Do unit holders believe there is a lot of difference between Equitrust and Wellington Capital?
Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF
- Thread starter breaker1
- Start date
Do unit holders believe there is a lot of difference between Equitrust and Wellington Capital?
The only difference is that ASIC got of its ass and did something. Meanwhile PIF unitholders are waiting, waiting, waiting...........
- Joined
- 6 June 2008
- Posts
- 427
- Reactions
- 0
Here is a small mention of ASIC accounting orders regarding Compass. The last paragraph says it all. Article by Michael West SMH Business Day 3 November 2011.
"...The review of the ASIC exemption order also brought back a recent memory of another ASIC exemption order for Evans & Tate Limited. As in the case of Compass, the Evans & Tate order was given to Martin Jones of Ferrier Hodgson. And as in the case of Compass, the Evans & Tate order was signed off by the same ASIC officer, Lorraine Mizzi.
Evans & Tate, as reported in these pages previously, sold a winery to then ASIC chairman Tony D'Aloisio shortly after the issue of its ASIC accounting exemption order. The winery sale by a financially distressed company being regulated by ASIC to the chairman of ASIC was apparently approved by the Treasurer as consistent with the maintenance of the high standards of ethical behaviour expected from public servants.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/dire...ss-accounts-20111102-1mvle.html#ixzz1caVKRNu4
Just appalling - another reminder about the lack of regulation in this country. No wounder nothing happens at ASIC about our complaints!
"...The review of the ASIC exemption order also brought back a recent memory of another ASIC exemption order for Evans & Tate Limited. As in the case of Compass, the Evans & Tate order was given to Martin Jones of Ferrier Hodgson. And as in the case of Compass, the Evans & Tate order was signed off by the same ASIC officer, Lorraine Mizzi.
Evans & Tate, as reported in these pages previously, sold a winery to then ASIC chairman Tony D'Aloisio shortly after the issue of its ASIC accounting exemption order. The winery sale by a financially distressed company being regulated by ASIC to the chairman of ASIC was apparently approved by the Treasurer as consistent with the maintenance of the high standards of ethical behaviour expected from public servants.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/dire...ss-accounts-20111102-1mvle.html#ixzz1caVKRNu4
Just appalling - another reminder about the lack of regulation in this country. No wounder nothing happens at ASIC about our complaints!
From Nature's Voice: 'The all-black carrion crow is one of the cleverest, most adaptable of our birds. It is often quite fearless, although it can be wary of man. They are fairly solitary, usually found alone or in pairs. The closely related hooded crow has recently been split as a separate species. Carrion crows will come to gardens for food and although often cautious initially, they soon learn when it is safe, and will return repeatedly to take advantage of whatever is on offer.'
Marcom
They all have their snouts neck deep in the trough
Remember this guy was once the CEO of the ASX
Tony D' Aloisio son sold a buisness named Green Frog Nominees that later became a Company called, Opus Prime
- Joined
- 12 July 2008
- Posts
- 416
- Reactions
- 0
ASIC out of hybernation?
Advisers' misconduct targeted
November 2, 2011 Fund Pick
At a time when the Commonwealth Bank, along with other banks, insurers and fund managers, is fighting aspects of the government's proposals to reform the financial planning industry, Commonwealth Financial Planning has been forced to accept an ''enforceable undertaking'' from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.
It follows an investigation by the regulator in the provision of advice by some of Commonwealth Financial Planning's financial advisers.
The Commonwealth Bank is part of the push to water down the government's proposed reforms to financial planning and to delay their implementation. The proposed reforms are in response to financial planning disasters, such as Storm Financial.
The Commonwealth Bank provided loans to many of Storm's clients. At the time, it apologised for shortcomings in its lending practices and paid some compensation to clients.
Among the proposed reforms, the banks and insurers do not like the ''opt in'' proposal, under which clients of advisers will have to agree, every two years, to continue to receive ongoing services from their financial planner.
Banks and insurers rely on the financial planners they employ and those that are aligned to them to keep the money flowing into their superannuation funds.
To resist reforms that will help protect consumers while being found wanting by the regulator under the current laws is not a good look for the Commonwealth Bank.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/money/advisers-misconduct-targeted-20111101-1msn7.html#ixzz1ccGXTYmr
Advisers' misconduct targeted
November 2, 2011 Fund Pick
At a time when the Commonwealth Bank, along with other banks, insurers and fund managers, is fighting aspects of the government's proposals to reform the financial planning industry, Commonwealth Financial Planning has been forced to accept an ''enforceable undertaking'' from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.
It follows an investigation by the regulator in the provision of advice by some of Commonwealth Financial Planning's financial advisers.
The Commonwealth Bank is part of the push to water down the government's proposed reforms to financial planning and to delay their implementation. The proposed reforms are in response to financial planning disasters, such as Storm Financial.
The Commonwealth Bank provided loans to many of Storm's clients. At the time, it apologised for shortcomings in its lending practices and paid some compensation to clients.
Among the proposed reforms, the banks and insurers do not like the ''opt in'' proposal, under which clients of advisers will have to agree, every two years, to continue to receive ongoing services from their financial planner.
Banks and insurers rely on the financial planners they employ and those that are aligned to them to keep the money flowing into their superannuation funds.
To resist reforms that will help protect consumers while being found wanting by the regulator under the current laws is not a good look for the Commonwealth Bank.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/money/advisers-misconduct-targeted-20111101-1msn7.html#ixzz1ccGXTYmr
Some news from America. The regulators there move a good deal faster than our tired ASIC snail. And what is it about the capital letters MF? They seem to attract bad luck. (Story in Information Clearing House.)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29597.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29597.htm
If it's any help Charles, I still have the two envelopes, but they are opened.
Thank you JH but I need the pristine copy. I know they are out there. Regards Charles 36.
In the case of news, we should always wait for the sacrament of confirmation. (Voltaire)
The trouble for us is that there is NO news to confirm - IMF, ASIC, WC, Bentleys and the media generally are silent. After all, we are talking about huge sums of money having disappeared which caused lasting hardship for many thousands of investors. .
The trouble for us is that there is NO news to confirm - IMF, ASIC, WC, Bentleys and the media generally are silent. After all, we are talking about huge sums of money having disappeared which caused lasting hardship for many thousands of investors. .
And here's an item about Equititrust from today's SMH.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/westpac-owed-millions-by-equititrust-20111106-1n1z4.html
http://www.smh.com.au/business/westpac-owed-millions-by-equititrust-20111106-1n1z4.html
Hello Charles,
I have the second unopened document in my possession. i would be very happy to post it on to you.
Margaret.
Hi Delia, Please check your private message/notification inbox at the top of the page for contact/mailing details re flier. Thanks, Seamisty
Could WC please inform me of why they have over 30 staff working on our fund(our money), who are receiving probably good salaries, when us unit holders get nothing.
Why could not 30 unit holders manage & sell our properties instead.
Seems our money is being used by WC for their own use, when it should be coming back to unit holders, especially the original ones who had their money frozen.
I really cannot see anything coming back now, as there has been so much time gone by.
I guess the rule, is to never put your money in anything other than a Bank.
Why could not 30 unit holders manage & sell our properties instead.
Seems our money is being used by WC for their own use, when it should be coming back to unit holders, especially the original ones who had their money frozen.
I really cannot see anything coming back now, as there has been so much time gone by.
I guess the rule, is to never put your money in anything other than a Bank.
Thank you Margaret, I am sorry for not responding earlier but for some reason I have not been able to login. If you could go to private box as suggested by Seamisty that would be great. Regards Charles36.
I have the unopened copy of the PIF reaction group letters.
I just checked the forum this morning.
I have a completely sealed envelope of the second mailout containing the pifreaction group documents.
It is postmarked from northgate mail centre QLD 4013
I just checked the forum this morning.
I have a completely sealed envelope of the second mailout containing the pifreaction group documents.
It is postmarked from northgate mail centre QLD 4013
Thank you Sutho, go to private mail box. Regards Charles36.
Hello Charles,
I have your mailing address from Seamisty and will get the flier in the mail ASAP. Sorry it has taken me 24 hours to get back to you.
Margaret.
I have had many inquiries from unit holders concerning the distribution of the two separate documents by the PIF REACTION GROUP. The PIFAG are making inquiries to establish the identity of the person/persons responsible for the distribution of the grossly offensive documents and I have to say we are pleased with our progress.
It is our desire to use our resources, best we can, to gather sufficient evidence to report our findings to the Police .
The Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) Section 474.17 "Using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence" provides:
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person uses a carriage service; and
(b) the person does so in a way (whether by the method of use or the content of a communication, or both) that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, menacing, harassing or offensive.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years.
During the period, prior to the aborted meeting on the 23 June, 2011, I spoke to literallly hundreds and hundreds of unit holders. The documents were discussed, obviously, many unit holders were disgusted but unfortunately a number of unit holders chose to believe the documents and thus the authors achieved their objective in swinging these particular unit holders to vote for Wellington Capital.
It is noted that the PIF REACTION GROUP IS NOT INCORPORATED and efforts to trace this group has been unsuccessful. It leads to a conclusion that there may have never been such a group in existence. The PIFAG have requested Wellington Capital/Armstrong Registry Services to assist by indicating the purchaser/purchasers of the unit holders' register. However, the response from Wellington was, in part, "there have been a large number of requests for the register of members of the Premium Income Fund during 2011." To make it easy for Wellington the PIFAG isolated the dates in question. There was a time span of less than seventeen days. The PIFAG believe this would not be a mammoth task to look between those dates to see who requested and paid for the register. Wellington Capital/Armstrong Registry Services have not acceded to PIFAG's request.
It is interesting to note that Wellington Capital have indicated, "Wellington Capital has had a number of communications with persons representing to be part of the 'PIF Reaction Group.' The Fund has a diverse variety of Unitholders who choose to communicate with each other in a variety of methods.
Wellington Capital have acknowledged their responsibilities by saying, "Section 173(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) provides that a company or scheme must give a person a copy of the register within 7 days if the person makes application in accordance with the Act." There is also a proviso that the register must be used for a lawful purpose. In fact the PIFAG could not obtain a copy of the register until they signed an agreement to use the register for a lawful purpose. Wellington Capital have stated that they are unaware as to who sent the documents in question to the 10,400 unit holders but does not in any way support the use of the Funds register for other than proper purposes.
Unit holders may question, seeing that Wellington Capital has refused to help in detecting the persons responsible, are they saying the register was used for a lawful purpose?
Certainly, prima facie, it appears that a serious breach of the Criminal Code Act 1995, (Cth) may have been committed. This of course includes any person who may have "aided, abetted, counselled or procured in the production and distribution of the document.
Once again thank you to the unit holders who have supported the PIFAG and by no means can it be construed that we have cocooned ourselves away. It is our intention to keep monitoring the performance of our Fund and to do what it takes to save it from a "Wipepout."
It is our desire to use our resources, best we can, to gather sufficient evidence to report our findings to the Police .
The Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) Section 474.17 "Using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence" provides:
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person uses a carriage service; and
(b) the person does so in a way (whether by the method of use or the content of a communication, or both) that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, menacing, harassing or offensive.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years.
During the period, prior to the aborted meeting on the 23 June, 2011, I spoke to literallly hundreds and hundreds of unit holders. The documents were discussed, obviously, many unit holders were disgusted but unfortunately a number of unit holders chose to believe the documents and thus the authors achieved their objective in swinging these particular unit holders to vote for Wellington Capital.
It is noted that the PIF REACTION GROUP IS NOT INCORPORATED and efforts to trace this group has been unsuccessful. It leads to a conclusion that there may have never been such a group in existence. The PIFAG have requested Wellington Capital/Armstrong Registry Services to assist by indicating the purchaser/purchasers of the unit holders' register. However, the response from Wellington was, in part, "there have been a large number of requests for the register of members of the Premium Income Fund during 2011." To make it easy for Wellington the PIFAG isolated the dates in question. There was a time span of less than seventeen days. The PIFAG believe this would not be a mammoth task to look between those dates to see who requested and paid for the register. Wellington Capital/Armstrong Registry Services have not acceded to PIFAG's request.
It is interesting to note that Wellington Capital have indicated, "Wellington Capital has had a number of communications with persons representing to be part of the 'PIF Reaction Group.' The Fund has a diverse variety of Unitholders who choose to communicate with each other in a variety of methods.
Wellington Capital have acknowledged their responsibilities by saying, "Section 173(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) provides that a company or scheme must give a person a copy of the register within 7 days if the person makes application in accordance with the Act." There is also a proviso that the register must be used for a lawful purpose. In fact the PIFAG could not obtain a copy of the register until they signed an agreement to use the register for a lawful purpose. Wellington Capital have stated that they are unaware as to who sent the documents in question to the 10,400 unit holders but does not in any way support the use of the Funds register for other than proper purposes.
Unit holders may question, seeing that Wellington Capital has refused to help in detecting the persons responsible, are they saying the register was used for a lawful purpose?
Certainly, prima facie, it appears that a serious breach of the Criminal Code Act 1995, (Cth) may have been committed. This of course includes any person who may have "aided, abetted, counselled or procured in the production and distribution of the document.
Once again thank you to the unit holders who have supported the PIFAG and by no means can it be construed that we have cocooned ourselves away. It is our intention to keep monitoring the performance of our Fund and to do what it takes to save it from a "Wipepout."
