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.
I respect alert minds.I do a lot of deleting and amending.
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.
....
10.12 Handling Fees
Where a proxy form is stamped with the stamp of an adviser or has previously been noted as an adviser’s client, and proxy is valid, the responsible entity may pay a handling fee to the relevant adviser up to a maximum of 0.25% of the value of Units held by that particular unitholder calculated with reference to the current net asset backing of 45 cents per Unit. This will be paid in the event that the proposed resolutions are passed. Payment will occur at the time the December 2008 cash payment is made to Unitholders.
Yes, it's true. Financial advisors were told they would be paid up to 0.25% for handling any valid proxy forms, BUT only if the resolutions were passed. Not sure how this kind of bribery is considered acceptable.
Anyone know if this handling fee was paid to advisors? It was to be paid when the Dec 2008 cash payment was made, which never happened.
From the 2008 EM:
Anyone hear from RickH lately? I wonder what he thinks about the current situation.
The financial advisor, who took me out onto this thin ice and then drove off, said they'd forward the payment to me. My vague recollection is I didn't get paid. That financial advisor might have been marginally less financially illiterate than me, but I'm sure they're not dishonest enough to welch on an express email agreement. But then again, my judgement is shot. 'Cos I believed Hutson for a long time.Anyone know if this handling fee was paid to advisors? It was to be paid when the Dec 2008 cash payment was made, which never happened.
Maybe You should take a look in Your financiell records. I'm afraid that You are
in the same business as ASICK, being a financiell advisor, one of those who
landed us in this mess in the first place and.
Could it be that You and ASICK are posting on this tread in the hope to make
additional bucks and that this is the only motivation? As You stated, You are not
an investor.
There have been some invaluable contributions on this thread, and ASICK has done much to contribute to helping us unitholders with his legal background (and his considerable business experience)
No, I know that ASICK is not a financial advisor and your comment is completely wrong (and insulting)
I think you must re-read his 8449 post again, and then perhaps you may understand his commitment to helping investors in our much devastated funds (one of which effects both him and me)
Investors are learning the hard way that we can only depend on ourselves, so it is imperative that we educate ourselves as best we can....and without the benefit of expensive legal counsel,(which the fund manager has at their disposal) it is a monumental challenge, and we can really only help eachother.
There have been some invaluable contributions on this thread, and ASICK has done much to contribute to helping us unitholders with his legal background (and his considerable business experience)
I also forgot to mention Gardie that Ms Hutson did the rounds of some Financial Advisers and Fund managers in Melb and Syd before the EGM feeding them the 'same old rhetoric' of what a wonderfull job WC was doing etc. If any of them believed WC and advised their clients to support WC I would not be at all surprised if they have not since been inundated with highly indignant clients/investors who DO NOt want WC as RE once it was revealed in the media what actually happened at the EGM. I know this for a fact as I have spoken to several individuals since who are non too happy with having been advised to do nothing or vote for WC previously.Gardie, I spoke to a few financial advisers, some who were skeptical of CasCap originally then changed their opinion as time went on. Others were the same as me, thought that we were doing the right thing initially by electing WC as opposed to liquidation. Now they realise that although yes they too believed at the time it was the better alternative and advised their clients to support WC, they could see that the PIF had certainly not performed as we all expected, quite the contrary.
I also believe that once the hiring of votes was exposed there were some who were willing to recontact their clients advising renewed support for CasCap.
In saying that I spoke with one adviser who said he only had the one client invested in the PIF and he wasn't wasting any time contacting them as their investment was ONLY $200,000
We know we had a lot of support and I think we can confidently rely on that support as being ongoing, which frees us up to concentrate on other areas.
Seamisty
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?