South Canterbury Finance

you wouldn't have brought that line under the former regime bob

whats changed?

Nothings changed, you just seem to invent opinions for me because it makes it easier for you.

The govt shouldnt be involved in things best handled by 'the market' (people have different views, im somewhere in the middle) but when it is involved it should do a good job of it. Why do you think someone would offer money to take a risky entity away - because they can make a profit. In this case with the govt putting in so much money in has an obligation to make the best of the situation both for itself (the public) and the many people and businesses who rely on the finance.

Fuck handing over the profits after a huge bail out. I think Labour should pull their heads our of their arses, they own part of the mess.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10681577

Wonder if they will pursue investors who split their investment in the company in shell companies in order to qualify for the maximum claim amount of 40 million per claim

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10681711

good to see the SFO resorting to bully boy tactics in regards to NBR... the dicks

what would you have them do BD?

ask nicely for the jornos to release their sources.... but you know what the jornos are going/ probably already did say.

That article you posted is fairly shit imo, theres no suggestion of wrong doing just that it took some time... well duh that how receiverships/SFO investigations/ criminal investigations go - especially when theres so many entities involved, plus SCF was supposedly optimistic/ naively hoping of a restructure.

Most of the information required will come out through parties already involved.

You just like the idea of a conspiracy and bad men in black suits.

I'd prefer any thoughts of conspiracy were destroyed... and I suggest the only way to do so would be via a commission of enquiry into the entire affair

I'd like to sit here and think hey its a crappy outcome financially but the right course of action

So you think people who dont believe SFO/ recievers/ administrators reports are going to believe a commission of enquiry? History would suggest otherwise. Its funny to complain about public money and then suggest public money be poured into potentially yet another black hole when the current investigations havent run their course.

The commission would take years and cant see evidence till other investigations have run their course anyway so without a suggestion of something solid calls for it are just a way to sound important and sell news papers.

If the terms of enquiry are right then some, me for example, yes - emphasis on the terms of the enquiry... ie not a govt whitewash

I'm sure there is plenty more information to come... but an investigation into 5 transactions I doubt will answer the big questions I and many others have

Yeah, although I know of some people who have been investigated by the SFO just because they had some free time I am a big fan of better equiping the police and SFO to investigate and prosecute fraud. Also, due to the nature of SFO investigations I have no problem with them being percieved as heavy handed - I think the NBR is being very precious. If you get served a warrant you comply asap. Frankly they should be able to go and seize the items from the site immediately and if theres any question of legality or the like they should be able to lock them in trust till a court decides whether they have the right to seize them or not. You only need to look at the likes of suminovich whose offices mysteriously burned down while there was an investigation into Scampy allocations to see what happens in accounting fraud cases with things getting lost.

totally agree about equiping the police and sfo to better investiagte and prosecute fraud

When it comes to agencies desiring information collected by the media (a reporters notes for example) I am very much on medias right to protect their sources.... and as such I put freedom of the press above information the SFO could find itself through its own research/investigation. Businesses under investigation however I agree with you

is it me or does the SFO always come across as slightly smarmy in the media?

must be
all you ever talk about is money

I'm a frustrated capitalist peat, I really am

nah you're seeing this as a social issue and you wish an equitable outcome
whereas I am completely bored by it now as it no longer has any potential for profit.

personally I think that AH has done dodgey stuff but its so mired in complexity that its hardly worth the effort to resolve. but i guess thats what SFO get paid to do. good luck to them.
also I see it as a bit of an admission of failure on their part that they need info from NBR journalists.

actually I want to see some dirt as an outcome... I believe the govt is hiding things to do with their handling of the affair

what would they be hiding?

Perhaps that they didnt act soon enough? Well, obviously in hindsight things should have been handled differently.

Perhaps they shouldnt have let it in? Maybe. They certainly put a lot of thought into it along with constant monitoring. I think the decision to let it in was in part to keep a large part of the NZ economy from stopping. I dont have any sympathy for property developers and the like but SFC also supported a large part of the south islands businesses and a breakdown would have put those people at risk of having to be bankrupted/ put out of business - not to mention a whole lot of people losing life savings. I don't think there's any question of the social benefit to the Govt being involved in some way.

So what more is there to investigate or decide? Was it handled perfectly? no but it doesnt appear to be so bad as yet.

Until theres some actual indications of the need for an enquiry it seems like people just baying for blood.

guess we're revisiting old ground but nah it should never have been let in.
would've been awesome (in a ghoulish nasty way) to see what would've happened if it had all been left to its own device and then AH snuffed it.

there is a shedload of stuff they could be hiding

take for example, how would it look if one of the ministers in the decision making process was found to have invested in SCF once they were ushered into the scheme.... or even if some had investments there to start with...

add to this the ECAN thang and you possibly get a better idea of where I'm looking

course I would have expected a more market orientated solution from you Bob - ie let it fail...

well, bill english is heavily embroiled in south south island politics for starters

and we all know where he stands on financial probity don't we?

Well they did let it fail just they covered the deposits. The shareholders have lost everything I guess.

While I am further right than yourself BD though Helen clark probably was too ) I have become quite sick of saying I am not right wing.

I would be very surprised if it is found there is a minister with direct financial connections to SCF who had anything to do with the decision making, perhaps with the exception of trusts in a round about way. That doesnt mean that well known people who do have an interest in SCF weren't putting pressure on the govt but that's not really any different to Labour hanging around with unionists. Anyway I think the people owed money/ or lent money will be a matter of public record in time so you will be able to see for yourself. Any connection however loose/ tenuous will be seized upon by labour/ jornos in no time. I believe ministers financial investments are a matter of public record so you can probably find out for yourself.

There are a lot of prominent South Islanders who are caught up in this at the fringes at least.

ECAN - im not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying its connected or in the same vein?

From what view are you taking that from?

I certainly agree that people who put money in wanting to make a quick buck shouldnt have been allowed to profit from it but that is slightly off topic.

Are you saying its position didnt meet the criteria for entry (as it was known at the time)?

Or are you saying in hind sight it shouldnt have (which seem obvious based on what we now know)

My view is that it shouldnt have been let to get to where it was, complete mismanagement by an old boy dinosaur but that given the extent of its dealings in the south island the govt would have had to do something.

from the view that no finance companies should ever have been let into a govt guarantee.
the ramifications of an NBDT (non Bank deposit taker) having a gg are obvious.

Agreed but that would have killed a large proportion of NZ businesses that rely on non bank finance.... which is a large proportion. Drying up that money could have put us into a very steep recession which may or may not have been what the economy needed but would have spelt the end to whoever was in power at the time (labour).

We pretty much had to follow suit when Aussie did.

SCF had loaned 250% of its equity to related parties.... new guidelines proposed say that it should be no more than 15%.

Hubbard took peoples money and ignored the instructions on where it should be invested.

"It relates to some monies that were directed to Hubbard for investment with specific instructions as to where the monies were to be invested and they were not invested that way."

Its a shame he probably be wont around long after the mess finally gets through court. Receiver said it will probably take a couple of years.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10682103

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/4888468/Bill-English-Conflict-of-Interest

What a surprise.

Shocked and amazed.