Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

66Joy said:

Does anyone know what has become of Ian Zelinski ?

Click to expand...

Agh, Mr Zelinski!
In Polish, the name would be akin to "Mr Greenman".
We may safely assume Mr G is deeply rooted in some
activity where his talents continue to prosper.
There may be a bump or two by way of a call up
by ASIC and or IMF actions on our behalf.
And thanks for mentioning Judy Stead.
I will always recall her gracious hosting of
Ladies Aussie Open in early '07.
It is there she kept reassuring me that she personally.
processed my withdrawal application.
In gratitude I later made her a little corny souvenir of a tournament
golf ball with MFS insignia on it.
In blissful and joyous ignorance, I continued to gorge
on dainty canapes; instead of choking her windpipes
and demanding pyment right there and then in the hospitality tent.
Story of my life; another missed opportunity.
Sorry 66Joy, just reflections,
Regards,

Ps. Mr Z's last communication to me was
an offer of a Premier Service membership.

A thought of Sophocles: Things gained through unjust fraud are never secure.

ASIC raids Equititrust office

Nick Nichols, business editor | October 21st, 2011
A WEEK of boardroom drama at Equititrust escalated yesterday when the national corporate watchdog raided the Chevron Island offices of the funds manager.
Officers of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) executed a warrant to remove company records, forcing Equititrust to send its staff home for the day.
The move was branded last night as the work of "mischief makers" by company founder Mark McIvor. It comes on the heels of his ousting of former director David Tucker last week and the appointment of a new chairman and chief executive this week.
ASIC would not comment on the nature of its investigation yesterday but new chairman Jeff McDermid confirmed the focus was on "prior transactions".
In another development yesterday, Mr Tucker filed an application in the Queensland Supreme Court to have a receiver appointed to oversee the winding up of the Equititrust Income Fund (EIF) -- a task being done by the current board.
"Personally, I find that quite bizarre," Mr McIvor told the Bulletin last night.
Mr Tucker, who has been Equititrust's legal counsel for many years, was forced off the board by Mr McIvor after a request by former chairman John Goddard was ignored.
Equititrust had cited "perceived conflicts of interest arising from the fact his legal firm had been receiving millions of dollars in fees from Equititrust" for his removal.
"Since being sacked, Mr Tucker has repeatedly expressed concern that (Equititrust's) legal spend, which last year amounted to $1.7 million, will be taken away from his firm," it said.
Mr Tucker has nominated a receiver to Equititrust.
Mr McIvor questioned the motives behind the move.
"We'll see what the court thinks of that next week," he said.
Equititrust has until next Thursday to respond.
Mr McDermid said the new board, including chief executive Troy Bingham and insolvency expert Paul Vincent, had done a preliminary review and found Equititrust's latest statutory accounts and compliance audits were in arrears.
He said a former senior KPMG accountant had been appointed to complete the statutory accounts.
"The board has also resolved to undertake an immediate full forensic audit and review of the company's data files to determine the true state of affairs so as to ensure the responsible and lawful management of the wind up of the funds' property assets."
Equititrust is winding down its frozen funds, including the EIF which had $181 million in assets at the end of August, valuing the $1 units at 78c each.

You just can't keep him down!

Raptis on lookout for home, retail sites

by: Bridget Carter
From: The Australian
October 27, 2011 12:00AM
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ome-retail-sites/story-fn9656lz-1226177753498

GOLD Coast developer Jim Raptis says he is looking for sites to embark on new developments through the listed company he founded before it collapsed with debts of $1 billion during the global financial crisis.

Mr Raptis told The Australian yesterday that after undertaking some "general" advisory work, he hoped to be back developing again in a year with the listed Raptis Group.

OK but what about paying PIF back for the dud loans!!!!!!!!!!

Accounts and Audit
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund wishes to confirm the basis
upon which the valuation of the assets of the Premium Income Fund occurred at 30 June 2011. Additionally
Wellington Capital wishes to confirm that nothing has come to its attention since the publication of the
accounts which changes the directors’ views as to the value of the mortgage loans nor the asset backed loans
as at 30 June 2011.
Valuation Methodology
Page 5 of the Annual Report of the Premium Income Fund for 30 June 2011 released to the market on 30
September 2011 states the valuation methodology adopted by directors. This methodology is the same as
that adopted in prior years.
‘The primary assets of the Fund are loans made to borrowers. Where a borrower has defaulted the
Fund has taken steps to secure the underlying security and become mortgagee-in-possession. The value
of the underlying security property has been based on Directors valuations and assessments of the
properties in comparison to similar properties. Contracts of sale provide the best evidence of a
valuation and a number of properties have subsequently been sold realising a value greater than their
book value. For those properties that have not been sold, formal external valuations provide the next
best comparison.
An obligation exists upon the Directors to inform the market and if necessary issue restated accounts
should the value of assets be significantly and materially different to the book value.’
Note 2(d) (page 18 of the Annual Report) and Note 14 (page 25 of the Annual Report) outlines in further
detail the methodology used to determine carrying values.
The auditors for the period to 30 June 2011, PricewaterhouseCoopers, did not formulate an opinion as to the
carrying value of the assets as at 30 June 2011 as set out in their opinion on page 39 of the Annual Report.
They did however note that the net assets had been valued by the directors, assisted by external advisors, on
the basis described in Note 2(d) and Note 14.
Continuous Disclosure
The directors of Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund confirm that
they have disclosed all information required to ensure that the market is fully informed and have met and
continue to meet the disclosure obligations of the Corporations Act 2001 and the NSX Listing Rules.
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724537.PDF

Who do Wellington Capital think they are fooling apart from themselves? Is this the same WC who also claimed to know nothing about the 'rent a crowd' at the EGM in Sydney and why the PIF unit price hit 20cents on the NSX, around the same time as the Craig Wallace owned company Yuon Essentials became a major shareholder? You bet it is.

Another mirror image of universality of anonymous advisors.
Doesn't matter where in the world.

.......Olympus shares fell 7.6 per cent on Wednesday and have lost more than half their value since Woodford was fired.

The Briton said he was fired for questioning the payment to unidentified advisers in the $US2.2 billion takeover of medical equipment maker Gyrus. At about 30 per cent of the acquisition price, that set a record in M&A fees.

Unanswered questions about the Gyrus deal and other Olympus acquisitions have spurred various theories, including speculation Japan's yakuza crime syndicates, euphemistically referred to as "anti-social forces", could be involved.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/worl...-fee-stoush-20111027-1mksi.html#ixzz1bwE2HPky

Click to expand...

Regards,

Really Jenny (aka TFS) PWC did not resign for nothing. Having a irresponsible entity basing its fees on unsupported directors valuations is criminal.

And this piece of contorted logic: "Contracts of sale provide the best evidence of a
valuation and a number of properties have subsequently been sold realising a value greater than their book value. For those properties that have not been sold, formal external valuations provide the next best comparison.

"Contracts of sale provide the best evidence of a valuation.." Not if it is a firesale and/or nonarms length transactions between greedy mates.

"...formal external valuations provide the next best comparison". That's OK but you would not disclose them to PWC so they refused to sign off on the accounts and resigned. This is clearly cargo cult mentality - looks like you may have had one too many enemagrams!!!!

I am a very simple person who likes a little bit of logic. Why will Wellington not reveal who these external advisors are and what methodology was used. It is not the first time they have been asked. It may well be that if PWC resigned this time because of the reasons outlined they should have resigned much earlier if the same valuation method was conducted as stated by Wellington. Another thing, it may be correct for the management to value the assets of a fund but is it morally right when the management have a vested interest in the result of the valuation. It is acknowledged that the management fee and dismissal of the management hinge on the last audited value of the fund. As there has been no audit does the fee revert to the last audit which in fact reveals a higher NTA?

charles36 said:

I am a very simple person who likes a little bit of logic. Why will Wellington not reveal who these external advisors are and what methodology was used. It is not the first time they have been asked. It may well be that if PWC resigned this time because of the reasons outlined they should have resigned much earlier if the same valuation method was conducted as stated by Wellington. Another thing, it may be correct for the management to value the assets of a fund but is it morally right when the management have a vested interest in the result of the valuation. It is acknowledged that the management fee and dismissal of the management hinge on the last audited value of the fund. As there has been no audit does the fee revert to the last audit which in fact reveals a higher NTA?

Click to expand...

Reminds me of my dear old dad Charles, he used to say "I am a simple man of taste!" As regards to the logic, there can really only be one interpretation of Wellington's actions, and I just cannot understand why ASIC have not stepped in. ...Do they have the equivalent of the UK Fraud Squad in Australia??? ......... John H

JohnH said:

Reminds me of my dear old dad Charles, he used to say "I am a simple man of taste!" As regards to the logic, there can really only be one interpretation of Wellington's actions, and I just cannot understand why ASIC have not stepped in. ...Do they have the equivalent of the UK Fraud Squad in Australia??? ......... John H

Click to expand...

JohnH My mother used to say to me, "Charles my son, all good things come to those who wait." I say the time is nigh, if my logic holds up. Regards Charles36

The latest WC communique is quite fantastical. Perhaps it's a sign that they are feeling the water rising over their waists.

ASIC appears to be taking an interest in audits.

Elderslie auditor agrees gatekeeping days are over
Leonie Lamont
October 28, 2011
THE lead auditor who signed the accounts of Elderslie Finance and Grenfell Securities in the years before their collapse will never work as an auditor again, the corporate regulator says

ASIC said Mr Lockyer had not ensured qualified audit reports were issued; that the work performed regarding ''going concern'' was adequate; ''and that the audit opinion issued properly disclosed the seriousness of Elderslie's and Grenfell's position''.

Fll article: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/bus...gatekeeping-days-are-over-20111027-1mm1m.html

The Equititrust saga is interesting, more updates in the links below


http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/equititrust-fails-to-b-move/story-e6freqmx-1226178897603

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2011/10/28/361131_crime-and-court-news.html

Do any other unit holders feel like they are involved in a "COLD WAR" I mean all we are trying to do is get the best we can from our miserable investment and when you ask a question or two you feel as if you are the enemy trying to infiltrate a closed shop. The sooner there is some closure to this episode in my life the better I will feel. However, I would not want expediency to sacrifice justice for all.

ASIC boosts convictions, revenues

Published 6:00 AM, 28 Oct 2011 Last update 6:00 AM, 28 Oct 2011

By a staff reporter

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has doubled the number of insider trading cases, which helped boost revenues seven per cent to $622 million, according to its annual report.

The regulator produced six criminal convictions resulting in jail time in the past year, in addition to four cases of market manipulation and insider trading that remain before the courts.

Revenues were helped by the convictions, such as former Orion Asset Management equities dealer John Hartman who paid $1.57 million to the government when he pleaded guilty to 25 insider trading changes.

In addition, a former senior manager at KPMG Andrew Dalzell, Macquarie Bank fund manager Oswyn de Silva, former Macquarie Equities client advisor Newton Chan, former Bell Potter adviser Rocco Musumeci and former ABN Amro adviser Richard Wade were charged for insider trading in the past year.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...report-pd20111027-N2Q55?OpenDocument&src=hp28

marcom said:

ASIC boosts convictions, revenues

Published 6:00 AM, 28 Oct 2011 Last update 6:00 AM, 28 Oct 2011

By a staff reporter


The regulator produced six criminal convictions resulting in jail time in the past year, in addition to four cases of market manipulation and insider trading that remain before the courts.


http://www.businessspectator.com.au...report-pd20111027-N2Q55?OpenDocument&src=hp28

Click to expand...

Purely for interests sake I have been doing some research into what constitutes 'market manipulation'

CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1041A
Market manipulation
A person must not take part in, or carry out (whether directly or indirectly and whether in this jurisdiction or elsewhere):

(a) a transaction that has or is likely to have; or

(b) 2 or more transactions that have or are likely to have;

the effect of:

(c) creating an artificial price for trading in financial products on a financial market operated in this jurisdiction; or

(d) maintaining at a level that is artificial (whether or not it was previously artificial) a price for trading in financial products on a financial market operated in this jurisdiction.

Note 1: Failure to comply with this section is an offence (see subsection 1311(1)).

Note 2: This section is also a civil penalty provision (see section 1317E). For relief from liability to a civil penalty relating to this section, see section 1317S.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s1041a.html

seamisty said:

...
Who do Wellington Capital think they are fooling apart from themselves? Is this the same WC who also claimed to know nothing about the 'rent a crowd' at the EGM in Sydney and why the PIF unit price hit 20cents on the NSX, around the same time as the Craig Wallace owned company Yuon Essentials became a major shareholder? You bet it is.

Click to expand...

Fortunately for WC it doesn't take much to fool some PIF investors.

And it seems that our experience has changed nothing.

Check out this ad from NRMA's member magazine 'Open Road' for September/October

Feels awfully familiar to me. Selling a huge increase in risk in exchange for a few % more interest. This page from Colonial presents the case well. http://www.colonialfirststate.com.au/producteducation/managedfunds/assclassmf.aspx?menutabtype=pe

IMLO PIF is more of a Property Security than a Fixed Interest investment.

charles36 said:

Do any other unit holders feel like they are involved in a "COLD WAR" I mean all we are trying to do is get the best we can from our miserable investment and when you ask a question or two you feel as if you are the enemy trying to infiltrate a closed shop. The sooner there is some closure to this episode in my life the better I will feel. However, I would not want expediency to sacrifice justice for all.

Click to expand...

You know Charles, one of the immortal sayings in
human evolution is "I'll be back".
Said by Justice that eventually reaches those malignant parasites feeding on trusting folks like us.
While we watch ASIC's snail-marching towards dispensing Justice, let's hope
it follows the priority list it surely must have created.
And we hope PIF is at the top of that list by now.
Stand firm,
Regards

seamisty said:

... Additionally Wellington Capital wishes to confirm that nothing has come to its attention since the publication of the accounts which changes the directors’ views as to the value of the mortgage loans nor the asset backed loans
as at 30 June 2011.
Valuation Methodology
Page 5 of the Annual Report of the Premium Income Fund for 30 June 2011 released to the market on 30 September 2011 states the valuation methodology adopted by directors. This methodology is the same as that adopted in prior years.
‘The primary assets of the Fund are loans made to borrowers. Where a borrower has defaulted the Fund has taken steps to secure the underlying security and become mortgagee-in-possession. The value of the underlying security property has been based on Directors valuations and assessments of the properties in comparison to similar properties. Contracts of sale provide the best evidence of a valuation and a number of properties have subsequently been sold realising a value greater than their
book value. For those properties that have not been sold, formal external valuations provide the next best comparison.
An obligation exists upon the Directors to inform the market and if necessary issue restated accounts should the value of assets be significantly and materially different to the book value.’
Note 2(d) (page 18 of the Annual Report) and Note 14 (page 25 of the Annual Report) outlines in further detail the methodology used to determine carrying values.
The auditors for the period to 30 June 2011, PricewaterhouseCoopers, did not formulate an opinion as to the carrying value of the assets as at 30 June 2011 as set out in their opinion on page 39 of the Annual Report.
They did however note that the net assets had been valued by the directors, assisted by external advisors, on the basis described in Note 2(d) and Note 14.
Continuous Disclosure
...
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724537.PDF

...

Click to expand...

As usual, lots of words from Wellington.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Hmmm, lets see what the market thinks. Ooops bid at 8.5c vanished and another holding takes the bullet @ 8.1c. Nice work WC. Even the Fairfax press calling PIF "clapped out" didn't appear to have that effect.

"nothing has come to its attention since the publication of the accounts which changes the directors’ views" Certainly won't if you avoid looking for new info. Especially if you stick your head in the sand. Like continuing to dine after the Titanic had been sliced open and began its death.

WC announces:

"based on Directors valuations" I'll be discounting that considering they have a vested interest in the valuations being higher rather than lower.

"comparison to similar properties." Note 2(d) goes on to say "The current lack of comparable market evidence ..." So I guess that element of the "valuation methodology" can't have played a big role.

"a number of properties have subsequently been sold realising a value greater than their
book value." Fair enough. That gives me some confidence. But this needs to be discounted by the fact that PIF doesn't really hold that many properties and even then the range is very broad. Right? I.e. is WC saying that because it got it right for apartments in Coffs means it'll get it rights for a resort in the Gold Coast hinterlands, a sand stone quarry in Helidon or an empty block in Yeppoon?

So we (hence also PWC) are left with "formal external valuations provide the next best comparison"

And right there is WC's big ommission in this announcement:
"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 evaluate the appropriateness of the advisors work"

Investor Advisory Committee
Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Income Fund is pleased to advise that it has
three current nominations from Unitholders wishing to be members of the Investor Advisory Committee.
These nominations were received in response to the request for nominations set out in Investor Update 2 of
2011.
As there are three nominations for the three positions, no election is required. Ms Andrejic, Ms Busch and
Mr Nichols now comprise the Investor Advisory Committee.
Managing Director, Jenny Hutson said, ‘I am pleased to welcome Ms Busch and Mr Nichols to the Investor
Advisory Committee and thank Ms Andrejic for her continuing efforts on the Committee. My thanks goes to
the departing members of the first committee in what has been a pivotal time for the Premium Income Fund.’
Details of Committee Members
Mr Robert Nichols
‘My experiences are spread out covering a wide area. Firstly I have worked for my myself since I was 21
years of age. I have had numerous businesses including in the building industry, real estate, news agencies. I
owned, ran and made cut off’s of four newsagencies. I have set up, run and controlled my own
superannuation fund with real estate stocks and shares. I have also owned and operated an Australian wide
wholesale movie business. I have operated my own strata management business with 120 different body
corporates and have owned and operated my own child care centre.
I feel I have sufficient broad experience to bring to the Investor Advisory Committee.’
Ms Faye Busch
‘For 21 years, I was an owner-operator of a successful motel and upmarket restaurant business which won a
Queensland Tourism award. I could write a book on the highs and lows of running a 24/7 small business and
the absolute dedication required.
On retirement, unbelievably, an accident in a restaurant with a book and a pot of tea caused me to invent a
small convenient ‘thing’ to hold books open. The development of the pocket sized BookWiz from idea to
product was an exciting journey with sales in Britain, Europe an Australia.
As a member of the PIF Investor Advisory Committee, I will always have the investors’ interests at heart.’
Ms Brownyn Andrejic
‘I am a qualified accountant and manage my family superannuation fund.
I have also managed our family business for the last 25 years including shopping centres and shopping
arcades in north Queensland.
I have four children and a keen interest in finance and investments.’
Role of the Investor Advisory Committee
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 have an opportunity to discuss current issues with the board and management
team and the outcome of each committee meeting is be provided to all unitholders in the following Investor
Update.
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021724547.PDF