It will be a great day when we can sit at our computers and read similar results for other people who have destroyed the lives and wealth of many unit holders and shareholders. I hope I am around long enough to see it.
Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF
- Thread starter breaker1
- Start date
It will be a great day when we can sit at our computers and read similar results for other people who have destroyed the lives and wealth of many unit holders and shareholders. I hope I am around long enough to see it.
ASIC continues to procrastinate: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-...recover-lost-millions/3034964/?site=newcastle
From the above article::"ASIC was notified of the situation at YCW and from council's perspective we've had no feedback from ASIC and I think ASIC needs to be examined as well.
"ASIC has let a lot of people down over a period of time and I think it's time all of this was brought out into the open."
From the above article::"ASIC was notified of the situation at YCW and from council's perspective we've had no feedback from ASIC and I think ASIC needs to be examined as well.
"ASIC has let a lot of people down over a period of time and I think it's time all of this was brought out into the open."
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724458.PDF
Notice of ceasing to be a substantial shareholder. They have unloaded 663894 shares from the Wholesale PIF - presumably the remainder. I think we can assume where they (and the rest) went!!
............ John H.
Notice of ceasing to be a substantial shareholder. They have unloaded 663894 shares from the Wholesale PIF - presumably the remainder. I think we can assume where they (and the rest) went!!
............ John H.
- Joined
- 22 May 2008
- Posts
- 758
- Reactions
- 0
JohnH. I suspect WPIF is still number two in the top 10 shareholder list. Ceasing to be a "substantial shareholder" merely means WPIF holds less than 5%.
PIF annual financial report has been posted on the NSX. I hear Ms Hutson is back in Australia and the Cherie Hearts case was still in court today in Singapore.
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724465.PDF
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724465.PDF
I haven't made it all the way through the PIF Annual report yet but went straight to the Auditor's report at the back (47th & 48th pages). It seems the auditor's couldn't give an audit opinion on the financial report; even the auditor's can't get information needed out of Wellington Capital.
"Auditor's responsibility
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the financial report based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with Australian Auditing Standards. Because of the matter described in the Basis for Disclaimer of Opinion paragraph, however, we were not able to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide a basis for an audit opinion.
"Basis for Disclaimer of Opinion
The recoverable amount of mortgage loans amounting to $135,722,000 representing 60% of the Trust's net assets have been valued by the directors assisted by their external advisors on the basis described in note 2(d) and note 14. At the date of issue of this report we were unable to obtain access to the external advisors and their supporting work papers and as a result were unable to to evaluate the appropriateness of the advisors work and obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence in relation to the recoverable amount of the mortgage loans. In addition, included within other financial assets are asset backed loans amounting to $24m. We were unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence about the carrying value of these asset backed loans as management were unable to provide us with sufficient appropriate audit evidence in respect of the valuation of the underlying security. As a result of these matters, we were unable to determine whether any adjustments might have been found necessary in respect of the recoverable amount of the mortgage loans or the valuation of the asset-backed loans.
"Disclaimer of opinion
Because of the significance of the matters described in the Basis for Disclaimer of Opinion paragraph, we have not been able to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide the basis for an audit opinion. Accordingly we do not express an opinion on the financial report.
"PricewaterhouseCoopers"
Note 2(d) is on page 18 and Note 14 on page 25 of the Annual Report.
A lot of questions need to be asked: Why was the appropriate information not made available to the auditors? Who are the external advisors? Why wasn't access provided to the external advisors? Certainly WC's behaviour is NOT acceptable.
ASIC, where are you???
Cookie1
"Auditor's responsibility
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the financial report based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with Australian Auditing Standards. Because of the matter described in the Basis for Disclaimer of Opinion paragraph, however, we were not able to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide a basis for an audit opinion.
"Basis for Disclaimer of Opinion
The recoverable amount of mortgage loans amounting to $135,722,000 representing 60% of the Trust's net assets have been valued by the directors assisted by their external advisors on the basis described in note 2(d) and note 14. At the date of issue of this report we were unable to obtain access to the external advisors and their supporting work papers and as a result were unable to to evaluate the appropriateness of the advisors work and obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence in relation to the recoverable amount of the mortgage loans. In addition, included within other financial assets are asset backed loans amounting to $24m. We were unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence about the carrying value of these asset backed loans as management were unable to provide us with sufficient appropriate audit evidence in respect of the valuation of the underlying security. As a result of these matters, we were unable to determine whether any adjustments might have been found necessary in respect of the recoverable amount of the mortgage loans or the valuation of the asset-backed loans.
"Disclaimer of opinion
Because of the significance of the matters described in the Basis for Disclaimer of Opinion paragraph, we have not been able to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide the basis for an audit opinion. Accordingly we do not express an opinion on the financial report.
"PricewaterhouseCoopers"
Note 2(d) is on page 18 and Note 14 on page 25 of the Annual Report.
A lot of questions need to be asked: Why was the appropriate information not made available to the auditors? Who are the external advisors? Why wasn't access provided to the external advisors? Certainly WC's behaviour is NOT acceptable.
ASIC, where are you???
Cookie1
- Joined
- 12 July 2008
- Posts
- 416
- Reactions
- 0
Is Auditor under professional obligation to report to ASIC such non-compliances?
Cookie and others. During the campaign to remove Wellington Capital I spoke to many unit holders, some very well off and some not so. I discussed the manner in which Wellington Capital arrived at the NTA and I always referred to the last audit wherein the valuations of our holdings was estimated by Wellington Capital Ltd, M/S Jennifer Joan Hutson and her advisors. I tried in vain to ascertain who the advisors were but of course to NO AVAIL. I came to the conclusion that the advisors could have been the "tea lady" for all we knew but then again a tea lady has some budgeting skills and we might have been better off. I am waiting for a detailed analysis of the latest audit and I then intend to refer the matter to ASIC. OTHER PEOPLE MAY FEEL THE SAME WAY?
Cookie wouldn't you think that after the thousands of complaints that ASIC has received for over 3years relating to the PIF that they should be all over Wellington Capital's Financial reporting themselves? But no, once again it will be up to individual Premium Income Fund unitholders to pester the crap out of ASIC once again to remind them of just how pathetic they have been in regulating/monitoring the actions of a Responsible Enity that has proved on many occassions to be seriously incompetent. Here we go again, for those of you who are less than impressed with WC performance in charging an audit to us where it could not be succesfully undertaken due to Wellington Capital once again hindering the process by failing to provide relevant documentation. So much for having a Compliance Plan and a Compliance Committee. In our case as much use as 't1ts on a boar pig'.
Please take the time to contact ASIC in relation to the latest act of Wellington Capital PIF mismanagement.
Write ASIC::
ASIC Complaints
Australian Securities and Investments Commission
GPO Box 9827
Your Capital City
Ph ASIC::
1300 300 630
Or alternatively email:James Stewart | Lawyer | Misconduct & Breach Reporting | ASIC | Level 20, 240 Queen Street Brisbane QLD 4000
james.stewart@asic.gov.au
FAX :::Brisbane Office:: Fax: (07) 3867 4725
Thanks, Seamisty
My complaint re audit has been emailed to ASIC.
What an auditor must report under s311 and
601GH:An auditor is obliged to report where he or she has reasonable grounds to
suspect that there has been or is a significant contravention of the
Corporations Act.
What is a ‘significant’ contravention?
RG 34.29::'the adequacy of the information available about the overall
financial position of the company, registered scheme or disclosing
entity'
RG 34.31::Some other types of suspected contraventions that could be considered by an auditor to be significant.
(a) insolvent trading;
(b) a breach of accounting standards or the ‘true and fair view’
requirements;
(c) a breach of Div 2, Pt 2 of the Australian Securities and Investments
Commission Act 2001 (the ASIC Act);
(d) suspected dishonest or misleading and deceptive conduct; and
(e) a breach that may cause a significant loss to any person or class of
persons.
Plenty more on auditors responsibilites from the ASIC website:http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/pdflib.nsf/LookupByFileName/rg34.pdf/$file/rg34.pdf
Looks like Mr Byrnes' ALF is at it again, Equititrust is now in its sights!!;;
http://www.irw-press.com/en/news_13725.html
'We further confirm that the first of three takeover offers on Equititrust is ready to be sent to the company next week. ALF Finance and Investments has written to the targets largest shareholder and former chairman and invited a private discussion before sending out the offer. The results of that discussion will determine which version of the offer will be submitted. ;
http://www.irw-press.com/en/news_13725.html
'We further confirm that the first of three takeover offers on Equititrust is ready to be sent to the company next week. ALF Finance and Investments has written to the targets largest shareholder and former chairman and invited a private discussion before sending out the offer. The results of that discussion will determine which version of the offer will be submitted. ;
No one in their right mind would accept a take over offer from that company. They are only looking after themselves with the intent of screwing the investors who sign over to them.
Unfortunately for us I think their take over was too close to the Castlereagh attempt which may have unnerved some into accepting Castlereagh.
I personally cant wait to see another attempt to sack Wellington by Castlereagh or another responsible company.
It will be very interesting to see how ASIC, ATO, NSX, CENTRELINK and any other Government Regulatory authority treat the self assessment of the value of Wellington Capital PIF. If no evidence can be produced of Licensed valuers or accepted methods of valuations of the Managed Fund in question then how can Wellington Capital correctly estimate the value of our units? What faith could people have in purchasing units nor how do unit holders really make a considered decision? How can anyone rely upon Wellington Capital? Obviously the Auditors do not so why should we? Wake up Government authorities and please do something to rectify this most unsatisfactory state of affairs before there is nothing left to value.
- Joined
- 6 December 2009
- Posts
- 64
- Reactions
- 0
In my business I have a 3 month audit & the auditor reports to the Government Office of Fair Trading as part of their job. Is it worth enquiring if the auditor here is following regulations? They must care about their professional obligation & duty of care.
I have a "Self funded retirement superannuation fund" which requires an audit costing about $600 all up. It must be audited every year, no excuses, the ATO come down heavily on the little bloke who does not comply. We all know that Wellington Capital Ltd appear to be a law unto themselves. I did not attend any of the last roadshows but I was informed that something was said that the valuations had all been properly costed etc? Where does that leave the unit holders who went away humbly satisfied? Where does that leave the unit holders who allegedly voted to retain Wellington Capital Ltd. in preference to a well run and organised company with experience in dealing with property sales and recovery?
Lets hope the 'regulators' are as quick to pick up on the lack of PIF compliance as the media has!! Make sure you all draw it to the attention of the appropriate regulators please, I would hate to let them think we have given up and are prepared to let these type of actions pass un- noticed.
Auditor's concern a PIFfling matter
Scott Rochfort
October 3, 2011.
The manager of the MFS-founded Premium Income Fund, Wellington Capital's Jenny Hutson, does not appear too concerned about being unable to lodge an audited set of full-year accounts.
''Thank you for your support during what has been an eventful year for your fund,'' a smiling Hutson said in her letter in the PIF annual report. She made no mention of the auditor PricewaterhouseCoopers declining to sign the same set of accounts, given it was unable to gain comfort on the new $135.7 million valuation on the loans made by the mortgage fund to various developers, loans that make up 60 per cent of the fund's net assets.
''At the date of issue of this report, we were unable to obtain access to the external advisers and their supporting work papers and, as a result, were unable to evaluate the appropriateness of the advisers' work and obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence in relation to the recoverable amount of the mortgage loans,'' PwC partner Timothy Allman said in his report on the PIF.
With Wellington Capital able to collect management fees once she returns another 1 ¢ to unitholders, it should be interesting to see if Hutson bases her 0.7 per cent annual fee on the unaudited $224.9 million of assets in the fund.
Wellington in its accounts did not name the ''independent advisers'' it used to value its mortgage loans, which had been already written down by $72.5 million the previous financial year. PwC also said it was unable to ''obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence'' over a further $24 million worth of asset-backed loans held by the fund
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/auditors-concern-a-piffling-matter-20111002-1l3r0.html#ixzz1ZfL3O3c7
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/auditors-concern-a-piffling-matter-20111002-1l3r0.html#ixzz1ZfKpkjmb
- Joined
- 6 June 2008
- Posts
- 427
- Reactions
- 0
Back from OS (with a new more appropriate avatar) only to find the latest WC PIF rort amply highlighted in this Scott Roachfort article in the Brisbane Times. What are those ASIC F===WITS doing allowing unaudited valuations!!!!
Auditor's concern a PIFfling matter
Scott Rochfort
October 2, 2011
CBD
The manager of the MFS-founded Premium Income Fund, Wellington Capital's Jenny Hutson, does not appear too concerned about being unable to lodge an audited set of full-year accounts.
''Thank you for your support during what has been an eventful year for your fund,'' a smiling Hutson said in her letter in the PIF annual report. She made no mention of the auditor PricewaterhouseCoopers declining to sign the same set of accounts, given it was unable to gain comfort on the new $135.7 million valuation on the loans made by the mortgage fund to various developers, loans that make up 60 per cent of the fund's net assets.
''At the date of issue of this report, we were unable to obtain access to the external advisers and their supporting work papers and, as a result, were unable to evaluate the appropriateness of the advisers' work and obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence in relation to the recoverable amount of the mortgage loans,'' PwC partner Timothy Allman said in his report on the PIF.
Advertisement: Story continues below
With Wellington Capital able to collect management fees once she returns another 1 ¢ to unitholders, it should be interesting to see if Hutson bases her 0.7 per cent annual fee on the unaudited $224.9 million of assets in the fund.
Wellington in its accounts did not name the ''independent advisers'' it used to value its mortgage loans, which had been already written down by $72.5 million the previous financial year. PwC also said it was unable to ''obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence'' over a further $24 million worth of asset-backed loans held by the fund.
Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/bus...ling-matter-20111002-1l3r0.html#ixzz1ZfI6GyNe
Auditor's concern a PIFfling matter
Scott Rochfort
October 2, 2011
CBD
The manager of the MFS-founded Premium Income Fund, Wellington Capital's Jenny Hutson, does not appear too concerned about being unable to lodge an audited set of full-year accounts.
''Thank you for your support during what has been an eventful year for your fund,'' a smiling Hutson said in her letter in the PIF annual report. She made no mention of the auditor PricewaterhouseCoopers declining to sign the same set of accounts, given it was unable to gain comfort on the new $135.7 million valuation on the loans made by the mortgage fund to various developers, loans that make up 60 per cent of the fund's net assets.
''At the date of issue of this report, we were unable to obtain access to the external advisers and their supporting work papers and, as a result, were unable to evaluate the appropriateness of the advisers' work and obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence in relation to the recoverable amount of the mortgage loans,'' PwC partner Timothy Allman said in his report on the PIF.
Advertisement: Story continues below
With Wellington Capital able to collect management fees once she returns another 1 ¢ to unitholders, it should be interesting to see if Hutson bases her 0.7 per cent annual fee on the unaudited $224.9 million of assets in the fund.
Wellington in its accounts did not name the ''independent advisers'' it used to value its mortgage loans, which had been already written down by $72.5 million the previous financial year. PwC also said it was unable to ''obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence'' over a further $24 million worth of asset-backed loans held by the fund.
Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/bus...ling-matter-20111002-1l3r0.html#ixzz1ZfI6GyNe
