Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

JohnH said:

Yes...and for once I have to agree with "Doom" .. the shares are only worth what someone is prepared to pay. But I thought we all went into PIF for Income not Growth, and although 6% on our original investment is not as good as 9%, any purchase on the NSX under 66 cents is going to show a better than 9% return.

Click to expand...

Sure it not bad for buyers buying at 20 cents or so But bloody awful for sellers who need to sell for some reason or other And there is no other option but the NSX ///The Dame //////

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

DoraNBoots said:

I’m certain our units are worth more than 45 cents. JH herself says “ we have some good assets that if sold at the right time will sell for more than the 45 cent in the dollar”. This means we would get more than 45 cents in an orderly windup. It also means the 6 cent return per unit is not 13%. You can see from the loan book they are only bringing in 11% for the commercial loans. Has anyone looked into how JH plans to restore the unit price back to $1? JH proposed 55% of the fund will be assets with no capital growth (I.E 45% commercial loans and 10% cash). This means the remaining 45% of the fund will need to generate 40% returns to achieve JHs goals. What kind of risks will she be taking for those gains or perhaps the 45 cent valuation is way off.

I know an orderly wind up is not currently an option but I think if investors wanted this option that JH would have to put our interests before hers and give us this option. She said she doesn't want to do anything most of us don't want. The Corp Act says the RE must ") act in the best interests of the members and, if there is a conflict between the members’ interests and its own interests, give priority to the members’ interests". It's fine for the people that are happy to stay in for the long term (those that like to have 45% exposure to commercial loans) but WCs proposal provides no appropriate option for people who want or need to get out.

I have spoken to ASIC and if you consider WCs proposal to be putting their interest before ours then write a complaint using the online form and mark it urgent requiring attention before Sept 18. I am doing this but urge others to as well if you are of the same opinion.

Don’t forget if WC doesn’t get the vote it will be up to us to figure out how to make sure the fund isn’t liquidated before March 31st 2009, WC are providing no assistant with this at present which I find very irresponsible

Click to expand...

]

DoraNBoots

Thanks for your post. Isn't the problem with the 45 cent compared to the 13 cents that everything needs to be sold by the end of March? My understanding from the Melbourne forum and from watching JH in the dvd is that half of the investors, including me, lodged withdrawal forms when those b*ggers at MFS told us to lodge them earlier in the year. Doesn't that mean that WC has to honour them when the big freeze is over. I don't get how we can have an 'orderly realisation' if I'm right in my understanding.

I'm not happy with the EM. I've lost money too and am too old to recoup it. But I'm not sure that I believe that JH is in this for herself. Surely she'd be eaten alive in the business world if she following in the footsteps of our esteemed former management team.

There have been other funds go into receivership lately. In the end, I'm just hoping that we don't join them - god know how long a windup would take to actually return money in our hands. I'm voting yes because I need the buyback and if I don't vote yes for number 1, then number 2 doesn't work. Pretty sure there are lots of investors like me who have little amounts and that's all we've got.

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

lodged withdrawal forms when those b*ggers at MFS told us to lodge them earlier in the year. Doesn't that mean that WC has to honour them when the big freeze is over. I don't get how we can have an 'orderly realisation' if I'm right in my understanding

PIF Holder do you believe everything that everybody tells you ???

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

It seems like we are all dumbfounded by yesterdays "good news" from WC. How can we get excited about accepting 45c/$ in the buy back - and then only up to 10,000 units. Not much help when you have hundreds of thousands of units.

How can we ever sell our units on the NSX for more than a few cents when there is no incentive to buyers. There is no certainty regarding distibutions and 1.5c per quarter is not going to get any one knocking the door down. Then what happens when they want out? Back to the NSX - more fees etc. My NSX registered broker is already advising clients against this investment.

I think our White Knight in the Santa Claus outfit has lost the plot! We need another RE with a more realistic agenda - but how?

Following the Forums I felt reasonably comfortable with JH on our side, but now it seems to be all about WC - stuff the investors!

Re: Complaints to ASIC

Good on you Dora,
We all need to follow your lead. I have submitted my complaint to ASIC outlining the fact that the proposals put forward by WIM, to be voted on by members, still do not contain any substantiated financial information or independant asset valuations, and that they totally disregard the many, many concerns, suggestions and requests submitted by members since the July meetings.
On top of that they are also proposing changes to make it difficult and financially undesirable to remove them as RE (detrimental to our rights). The fact that they want to appoint parent company Wellington Capital as a new RE will also effect members rights to legal action against RE for past breaches of constitution and corporate law.
I also pointed out that they have not offered any alternative information in regards to other options like extending the period for redemptions to be frozen to allow for the fund to be stabilised and strengthened before redemptions could be reinstated - or for an orderly wind up.
Based on the facts I put forward, I expressed my opinion that I have no confidence that WIM is acting in the best interest of members of the Fund as they are legally obliged to do, and I requested that ASIC look at WIM's behaviour in its role as RE and determine whether they should be allowed to proceed with this vote.
PLEASE DO THE SAME IF YOU FEEL THE SAME LACK OF CONFIDENCE I DO !
It's easy and only takes a few minutes. If ASIC receives enough of the same complaint they might just get off their taxpayer funded chairs and have a close look for us. Here's hoping.

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hi PIFholder,

I agree the information from WC to date has given unitholders the impression it’s go with WC to the NSX or liquidate the fund at 14 cents. One Brisbane unitholder asked JH why we can’t have an orderly wind up and the answer was the law doesn’t allow it. You can also see this same answer in the Q&A document from WC. I believe this is very misleading because the truth is an orderly windup is possible. As you know WC are proposing a number of changes to the constitution which allow them to continue the fund past the March 31st deadline. An orderly wind up option would also require changes to the constitution to ensure this deadline is removed. If you get a copy of the proposed amended constitution you will see all redemption clauses are struck out, there is no reason this can’t be done (voted on) if the fund is to be wound up. I think that if a large number of unitholders do not want to go with the NSX and would like to get their capital back within a 3 year timeframe then it is the responsibility of the RE to provide info on this option. I also think if WC are telling us liquidation is a real option then they should give us info on ways to minimize the damage of this option (i.e. make it very clear that an orderly wind up is possible with changes to the constitution). I also think distributions would continue in relation to any assets that are still in the fund. Of course for the RE it means the funds under management are reducing and so are their management fees (if they are to base them on the NTA) and of course WC will no longer be able to boast over one billion dollars of funds under management.

As for the buy back proposal: As you know I suspect our units are actually worth more than 45 cents. I therefore think we would get more back in an orderly wind up than with the buy back. As for the timeframe of an orderly windup: JH stated on the DVD current assets should be worked out within a 12 to 18 month time frame (windup complete) with new assets into the fund in a 6 to 12 month time frame (capital back at this point in a windup situation). Others on the forum today have stated the buy back would only strengthen the value of unit holders. The only way they could think this is if they agree our units are worth more than 45 cents. It also has to be noted that the buy back proposal is very limited. It’s only 5% of the fund so if everyone participates then the average investor (with 100,000 units) would only be able to cash in 5000 units giving them $2,250. I don’t think this buy back resolution gives enough details as to how it would work. How can it say each unitholder will be able to accept for the first 10,000 units held by them. That would be way more than 5% of the fund. I also think that if the fund can afford to cash out 5% of the fund it should go to hardship cases first and that whatever the NTA is at the time should be used. If there are more than 5% of the fund in hardship cases then I think this would only strengthen the case that a windup needs to be given to us to vote on. Just means the people that wanted to stay in the fund have to fund anther fund but surely this is better than locking in hardship cases or expecting them to get out on the NSX.

I obtained a copy of the proposed constitution today. WC said they will make it available on their website but it's not there yet. (I have a hard copy so can't send etc) I haven’t had time to read it yet but have noted there are a lot of additions to the way General Meetings can be held. One example is The chairman can refuse admission to any person in possession of a placard or banner. Not sure why I find this funny. But anyway I think it would be good if people get a copy of the amended document as there are a lot of changes not mentioned in the memorandum. (I assume WC have only listed the changes they consider may have an adverse effect on unitholders).

I didn’t understand Quorum until today so thought others might like an explanation. The Quorum is the number of unitholders that must attend (either in person or by proxy) a meeting for it to be a valid meeting\vote. WC want to amend the constitution so that if we want to call a meeting to remove the RE there would have to be enough unitholders represented who hold at least 51% of the units in the fund. So if we were to call an EGM to remove the RE and the number of unitholders that voted only held 45% of the units in the fund the meeting\vote would be invalid. (Even if 100% of those that voted wanted them out). (Quorum is different to the 5% or 100 unitholders required to call the meeting.)

On another topic, the current and proposed amended constitution allow the RE to hold units in the fund. I also recall reading in the Corp Act that the RE can’t vote on matters such as removing them when the fund is listed. I assumed at the time (and don’t have time to go back now and check) that if the fund is listed they would then have the right to vote.

Sorry this is so long. I’m having tomorrow off. So happy posting!

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

All the quorum changes apply if WCL is voted as RE..simple just don't vote for WCL in option 3 and things stay the same.

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Dexter said:

It seems like we are all dumbfounded by yesterdays "good news" from WC. How can we get excited about accepting 45c/$ in the buy back - and then only up to 10,000 units. Not much help when you have hundreds of thousands of units.

How can we ever sell our units on the NSX for more than a few cents when there is no incentive to buyers. There is no certainty regarding distibutions and 1.5c per quarter is not going to get any one knocking the door down. Then what happens when they want out? Back to the NSX - more fees etc. My NSX registered broker is already advising clients against this investment.

I think our White Knight in the Santa Claus outfit has lost the plot! We need another RE with a more realistic agenda - but how?

Following the Forums I felt reasonably comfortable with JH on our side, but now it seems to be all about WC - stuff the investors!

Click to expand...

Dexter
Can you contact me on the private facility in the Forum

Regards Chris

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Javier said:

All the quorum changes apply if WCL is voted as RE..simple just don't vote for WCL in option 3 and things stay the same.

Click to expand...

Javier: Can you please tell us each time you tell us some 'facts' your source of information. Especially if you are going to tell us how to vote. I have the proposed amended constitution here and it certainly doesn’t read like the Quorum section is dependant on Resolution 3 (change in RE). The changes to the constitution are in Resolution 1 and independent of Resolution 3.

To All: I have just read the Fee upon removal of RE section and it contains more info than the memorandum. This really needs someone with legal skills to go over it. When you get a copy of the Constitution have a look at 23.4 and 23.4.1, it's too much to write just now but would like someone to explain it. If the constition is not up on WCs website tomorrow I'll ask Boots to scan this section because I think it might be saying that if WC are not the RE that this 2% fee still applies. One thing I'm sure it's saying is that if WC become RE they get the 2% if kicked out but the next RE doesn't. These things make me laugh!

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

I am just reading the Explanatory Memorandum Dora! You should too.

In the Quorum section: "Two unit holders present constitute a Quorum except for a meeting....to remove Wellington Capital Limited as Resposible Entity of the Fund

Well option 3 is to vote for WCL as RE, if that doesn't get the 50% unit vote the RE will remain Wellington Investment Management Limited says so in 1.1

So my source as you keep wanting to know is black and white understanding of the English language as per the EM that everyone is privy to on the site. If you don't believe me, read it again and then contact WC to verify and correct me if I am wrong. Cheers!

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

PIFholder said:

]
I'm voting yes because I need the buyback and if I don't vote yes for number 1, then number 2 doesn't work. Pretty sure there are lots of investors like me who have little amounts and that's all we've got.

Click to expand...

Dear PIF Holder,

What do you expect back in the buyback if the demand is high, I would estimate only $2,250 to $4, 000 - not really much to look forward to PIF Holder after one and a half years of not seeing your money?

If JH gave us the buyback option because it was the only way she could have legally given another redemption exit vehicle besides the NSX, she should have then provided for stage 2 and stage 3 (or stage 4) buy back options, for example:

Stage 1] Buyback 5% @ 45c Sept 2009 (after 1 year)
Stage 2] Buyback 20% @ 65c Sept 2011 (after 3 years)
Stage 3] Buyback 30% @ 90c Sept 2013 (after 5 years)

JH should have given us something to look forward to.

Further, if new investors, purchasing via the NSX could count on these buybacks, wouldn't that force the NSX units to gain real value and therefore hold up the NSX price more substantially and then give NSX exiters a better deal in-between buybacks?

Percentage units and cents in the dollar could vary depending on the health of the fund, but buyback offers should be made every one or two years!

Perhaps I'm being too simplistic!

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Javier said:

I am just reading the Explanatory Memorandum Dora! You should too.

In the Quorum section: "Two unit holders present constitute a Quorum except for a meeting....to remove Wellington Capital Limited as Resposible Entity of the Fund

Well option 3 is to vote for WCL as RE, if that doesn't get the 50% unit vote the RE will remain Wellington Investment Management Limited says so in 1.1

So my source as you keep wanting to know is black and white understanding of the English language as per the EM that everyone is privy to on the site. If you don't believe me, read it again and then contact WC to verify and correct me if I am wrong. Cheers!

Click to expand...

I can't break this addiction!

Thanks for quoting your source Javier. The problem is you can't just rely on the Explanatory Memorandum. I have read the proposed amended constitution and it is not the same as the memorandum! The proposed amended constitution does not mention WC in the Quorum section it just says RE. I would suggest everyone get a copy of the proposed amended constitution and read it as this is what we are voting on not the Explanatory Memorandum (ASIC complaint anyone?).

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Dexter said:

It seems like we are all dumbfounded by yesterdays "good news" from WC. How can we get excited about accepting 45c/$ in the buy back - and then only up to 10,000 units. Not much help when you have hundreds of thousands of units.

How can we ever sell our units on the NSX for more than a few cents when there is no incentive to buyers. There is no certainty regarding distibutions and 1.5c per quarter is not going to get any one knocking the door down. Then what happens when they want out? Back to the NSX - more fees etc. My NSX registered broker is already advising clients against this investment.

I think our White Knight in the Santa Claus outfit has lost the plot! We need another RE with a more realistic agenda - but how?

Following the Forums I felt reasonably comfortable with JH on our side, but now it seems to be all about WC - stuff the investors!

Click to expand...

Hello Dexter & welcome to my side We all know who is the winner in all this mess & it not us investers One giess & the name starts with W The Dame ////

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Dexter said:

It seems like we are all dumbfounded by yesterdays "good news" from WC. How can we get excited about accepting 45c/$ in the buy back - and then only up to 10,000 units. Not much help when you have hundreds of thousands of units.

How can we ever sell our units on the NSX for more than a few cents when there is no incentive to buyers. There is no certainty regarding distibutions and 1.5c per quarter is not going to get any one knocking the door down. Then what happens when they want out? Back to the NSX - more fees etc. My NSX registered broker is already advising clients against this investment.

I think our White Knight in the Santa Claus outfit has lost the plot! We need another RE with a more realistic agenda - but how?

Following the Forums I felt reasonably comfortable with JH on our side, but now it seems to be all about WC - stuff the investors!

Click to expand...

Well there you go Stockbrokers are advising clients not to touch the fund You know folks sometimes you have to be brave & pull the plug I don't believe that cents rubbish its all scare tactic When WC sayers the market value is 45 cents to center link not going concern value The Dame /////

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

DoraNBoots said:

I can't break this addiction!

Thanks for quoting your source Javier. The problem is you can't just rely on the Explanatory Memorandum. I have read the proposed amended constitution and it is not the same as the memorandum! The proposed amended constitution does not mention WC in the Quorum section it just says RE. I would suggest everyone get a copy of the proposed amended constitution and read it as this is what we are voting on not the Explanatory Memorandum (ASIC complaint anyone?).

Click to expand...

Jeeze that's alarming!! Can you send me the amended Constitution please?

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Javier said:

Jeeze that's alarming!! Can you send me the amended Constitution please?

Click to expand...

I would if I had an electronic copy. Boots went into WCs office yesterday to request a copy. They said it wasn't ready, so he said he would wait. He had to go back 2 hrs later and got a hard copy. They said they would also send an electronic copy via email but it hasn't arrived yet. I urge everyone to get on to WC and ask for a copy and let them know you need it today. We don't have time for them to delay this most basic\important request.

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hear is something to think about when IF our fund is listed perish the thought And buyers only want to pay 20 cents a unit The fund is only worth about 150 mill then regardless of what the value of the fund is worth SAD // The Dame ///

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Dora, are you going to be contacting WC today to get them to explain the anomaly in the two documents. Surely this is serious enough to warrant a major announcement by WC to all investors to clarify which is correct. I will send an email to get a copy of the actual constitution.

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

The Proposed Constitution is now available here:

http://www.newpif.com.au/corporategovernance.html

Boots

Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hi All

Is anybody going to be nominating for the Investor Advisory Committee.

Wolfgang