Amended as requested

Memories that don't go away;

“The best way for PIF investors to achieve this would be to vote "no" to the Wellington proposal and appoint their own manager to wind-up the fund and pursue any legal claims.”
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/asic...if-investors-20080911-4e5o.html#ixzz3Mky2OlCs

While this reasoning was countered with this from our archives:

“Its a pity Michael West did not research his article a little better as he missed some key points.
Resolution 3 which will activate the 2% severance fee of WC up to $8million is optional so if unitholders
don't like the content they can simply vote NO.
There was absolutely no mention that WC has made provision for an Investor Advisory Committee which will comprise three democratically elected Unitholders who will be able to meet directly with the RE.
The 'large fees' that will be paid to the manager are less than a third of what Unitholders were paying their previous managers who are responsible for the current state of the PIF.
The vote is trending for an overwhelming YES vote by 97%, indicating that the majority of investors are willing to give WC the opportunity to be responsible for their investment.
Why would you 'dump' a RE and appoint another unknown RE without knowing what WC are capable of?

And that’s where PIF has landed!

Regards,