This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

Jump to new
Duped said:
Which would make the order of the motions even more important. Which is why I responded to your comment (see below) in the first place
Click to expand...

Duped, my respected collegue & friend,
I so sympathise with your inability to ignore this interloper.
The Moderator will be grateful for reems of freed cyber space
now being cluttered with these fruitless exchanges.
I have a sneaking suspicion that Malodourous one may have morphed into
ASICK.
Same impenetrable dogmas.

Agh, the tangled webs we weave!
 

Simgrund, I looked back through your postings again, just to see if you made one useful contribution in order to prevent loss in your fund, but alas, I could not find one. In fact, your inane mumblings do nothing to aid your fellow fund members from minimizing the loss you've continue to suffer.

The position that members of your fund now find themselves is not a pleasant one, and in my opinion, you are worse off today than you were last month.

But, it's your money, and if you want to waste it, then go ahead - if you value your mumblings over your money, then please mumble away as your coinage shrinks.
 

And there is no advantage at all for us to read Your mumblings. Just the opposite!!
As You said, it's our money and You will defenitely not be able to save 1 cent for us.
Just the opposite because we have to read Your mumblings and are distracted from
some positive thinking and planning.
 
Simgrund would you please check your notifications, I have sent you a PM. Cheers, Seamisty
 

As I said already; an impenetrable imbecility.
I am afraid there may be no cure.
I am done with; be you Malodorous One, ASICK, Ken or whatever.
I am off to smell the roses.

Cheers
 
ASICK said:
Strange isn't it? but if J.H. had the chair, you guys would have had the quorum (setting aside the defect in the Notice).
Click to expand...


If J.H. chaired the meeting, in particular with the rent-a-crowd in attendance, the meeting possibly would have been dissolved without the motions being put to a count.
 
simgrund said:
As I said already; an impenetrable imbecility.
I am afraid there may be no cure.
I am done with; be you Malodorous One, ASICK, Ken or whatever.
I am off to smell the roses.

Cheers
Click to expand...

Hi Simgrund, I had already turned off the computer and had to restart.
Could it be that ASICK was giving us the clue what he stands for?
Could it be that ASICK means a sick one?

Kind Regards
 
I like Simgrund's posts so who are you to call them inane mumblings A SIC ONE? We don't all make contributions on here that 'prevent loss in the fund'. Since when was that a prerequist to posting??

I think it's time for you to move right along ASICK. I don't want to open my computer & read such things from you as ' The position that members of your fund now find themselves is not a pleasant one, and in my opinion, you are worse off today than you were last month.' Who are you to say? And have you noticed no one is interested in your pessimistic critical opinion.

Moving right along now. Nothing to see here. You've outstayed your welcome. Go stir up some others down on their luck with your words of wisdom like 'serves you right, should have read the fineprint'. Thanks for dropping by. Now beat it!
 

No problems, you're welcome to read my site anytime you get bored:
http://www.moneymagik.com

Back in August 2010, Balmain Trilogy (BT) called a meeting of the Pacific First Mortgage Fund (PFMF) for the purpose of implementing a new 'strategy' which included, among other things, a so-called 'performance fee'. The fee was uncapped and attached itself to the any proceeds of the IMF action the fund was bringing. The fee could be substantial.

A number of us managed to get some funds together and sent a letter around to investors pointing out the defects in the proposal, and requested members oppose the proposal. A member of the fund received national media attention which gave support to our cause to the extent Michael Pascoe published a scathing attack on BT's greedy grab for cash: http://www.smh.com.au/business/bonus-racket-twice-paid-for-a-single-job-20100830-1431p.html?skin=text-only

As a consequence of the pressure (probably mostly from Mr. Pascoe's article), BT dropped the uncapped fee to a mere $30m.

For us, facts were important, and it was important to inform as many of the 10,000 or so members of our position. We didn't expect everyone to support us, and we knew that many small investors would support the manager because they perceived the manager's plan as a way out of the fund.

With the support of another fund manager we managed to send out a second letter since BT responded to our first letter with a quite document of their own. BT had its' website, a call centre (which phoned probably most members of substance in the fund, many of them a number of times), at least one senior staff member of Trilogy who phoned key members of the fund a number of times, a hefty explanatory memorandum, and a supportive expert report:
http://balmaintrilogy.com.au/pdf/NOM_FINAL_5_8_2010.pdf
http://balmaintrilogy.com.au/pdf/ExpertsReport.pdf

Before the vote at the meeting, BT had amassed 66% of the vote - the meeting seemed very supportive of BT and cheered and clapped the BT CEO as he spoke to particular issues, but in the end, the hundreds of attendees (most of whom I think were relatively small unitholders) only advanced BT's share to 67%. This is why I believe that if you can't win on the proxies, then you're unlikely to win at all: we had the experience and understand that fact.

Sure, it's not a sure fired formula for success, but working on the 'crowd' (so to speak) by mail, email or telephone, will give the best outocome, and part of that 'working' is being as precise as possible with the detail of your argument. What members of forums don't really understand it that NON-FORUM members have no idea of what's happening in forums and have no idea of the myriad of complaints forum members have against the manager.

At the moment, a number of us are looking for a new manager, and CasCap was a manager we would have liked to consider our fund. I've spoken to Phil Armstrong and was very impressed by his frankness and knowledge. We very much wanted CasCap to prevail and that view has not wavered.

To say that we were disappointed with the outcome in your case is an understatement.

Why ASICK? well, it was coined on my site in a posting some months ago, and when I lost my internet connection to my home I somehow lost access to my old handle of MELLIFUOUS - nothing sinister, I just thought I'd use ASICK when I decided it was easier to strike up a new handle.

ASICK was coined because I thought ASIC was SICK. We'd made a substantial number of complaints and NOT ONE OF THEM was given any real consideration. I am aware of a substantial complaint that went to ASIC from a member of your fund which was rejected, yet the Federal Court in Melbourne, by striking out your fund's recent uni-lateral amendments by the manager, effectively vindicated the complaint - again showing just how ineffective ASIC really is.

Forums seem to have developed two purposes, (1) social and grief, and (2) technical matters. I've seen that (1) seems to override (2) to near extinction, a fact that is, in my view, counter-productive in protecting your best interest, which is what is left of YOUR MONEY.

I posted a number of posts on Equititrust because it was quite clear to me that the fund was about to go into a nose-dive, and it did. If one takes the time to read the posts in context, one will see that they were all well-intentioned.

I think most members of these managed funds do not understand the basic principles of accounting and do not understand the ASIC reporting document RG-45. Terms like ACCRUED INTEREST, LVR, and CAPITALIZED INTEREST are not widely understood.

It was from accrued capitalized interest whence most of Equititrusts losses arose. These investors struggle, and if one takes the time to see the anguish from the fund members such as NO TRUST, one will see their utter dismay as being trapped in a lossy fund so late after those funds which have preceeded, such as the PIF and PFMF.

CityPac tried to list the PFMF (then known as the CPFMF) and that was resisted. The listed PIF was the model we used to mount resistance, because we knew that listed the fund would isolate us from our money, as listing your fund has isolated all of you from your money. You are now forced to 'redeem' by way of the sale of the units you hold on the NSX, your right to redeem from the PIF has been extinguished.

Citypac discontinued the listing idea and then proceeded with an equity sway (as has been suggested by Equititrust Limited for its' EIF fund). That's where units in the fund are swapped for shares in the management company. Wow, what a disaster that would have been for us if we'd warmed to that idea - I fear a poor outcome for Equititrust members if they warm to the idea with Equititrust Limited too.

As a consequence of your fund's nasty entrenched "$5m if you kick me out fee", we were alert to BT's efforts to deeply entrench its' fee, a fact that we brought to members attention. We've come to understand that the "devil" IS in the detail, and so, if we ignore the detail, we're likely to come face to face with the 'devil'.

I can see my views are not well received, but you're the masters of your own destiny - I (and others) took our destiny into our own hands and fought what we believed to be the imposition of a repressive regime, and we won.

Regardless of the different way we see progression through the mess we find ourselves in, I hope you find a way out that leaves you with at least a reasonable return in the circumstances.

I was approached by a member of your 'executive' at the Brisbane meeting, and he advised me at that time your fund would seek to oust your present manager. I think he found some comfort in the work we'd done in opposing BT.

As managed funds go, I think we were the first fund which successfully opposed a management initiated proposal. It was a difficult and stressful time, but well worth the effort.

I believe detail is important, many of you don't - so let it be.

As a matter of fact, I have a degree in law, but I don't practice law.

Thanks for listening.
 
Harald said:
... reminds us investors how stupid we are.
Click to expand...

Hi ASICK, I think the above from Harald says it all. I have found most on this threat that have the ability to look at the detail and provide constructive comment are bullied to the point that they go away. And anyone who isn't a unitholder seems not to be welcome. I find this severely reduces the benefit of this thread and makes it more of a social club than a useful place to share ideas (other than RE bashing). I do of course appreciate the media and NSX updates are all posted in one easy location.

Without outside help I do not see us getting a good outcome. People like asick, tuart, Stuart Wilson would have lots to offer us if only we could hack the truth.
 
Aaaaaaaagh again,
The NAME & SHAME show continues.
Here's the interloper's pride and joy project of brotherly inter-spitting.

[[[19th-October-2009 11:51 AM #1 mellifuous Join DateJul 2009Posts465
Managed fund co-operation group

Welcome to this new thread which has been created in the hope that members all all managed funds might find ways of solving issues of common concern.

Issues such as how to put pressure on government for a changes in applicable law in order to give (better) protection to investors in managed funds, how to pressure ASIC to look into alleged wrongdoings by fund managers, and how to gain co-operation with the media to present the plight of investors in a constructive and beneficial way.

If you are a member of a manager fund, or if you are not but feel you are able to contribute in a constructive way, then I sincerely hope you will join to express your view and co-operate to alleviate our mutual concerns.

This new thread is a joint effort of members of FMF and MFS at this time.]]]

The thread's audience petered out after 145 posts
and Mellifuous; aka Malodorous One, skinked away for serious deliberations on which brand of rejuvenating deodorant to use next.

Oh mother! We get ASICK the Tormentor.
Quickly, pass another gallon of deodorant!!!

And to Boots & All;
That Avatar boot; is it steel capped?
Use it on the types I have just exposed.
The Moderator appreciates all efforts to clean up the thread for use of genuine members.
Hope this subject will pop up next time we meet for coffee.

Regards,
 

Pleese, no encouragements for disruptive postings.
 
“He who knows not and knows not he knows not: he is a fool - shun him.
He who knows not and knows he knows not: he is simple - teach him.
He who knows and knows not he knows: he is asleep - wake him.
He who knows and knows he knows: he is wise - follow him.”
 

JohnH,
There are limits on levels of human generosity & tolerance.
Especially when one is constantly singed while trying to answer that instinctive call to help.
We learn to restrict our senses of passionate indignation when we learn to stop for a moment to pose a question:
Hey, this indignitator could be one of Malodorous' wannabees.
Then it's Bob's your uncle type of easy to ignore.
Or have Boots&All's avatar (hope it's steel cap) step up with a well directed kung fu kick to send this "HE" into a one-way orbit to write his book of technicalities to his heart's content.

We don't need here the purveyors of Dante's "Lasciate ogni speranza voi ch'entrate"!

Another cup of coffee soon?
 

I agree that we do not need to be constantly reminded of our own stupidity and misplaced trust. I do however believe that all contributors (including non unit holders) to this forum may have something to offer.
Relevant expertise, sympathy, compassion, creativity, humour yes - but not negativity.
Dora & Boots, I also agree that sometimes this forum is treated as social site - but where's the harm?
............ and yes Simgrund do give me a call when next up this way for a coffee, I do not believe that those that join this forum should abandon hope ... John H.
 
Thanks for your frankness telling us about yourself ASICK

... but why would the manager need to do that?
Click to expand...
To vote on a motion to have the 2% termination fee reinstated into the constitution

If members thought the clause oppressive when proposed as a new clause or amendment, then why did 75% plus 1 unit support it?
Click to expand...
Probably because it was bundled with other motions AND Hutson made a bunch of promises AND Huston highlighted an alternative of 14c through liquidation. There's tomes already written on this forum about that event. Recall that ASIC actually took action against WC back then.

See clause 23.3 and 10.2 to 10.4 at http://www.wellcap.com.au/assets/pif/pif_constitution.pdf.

The higher quorum requirement given in 10.3 and 10.4 was added at the same time as the 2% termination fee clause 23.3. The quorum requirement to get these changes in was less.

Something unique about PIF is the wholesale fund (WPIF) which holds about 5% of the units. Apparently WC decides how WPIF votes its 41,114,196 PIF units. Do you think it would be OK for other wrap account companies to leave their clients money in WPIF rather than advising them on how to convert WPIF units to PIF units like IOOF has? See the bottom of page 3 of http://www.ioof.com.au/files/docsForms/Frozen_Fund_Summary_2008-12-15.pdf

Yes. I'm trying to get myself across the detail.
 
Duped said:
Thanks for your frankness telling us about yourself ASICK

------------------
Click to expand...

I envy genuinely your generosity of spirit; but did the Malodorous One proffer his "frankness" voluntarily?

Still in the fields,
 
AusInCA said:
If J.H. chaired the meeting, in particular with the rent-a-crowd in attendance, the meeting possibly would have been dissolved without the motions being put to a count.
Click to expand...

Hence here explains Hutsons motive for hiring the rent a crowd.

She knew with the proxies Armstrong registry held that the numbers against her were right down the middle. Had those proxies been combined with the ones held by Computershare then she would have been in for a smashing defeat.

Her only chance of keeping the fund was hiring the rent a crowd to ensure she got the chair.
 
Good morning

If my memory serves me correctly financial advisors were paid an "administration fee" to assist in gathering up the support from their clients in the 2008 WC vote by WC.

If this is true I woinder what the views of these advisors are now and in round two of calling a meeting will they help by getting on the phones to get support for the removal of the RE from their clients.

As to ASIC stepping in last time the only issue they queried was the representation of WC about quarterly distributions.

They did not question the more fundamental issues of
- representing that the only alternative to WC was liquidation at 14 cents which was factually incorrect as only the members could of caused the liquidation. WC did not have this power.
- representing that the fund could be returned to $1.00 in three to five years which even a basic calculation when WC were proposing to make distributions and keep half the money in mortgages was impossible to achieve.

If ASIC had looked at the more serious issues at the time which were the representations made to induce the vote then things may have been different.

Having said that WC was paid millions to run a slick campaign.

AS to the comment about steel cap boots and attacking Doranboots take the time to go back to when WC first came on the scenes and look at the attacks on people like Jadel and Doranboots who saw through the c--p that was put out from WC and took a different stand to the majority. Talk about steel cap boots.

They could be crowing "I told you so" but instead want to, like everyone who contributes to this thread help in any way we can.

I while not been an investor talk to a number of people caught in this horrible mess and do the only thing I know how to do and keep complaining to ASIC in the hope that at some point the large number of complaints finally stir action against WC.

I had also initially wondered what was driving ASICK but after the detail provided about BT understand where he is comning from and think every comment and view point should be accepted as everyone is looking for one thing which is a positive outcome from here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MA1 - MA Credit Income Trust
Replies
3
Views
428
Dona Ferentes
DGT - DigiCo Infrastructure REIT
Replies
8
Views
961
Dona Ferentes
Coolabah Capital
Replies
5
Views
1K
divs4ever
VBTC - VanEck Bitcoin ETF
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
qldfrog
November 2024 DDD
2 3
Replies
53
Views
5K
ducati916
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...