Macquarie International Infrastructure Fund

[Nick]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/macquarie-...00544.html

Seems LIM Advisors and Metage Capital are behind the SGM requisition. I wonder how MIIF Board will react.

(Not Vested)

http://info.sgx.com/webcoranncatth.nsf/V...A00520AF4/$file/MIIFSGMDocs16Nov2012.pdf?openelement [MIIF Letter to Shareholders]

MIIF Directors recommend voting against the 4 SGM Resolutions.

(Not Vested)

[Louhan]

I agree with MIIF recommendation to vote against increasing the number of directors. It will increase directors fees, and may cause more problems in MIIF. Once these new directors are voted in, it's very difficult to remove them. Let MIIF complete their strategic review peacefully first, and not cause trouble during this review.

[quote='Nick' pid='36435' dateline='1353256369']
[quote='Nick' pid='36431' dateline='1353247352']
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/macquarie-...00544.html

Seems LIM Advisors and Metage Capital are behind the SGM requisition. I wonder how MIIF Board will react.

(Not Vested)


http://info.sgx.com/webcoranncatth.nsf/V...A00520AF4/$file/MIIFSGMDocs16Nov2012.pdf?openelement [MIIF Letter to Shareholders]

MIIF Directors recommend voting against the 4 SGM Resolutions.

(Not Vested)

[Nick]

I agree with MIIF recommendation to vote against increasing the number of directors. It will increase directors fees, and may cause more problems in MIIF. Once these new directors are voted in, it's very difficult to remove them. Let MIIF complete their strategic review peacefully first, and not cause trouble during this review.

[quote='Nick' pid='36435' dateline='1353256369']
[quote='Nick' pid='36431' dateline='1353247352']
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/macquarie-...00544.html

Seems LIM Advisors and Metage Capital are behind the SGM requisition. I wonder how MIIF Board will react.

(Not Vested)


http://info.sgx.com/webcoranncatth.nsf/V...A00520AF4/$file/MIIFSGMDocs16Nov2012.pdf?openelement [MIIF Letter to Shareholders]

MIIF Directors recommend voting against the 4 SGM Resolutions.

(Not Vested)

Let's see what is LIM rationale behind this move. Are they seeking to over-throw MIMAL / ensure shareholders interest are not compromised in the strategic review / force a liquidation / take over as Manager / influence MIIF to buy some of their assets / shareholder activism etc ???

[weijian]

Top shareholders as of AR2011 are Macquarie (11%), Value Investor (8%) and Abu Dhabi (7%).

Assume retail vote (100-11-8-7-10=64%) is split 50% -> 30% will reject it. Since Macquarie Group already owns 11%, there is already ~40% of votes rejecting these resolutions. So it depends on the 2 substantial shareholder, Value Investor and Abu Dhabi.

Personally, if I were the people who are in dissent, I would not think that it will be successful. But these people are NOT stupid, so I think the reason they continue to do so, is because either they silently have some of the substantial investors’ vote (stated above), or their act is simply to exhibit some kind of shareholder activism and assert pressure…personally, I think it is the latter. If they do get 3 directors on board, they are still the minority and will not change anything. However, regardless of successful or not, this request does send a very strong message to the Board.

[Louhan]

Not all retail investors will turn up at the meeting. Is the percentage of votes based on all the shareholders who are present? Is the decision based on the majority of shareholders present at the meeting?

Top shareholders as of AR2011 are Macquarie (11%), Value Investor (8%) and Abu Dhabi (7%).

Assume retail vote (100-11-8-7-10=64%) is split 50% -> 30% will reject it. Since Macquarie Group already owns 11%, there is already ~40% of votes rejecting these resolutions. So it depends on the 2 substantial shareholder, Value Investor and Abu Dhabi.

Personally, if I were the people who are in dissent, I would not think that it will be successful. But these people are NOT stupid, so I think the reason they continue to do so, is because either they silently have some of the substantial investors’ vote (stated above), or their act is simply to exhibit some kind of shareholder activism and assert pressure…personally, I think it is the latter. If they do get 3 directors on board, they are still the minority and will not change anything. However, regardless of successful or not, this request does send a very strong message to the Board.

[Temperament]

Not all retail investors will turn up at the meeting. Is the percentage of votes based on all the shareholders who are present? Is the decision based on the majority of shareholders present at the meeting?

MIIF will be sending letters out for those who can not attend the meeting but still like to vote. We can vote with the letters we will be receiving and then send them back. Some US companies can even allow you to vote on their special set-up websites. When will be receiving the letter for voting?

[Nick]

Top shareholders as of AR2011 are Macquarie (11%), Value Investor (8%) and Abu Dhabi (7%).

Assume retail vote (100-11-8-7-10=64%) is split 50% -> 30% will reject it. Since Macquarie Group already owns 11%, there is already ~40% of votes rejecting these resolutions. So it depends on the 2 substantial shareholder, Value Investor and Abu Dhabi.

Personally, if I were the people who are in dissent, I would not think that it will be successful. But these people are NOT stupid, so I think the reason they continue to do so, is because either they silently have some of the substantial investors’ vote (stated above), or their act is simply to exhibit some kind of shareholder activism and assert pressure…personally, I think it is the latter. If they do get 3 directors on board, they are still the minority and will not change anything. However, regardless of successful or not, this request does send a very strong message to the Board.

Abu Dhabi ceased to be a SSH already. Its just Macquarie (10%), LIM (10%), Asset Value Investors (8%). Considering that there is only 1 MIMAL director in the Board, if LIM wins this fight, they are effectively in control of MIIF's board while Macquarie will be in control of the Management team. My guess is that they want to be present during the Strategic Review and veto any deals that may prejudice them during the Board meeting effectively curtailing MIMAL ? They don't seem like shareholder activist. Until they mention what their aims are, it is hard to judge the pros / cons behind their move.

(Not Vested)

[lonewolf]

I have received the letter from MIIF including the proxy form for voting in the SGM. Note to MIIF board: If you want the minority on your side, for goodness sake, pls include a business reply-postage paid envelope. Its not too much to ask.

The thing I find alarmingly glaring in the SGM is why LIM is even calling it in the first place. They asked for the increase in the number of directors and put up 3 of their cronies for director nomination, but where is the justification and the rationale?? Why should I vote for the resolutions??

In fact, I'm a little pissed by the actions of LIM. If they dun like the direction that MIIF is going, just pull yr money out. Why create all these unnecessary expenses?? All these are just eating up cash and for what?? I dun get it.

I'm a little tempted to just sell my stake and walk away from the drama but MIIF is still giving my good returns because of my attractive entry pt so I'm reluctant to do so; especially when its hard to find an alternative investment that give me similar yields.

Definitely voting against the resolutions.

[Louhan]

I'll vote against the resolutions. I would prefer MIIF to finish the strategic review first. Why get these 3 additional directors into the Board to cause trouble?

I have received the letter from MIIF including the proxy form for voting in the SGM. Note to MIIF board: If you want the minority on your side, for goodness sake, pls include a business reply-postage paid envelope. Its not too much to ask.

The thing I find alarmingly glaring in the SGM is why LIM is even calling it in the first place. They asked for the increase in the number of directors and put up 3 of their cronies for director nomination, but where is the justification and the rationale?? Why should I vote for the resolutions??

In fact, I'm a little pissed by the actions of LIM. If they dun like the direction that MIIF is going, just pull yr money out. Why create all these unnecessary expenses?? All these are just eating up cash and for what?? I dun get it.

I'm a little tempted to just sell my stake and walk away from the drama but MIIF is still giving my good returns because of my attractive entry pt so I'm reluctant to do so; especially when its hard to find an alternative investment that give me similar yields.

Definitely voting against the resolutions.

[tanjm]

I'll vote against the resolutions. I would prefer MIIF to finish the strategic review first. Why get these 3 additional directors into the Board to cause trouble?

I believe MIIF has done a "strategic review" once before and decided to ...... do nothing.

MIIF management has no incentive to do stakeholder rational things like returning lump sum cash to investors etc. They have fees to protect.