Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

[flatback]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

It is a matter of knowing exactly how Jenny plans to do all this. If we stay in the PIF, I do not want to access my investment via the NSX. IF not via the NSX, then exactly when do we get our investment lump sum via the PIF - in part payments starting soon or in a lump sum years down the track?

If the NSX is the ONLY redemption method, whole or in part, at any time, even years down the track - then the NSX listing MUST be blocked!

Again i agree breaker1, WE MUST STOP NSX if we don't, we do not have any other way to retrieve our units, JH has not indicated that we have any other avenue to retrieve them or have i missed something??? Flatback

 

[RickH]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Again i agree breaker1, WE MUST STOP NSX if we don't, we do not have any other way to retrieve our units, JH has not indicated that we have any other avenue to retrieve them or have i missed something??? Flatback

Hi,
What is soooooo wrong with the listing of PIF on the NSX?
Please consider and reply with all your reasons.
Regards,
Rick

 

[Jadel]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Dear fellow investors

Am just makeing some enquiries to a good friend of mine who is uniquely qualified in this regard .

 

[Jadel]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Rick H

Ever try selling Viagra to a Eunach or Ice Cubes to an Eskimo ?????

 

[SPLITPIN]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Rick H

Ever try selling Viagra to a Eunach or Ice Cubes to an Eskimo ?????

Jadel

May I make a suggestion.

We are trying to resolve this rationally and think it through.

JH appaears to at least has the b...ls (a compliment and not intended to be derogatry) to have a go on our behalf, and this is a part of her proposed vision plan for an ongoing successfull fund which some may or may not wish to remain with.

We need to suggest alternatives that at least attempt to solve this problem, not put impossible hurdles for us all that may drag us into winding up and liquidation.

Remember, JH needs a 75 % vote and that is a tall order even in the best of circumstances.

Splitpin.

 

[RickH]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Rick H

Ever try selling Viagra to a Eunach or Ice Cubes to an Eskimo ?????

Hi,
You previously mentioned that I had an agenda.
I am an adviser who charges a fee for service and rebates commissions and yes I do have an agenda.
My agenda is to act as a professional and try to help my 150 plus clients get all of their money back.
I believe that JH has stated her goal is to list onto the NSX.
Distribute 3 cents by Xmas.
Then distribute 6 cents a year.
Goal to grow the fund from its present 14/46 cents value to $1.00, within 3-5 years.
This sounds fantastic to me and I believe that my 150 plus clients would agree.

What is your agenda?
Regards,
Rick

 

[breaker1]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hi Breaker1,
You are being way too negative. Obviously we disagree with what should happen. PIF has changed from being an Insured First Mortgage Income into current mess/Diversified lack of Premium Income Fund.
If it was a football match and your team was behind at half time we would all hope that our coach would present confident strategies designed to improve our performance with a potential goal of actually winning the game. At this point in time is up to the players to join together as a team and follow the instructions of their coach.
IF WE BELIEVE THAT JH IS THE PERSON TO LEAD US THROUGH THIS SITUATION - THEN WE MUST LET HER DO IT HER WAY. IF WE FORCE HER TO COMPROMISE ON HER PLANNING SHE CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO ACHIEVE HER GOALS OF 3 cents by Xmas, 6 cents per annum and maybe $1.00 value within 3-5 years. This would be the ultimate results. Give it a try, If her presentation is realistic.
Regards,
Rick.
PS: Yes, PIF is complete disaster at this point in time but we just cannot rollover and die.

I do not agree that the NSX should be the only way for investors to redeem their funds, especially long term. Jenny has presented as an either / or sales pitch. Either you get 14c or you take the NSX +. I believe there are genuine alternatives, besides the either/or, yet for the AG to propose to WC, which we will, but it is for consultation first with AG organisers.

RickH, my apologies for my inapropriate comment in reply to your post yesterday, you are more than entitled to your comments.

 

[Duped]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hi,
What is soooooo wrong with the listing of PIF on the NSX?
Please consider and reply with all your reasons.
Regards,
Rick

From what I've read and heard from this and the WC forum there are concerns that in an innefficient market an NSX listing will push the purchase price too far down which:

A: Creates two classes of investors, one who paid $1 per unit and another that paid 20c or less. Opening up the opportunity for the latter to put downward pressure on WC's commitment to return $1. Particularly if large numbers of units are sold. (How can you blame WC for not performing if you bailed out?)
There is also the question of who gets the capital losses. Keep it in the fund and offset it against capital gains for the benefit of all unit holders.
Or how to treat distributions - as income or capital. I'm not sure how that all works. It seems to me there are already differences between unit holders. Those that don't have any other income and aren't ever likely to be able to offset a capital loss against a capital gain and those that do and are. Don't forget that some investors had to take on debts, the interest of which can be claimed against PIF holdings.

B: Opens the door for downward pressure on WC's valuations. Something is only worth what another person will pay for it. Right? Makes it more difficult for WC to justify a valuation of 45c+ when they're only selling for 20c. When a valuer sits down to undertake their subjective task, the NSX price will influence the valuer decision. Hard to go against what the market says. Depends on one's motivation doesn't it.

That's my summary.

 

[mfsperth]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

I am a Perth MFS investor. How many others are in WA, which missed out on the update meetings?



When I first asked Octaviar for the members register as any member is entitled to do by Corporations Law, Octaviar told me Perpetual Nominees, the trustee, wanted $14000. (The cost by law is supposed to be what it costs to download to a CD).



After further discussion and ASIC (Neale Paterson) intervention it came down to $200. Then Wellington took over so I didn’t pursue it.



There have been a number of strange goings on –



A loan from a Scottish bank for $180m which ranked ahead of us as members for repayment.


The $147.5 m in unsecured loans (ie. ca. 20% of the fund) to seven entities in November December according to the AFR. (see AFR 16april and 25 June).


A Lonsec (ratings agency) thumbs up for the fund sent to us in early November.


The disappearance from the Octaviar website of the PDS (even though Guy Hutchings sent me a hard copy on Feb 16, 2008).


Also the related party transactions (loans to other bodies within the MFS umbrella) were supposed to be on the website.


the NZ MFS Pacific fund went down late last year, and I believe our fund had some money in MFS Pacific.


There were supposed to be two committees with independent members- the Compliance Committee (ie. does the fund operate as stated) and the Related Party Transactions Committee (loans to other Octaviar entities). Perhaps someone knows who was on those.



Also how much did the auditor know as at 30 June 2007?



Maurice Blackburn, the law firm, is taking a class action for some Octaviar shareholders (not PIF fund members) against Octaviar Ltd, so they are looking for money we are also looking for.



For those who want to do a bit of research look at Pt.2G.4 of the Corporations Act, and also at S.252E(2)(b) – any member can get a court order for a meeting of the fund. If you want to look go to: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/



There’s S.197 re the trustee, S252C re official scheme meetings (S.252E(2)(b) gives any member the right to get a court order for an official meeting of the fund), S. 208 re approval for a related party benefit, S.283A (trustee for debentures which some of PIF activity was), S 209(3) re dishonesty, 601JG ( compliance committee and liability of its members, as well as possible professional indemnity insurance for them), S601JC(1)(c) ( compliance committee report to ASIC), 601 A re removing the responsible entity, 601HG (auditor), 601FD(1)(c), and Pt 9.4B which deals with prosecutions for breach of the Act.



Some people who might have some idea of what went on are Andrew Peacock, Phil King, Marshall Vann, Stuart Donaldson, Craig White, Guy Hutchings, and Chris Gavras-Moffatt (corporate lawyer Business Legal for Octaviar Ltd.)

 

[SPLITPIN]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

I do not agree that the NSX ...... I believe there are genuine alternatives, besides the either/or, yet for the AG to propose to WC, which we will, but it is for consultation first with AG organisers.

QUOTE]

Breaker

If we wish to formalise the AG with elected representatives from each area, could you please give us a status and contact details of the area groups.

From the flyers it appears the contact point for the Gold Coast AG group is mauka1@live.com.au

Splitpin.

 

[RickH]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

I do not agree that the NSX should be the only way for investors to redeem their funds, especially long term. Jenny has presented as an either / or sales pitch. Either you get 14c or you take the NSX +. I believe there are genuine alternatives, besides the either/or, yet for the AG to propose to WC, which we will, but it is for consultation first with AG organisers.

RickH, my apologies for my inapropriate comment in reply to your post yesterday, you are more than entitled to your comments.

Hi breaker1,
That is OK. This takes up a lot of time. The only reason I started to comment was that my goal is for my clients to get 100% of their money back and some of the comments are going to create a minimal chance for JH to receive a 75% acceptance vote.

I am assuming that the reason JH prefers to use the NSX is:
1) Ability to help out those who need immediate cash flow/withdrawals. Hopefully only partial withdrawals to enable time to grow the NTA.
2) Centrelink - but may have fixed.
3) Ability for her to raise capital to enhanced investment return and grow the NTA back to $1.00 and then above.
4) Long term investors should be Ok receiving 6 cents per annum only little below their current tax assessable interest returns.
5) Ability for JH to provide a professional service rather than throwing everyone to the wolves.
6) JH may also create a very good listed managed fund etc.

The major problem I see with this structure is that I would like to see an ability for the PIF to create loans to those in desperate needs secured by their unit/share holdings as stated previously.

An Un-listed managed fund probable would not attract further funds to grow the NTA until some time in the future.

I believe that if JH does not achieve the 75% vote and cannot take full control of PIF the unit holders will probably receive a maximum of 70 cents over a three year period.

In fact I believe that JH would consider walking away from the PIF problems.

JH needs to be given the opportunity to do what she thinks is the best action for unit/share holders.

The real return is going to be based on her ability to produce profits from this managed fund for the unit/share holders over 3-5 years and then she would hope that most investors would stay the very long term.
And we all would if JH did achieve her goals.
Regards,
Rick.
PS: This is all subject to her goals and presentation etc..

 

[Javier]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hmmm this has me thinking..do you think WC will get the overwhelming 75% vote based on units held? Will she romp it in or will she just make it?? This is now another worry!

 

[breaker1]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Disadvantages of listing
* The structure of the fund will be irrevocably changed - PIF fund investors will have to compete with the interests of NSX unit holders who's interests may be different to existing PIF holders e.g., NSX investors may be happy with only a small % increase in unit value as they may have bought cheap.

* Control of PIF may fall into the hands of a major NSX buyer, or group of friendly aligned NSX buyers - this buyer or group of united buyers may hold a majority % of units, thus denuding existing PIF investor vote power.

* NSX unit value highly likely to drop because of panic buyers, low volume NSX sales, low volume NSX buyers.

* also a moral aspect to encouraging panic stricken investors in selling at a loss?

* early NSX sellers may only get a unit value based on what is in the fund now and not on what it could be worth after legal action is undertaken to recover the $147.5M - not to mention the $50 Support facility + other $ recoveries to the fund.

* Shocking time to list a new mutual fund - they are on the nose, at present, with fund managers and financial advisors. Take a look at City Pacific, they have gone from over $5 to approx 45c over the last 5 months.

* RBOS and Fortress banks have placed a warning that it is going to be a bear market for the next 3-6 months, especially on financial listings

* economy likely to go into recession

* Jenny told me that she doesn't want to do anything that investors don't want - so far most investors don't want the NSX - it would be very bad PR to go against the desire of the majority of investors. This would be a bad start for a new RE.

* Having the PIF as the only vehicle for redemptions years down the track is off-putting because Jenny could have achieved a reasonable price on the unit value through the sacrifice of investors getting small 6c p.a. or less payments, whilst inflation eats at that lump sum, then when desiring to redeem their invested lump sum, after 5 years of this, only to realise you can only get a lesser amount on the NSX unit redemption, than the PIF unit is worth.

 

[mfsperth]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

1. I approached Tony D’Aloisio head of ASIC on 1st April asking him to help to facilitate the formation of a small investors’ consultative group to work alongside the responsible entity while the PIF problems were resolved. If the fund had gone into administration, a Creditors Committee of Reference would be set up by members’ vote.



2. If there is about 41c in value in a PIF share by continuing (if Octaviar Ltd coughs up) , then if it goes on the NSX, there has to be a total ban on short selling. Market manipulation only becomes apparent when it is too late, after the event, and if there’s 41c to be had by forcing down the price and frightening PIF members into selling out, there’ll be some people trying.

 

[RickH]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

From what I've read and heard from this and the WC forum there are concerns that in an innefficient market an NSX listing will push the purchase price too far down which:

A: Creates two classes of investors, one who paid $1 per unit and another that paid 20c or less. Opening up the opportunity for the latter to put downward pressure on WC's commitment to return $1. Particularly if large numbers of units are sold. (How can you blame WC for not performing if you bailed out?)
There is also the question of who gets the capital losses. Keep it in the fund and offset it against capital gains for the benefit of all unit holders.
Or how to treat distributions - as income or capital. I'm not sure how that all works. It seems to me there are already differences between unit holders. Those that don't have any other income and aren't ever likely to be able to offset a capital loss against a capital gain and those that do and are. Don't forget that some investors had to take on debts, the interest of which can be claimed against PIF holdings.

B: Opens the door for downward pressure on WC's valuations. Something is only worth what another person will pay for it. Right? Makes it more difficult for WC to justify a valuation of 45c+ when they're only selling for 20c. When a valuer sits down to undertake their subjective task, the NSX price will influence the valuer decision. Hard to go against what the market says. Depends on one's motivation doesn't it.

That's my summary.

Hi Duped,
A)
Yes - you say there will be two classes of unit/share holders but I would hope that a loan type agreement could minimise some losses to those most vulnerable.
Capital Gains Tax will be claimed by the investor based on the original purchase and the final selling price - no problems.
B) The share price will probably not be taken in consideration for the fee charged by WC - The real NTA value of fund itself. It may also be possible for PIF to buy its own shares on the NSX and increase the NTA for the remaining investors.

There are potentially good and bad sides to everything nothing is perfect.
But the best option at this point in time appears to JH hands down.

Also we must remember that a little knowledge is dangerous and I would prefer to listen to what JH was planning and saying than anyone else at this point in time.
We are not solicitors and most of our discussions are very legally based. Leave this to the professionals.
We need to back JH all the way - after a reasonable presentation and goals.
Regards,
RickH

 

[breaker1]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

I do not agree that the NSX ...... I believe there are genuine alternatives, besides the either/or, yet for the AG to propose to WC, which we will, but it is for consultation first with AG organisers.

QUOTE]

Breaker

If we wish to formalise the AG with elected representatives from each area, could you please give us a status and contact details of the area groups.

From the flyers it appears the contact point for the Gold Coast AG group is mauka1@live.com.au

Splitpin.

When all Chairpersons are officially elected, I would prefer to announce that on our AG group email.

 

[breaker1]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hi Duped,
We need to back JH all the way - after a reasonable presentation and goals.
Regards,
RickH

Rick, please don't get the impression that either the PIF AG or other posters on this forum are against Jenny as the RE. The main objection is using the NSX as the only vehicle for redemptions and that to us, is still seen as negotiable with WC.

 

[breaker1]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hmmm this has me thinking..do you think WC will get the overwhelming 75% vote based on units held? Will she romp it in or will she just make it?? This is now another worry!

If Jenny comes across to the PIF AG desires and proposals, we could be leaders in backing Jenny as the new RE and thus ensure 75% +. It would be great if WC would include our proposals into a new PDS, before any vote.

 

[RickH]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Rick, please don't get the impression that either the PIF AG or other posters on this forum are against Jenny as the RE. The main objection is using the NSX as the only vehicle for redemptions and that to us, is still seen as negotiable with WC.

Hi breaker1,
That is fine for us to discuss a vehicle.
I have assumed that she has actually spent a considerable time on this issue before she decided to use the NSX.
JH appears to be a person who thinks things through completely before making any comments at all.
She may change the vehicle just to please us.
But we may may have taken her away from her prefered MG sports into a semitrailer and obviously they may not be capable of achieving the same results.
Regards,
Rick.
Thank you for your time and patience. It is now up to the PIF AG.

 

[seamisty]

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

mfsperth, I am in WA and know of 3 others in the Perth area(thats if you are not one of them!!) Do you think JH would come talk to us LOL? Seamisty