pif related news, page-81

Selciper,

I understand that Seamisty is relaying information, but I think it is important to hightlight the flaws and insufficiencies in that information so that Unit Holders are not made to feel that the poor quality of information should be regarded as acceptable.

I'm glad you posted your story of the elderly investor you ran into. This highlights my point. I would say the majority of Unit Holders are in the same position. If any of them had indicated on their voting forms that they wanted to nominate for the Advisory Committee, how would they know to be expecting nomination forms if they don't use the internet? Because of the mail out stuff up, if they did not receive the forms in the mail, they would not be aware that forms had been mailed out & quite obviously they would not know that they would have to call WC to complain. It is wrong to assume that everyone is privy to the same level of information, and to therefore state that 'well I found my solution to the problem & everyone else should just do the same'.

The Corporations Act and the Funds Constitution states that the RE must treat all Unit Holders fairly and equally. It is the sole responsibility of WC to ensure that this happens. IT IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF UNIT HOLDERS TO TAKE ACTION TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE BEING TREATED FAIRLY AND EQUALLY. This is the second time (first being the second mail out of proxy forms prior to the vote where many Unit Holders did not receive them till it was too late to submit them) that WC has stuffed up in this responsible they hold.