We can't keep complaining about the cards we have been dealt (that will be for another day), we have to play the hand the best we can to have a chance at the pot.
Hi Great Dame,
Being a financial planner I will give you some free general financial advice because I do not know your true personal financial position. I am personally recommending to my clients that they should vote for JH and take a longer term view and I give you the same advice.
........
We can organise the solicitors to draft the sales contract.
Please consider, this a genuine offer.
Thank you.,
RickH:couch:
I like Bumblebee's post!
Does anyone know how the option of an orderly wind up as Bumblebee mentions could be voted on? Would this automatically be an option if the Sep vote doesn’t get 75%? (Don’t freak out Javier!) I'm thinking a vote would be needed so that the wind up didn't need to happen before March 09.
Hi DoraNBoots,
I have been reading these listings and I believe that most of what is being discussed is based on emotion and not financial logic.
JH appears to the best qualified quality option that we have to act as the RE.
We should let her get on with the job. JH has stated her goals. Let her go for it. We can get our revenge later.
Now we need to only consider the 75% vote.
RickH:couch:
Your my kind of person Bumblebee I agree with you al the way I am on your side What your saying is realy the only way /////////Whatever happened to the Shades of Grey
It appears that we are falling for the old ‘it’s all black or its all white’ scenario. And it’s not surprising because this is exactly how Wellington Capital is presenting.
JH is saying come with me and let me manage the PIF back to its former glory days, pay you dividends and get your unit value back (all white). The only other option is (if you don’t vote for me) Liquidation @ 15 cents (All black).
Like some other forum members I don’t like being dictated to or bullied either. And I find it hard to embrace that JH has the investors interests at heart when she fails to mention all the ‘in-between’ (grey) possibilities.
For example, an orderly wind up of the PIF. This would see the fund go under an administrator who, over time, perhaps 2 to 3 years would realise the investments and in a timely way sell assets returning the capital back to investors. This is not a fire sale process.
It would mean that as borrowers paid capital back into the PIF the money would be returned to us and not reinvested, (nothing lost here). It would mean that tangible assets would be sold in a timely way when the market meets fair price and this could be some years down the track. These monies also would be returned to us investors and not relent.
I have recently seen this happen with another of my investment funds Lehman Brothers High Income Fund just a couple of months ago. The RE closed their Australian office and the decision was made to pay an administrator to wind the fund up in an orderly way. Already 5 cents has been returned as capital (no tax) and the unit price has decreased by the same amount 5 cents. It is anticipated that full value of the units will eventually be returned (2 to 3 years) until the unit value reaches zero and the fund ceases to be.
I am still very much concerned that JH is too close to Scott and OCV. She has not demonstrated that she is an aggressive creditor of OCV and this is what the PIF needs to get the very best deal for us, now re Stella etc. and down the track re further court cases etc...
So, yes, I am leaning towards a ‘grey’ option. Best value return for what is left of our fund. Not a fire sale liquidation. but An orderly wind up and we can get on and utilise our money in our way not being tied to WC and have them reinvesting our money in ways they haven’t even alluded to as yet.
I am all the way with you too Dora I love reading your Posts //////I like Bumblebee's post! I keep hearing the “come with me” quote in my head and wonder why it has to be about JH. If the emphasis was more on the fact that the constitution needs to be changed in order for the fund not to be liquidated by March 08 then perhaps there would be more votes in favour in Sep. Another quote was “vote for WC and our strategy or liquidate”. I’m sure WC are already RE as they just took on OCV IM and renamed it so surely the only change (that adversely effects us) is the change in redemptions and that doesn’t have to be about JH and WC.
Does anyone know how the option of an orderly wind up as Bumblebee mentions could be voted on? Would this automatically be an option if the Sep vote doesn’t get 75%? (Don’t freak out Javier!) I'm thinking a vote would be needed so that the wind up didn't need to happen before March 09.
Rick, you should change your marketing strategy and say something like vote to save the PIF rather than placing emphasis on JH.
Duped im starting to wonder if somebody said something was black it appears you would say its white just to be different, tell me this, is 82% more than 75% and on top of that why would somebody who has thought very long and hard about their vote (change it) only somebody like you would change your vote on a whim dont bundle everybody along with yourself,i dont consider 82%/75% to be close, i consider it to be a shoe in .flatback
Dora the only think i can add is I dont believe the31Mill JH Quoted to wind up the fund that would be the highley inflated price i would knock about 11 or 12 mill off that price //////////////Boots has banned me from posting today so this is it from me...
It seems it worries people to talk about other alternatives, I’m assuming because they think it might influence people not to vote for the Sept changes. I just want to know what our options are if the Sept changes don’t go ahead. There are probably only 200 investors reading this forum so we can’t assume we know the vote will be in favour of the changes. For those that are annoyed by this type of post, just look away
I have no experience with liquidations or orderly wind ups so would like more information on these. Here’s my clueless comparison of having an RE compared to appointing an administrator.
- Admin would cost a lost more than an RE (I think I’ve heard Admin $30mil, RE.7%)
- RE would reinvest our money however they choose, Admin would distribute capital to investors as it is realised.
- Both would distribute any money received from the support facility.
- Both would distribute any income (money coming in after expenses are paid)
- With an admin we would be out of the fund within about 3 to 5 years depending on the term of investments. With an RE will are in until we decide to sell our units either on the NSX or some other way if allowed.
I don’t see why there would be any less distributions if an administrator took control except that there would be more costs involved and therefore less ‘income’ distributions. I would think there would be more distributions (or bigger ones) due to the fact that all capital is coming back to us as it is realised. I know people like the distributions JH is promising and I don’t see why these wouldn’t be possible under an administrator.
If anyone is still reading and knows about this type of thing I would be interested in your comments. Please state if you are just guessing like me or if you have real experience in this type of thing.
Boots has banned me from posting today so this is it from me...
.........
I have no experience with liquidations or orderly wind ups so would like more information on these. Here’s my clueless comparison of having an RE compared to appointing an administrator.
......
If anyone is still reading and knows about this type of thing I would be interested in your comments. Please state if you are just guessing like me or if you have real experience in this type of thing.
I have changed my mind Rance the sale is off anyway My sparring friend has been talking to me & he said everything will be OK going forward I think he knows something we dont know Cant wait to the Sept meeting now /////////Thank you Great Doom... your offer is welcomed... it seems there will be buyers and sellers after all! Bring on the Sept meeting... our destiny awaits...
Rance
PS: My accountant and my daughter (it's her inheritance i'd be spending) have put a restraining order on me!!! NOT NICE!!!
PPS: The steak knives will come in handy...
Duped i weighed up the pros and cons early in the piece,i am still of the opinion that NSX should be stopped,we have not been told anything to the contrary from JH, i will not change my view on this subject,we must have another avenue to sell our units at a later date,JH in my view must indicate to us that she has an alternative to NSX down the track, only when she can will i change my stance,i dont believe she will disclose anything at this stage for the reasons i have said in my previous postings. duped i didnt mean to go so hard on you in regard to the voting, i misread your intention, except my apology.cheers FlatbackHave looked back through my posts and see your point. In general I would say I've been consistently critical of the previous MFSIM regime and current MFS/OCV Ltd. But in general, not without exception, I've been supportive of WC in the absence of a better option. Harsh and demanding yes, but I don't want to become friends with WC, I'm looking at doing business with them.
I understand your assessment that the detail of my postings here may not be in my interests. Point taken. Tell me: are you still of the opinion that "WE MUST STOP NSX".
82%-75% represents a spread of 7%. My posting re the poll not being a shoe-in was intended to encourage yes votes. Seems it wasn't received this way. I assumed there's a risk that if the take home message was that WC was a shoe-in, some unit holders might not feel so much pressure to vote Yes or worse, feel more comfortable lodging a protest vote in a pointless effort to send a message to WC that they only just got through. That's a risk I'm not prepared to take - so I posted. But I'm not a pollster so I stand corrected by you.
Thats a big call dora boots ,that these unknown faces would come out ahead of WC,you may remember that in an earlier post from me that i had proposed that we form our group into an incorporated association,nobody took up on it ,i do remember somebody said in the forum space that if we did that, it would be like a chook raffle group,i didnt respond at the time because it was placed by somebody that i thought was unable to grasp the severity of our problem,or the fact that the same laws which apply to chook raffle groups apply to big business,tax abns etc etc but because of the time which is now involved with meetings and whatever this avenue is out of the question cheers FlatbackI think if the vote in August has an option to vote for WC with the only exit strategy being NSX or some other RE with another realistic exit strategy then people would vote the other RE.
I don’t think the July Investor forums impressed many people and if the other RE were a known entity that was clearly independent of CS and Octaviar I think they would come out a mile ahead of WC.
It’s fine for you to push support for WC but wouldn’t you like a backup plan if WC don’t get 75% in August? I don’t know if it’s possible but I wouldn’t discourage anyone from trying.
Duped this has been a problem which i have had a bit of difficulty getting my head around, from all that i have heard on these forums, i quite strongly stated in an earlier forum of mine that we were duded in regard to the constitution which was in place with MFS earlier and then OCT i do not believe that we as the unit holders in this mess were ever given the opportunity to vote on any of these issues that have created this mess,and because of that fact i believe that these people will have a hard time to convince the courts that they are innocent of any wrong doing,you cannot play around with constitutions willy nilly,after all of that YES the main issues here are to rectify any anomalies (in the constitution) which have to be repaired before we continue.My understanding is: to amend the constitution to e.g. amend the redemption clauses etc. Such clauses affect members rights. If these aren't amended the fund must be wound up after 360 days of the freeze. My bet is we'll be voting on amendments to the constitution.
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?