Hi all PIF holders, I have some answers to some questions posted...

Hi all PIF holders, I have some answers to some questions posted by 'filex' on the 11/12 which I fowarded to WC and the response I received will be of interest to most unitholders. Merry Xmas all and hope we can look foward to more stability in the PIF next year and a less stressfull 12 months than this year, regards, Seamisty:::::::Wellington Capital Limited as responsible entity of the Premium Úrcome Fund takes its disclosure
obligations under the Corporations Act 2001 (ClJ;.) and the National Stock Exchange Listing Rules very
seriously.
The board understands that individual investors may have questions about the assets and the future of the
Fund, and makes regular updates to investors in that regard, however Wellington will not engage in
individual disclosure to investors which is in breach of the Fund's continuous disclosure obligations.
At all times the board is cognisant of ensuring that all decisions and transactions are made in the best
interests of unitholders in the Fund.
I provide the following clarification in relation to the 11 December update:
Why are the operating costs so high?
The operating costs for the period 2l|ilay 2008 to 10 December 2008 (7 months) were $10.95 million.
The board has been prudently managing the expenses of the Fund in the current environment, bearing in
mind the events that have occurred since 2 May 2008 including for example:
¡ Commencement of litigation against Octaviar Limited, Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd and OPI Pacific
Finance Limited;
r Commencement of litigation by ASIC against Wellington Investment Management Limited;
¡ Commencement of Litigation by Bond Street Custodians Limited against Wellington Investment
Management Limited;
r Registry fees have included the fees of Computershare in conducting 2 generalmeetings;
¡ Custody fees have included the fees of Perpetual in attending to the asset divestment
¡ Interest and borrowing cost on outstanding debt included the default interest applied by Royal Bank of
Scotland to the Fund for the duration of the standstill agreement; and
. Audit fees included preparation of the financials for the 2008 annual report.
Level22 307 Queen Street Brisbane Qld 4000 GPO Box 694 Brisbane Qld 4001
T 1300 854 8855 F 1300 854 893 E [email protected] W www.newpif.com.au
Ms Yvette Mansted 23 December 2008
Page 2
Why are the operating costs not broken down?
The list provided above is not an exhaustive list, and has not been audited.
Audited financial accounts are provided to investors on a twice yearly basis. The operating costs were
provided to investors as information in relation to the application of funds which had been realised through
asset disposal since 2 May 2008.
Why does Wellington make the po¡nt of noting that they have not been paid or accrued any fees,
when part of the registry costs at least, have been paid to them?
The investor update of 11 December 2008 states that Wellington has not been paid or accrued any
management fees.
No registry fees have been paid to, nor accrued by, Wellington.
Why are they saying that the consequences of the current global economic conditions on the Fund
were tunforeseent?
The Board did not anticipate that the settlements due for 28 October 2008 with planned realisations of over
$25 million would fail to settle, causing the Fund to be unable to repay its debt at that date and unable to pay
the 3 cent cash payment to unitholders before 24 December 2008.
Further market tightening has seen purchasers of the underlying assets from the Fund, or from the Fund's
borrowers being unable to raise the required finance to complete the transactions.
In addition, the introduction of the government deposit guarantee saw a run on redemptions in other
mortgage funds, which would have been the logical reflrnancing alternative for borrowers from the Fund once
their loan term with the Fund had come to an end. Many of mortgage funds in the market are not currently
lending, and this has left borrowers from the Fund unable to refinance their loans with an alternative lender.
Why are they insinuating that there is a chance that cash payments might be made?
We are unaware of the insinuation to which you refer. The Fund is committed to making cash payments to
unitholders as soon as there is enough certainty and cash available in the Fund to do so.
The investor update states that the timing of payments are uncertain and that a cash payment will proceed
when there is cash available from asset realisations.
I trust this assists.