced managers and further investors, or overseas funding where necessary. I don't know, but they obviously have access to enough resources to float another 10% (or thereabouts) of units which will further dilute your holding and (probably) provide them with a nice block of voting proxies. Or are we just being cynical? Seamisty, Simgrund et al... why aren't you all chaining yourselves to the ASIC/WC entry doors?

Anyway, we have a valid proposal and viable alternative on the table for consideration by all - which of course WC are now attempting to knock out via legal manouevrings. I'm sure that's something which they are good at. Whilst I understand the hopelessness and mistrust that you are feeling towards the world generally, I would hope that we are given a fair hearing and an opportunity to present our case & further explain our strategies. Unlike others we have used our own (considerable) money and resources in this venture to date.

We're happy to provide personal phone numbers and email adresses to all legitimate enquiries.

seamisty said:

MOVING CLOSER

The placement, which fell short of its original aim to raise $11.3 million, was made to a group of unnamed ''professional and sophisticated investors''.

Click to expand...

Professional and Sophisticated Investors! Really?? Well... I guess that's OK then! Pardon my cynicism.

I find it somewhat unbelievable that WC have progressed this far with their blatant share issue grab into our fund.
With WC's race towards liquidation (return of cash) and even a further one cent distribution this represents a monetary windfall in a return on 10 cents for the exclusively chosen few.
And what about the big power weilding stick of the new potential votes.
Are our legal eagles still pursuing JH to challenge this outragesness?
When is the proposed shareholders meeting in Sydney?
Or is it now too late to get the numbers up against her ?

Feeling very screwed over . Bumblebee

seamisty said:

In the latest PIn announcement:Investor Advisory Committee
Two members of the Investor Advisory Committee have indicated their intention to resign. ..............................................................................................................................
No mention who the remaining rep is and what a waste of time and expense going through the whole useless exercise again. Perhaps it would have been better to actually ask PIF investors if they wanted to continue the IAC farce than just assume that they would, considering that there is a strong chance WC could well not even be in control of the PIF (hopefully) in July.

Another nail in the coffin, now I shall continue reading the rest of the announcement http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724017.PDF Seamisty

Click to expand...

Bugger; Unmentioned, Undistinguished and certainly Unlamented of the 2 departees.
I am excited to Unknow as to who the next Unappreciated, Unvisible ghosts of the IAC may be pushed forward by WC ???
Regards,

New Pin Announcement re Kooralbyn http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724021.PDF

Bumblebee said:

I find it somewhat unbelievable that WC have progressed this far with their blatant share issue grab into our fund.
With WC's race towards liquidation (return of cash) and even a further one cent distribution this represents a monetary windfall in a return on 10 cents for the exclusively chosen few.
And what about the big power weilding stick of the new potential votes.
Are our legal eagles still pursuing JH to challenge this outragesness?
When is the proposed shareholders meeting in Sydney?
Or is it now too late to get the numbers up against her ?

Feeling very screwed over . Bumblebee

Click to expand...

We have the numbers to call an EGM Bumblebee, keep an eye on the forum. Cheers, Seamisty

seamisty said:

New Pin Announcement re Kooralbyn http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724021.PDF

Click to expand...

Seamisty, did you see the clause :-
"At the request of the purchaser the contract contains a change in
control clause, meaning that the purchaser can choose whether to
proceed with the contract if Wellington Capital Limited is not the
responsible entity of the Fund.
The contract is subject to an 18 month deferred settlement etc....."

........... I think we can draw our own conclusions

seamisty said:

New Pin Announcement re Kooralbyn http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724021.PDF

Click to expand...

Pretty flexible contract Jen?? What difference does it make who the RE is. With all that potential growth its a shame the PIF investors may not be able to share in it once again.

'At the request of the purchaser the contract contains a change in
control clause, meaning that the purchaser can choose whether to
proceed with the contract if Wellington Capital Limited is not the
responsible entity of the Fund.
The contract is subject to an 18 month deferred settlement and is
conditional upon finance and finalisation of town planning
considerations by the Conditions Date which is eight months from
the contract date namely 16 January 2012. The purchaser plans to
undertake capital works following the conditions date.'

Looks a bit like a 'Claytons Contract' to me. Seamisty

Here's an interesting question for those of you with the legal experience.
Could a majority of shareholders successfully vote that any dividends paid to unit holders would be in direct proportion to the original value of those units? i.e. if you paid $1.00 as most of us did, then you get a full share. If you paid just 10 cents as some "Professional and Sophisticated Investors" did, then you get just 10%.