Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF

Joined
30 May 2008
Posts
328
Reactions
0
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

JH needs 75% of the entire vote to get in as RE, your group only needs 26% to shut her down - thats NOT bludgeoning or bullying.
….
The 75% is to change the constitution not to appoint an RE. The PIF has an RE and that will not change at this meeting. The fact that 75% of members need to agree on constitution changes is there to protect members you can not blame the 26% of bullying they did not make up this rule.

Judym,

It's great to see another perspective.

Might be best to get the 51% sooner (before an EGM) rather than later (at an EGM) - either way you have to get 51% !

This would save an awful lot of trouble, JH would say, Hey! you've already got the numbers, here's the keys to the PIF, I'm gone. This would save huge amounts of time wasted on unseccessful, minority group, unnecessary, EGM's.

51% up front, hmmm! not that bad - there is a good side to it!
Please look up the meaning of quorum you clearly misunderstand from the above information provided. 51% of units have to be represented at the meeting\vote these could be for OR against the resolution.

Fact: Jenny Hutson does not want an orderly wind up.

Fact: There is no RE in place if WC resigns, I don't want this whole process to start again with an ASIC (gulp) appointed RE who will cost us a hell of a lot more that 0.7%

Fact: PIFI appointed lawyer Kalinda Cobby stated to people in Sydney that we could do "a lot worse than Jenny Hutson, we should go with her and then monitor her performance".

Fact: the existing constitution with all it's investor friendly rights has not helped us in the slightest as ASIC has done nothing, and will do nothing to help us, and that is what the no voters are all up in arms about. I have copies of letters from finance minister who has stated that and will gladly send to you if you wish via email.
….
Fact: Another RE is not needed.
Fact: Any fee for an RE including this one will require 75% of unit holders to agree on so unless unit holders are a push over you won’t be dictated to with an outrageous RE fee
Fact: Kalinda Cobby made those statements in July well before WCs proposal was released. She has reviewed the current proposal and given her opinion to PIFI. Those interested in this opinion can email PIFinitiative@gmail.com. As Seamisty and Maverick have both pointed out she is neutral\unbiased and has nothing against WC has a company, that's not to say she doesn’t see issues with the proposal.
Fact: ASIC is still investigating.
 
Joined
11 July 2008
Posts
263
Reactions
0
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Seamisty I cant hold my breath any longer waiting for your answers to come from my post 2447 Guess i was flogging a dead horse trying to get answers that pro belly don't exist . Well on another mater I spoke to WC last week about this 6 cents we are getting next year which works out at about 13,5% yield 0n the 45 cents value of the fund .I said the fund would have to generation about 17% income to give us that . And thats forgetting about growth .So i then said for us to receive a yeild of 13.5% WC would have to do either two things Sell some of the funds asserts or go into dealt simple as that I then went on to say what is happening in 2010 regarding income for us She could not answer any of my questions said would get back to me i am still waiting Gee they must hate me when i ring them with questions like that / Dane //
 
Joined
11 July 2008
Posts
263
Reactions
0
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

I attended the investor forum in Sydney and carefully read all the documentation regarding PIF. I have 20 years experience trading in shares. I have not read and am not interested in the newspaper articles.
My understanding is that Wellington is offering unit holders a new management, a venue to withdraw from the fund (via part buyback and then units sale), some income and a possibility of a pick up in value when market conditions improve.

The only other option available is to allow a liquidation which to me means money in the pockets of more lawyers and zilch for me, the unit holder. We also know that this is the worst time to offload realestate.
Just to clarify a few points raised on this thread:
the support facility was with MFiaSco, now Octaviar, not with LLA.
The proposed constitution requires 4 persons and 51% units on issue to remove wellington. I can't see any problem with this. The chair is a person and unit holders can give him/her their proxies. If at all this is too easy, most funds require 75% votes to remove a manager.
Well Well Well A new menber on the forum Well i guess i better say welcome Judym with 20 years of stock trading who is all for the fund to be listed on the NSX /Thats amazing coming from someone who should know something about shares Judym please tell us how many shares are traded on the NSX a day ??? Do you trade on the NSX ??? or the ASX ??? What trpe of broker do you use ???
I realy cant understand a person with your trading knolage is all for the NSX Please tell us all why it is such a good exchange / Dane ///
 
Joined
25 August 2008
Posts
69
Reactions
0
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

A Fact: Another RE is not needed.
B Fact: Any fee for an RE including this one will require 75% of unit holders to agree on so unless unit holders are a push over you won’t be dictated to with an outrageous RE fee
C Fact: Kalinda Cobby made those statements in July well before WCs proposal was released. She has reviewed the current proposal and given her opinion to PIFI. Those interested in this opinion can email PIFinitiative@gmail.com. As Seamisty and Maverick have both pointed out she is neutral\unbiased and has nothing against WC has a company, that's not to say she doesn’t see issues with the proposal.
D Fact: ASIC is still investigating.

A Eventually there must be one. The current one does not want to do it your way. So what happens then. Where will you get 10500 investors that are all over Australia to meet? How will we then come to agreement? Where will this new RE come from? If we cannot come to an agreement, either ASIC will nominate an administrator more than likely to liquidate or WC as current RE will bring in 333 Capital, as she has stated she would do. This is an offshoot of KordaMentha who charge like wounded bulls and have dragged the liquidation of Ansett for years and years, still charging, of course.

B I cannot see KordaMentha charging 0.7%, if it is a court / ASIC appointed manager we will not have a choice. Check this out: http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business...cut-to-its-fees/2004/12/22/1103391838347.html

C You will find that a good solicitor as Kalinda is, will find flaws in any legal document. This is a normal course which is regularly evident in Govt Parliamentary Bills and Gazettes etc. As I have said, that is just the constitution you are so in arms about, but the current constitution has done bugger all to protect us anyway. So what is the HUGE deal?? As you state, this is just Kalinda's 'opinion', you can then get another lawyer that will give you a totally different 'opinion' depending on what point of view the person who is paying the lawyer wants to adopt.

D Yes they are still investigating as they have to justify their existence BUT Nick Sherry has written to PIF AG members "it is most unlikely that ASIC will take further action" in regard to this fund. Much like the DPP investigating a major theft, but never arresting anyone for the crime!!!!

Fact: I am sick to death of this year, dragging on with this very stressful experience. PIFI want to keep dragging this on for years to come. If you are reading this and feel sick in your stomach about this and just want to get your life back to where it was and receive an income vote YES for Resolution 1 and let the constitution be amended, that means bugger all at the end of the day and let WC take care of business to restore dollar value in our fund.
 
Joined
30 May 2008
Posts
328
Reactions
0
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Sorry, I and many other investors on this forum don't believe that the liquidation of this fund is the way to go. ....
One of the major reasons PIFI has been formed is to ensure WC do not liquidate the PIF. WC has the right to propose the PIF be liquidated and if members do not then take a stand against this it can happen. PIFI is taking this stand. They are coming up with strategies which can be put in place to ensure WC do not liquidate the fund. The law is on the unit holders side, WC cannot without our consent and without giving us a chance to propose an alternate viable strategy liquidate the fund. Anyone wanting to ensure WC do not liquidate the fund should get behind PIFI.
 
Joined
30 May 2008
Posts
328
Reactions
0
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

A Eventually there must be one. The current one does not want to do it your way. So what happens then. Where will you get 10500 investors that are all over Australia to meet? How will we then come to agreement? Where will this new RE come from? If we cannot come to an agreement, either ASIC will nominate an administrator more than likely to liquidate or WC as current RE will bring in 333 Capital, as she has stated she would do. This is an offshoot of KordaMentha who charge like wounded bulls and have dragged the liquidation of Ansett for years amd years, still charging of course.

B I cannot see KordaMentha charging 0.7%, if it is a court / ASIC appointed manager we will not have a choice. Check this out: http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business...cut-to-its-fees/2004/12/22/1103391838347.html

C You will find that a good solicitor as Kalinda is, will find flaws in any legal document. This is a normal course which is regularly evident in Govt Parliamentary Bills and Gazettes etc. As I have said, that is just the constitution you are so in arms about, but the current constitution has done bugger all to protect us anyway. So what is the HUGE deal?? As you state, this is just Kalinda's 'opinion', you can then get another lawyer that will give you a totally different 'opinion' depending on what point of view the person who is paying the lawyer wants to adopt.

D Yes they are still investigating as they have to justify their existence BUT Nick Sherry has written to PIF AG members "it is most unlikely that ASIC will take further action" in regard to this fund. Much like the DPP investigating a major theft, but never arresting anyone for the crime!!!!
The person who hired Kalinda Cobby did not ask for her to support their personal views they asked for her professional opinion on the proposals. If you read the opinion you will see they are not petty issues.
Everyone that put in a complaint with ASIC got a letter stating they will take no action. Some people accept that and give up, others push harder and yes ASIC are still investigating.
Where will you get 10500 investors that are all over Australia to meet? How will we then come to agreement? It's called putting forward a resolution and calling a members meeting.
You have no credibility if you are telling people you are prepared to allow any changes to the constitution due to the current state of the PIF.
 
Joined
25 August 2008
Posts
69
Reactions
0
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

You cannot push forward a resolution to investors if there is no RE. End of story! This denial of the importance of that shows you have very questionable credibility.

The person that is paying Kalinda is staunchly against WC, I know that for a fact as members of the PIF AG have spoken to him and has admitted that. PIFI is a renegade minority group in QLD to that of PIF AG who did not agree with this persons' hard handed tactics, so this person went out on his own and took a few with him. There are still more people in the QLD AG that support WC. That is fact too.

As breaker says, the no vote just needs to get 26% of vote. Out of 3000 so far 97% have voted in favour of the WC amendments. I believe that this is because voters have no other RE to vote for. What does that say about credibility?
 
Joined
30 May 2008
Posts
328
Reactions
0
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

You cannot push forward a resolution to investors if there is no RE. End of story! This denial of the importance of that shows you have very questionable credibility.
...
Members can put forward a resolution to change the constitution - this has nothing to do with changing the RE. If WC are as unprofessional as you say and will not accept a change that 75% of unit holders accept than they cannot just walk away as some have stated. The PIF will not be left without an RE.
 
Joined
9 July 2008
Posts
69
Reactions
0
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

The person who hired Kalinda Cobby did not ask for her to support their personal views they asked for her professional opinion on the proposals. If you read the opinion you will see they are not petty issues.
Everyone that put in a complaint with ASIC got a letter stating they will take no action. Some people accept that and give up, others push harder and yes ASIC are still investigating.
Where will you get 10500 investors that are all over Australia to meet? How will we then come to agreement? It's called putting forward a resolution and calling a members meeting.
You have no credibility if you are telling people you are prepared to allow any changes to the constitution due to the current state of the PIF.

You cannot push forward a resolution to investors if there is no RE. End of story! This denial of the importance of that shows you have very questionable credibility.

The person that is paying Kalinda is staunchly against WC, I know that for a fact as members of the PIF AG have spoken to him and has admitted that. PIFI is a renegade minority group in QLD to that of PIF AG who did not agree with this persons' hard handed tactics, so this person went out on his own and took a few with him. There are still more people in the QLD AG that support WC. That is fact too.

As breaker says, the no vote just needs to get 26% of vote. Out of 3000 so far 97% have voted in favour of the WC amndments. I believe that this is because voters have no other RE to vote for. What does that say about credibility?
Hi PIFI Group,
Just a thought.
Is there a chance that there is a hidden agenda by a member of the PIFI group to create a new RE for an associated group or persons or business?
We all know that whoever is the RE they will make a lot of money.
It appears to me that the majority of the unit holders want JH as RE and I keep thinking that there may be a hidden agenda and the goal is actually to take over as RE for no cost.
Please consider before you answer.
Regards, RickH:couch
 
Joined
27 May 2008
Posts
1,793
Reactions
2
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

If WC cannot walk away and are forced to stay under attempted enforced hostile circumstances, contrary to their proposed strategy to do what they consider best for unit holders and themselves (lets not forget they are running a business here, they are not a benevolent society) what would you do? Get out as quick as was legally possible and look for a less stressfull uncomplicated business opportunity. Or stay and be dictated to as to how to run their business? Seamisty
 
Joined
25 August 2008
Posts
69
Reactions
0
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Members can put forward a resolution to change the constitution - this has nothing to do with changing the RE. If WC are as unprofessional as you say and will not accept a change that 75% of unit holders accept than they cannot just walk away as some have stated. The PIF will not be left without an RE.

Members=10500 investors with totally differering agendas just judging from this little ASF thread as an insight, that will be sooooo smooth and easy.

The PIF will be left without an RE and a liquidator will be brought in because it will be impossible to get 10500 people to agree, the court will make that decision for us. The liquidation will drag on and on while lawyers and liquidators will sponge our funds and we will be left with very little indeed.

I have not stated WC are unprofessional thank you very much!!! In fact I believe, despite if you don't agree on her proposed changes, she has demonstrated she is MOST professional. Kalinda Cobby was also VERY impressed with her professionalism from all reports. She is a brilliant business person that is respected in the QLD community and I am sure the end vote will reflect that as it already has in the initial 3000 and beyond.
 
Joined
30 May 2008
Posts
328
Reactions
0
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hi PIFI Group,
Just a thought.
Is there a chance that there is a hidden agenda by a member of the PIFI group to create a new RE for an associated group or persons or business?
We all know that whoever is the RE they will make a lot of money.
It appears to me that the majority of the unit holders want JH as RE and I keep thinking that there may be a hidden agenda and the goal is actually to take over as RE for no cost.
Please consider before you answer.
Regards, RickH:couch
A new RE is not needed. All that the PIF needs is a change to the constitution to enable it to continue as a going concern or be wound down over a suitable time frame. Both of these are possible and can be put to the unitholders to see which they prefer.
 
Joined
27 May 2008
Posts
1,793
Reactions
2
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hi PIFI Group,
Just a thought.
Is there a chance that there is a hidden agenda by a member of the PIFI group to create a new RE for an associated group or persons or business?
We all know that whoever is the RE they will make a lot of money.
It appears to me that the majority of the unit holders want JH as RE and I keep thinking that there may be a hidden agenda and the goal is actually to take over as RE for no cost.
Please consider before you answer.
Regards, RickH:couch
Good point RickH, Perhaps this is one of the strategies PIFI is working on. Seamisty
 
Joined
4 May 2008
Posts
288
Reactions
0
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

You cannot push forward a resolution to investors if there is no RE. End of story! This denial of the importance of that shows you have very questionable credibility.

The person that is paying Kalinda is staunchly against WC, I know that for a fact as members of the PIF AG have spoken to him and has admitted that. PIFI is a renegade minority group in QLD to that of PIF AG who did not agree with this persons' hard handed tactics, so this person went out on his own and took a few with him. There are still more people in the QLD AG that support WC. That is fact too.

As breaker says, the no vote just needs to get 26% of vote. Out of 3000 so far 97% have voted in favour of the WC amendments. I believe that this is because voters have no other RE to vote for. What does that say about credibility?

Latest count updated today > 3605 have voted 97% in favour of Wellington Capital.

If you take that as a survey for the remainder yet to vote, that is NOT looking good for the NO voters! - and that's quite a survey!
 
Joined
25 August 2008
Posts
69
Reactions
0
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Hi PIFI Group,
Just a thought.
Is there a chance that there is a hidden agenda by a member of the PIFI group to create a new RE for an associated group or persons or business?
We all know that whoever is the RE they will make a lot of money.
It appears to me that the majority of the unit holders want JH as RE and I keep thinking that there may be a hidden agenda and the goal is actually to take over as RE for no cost.
Please consider before you answer.
Regards, RickH:couch

Gee RickH, that never crossed my mind. That is a hell of an observation.

Look I cannot say one way or another. What I will say is that the head person leading the PIFI charge and paying Kalinda out of his own pocket does not have a very high regard of WC or MFS and is a very angry person. I know this for a fact as I have emails that were communicated by him at the stage before PIFI was formed and he was a member of the QLD AG. He openly states that disdain.

Sometimes very angry people can take action that may not necessarily be to the benefit of the majority of the group that they are trying to help.
 
Joined
30 May 2008
Posts
328
Reactions
0
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF

Latest count updated today > 3605 have voted 97% in favour of Wellington Capital.

If you take that as a survey for the remainder yet to vote, that is NOT looking good for the NO voters! - and that's quite a survey!

To get the complete picture we would need to know what unit holding the YES and NO votes represent. This is just another example of partial information being provided which is biased towards the RE.

As the RE is only providing half the picture, we could assume that the 3% of NO votes represent a greater proportion than 3% of the unit holding.

Perhaps the next person requesting this info from the RE could also get the unit holding that the YES and NO votes represent.
 
Top