HOT TOPICS:   Election 2014  |    China   |  Peer-to-peer lending                                        RESOURCES:    Economic calendar   |  Median multiples

The comment stream

Reader poll

Have rising residential property values left you better or worse off financially?

Choices

Join the Interest community to be a registered commenter so you can:
- Edit your comments
- Avoid the CAPTCHA
- Vote on comments
Register Here

Already registered? log back in here ..

Forgotten your password? No problem! Click here

Opinion: Dear Allan Hubbard: Please say sorry and thanks to the taxpayers of NZ and the investors in SCF

Posted in Opinion
See video

By Bernard Hickey

Dear Allan Hubbard:

Please say sorry and thanks.

Please say sorry to the taxpayers of New Zealand and investors in South Canterbury Finance who now have to bear the burden of cleaning up your mess.

Please say thanks to the Finance Minister Bill English, Prime Minister John Key and the millions of taxpayers who are now having to pay for your mistakes.

Please say sorry to the South Canterbury Finance preference share holders who have lost all of the NZ$120 million they invested with you on the strength of your reputation.

Please take responsibilty for the mess created by the boom and now bust of the South Island's largest financial institution.

Please appear in public yourself to answer questions about what happened at South Canterbury Finance.

Please don't leave it up to your wife Jean, your PR advisors and your supporters to defend you in public. Please understand the scale of the damage done or your role in it.

Please be the humble man who does not shirk responsibility and cares deeply about your community that you are reputed to be.

Please don't publicly attack the government, the Statutory Manager, your fellow directors and anyone else who criticises you and then refuse to answer questions in public.

Please show some humility and some concern for the wider community. Please don't be more worried about your reputation than the impact on the business community or the public accounts of the nation.

Please say sorry for the way you built up and ran South Canterbury Finance in such a way that every New Zealand taxpayer now has had to stump up NZ$400 each or a total NZ$1.775 billion.

Please say sorry for your reckless lending decisions and for hiring the poor management that allowed the institution you built to go on a lending spree funded by government guaranteed money through late 2008 and early 2009.

Please take responsibility for the poor credit assessment and record keeping you passed on to Chief Executive Sandy Maier when he assumed control of the company in late December 2009.

Please explain why you failed to declare publicly, except in the bowels of your annual report, that your bank BNZ had summarily pulled its funding line in mid 2009.

Please explain why you used a local accounting firm Woodnorth Myers & Co as your auditor for so many years instead of bringing in an outside firm to provide some oversight.

Please explain why Ernst and Young found you had overvalued your assets by at least NZ$43.7 million in the initial accounts you prepared for 2008/09.

Please explain why you chose to repeatedly lend to related parties of other companies and interests that you either personally owned or controlled.

Please explain why you represented an equity injection in 2009 as a real injection of fresh money when it was nothing more than a merry-go-round of assets for shares.

Please explain why you refused to be interviewed or engage with the financial press in any meaningful way for years.

Please explain why you thought making interest free loans to young farmers to buy overpriced land was a prudent way to run a business.

Please explain why you chose to run so many businesses yourself without any outside scrutiny. A search of Companies Office records show you were or are a director and/or shareholder in 552 companies. The attached spreadsheet shows there are 1,690 companies registered from your offices at 39 George St, Timaru.

Please say sorry for saying repeatedly that South Canterbury Finance was a 'heartland' financier of rural businesses when it actually lent more than NZ$100 million to a luxury Auckland hotel redevelopment, the building of townhouses on Paritai Drive in Auckland, as well as to bars in the Viaduct. Please explain why you thought lending money to property developers in Queenstown who were unable to find funding was a good idea.

Please explain why there was so much related party lending between your companies and South Canterbury Finance and why you thought this was OK.

Please explain why you allocated NZ$13 million in shares to investors in Hubbard Management Funds that Grant Thornton has found in its second report did not exist.

Please explain why you reported to investors in Hubbard Management Funds that you had NZ$6 million in cash on hand when Grant Thornton said you actually had NZ$350,000 in cash.

Please explain why in March this year you had to mortgage your own assets to ensure you had enough cash to pay the interest on investments in Aorangi Securities. Please explain why you thought this was a legitimate thing to do and why you thought you should have been allowed to continue to do it for the entire group without outside scrutiny.

Please explain why only 17 of the 51 borrowers of money invested in Aorangi Securities are able to meet the interest payments or make sufficient profits.

Please explain why you did not set up a succession to run South Canterbury Finance after you retired.

Please explain why up to the end you were working seven days a week for most hours of the day and night, opening the mail and writing the cheques yourself, when you had employed dozens of people to do this for you. Please explain why you appeared not to trust your own people to run your own company.

Please explain why you believe you could say this in June this year and believe it: "I don't believe in the history of New Zealand that any person has acted more honourably than myself"

Most of all Mr Hubbard. Please acknowledge the pain you have caused your investors and the taxpayers of New Zealand.

Please say sorry and thank you.

Regards

Bernard Hickey

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment in the box on the right or click on the "'Register" link at the bottom of the comments.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current Comment policy is here.

241 Comments

That about covers it.

That about covers it. Brilliant!

You missed many other finance

You missed many other finance directors off the cc list Bernard (yeah sure the details change, but the same type of dick-headed-ness is involved).

In this country, we pay

In this country, we pay champagne money and still get monkeys.

i would like to add  that the

i would like to add  that the decision making process in lifting interest rates was

negligence and not helping the tax payer of nz to save money or add value so that nz

can be more competitive with its trading partners . hopefully he can come to grips in acknoledging his mistake and put interest rates down.

his timing tells me he knows very little about the real economy and only listens to banks

and offshore vested interests as he has no guts

Is Lachie McLeod CC'd?

Is Lachie McLeod CC'd?

You are missing the point.

You are missing the point. Lachie  was appointed by Allan, he could have been removed at any time. Allan is responsible for everything that happened at SCF for the entire period, he was the President and the controlling Shareholder.

Allan needs to say sorry and thanks to the taxpayer.

Put it this way - if there was no GG, would you all be defending him so much or would you all be outside the door of his office waiting to lynch him.

 

Sorry, Lachie was actively in

Sorry, Lachie was actively in charge of much of SCF's operations. He personally made many of the very dangerous property loans. He is as much in the gun as Hubbard.

I have not seen the same leave of accountability demanded of the various prominent MP's and celebrity Directors of other failed finance companies and ventures. SCF was a billion dollar venture, Hubbard could not have done this alone.

Lachie, got the sweet loans and lent them to his mates in Auckland. He moved the ship away from Agri-lending.

The stupid Rich investors in Hubbard need to say thanks to the taxpayers of NZ. This company was not too big to fail, no GG should have been issued full stop.

I never invested in SCF or anyother finance companies. Anyone who has the slightest financial knowledge never would have placed funds in them.

You have still missed the

You have still missed the point - Alan was the boss, and could have reigned Lachie in.

Lachie was often seen with AH travelling to Auckland, Wellington etc, very obvious that Lachie was acting with Alan's support.

Well put, Bernard.  But I

Well put, Bernard.  But I hope you're not sitting their holding your breath till your face turn blue and waiting for him to respond.  I doubt that will happen.  Good questions.

Sadly he does not believe he

Sadly he does not believe he is answerable to any one but you know who,     -for all his percieved humility he has an extrodinary ego

Well I doubt he will say

Well I doubt he will say sorry - so we can only hope the SFO find enough to throw the book at him.

Good one Bernard and thank

Good one Bernard and thank you.

We cerainly need to see greater personal responsibility and performance across the public and commercial sectors.

Lets hope the (costly) lessons have been learnt.

The Government is to be commended for the way it is handling this unfortunate issue.

Hugh Pavletich

www.PerformanceUrbanPlanning.org

Christchurch

"The Government is to be

"The Government is to be commended for the way it is handling this unfortunate issue."......As a tax payer Hugh, I feel you might be a 'Patsy'.

Please take a bow Bernard.

Please take a bow Bernard. The best sort of  journalism.

Good on you Bernard - very

Good on you Bernard - very informative and good on you for saying things that need to be said - the whole saga is too serious for us all to be swept under the carpet. Its good to know that the truth will prevail. Thanks

How about asking how come

How about asking how come this debacle that is SCF was allowed to continue to operate recklessly with the guarantee in place, who is suppose to be monitoring these guaranteed lemons?

At last some factoids. This

At last some factoids. This topic has generated some heat, a lot of speculation, a lot of opinion, yet very few facts. Public opinion is based on the information available in the public domain. Yet the media publishes acres of "opinion" with a paucity of factual data. Questions: A new auditor was appointed. When? Why? That was a red flag. SCF didnt lose $600 million overnight. When did it lose the funds. Was it trading while insolvent?. Related-Party loans. Here we go again. Another red-flag. Who were these loans to?  If related party loans were involved, surely, surely, any worthwhile audit would disclose this. As a private company accepting deposits from the public it must have produced unqualified audited accounts. How? Who were the auditors?. Was the company trading while insolvent?. Probably. Have to be. What remedies?. So many questions. So few answers. We need facts.
 

Bernard, why aren't you being

Bernard, why aren't you being as tough on these other finance comapany directors, where their investors have actually lost money. 

The reason taxpayers have had to pay out on this is solely due to a poorly written GG. It should never have covered finance companies. However the government will never lose out, they will probably get all their money back in the long run, as they make all the rules.

The financial intelligence

The financial intelligence behind this comment sums up why NZ investors have lost so much money in finance companies.

The 'government' in this case

The 'government' in this case is all of us, it's our money. Money we could have used to build things, or generate employment, or pay debt, or whatever.

Bernard my gosh - fantastic

Bernard

my gosh - fantastic report. total shame it will not filter into that old man's head or his loyal followers. good to see journalism at it's best. WELL DONE BERNARD...

Give the guy a break! The

Give the guy a break!

The current board of directors which includes a lawyer from Auckland and the Macleod clan have a lot to do with the current state of affairs of SCF.

Registering companies at law offices or accounting firms is common practice in the corporate world.

The second GT report talks about one $8 M item and one $5 m item. My understanding of maths is that 8 + 5 =  13.

I continue to be shocked that interim GT reports are circulating on the internet.

While the final outcome of statutory management may be in the public interest, a first report of 8 pages and a second report of 10 pages seems to be light reading compared to the amounts of money that are involved. There are no charts or diagrams corroborating the insinuations.

We are a long way from US Senate inquiries qhere case loads of thousand page confidential reports are finally delivered to the government.

This should be on the front

This should be on the front page of the Timaru Herald tomorrow, so Heartlanders can understand why we do not worship Hubbard

Good summary Bernard, you

Good summary Bernard, you could have gone further ....

Yes. There's plenty more.

Yes. There's plenty more. Here's a sample from earlier. http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/opinion-when-our-fear-corporate-way-an...

cheers

Bernard

About time some one asked the

About time some one asked the questions!!! well done Bernard!!!!!

I don't give a toss about

I don't give a toss about Hubbard. What I want is answers: names of ALL investors and dates of all lodged investments in the last two years Please! Find it Bill! Don't make me go through the FIA. This transfer of 1.6 BILLION NZ tax dollars is not going to just happen without SERIOUS answers and questions being asked! Smell the rat people?

This whole thing was just too convenient. If you invest then YOU take the risk. Who's backstopping my businesses? F..klng ME! I don't expect the NZ taxpayer to pick up the bill. The government are just as accountable here! Don't try putting it all on Hubbard, sorry that's just a f..king cop out. Where has been the government oversight this past decade on ALL these firms? They watch me like a hawk and I run legit businesses! Get angry people! Youve just been 'mugged' to the tune of 1.6 BILLION!

What a weirdo

What a weirdo

What a Muppet statement.

What a Muppet statement.

Totally support you here,

Totally support you here, Justice.

Justice is venting anger as

Justice is venting anger as are many NZ family taxpayers... I  agree with him. I am as disturbed about this as he is. The taxpayer has been ripped off.  I have supported National for 27 years...Sorry John,,, its all over now. The eveidence is starting to reflect that Hubbard is as crooked as a cheap rolex. Lets hope this SFO throws him in jail.

I think you'll find Comrade

I think you'll find Comrade Helen put the original guarantee in place......

You should have got angry

You should have got angry when they issued the guarantee, its too late to do anything about it now.  At the end of the day the government did what they did for the greater good of the country - without the guarantee we would have had SCF and every other finance company collapse at the wrong time and we would have had a much worse recession.

Agree Justice.Reckon this

Agree Justice.Reckon this would be where a real investigative journalist should go.But then we may find that the Nat heiracy and financial supporters weigh heavy in this particular two years.Still we can hope Bernard will" follow the money".Wonder if this was why Allen H.suggested that John Key should be consulted before the Big guns fired?
 

Good post. It's not the first

Good post. It's not the first time someone's hero has turned out to have feet of clay.

The investors who reduced their exposure to qualify for the guarantee did not invest because  Hubbard was a good ole boy and would see them right -  no matter what supporters say.

They saw the writing on the wall and  invested because  the government would see them right.

If fraud is proven - would

If fraud is proven - would that invalidate the GG? Would be too late though because it would have already have been paid out - wouldnt that be a croc!

"don't give a toss about

"don't give a toss about Hubbard. What I want is answers: names of ALL investors and dates of all lodged investments in the last two years Please! Find it Bill! Don't make me go through the FIA."

Pathetic comment Justice . SCF was always a risk of a messy receivership that would have been dificult for investors,  so any new investor had to tred warily. But some of us, with the cover of a Govt guarantee to eventaully get our money back, were prepared to give the company a chance because there were some possibities in the wings that might have saved them (indeed some did without that cover). And if they did survive, and went back to their knitting, the NZ economy would be better off than it is today... yes that was in the minds of many of us. We weren't putting more money in and increasing the tax payers risk, we were maintaining it and giving it a chance...no worse, but c chance

Your type really piss me off.....you will claim they had no chance, without being privy to what was actually going on behind the scence (the worse type of hypocrite). Yes they didn't make it, and it was definitely not a better that 50:50 chance, but we gave it a try. Well done, congratulations, does it make you fell good ?

Fortunately the Govt has fronted up early for us and not cost us too much for giving them that chance.

Bollocks.. this is the

Bollocks.. this is the taxpayer pain...I dont care what went on "behind the scenes",,, I just want my money back
 

Rubbish! You invested because

Rubbish! You invested because the Government Guarantee allowed SCF to pay higher interest rates to you than other alternatives. Would you have investted in SCF otherwise? No. Don't come the 'we were giving them a chance to survive' bit. That's real hypocricy.

Perfect hit ! Now try that in

Perfect hit ! Now try that in relation to the failures in the Matakana Island scam and failures by the crown. You're perfect for the job of asking the direct questions, perfect

Here Here! I second the

Here Here! I second the motion........ read your other piece too Christopher....get stuck in. 

Here Here! I second the

Here Here! I second the motion........ read your other piece too Christopher....get stuck in. 

Allan Hubbard; Many people

Allan Hubbard;
Many people want to besmirch him. Particularly those who ponce about Ponsonby in a vain attempt to boost their ratings. Related party loans and all other sort of mischief.It is crap.
I have had a look at the balance sheets of two outfits; let's call them Na and Ka. Allan Hubbard and his wife own 25% of each of them. These are no corner stores. Na has assets of $14,186,334 and Ka has assets of $13,909,426. Neither outfit has any borrowings from South Canterbury Finance or any other Hubbard related outfits that have been placed, at considerable expense, in statutory management. They each have decent borrowings from an Australian owned bank.
So I looked further and noted that neither dairy farming partnership took advantage of the marvellous tax planning opportunities presented by section EC 20 (1) (b) of the Tax Act, when cattle prices fell dramatically during the year ended 30th June 2009. Apparently Hubbard would have no truck with such chicanery.
Now, compare Hubbard with Hickey's darling, Telecom. Telecom's Income Statement on page 72 of their Annual Report shows that the Company made a profit before tax of $553,000,000. Search further, as far as page 120, where in Note 30 it shows that Telecom paid income tax for the whole year of, get this, $1,000,000. If my idea of fun was poncing about Ponsonby I would have Telecom on a pedestal and Hubbard in the gutter. But I don't ponce. What I do though, is have more respect for Hubbard's business ethics than I have for the business ethics of Telecom's directorate.
Declaration of interest. I have no beneficial interest in Na or Ka. My brokers were unable to get me shares in the Mafia. They were able to get me shares in Telecom at $1.90 several weeks ago.

Oh my, please help us.

Oh my, please help us.

Was that sarcasm,,,,:-)

Was that sarcasm,,,,:-)

Did you read where it said

Did you read where it said that about 3000 of it's 8000 staff earn over 100,000k. That is a pretty huge percentage for a NZ comapny. Certainly they are paying themselves very well, compared to how well it is currently performing. The shareholders have lost a lot of value in those shares.

Tauhei Notts, You haven't

Tauhei Notts,

You haven't heard my recent commentary on Telecom then...

cheers

Bernard

SCF under the DOGs were given

SCF under the DOGs were given a licence by the governemnt and treasury to be reckless and lend at higher risk. It was the government that should never have extended DOG and has been cynical and biased. a real insurance company would never have extended the DOGs.

Hubbard will shut his mouth and say nothing.

Without this DOG, or DGS, sth

Without this DOG, or DGS, sth cant would have failed 18 months ago. Im sure the timaru faithful wouldnt have been so loyal then.

There would have also been a

There would have also been a run on the banks, as English said, without it people would have started withdrawing their money from them.

Well done, Bernard. How

Well done, Bernard.

How about a similar letter to Hotchin and Watson too ?

Well put Bernard. I only wish

Well put Bernard. I only wish these sentiments were printed in The Timaru Herald so the locals could see what is really going on. Nothing negative gets printed in that paper so start a letter writing campaign and the message just might get through. The editor will have to publish the ' letters to the editor'. HE has had a crack at Bill English for wanting Timaru to show some gratitude for the payout! Because of the lack of any negative reporting on Hubbard  most locals still think he is Saint Alan

Let them live in their

Let them live in their bubble.

I used to hitch north from Dunedin to Wellington when I was a scarfie at the U of O.

Sometimes I'd get stuck in Timaru... god, what a decrepit hole with decrepit people...

nice thought Smokey

nice thought Smokey ........but they would look for the error and sue his ass till it fell off.....they like that kinda thing.

pick on an old man lol what

pick on an old man lol what about aucklands crappy builders

now theres a bill

Too right, they are costing

Too right, they are costing way way more. It is however mainly the developers, not the builders fault, as they cut costs and built these buildings as cheaply as possible.

Good to see the facts all

Good to see the facts all laid out in a rowm, as there is so much incorrect info. flying around at the moment.

it's also good to see the media starting to realise the implications of the key role ex-CEO Lachie Mcleods played in the mismanagement of SCF....like.. most of it.!!!

Hubbards ego was his downfall...he just loved to be Southlands answer to Santa Claus..well, it looks like he was more like the KFC 's Colonel...too many secret herbs and spices!

All is mystery; but he is a slave who will not struggle to penetrate the
dark veil.

- Benjamin Disraeli
(1804 - 1881)
British Prime Minister

now swing your lovelight on McLeod , bernard chickey!

Whats McLeod up to these days

Whats McLeod up to these days ?

Defaulting on a SCF loan.

Defaulting on a SCF loan.

Spot on Mr Hickey . I am

Spot on Mr Hickey . I am rightly fizzing at the bunghole over the SCF debacle particularly when I have seen greedy sods queuing up to take money from a mainstream bank  only to shove it right up caroline bays finest bogan finance house offering 8% plus when we could only ply 5% and now they can get it back all because of the  Govt G'tee.

What really were the implications of the SCF going down the toilet . 

Appreciate Alan Hubbard might have been a nice geezer but when I saw the sainsbury visit on TV , I could tell he was a bit senile.

Next stop Mrs Baggins Private resthome.

As for the loan book one can only assume the lenders must have been shoving crack cocaine up their collective khybers based on the quality of the book.

Rob of the North -you  in the

Rob of the North -you  in the north and well informed to comment, but I for one didn't realise that Timaru had migrated into Southland..thanks for inciteful update

Well done Bernard.  Great

Well done Bernard.  Great post.

I look forward to getting

I look forward to getting this in my christmas stocking. I wonder if he will do a book signing tour?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/4042708/Allan-Hubbard-book-in-print-soon

I surmise when SCF was

I surmise when SCF was granted inclusion into the Govt Guarantee Scheme this company's

situation and practices at that time would not have been satisfactory in the view of some

independant auditors if they had of been asked to closely look into this company.

So if they weren't offered inclusion this would have aroused suspicion and a run

may have occurred on SCF.  But what a saving to the NZ taxpayer!

Investors who chased the higher deposit interest rate would have lost their money

but up until now isn't that the risk we have all had to weigh up?

Why did we 'back' a certain loser I ask myself?

 

No mention of the role played

No mention of the role played by Forsyth Barr in all of this. Did they help SCF or not?

this is an appalling piece of

this is an appalling piece of reporting. i am frankly disgusted. if there is ever an inquiry into scf i think that you will find simply that scf had poor corporate governance, coupled with a second tier auditor that was out of its depth. the trustee or state should have stepped in years ago and appointed one of the big boys to sort it out. Bernard personal attacks on an elderly, defenseless gentlemen, and the manner in which you have gone about it so publicly is atrocious. Frankly I am appalled. If anything AH comes across a little naive, perhaps "old school".  The pressure AH must be under is enormous. I  shouldn't be surprised if he drops dead tomorrow. back off wanker!

That "elderly, defenseless

That "elderly, defenseless gentlemen" has put the rest of us on the hook for $ 1.6bn.

He may be a nice bloke but under his watch the Company screwed up big time.

 

Great article Bernard.

Lol - keep eating that media

Lol - keep eating that media spin brother.  I doubt the net cost to the taxpayer will be more then $300M max after taking into account the tax already generated on the original lending and the principal and interest to be collected and the $2.2B of assets we got for our $1.6B. But of course we don't have any media capable of understanding this.

And what about the interest

And what about the interest on of $220,000 per day that we are funding fe $1.6 bio that has/will be paid in adavance of the return of any asset value? Where does that come from? Magic? No. From other taxpayer's social projects. This lot is going to cost us far more than you think.

Some basic analysis and logic

Some basic analysis and logic tells us that installments are still being collected on most of the book and the earning rate on those $2.2B of assets will be 10% plus.  I'm starting to think it's going to cost us less and less.

Actually ,logic and analysis

Actually ,logic and analysis tell me that as a borrower I'd be dragging my feet to repay the Government as hard as I could!  What are they going to do? Sell me up? I don't think so ( that's what theyv'e stated was the objective of the 'full payout'). So why pay any principal or interest ( of course I could be one of the zero interest borrowers!) unless you have to? As I say, it's going to cost us more than an arm and a leg.

It's not the governments role

It's not the governments role to make those decisions.  It's the receivers and they can be nasty pricks.  They will sell you up and bankrupt you and call in any personal gaurantees and bankrupt them if they have to.

Of course they can. But will

Of course they can. But will they? And even if they do all the defaulting party does is drag it out as long as possible, paying no P or I ( Alan Crafar is a good current example!) and then, if push comes to shove, they settle ( proabaly at a discount to avoid the cost of further litigation) on the court steps, some years down the track. It's going to be a long, expesive, drawn out taxpayer funded gravy train.

But in this case, why the

But in this case, why the hell should taxpayers pay anything?

The final net cost will be

The final net cost will be well less than $1.6bn...but that was the amount the taxpayer had to find on day one. If SCF hadnt screwed up that money could have been redeployed elsewhere.

Piss off. The rest of the

Piss off. The rest of the country has already coughed-up so that you hillbillies get your deposits back plus interest. Now go crawl back under your rock and stare longingly at your posters of John Key and Bill English.

Oh my  god,, I hope he doesnt

Oh my  god,, I hope he doesnt die. I want to see the crook die in jail for the biggest scam since the Nigerian lotteries. His poor "governance" has led to the payout from middle New Zealanders. He is at the top so HE IS SOLEY ACCOUNTABLE Grrr

Why feel sorry for Hubbard

Why feel sorry for Hubbard just because he's 82.  He's just cost the country a packet and every taxpayer has a right to feel VERY angry. I have no sympathy for Hubbard at all. Every question Bernard raises is legitimate and deserves a response.

give  the guy  a break hes 83

give  the guy  a break hes 83 years old and not very well . the only reason it happen to him by this goverment is because he didnt  give  money  to any polictal party unlike watson and his merry men that got  away with it .

YOu have got to be

YOu have got to be kidding,,,,, I hope he dies in jail

I like the point by Paul E

I like the point by Paul E above. If fact I think I saw somewhere the Exended GG was done mainly for SCF - as they knew it would fail otherwise. But how much was lost between that point and now would be good to know - certainly a big chunk of the $1.75B must have been to buy out the 2011 bonds?

Maybe Bill English could give us a figure?

Bernard....those entities

Bernard....those entities that made a fast buck on the SCF QE bailout....do they have to pay tax on the tens of millions ?????

This looks like a bank bail

This looks like a bank bail out and not a SCF bailout.

It would be interesting to see which banks were owed by SCF.

Same happened in the USA and Europe.

The 1.7b was to make the banks whole again at taxpayer expense.

The people that own the banks have their mates in parliament making laws that benefit the banks.

Pity that us common people don't have politicians that represent us.

This is nothing more than legalized theft.

 

It would come under intent

It would come under intent wolly. Did they intend to make a capital gain then taxable as income. Still a killing though.

It will be interesting to see

It will be interesting to see now whether the IRD has the balls to go after the tax since it seems obvious they had avery intention of making a capital gain on the deal. We shall have to watch to see what happens here. I think BH should put the question to BE like today!!!!!

Well Wolly, you will be happy

Well Wolly, you will be happy to hear I will be paying tax on the money I made buying the bonds because I am a trader.You seem upset that people made money out of these bonds.Are you seriously telling me you would not have got these bonds if you knew about them and knew how to trade them.

How about interest.co.nz say

How about interest.co.nz say sorry for having the arrogance to assume they can speak on behalf of taxpayers.  I think all this attention is going to your head.

The only taxpayers I have met

The only taxpayers I have met who aren't extremely angry and disgusted about this bailout are those with money in SCF.

My money is in the ANZ and I

My money is in the ANZ and I live in Auckland, but I am getting lots of work out of the bailout so I have a different perspective then a lot of people.

The same ANZ that dumped $300

The same ANZ that dumped $300 mill into Collaterised debt obligations?

In banking world $300M isn't

In banking world $300M isn't such a big number brother.

As a NewZealand Taxpayer, I

As a NewZealand Taxpayer, I give Bernard full right to express his "OPINION" to trigger discussion. Read his title at the top... it is only opinion....well done BH

Second that.  Self-rightous

Second that.  Self-rightous indignation, baying with the mob of wolves to get their pound of journalistic flesh. Schadenfreude (pleasure about somebody in pain/loss/defeated) is one of the lowest instincts of human beings. Crying for public humiliation of somebody who is already mortally wounded on the ground. This does not change what happened.

A  honorable  warrior  refrains from stabbing the opponent to death once he is defeated and unable to fight. 

This comment refers to the

This comment refers to the opinion "your name" from 8,20

What a load of rubbish about

What a load of rubbish about people making a killing out of the pay out.  Bernad publish the figures for the NZX turnover in those bonds in the past few weeks and add up the difference between the discounted traded prices and par  - it is peanuts. As for the rubish about it being a bank bailout   the joke it that the banks had no exposure to SCF when it went into recievership as they like everyone who knew the facts knew that Mr Hubbard was leveraged at every level and the money shuffling merry go round would come to an end at some point.

Without something like a

Without something like a taxpayer-funded GG, a finance company is just like all other businesses: a calculated risk.

Those who invest in FCs have to understand that there's no guarantee that they will profit, and there's a possibility that they will lose some or all of any money they invest with the FC.

But with the GGs, people now see they can deposit money with the FC and be guaranteed profit, at the expense of their fellow taxpayers.

Maybe in toto it is peanuts.

Maybe in toto it is peanuts. But individually, how would you like to be one of the people who, knowing the rules in place, had sold of any excess over $1m they had on deposit at 60%-75% in the dollar,only to find that the 'rules changed', and they would have been covered after all ?!

ok Bernard this guy is now

ok Bernard this guy is now broke what about having a go at hotchin and Watson give them the lifestyle they deserve easy to piuck on the defeated

Broke is not enough for

Broke is not enough for me..... I want him in jail,,,, he is solely accountable.

Bad luck ergo99, he's not

Bad luck ergo99, he's not broke, he'll have plenty stashed away. As for jail, there is no chance. He is a gentleman, not a low rent piece of trash like yourself.

Madoff is in Jail for a very

Madoff is in Jail for a very long time. The SCF is yet to announce charges against Hubbard.

The statutary management report points at FRAUD. What makes you think there won't be a jail term at the end of all this?

And if Hubbard has money stashed away then this will also be the proceeds of FRAUD and the taxpayer will be entited to it. Please tell....

Edit above... SCF = SFO.

Edit above... SCF = SFO.

ok Bernard this guy is now

ok Bernard this guy is now broke what about having a go at hotchin and Watson give them the lifestyle they deserve easy to piuck on the defeated

Yeah get fucked Bernard. I am

Yeah get fucked Bernard. I am so sick of listening to you preaching and criticising people from your ivory tower. You are just a very ordinary, un-charismatic, mediocre journalist who has found a niche writing sensationalist crap to an ignorant segment of the public. You really have no idea what actually goes on in NZ business. You never have an original thought, you just regurgitate tired old stories that better journalists have already written about. You are an embarrassment to NZ.

Muppet.

Muppet.

Lol thats why a lot of people

Lol thats why a lot of people read this website, I reckon hes pretty on to it with his facts.

Lol - spot on brother.

Lol - spot on brother.

And your communication

And your communication methods would lead me to think you are an unqualified moron. Bernard has expressed a view that appears from the commentary to reflect a large portion of everyday New Zealand Taxpayers that feel they have been ripped off.

perhaps this was written by

perhaps this was written by the former SCF CEO who amongst all else shows he has no command of the english language too

Well done Lachie you will get yours!

Bernard, Great

Bernard,

Great article.

However, when is the media going to apologise for only asking these questions after the collapse?

Hubbard didn't go from the best governance and systems to writing stuff in a ledger book at 6am in pen overnight.

He was always like that.

Wise after the event?

Bernard when are you going to

Bernard when are you going to apologise to the nation for that appalling goatee?

Dear Bernard You have some

Dear Bernard

You have some interesting content on this site, I especially like the links in the rural section, however, if you keep following the line and tone of this article, then pretty soon, if not now, you'll arrive at that journalistic fork in the road whereby you have to make the editorial decision on publishing a photo of the topless bimbo on page three or not. And whether to run the investigative article on whether the board of SCF was infiltrated with alien abductees after the Crown Guarantee was given.

Regards Mark Hubbard

Well hello there.............

Well hello there............. where the Devil have you been..?

Like your take on this Mark......with a tweak it may just fly.......

How about  a Topless page three Alien and the SFC infiltrated by Bimbo's

If you have  any doubt as to the availability of Aliens...........Go to Arizona they got millions of em......... apparently.  

Concern troll is concerned. 

Concern troll is concerned.  See the hysterical pearl-clutching.

It's you and your baying mob

It's you and your baying mob I'm concerned about, Flagwhatever ...

http://www.solopassion.com/node/7955

Solopassion?  If you're

Solopassion?  If you're trying to link us to some kind of site for fleshlight and realdoll sales, it's only courteous to put an NSFW tag on it. 

It's a philosophy site:

It's a philosophy site: Objectivism. I can understand why Statists and Beneficiaries of Statism would be scared of it.

I was going to say be brave, but then, you're not even posting under your own name.

Nice unintentionally

Nice unintentionally hilarious name for it.

You really are comedy gold.

I want a $400 refund now, k

I want a $400 refund now, k thx.

Watson and Hotchin got their

Watson and Hotchin got their kicks from spending dividends on extravagant lifestyle assets - like good Aucklanders.  Allan Hubbard got his from being the consummate Southern Presbyterian, ploughing the dividends back into businesses and doing good works; and accepting the resulting adoration. But really they all had huge egos and all got into trouble in this recession, where the second tier finance sector has been nearly wiped out.  Risk takers all of them, with questionable fiduciary management with investors' hard earned money.  Personally I don't see why SCF depositors are being repaid so quickly.  They got the top interest rates and the gold plated GG. Six months' delay would have been fairer. 

The reason they got repaid so

The reason they got repaid so quickly was because the government would have had to pay interest at 8% until settlement in 6 months time.

It is cheaper for the government to pay out now, (8% interest on 1.6B for 6 months is $60M).

I mean they shouldn't get any

I mean they shouldn't get any interest for 6 months

So what rate do you think

So what rate do you think they are funding the early pay out at? Whatever it is, that has to offset against the 8% notional payment sum. The 'saving' isn't as big as it appears.

I just think the investors

I just think the investors should have to suffer in their jocks a little.   It's all gain for them, and a bit unfair on people who put their money with the banks.  It's not as if the govt is usually that quick to pay out.

One of the faults of the GG

One of the faults of the GG was that it covered both principal and interest up to settlement. The Govt couldn't not pay out interest as this would have been termed a default, and effect the govts ability to borrow on international markets.

Yes, agree  but couldn't

Yes, agree  but couldn't settlement d-r-a-g out  a bit?

Bernard - you seem to have

Bernard - you seem to have done a u turn from saying a couple of days ago that "questions need to be asked about the 'carte blanche' way the deposit guarantee scheme was offered to almost any finance company that wanted it" to now saying that it was absolutely necessary to "prevent a run on the banks"  (but FC's are not banks)

It feels like you've jumped into the govt.s back pocket.

There are still questions that should be debated about how the GG was put in place and extended and whether things could be improved if this situation ever recurs.

Also, although I agree with you that Hubbard is to blame -Lockie MeLeod has a huge amount to answer for .

I mean - Lachie McLeod !

I mean - Lachie McLeod !

hows your parents today ,Mark

hows your parents today ,Mark ?

Forsyth Barr shoudl be the

Forsyth Barr shoudl be the ones saying sorry. They were the company who promoted the SCF debentures and the prefernce shares to investors.

They were the ones who couldn't sell the company when they had 5 bidders around the table.

Why isn't Bernard having a go

Why isn't Bernard having a go at Strategic finance who have lost about 90% of investors money and the directors and consultant have looked after their personal interests very well at the expense of the investors.

SCF will have only lost about 33% of the value of the book, not 90%.

What makes you such an expert

What makes you such an expert Bernard

What is your background??

You must have heard of

You must have heard of Google, bemused?

Thanks Bernard, Missed this

To the point. But Alan is

To the point. But Alan is reading Goebbels.

There is no question Hubbard

There is no question Hubbard stuffed up monumentally, but he was aided abetted by auditors, senior staff, Forsyth Barr and those inTreasury or the Beehive that adjudged SCF worthy of the GG.

I think his heart ( if not his mind) was all along in the right place -  only an altruist would lend at no interest, or mortgage his own property  to meet interst repayments to his investors, plus he's stumped up with hundreds of millions to try to right matters.

He's already paid a price worth than death to him - the loss of his reputation, not to mention about 500 or 600 Million dollars.

The law, watchdog organisations, many individuals and companies, indvidual greed are collectivly culpable too.

Its a pretty sad indictment on human nature isn't it, to show no forgivness to an idividual who is now totally finished and defenceless.

I am not condoning what he's done at all, but he's already paid the price of his crime and even murderers are eventually adjudged to have done the time and paid for the crime.

There are a lot more people and organistaions out there that will continue to offend whereas Allan won't. 

Stop kicking the man when he's down AND WON'T EVER GET UP AGAIN and chase theose who human nature tells us will reoffend and reoffend and reoffend....................   

Fungus, I agree, well spoken.

Fungus, I agree, well spoken.

Please publish  a list of

Please publish  a list of those property borrowers who have not paid back the money they owe. That is the list I want to read and remember.

Those shirkers get away scot free and bounce back again in the future.

What a good idea

What a good idea

So you've given up your

So you've given up your sanity

For your pride and your vanity

Turn your back on humanity

It's a dirty rotten shame.                                   From .The Games People Play.

                                                                                                  Joe South. 

A fine piece Bernard and very

A fine piece Bernard and very well executed..........Cudos for that.

I intend no disrespect when I say .....I hope this level of Journalism remains consistent with

you when faced with a more formidable opponent.

Don't linger too long in the centre of the ring........he's not getting up.

Hubbard and Hotchin are cut

Hubbard and Hotchin are cut from the same cloth. Its just that Hubbard valued his ego (being seen as a 'Saviour'), while Hotchin valued hard cash. Both were excessively greedy - and stupid. Same net result though - lots of people lost money.

Much of the defence of AH

Much of the defence of AH seems to revolve about, he tried his best/ that he is old/ that he invested his own money/ that somehow it is all a conspiracy by faceless people to bring him down.

 

Well clearly his best wasn't good enough, definitely too old and out of touch with the 20th let alone 21st century and perhaps senile to boot, and remind me just where did all his money come from, and the last refuge of the ignorant remember the old quote "infamy, infamy they have all got it in for me" which sums up the Kiwi blame someone else culture.

I can understand how the

I can understand how the Hubbard family are finding it tough though - they all basked in his reflective glory, now they have to bask in his reflective shame. Plus the reality that they will inherit bugger all now.

  O.k elves..here's a few of

 

O.k elves..here's a few of the bad SCF loans for you to munch on:

 

 

http://media.nzherald.co.nz/nzhgfx/themes/0/images/horizontalDottedLine1...); background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-position: 0% 100%; background-repeat: repeat no-repeat; ">

South Canterbury loans. Photo / Herald Graphic

Bad loans to bars, hotels, furniture makers, property investors and even a state house builder wiped out at least $100 million from South Canterbury Finance.

Companies Office records show a group of failed companies owe SCF but recovery prospects are bleak.

http://media.nzherald.co.nz/nzhgfx/themes/0/images/horizontalDottedLine1...); background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-position: 0% 100%; background-repeat: repeat no-repeat; ">

South Canterbury loans. Photo / Herald Graphic

 

  http://media.nzherald.co.n

 

http://media.nzherald.co.nz/nzhgfx/themes/0/images/horizontalDottedLine1...); background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-position: 0% 100%; background-repeat: repeat no-repeat; ">

South Canterbury loans. Photo / Herald Graphic

Bad loans to bars, hotels, furniture makers, property investors and even a state house builder wiped out at least $100 million from South Canterbury Finance.

Companies Office records show a group of failed companies owe SCF but recovery prospects are bleak.

Cheers for the excellent

Cheers for the excellent piece Bernard. I was awake all night livid about the bailout. Especially after every time I go to the South Canterbury area and say I am from Auckland its a never ending litany of abuse. Latte sippers, paper shufflers, flash cars etc. The only difference between Hotchins/Watson and Hubbard is that Hubbard got his kicks out of being the South Island "humble" philanthrophist, who could give his mates a no interest loan with a handshake. So power was Hubbard's aphrodisiac. Hotchins went for the flash house and blonde wife. There is no difference between Hotchins and Hubbard, except perhaps in scale of losses. Its all related party lending etc.

What really gets me is the blind self entitlement of South Canterbury and Timaru, they will not admit fault and just get angrier and more defensive while Auckland and Wellington business pay for the bailout. And the investors have their money back. plus interest.

But I guarantee you will still hear it is either Auckland(business) or Wellington's(government) fault somehow. Even they the rest of NZ are paying for it, we still get the abuse. Oh ho ho Dorkland. Dorkland just bailed your country ass out!! I get sick of it. But I am glad to hear I am not the only taxpayer bitter about it.

I will be interested to see the actual facts and figures, and the answers to your questions. Timaru could be the most unpopular town in NZ if they keep up the anger without the factual basis in their arguments about Hubbards innocence.

You can't be a philanthrophist with other peoples money. So a win for South Canterbury, a loss for New Zealand. Yet the rest of New Zealand is to blame. I look forward to the unravelling of the questions you have asked in your article.

Totally agree.  This debacle

Totally agree.  This debacle reflects badly on the whole South Island business community, and I wish Mr Hubbard would apologise to us.  You are wasting your time expecting the Timaru crowd to listen to your reasoned arguments. Remember though, many of us Mainlanders (the ones who get out sometimes) accept that Auckland is our only real city and it's a great place to visit.

NickNZ, If you or I had

NickNZ, If you or I had $600,000,000 to distribute on the strength of a handshake, we would be well loved as well. We would have lots and lots of friends and supporters.

NickNZ, If you or I had

NickNZ, If you or I had $600,000,000 to distribute on the strength of a handshake, we would be well loved as well. We would have lots and lots of friends and supporters.

sorry troops..can't seem to

sorry troops..can't seem to get them to cut'n'paste above ??

(No subject)

Does Allan Hubbard have

Does Allan Hubbard have any holdings in PGC or torchlight?

  http://media.nzherald.co.n

 

http://media.nzherald.co.nz/nzhgfx/themes/0/images/horizontalDottedLine1...); background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-position: 0% 100%; background-repeat: repeat no-repeat; ">

South Canterbury loans. Photo / Herald Graphic

Bad loans to bars, hotels, furniture makers, property investors and even a state house builder wiped out at least $100 million from South Canterbury Finance.

Companies Office records show a group of failed companies owe SCF but recovery prospects are bleak.

o.k...i give up. if you want

o.k...i give up.

if you want to read about the bad SCF loans go here:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10670681

Now All Bernard has to do is

Now All Bernard has to do is Cut and Paste your first line into Hubbo's Letter of Apology and fax it to him as a ............place to start.

                                                   Tee Hee!

The sad thing is that his ego

The sad thing is that his ego is so big he canot bring himself to acknowledge even the slightest level of personal responsibility  All he does is continue to lay blame on others - He has yet to provide one shred of factual evidence to refute the statements made by the Stat managers. I see one of the ex directors starting to comment in the NBR it will be something of a surprise for the good people of timaru when the realise the truth about this whole debacle - Me thinks some of his advisors will not come out of this too well either

It was all very well for

It was all very well for Hubbard to be generous with company money that we are now responsible for -good on you Bernard - say sorry Allan Hubbard - you have upset the whole country.

And as for all the highly paid staff of SFC - hope they have all lost their jobs - if we are still paying them that would be an outrage!

Does anyone want to mention

Does anyone want to mention the apparent absence of adequate corporate governance or is that an unfashionable term for finance companies dealing with other peoples' money in New Zealand ?

What if dear mr hubbard who

What if dear mr hubbard who gave away all the cookies in the cupboard is only one of many others who the tax payer has to save?  It will be a bad day of reckoning.  I do not understand why the govt guarantee pays back the interest as well as the principle.  It seems to b that this just encourages poor investment decisions as people just chase the highest interest rates. 

Could someone comment on if to only pay back the principle is a resonable idea?  By all means give me a lesson in junior  economics! :)
 

You're spot on. Trouble is,

You're spot on. Trouble is, the GG was deliberately designed to keep the publics money going into the high yeilders, hoping for a global economic miracle that would solve all problems. That salvation didn't and wont; occurr ( that's why they are cutting and running now), and we are left with the mess we have. The Government gamble failed to pay off.

The GG covers both principal

The GG covers both principal and interest up to the day of settlement. It cannot be changed now as this would be a default by a sovereign government and effect the Govt's ability to borrow money on international markets.

Perhaps the GG shouldn't have covered unpaid interest in the first place, but this may not have been desirable policy? Remember the GG was to prevent a total financial meltdown, not to prop up SCF in particular.

By only paying out principal the Govt would have been under extreme pressure to pay out immediately and hence paying interest seems reasonable to me. Perhaps the rate of interest could have been changed to Treasury Bills rather than the 8% SCF investments were earning.

 

The video starts with: "On

The video starts with: "On behalf of taxpayers, and investors in South Canterbury Finance ..."

 

Really? Since when is BH the spokesperson for either of these groups of people? How arrogant! Wouldn't

 

"On behalf of myself" or perhaps "On behalf of interest.co.nz" be more appropriate?

At least Madoff had the

At least Madoff had the honour to fess up and apologise for his crimes, this guy can't (or won't). I think it's a real reflection on your character, how you choose to deal with crisis and personal failures. An honourable person will apologise and reflect, a deluded individual will continue to live in a fantasy world they've created. What's so disturbing is that Hubbard is so used to being the idolised, benevolent deity he's forgotten how to be anything else. Can you imagine the backlash if Hotching, Watson and co carried on like Hubbard after they'd failed?

Bernard Madoff- good old,

Bernard Madoff- good old, kind, huggable, saintly, Uncle Bernie. He was a benfactor to many chareties. I imagine that pound for pound, the epic failure of SCF is far worse to the NZ economy than the failure of Madoff investments to the USA. We are punching above our weight again!

Please, please, please

Please, please, please Bernard, try to stop winding people up!

Chris I think you're

Chris I think you're mistaking 'winding people up' with trying to wake them up.

This website used to

This website used to advertise SCF,up there on the top right hand corner!

What drugs are on you

What drugs are on you Bernard? it's not Bollards fault, it's the idiots in the goverment for extending the gaurantee scheme to the SCF, you seem to be getting very defensive of this government.

I do not agree with this

I do not agree with this bailout !!!!

$372 dollars per person in NZ for a finance company bailout, it should be allowed to collapse like all other risky business.

Bernard you should follow through with this one and see where all the bailout money is going......no doubt straight to the banks is my guess

I for one never signed up my tax dollars to bail out dodgy finiancial institutions, they new the risk so it should be on there head not mine !!!!!

as a holder of the SCF bonds,

as a holder of the SCF bonds, I say to Allan Hubbard: thanks a lot Al ..............

Good on ya, Ted. Juts add you

Good on ya, Ted. Juts add you to the list of bludgers that have profited at the expense of the taxpayer.

See how 'un~guaranteed' the

See how 'un~guaranteed' the whole SCF Bond buying excercise was, Ted? When the time came to act, the Government didn't even abide by it's own 'guarantees'. It changed the payout criteria. Imagaine how those who took the Government at its statute, and sold out ( to you) at 75% in the dollar feel. Done like a dinner. You were lucky, that's all, that the changes to the Guarantee didn't go against you. You gambled and won. And we wonder why this country is in the state it is, when the Government's word can't be trusted - one way or the other.

how about something

how about something positive:

Dear Allan,

Thanks for remaining humble and not awarding yourself a $40m bonus last year.

Cheers,

Your average New Zealander

there was never any risk in

there was never any risk in the SCF bonds - for those who understood how the guarantee worked. Default = government payout. That was set in stone right from day one (Oct 2008). Also Rescue = put option to SCF (and failure by them to pay out = Default). So WIN-WIN whatever happened..............

 

who knows what those who were selling out at 60/70 cents were thinking. Under what scenario were they going to lose money by just holding on ? A mystery to me....

 

as it was, this was the opportunity of a lifetime ..........

But that's just it, Ted. The

But that's just it, Ted. The Guarantee didn't work as it was supposed to, did it! So no matter what you think you understood, you didn't. It was applied in a non confrming , arbitrary way.Those who sold out believed they weren't covered for one reason or another ( ie: they had in excess of $1mio and that wasn't supposed to be covered. So preserving 60% or 75% makes sense in that situation or they were a non complying entity). What the Government said it was going to do, and what it did in the event, are different things.

Oh. And it wasn't supposed to

Oh. And it wasn't supposed to be 'an opportunity of a lifetime'. It was supposed to protect the savings of New Zealanders. That you made  money from unintended consequences is fortuitous for you, and a cost to the taxpayer.

I think a lot of people wish

I think a lot of people wish they had taken up the opportunity. Perhaps some of the people who made on the deal, lost money in other finance companies that weren't covered by hte guarantee due to timing, so they are just getting back what they would have if it was covered. I guess it is no different from buying a  house and expecting it to appreciate in a  proeprty bubble. There was still some risk in it. I wonder if they still have to pay tax on that gain, I suppose they do, so the government will get some back anyway.

Notice though that the people

Notice though that the people who leaped aboard the SCF GG Gravy Train are the very same people who spend much of their time weeping and whining and pissing their panties like pathetic little girls about "benes" and "bludgers" and "welfare fraudsters".

"That you made money from

"That you made money from unintended consequences is profiteering, and a cost to the taxpayer."

Fixed that for you.

As I have said on other 

As I have said on other  threads,all the bonds WERE covered under the guarantee,its just the long dated ones were only covered till the end of 2011.Everything Ted says is correct and yes I will pay tax on the money I made because I am  trader.The government has not paid out any more money because I got these bonds cheap and made a profit.Are you seriously telling me you would not have tried to make money from these bonds if you knew how.

all the govt did was pay out

all the govt did was pay out a few more people than they originally intended to: offshore residents, holders of over $1 m etc. But basically the guarantee worked exactly as it was supposed to do.

As for those who sold out the bonds at 60/70 cents, even if they mistakenly thought they weren't covered (not sure why that would be), in a receivership the chances are they would have got a least that amount.

Basically they were just typical DIY Kiwi investors who didn't get good advice .............

So basically, or any other

So basically, or any other way you see it, it wasn't applied in the way it was intended. Otherwise it would have been strictly applied. It either is applied, or it isn't. Not a partial application or an amended application. That's the bit the nullifies the 'guaranteed' return that you relied on. When Government rules change, it is just luck as to which side of the changes one is on. You were on the right side. Those who sold to you were on the wrong side.

Anon   it is not a partial

Anon   it is not a partial Gtee   the Crown widen the Gtee - something that is hard to argue against and they did it because they understood the nett savings to the Crown i.e. the tax payer in doing so.

Hard to complain about that as well  I would prefer them to operate like than than to stick to the letter of the Gtee and end up costing the tax payer alot more money

comment from the NBR

comment from the NBR today:

 

Sore winners
The rest of New Zealand has just bailed out Timaru but you wouldn’t know it from the ungrateful attitude being shown by the worshippers of Allan Hubbard.

They seem to blame South Canterbury’s collapse on the government and by proxy the rest of the country when the fault lies with the company’s management for dishing out the dodgy loans that got it in trouble.

One wonders how many of Mr Hubbard’s more vocal supporters have been recipients of his generosity through the interest-free loans he’s been known to hand out.

For weeks the Hubbard fan club has invaded comment boards on news sites such as NBR Online, berating those who dare to criticise their idol.

What they don’t seem to understand is that when your company costs the taxpayer more than a billion dollars you should expect some serious scrutiny and plenty of criticism, with possibly a bit of anger thrown in too.

Not a saint
The attitude of Mr Hubbard himself also leaves a lot to be desired.

Following South Canterbury’s failure he claimed that he could have saved the company if he hadn’t been sidelined, blaming the government for putting him in statutory management.

But as reported in the NBR print edition today, former South Canterbury director Stuart Nattrass has pointed the finger at Mr Hubbard, saying his refusal to dilute his shareholding by raising capital contributed to the company’s demise.

“The strategy Allan was pursuing was too large and too ambitious for its capital structure,” he said.

Compared to other bosses of failed finance companies such as Rod Petricevic and Eric Watson, Mr Hubbard has been given a relatively easy ride by the media and general public until now.

But he was doing the sort of related-party deals these other men of finance have been given a hammering over.

He still has plenty of support in Timaru but Mr Hubbard will struggle to find much in the rest of the country.

All the points Bernard raises

All the points Bernard raises scream ponzi scheme. It is my belief this is what it was, and us taxpayers deserve some answers as to why the GG was honoured.

The demise of so many Finance

The demise of so many Finance Companies in general and the fate of SCF will make it difficult for this type of business to ever regain the confidence of the general investing public. In turning my mind to how this problem could be redeemed there is a very simple solution.

Every non-bank deposit taking organisation should have their loan book subjected to a quarterly audit in the same way Lawyers and Solicitors and Real Estate Agents trust accounts are subjected to quarterly audit by independent auditors.

The Finance company should be required to prepare two schedules each quarter comprising (a) performing loans and (b) non-performing loans plus (c) revenue derived from the two books. About 2 days work for an auditor.

The results of which should then be published in the public domain.

Rob..of d North...and the NBR

Rob..of d North...and the NBR and anyone else who cares to THINK about consequences and knock on effects of this Govts and previous ones...MONUMENTAL STUPIDITY over finance matters and short term thinking.

And it does MATTER to every single TAXPAYER left in NZ and around the world

Now you know WHY...I have designated myself as a Sore-loser.

Just one of many, many, many reasons, I chose this instead of ANON.

TIMARU is just a case in point.

NZ is not exempt. ...USA and the world...neither

Shouting into the wind....I know.

But the actions and ramifications of unintended consequences is what has finally brought this whole financial fiasco  and mayhem to a head.

Ably led by the USA.....banks, .....peak oil.....etc,etc.

Hence why I.... RANT and SHOUT.....

But always THUNKING ahead...that is why we will all be...SORE-LOSERS if these jackasses and don-keys, bollards, obamas, bushes, brown, blair, culled-em, bernanke, hell-en, et.al, etc..etc remain in power.

Manipulation and Socialism and Capitalism and Communism for ones own ends is the PROBLEM, not the SOLUTION.

PS...read BLAIRs book if ye want to see what a mega-la la-maniac he and BROWN were in UK.

You would laugh, if it didn't make you cry.

Multiply that a thousand fold around the world. MUGABE, CASTRO, N.KOREA, IRAN, AFGHANISTAN,  USA, FRANCE, ITALY, EIRE, ICELAND, all corrupted...and bankrupted, led by dis-hone-st......individuals....

The list is endless.. 

Delusions of ADEQUACY....one and all.

Wakey Wakey.

copied from a another

copied from a another post:

Dear Bernard, I have watched and read your commentaries on various topics for the last 18 months and I had concluded that you have tried to position yourself as an agitator and used this profile to peddle your "Interest.co" business.
I have never met Alan Hubbard or his wife and never lived in Timaru.

I find the arrogance of your "in hindsight" comments offensive. When looking for villians in the wake of the record numbers of finance company failures, Alan Hubbard who has put his own money where his mouth is on countless occasions is not one of them.

Are you blind to the local community support shown for the Hubbards? I could never foresee a public rally in Auckland for failed finance company directors like that seen in timaru. Fortunately the Hubbards will be judged by higher powers than yourself. 

Couldn't agree with you more

Couldn't agree with you more Joe. I have also followed this site for the past 18 months. I have enjoyed the daily updates and have learnt a little bit from the content and of the people who follow it. Unfortunately, it seems that pessimism, negativity and attracting 'tall poppy's' are now the core business of this site.

I am a capitalist and detest bailouts and the anything too big to fail. It's completely unsustainable. But even I know not to kick a man when he is down. There are worse egg's than Hubbard around the traps, why not capitalise off them instead? Its time you got off your former fat a*se Bernard and track down the real crooks like Hotchin, Henderson, Watson and Co.

I am not an SCF investor, 'Hubbard supporter'  or resident of South Canterbury. I am a  31 year old engineer, slogging my guts out to keep my job, and keep my family in NZ. I don't have the energy or time to deal with negative people like you Bernard. You prophesise doom and offer little or no solution to NZ's financial problems.

If NZ is falling off a 'financial cliff' then why don't you start offering financial tutorials or similar on your site? Get Xero or Sorted to sponsor you instead of banks and mortgage brokers. Just a thought.

You have plenty of intelligent followers which I applaud you for. But you need to exercise some responsibility.

Thanks.

Bernard,   I have to agree

Bernard,

 

I have to agree with the above.

 

You are a pathetic excuse for a journalist, perhaps you should try adopting a balanced opinion for once.

My Bernard haven't we become

My Bernard haven't we become self-righteous and all-knowing since our stomach stapling operation.

My Bernard haven't we become

My Bernard haven't we become self-righteous and all-knowing since our stomach stapling operation.

One has to wonder about the

One has to wonder about the desperation of the 'Hubbard Can Do No Wrong' crew when they have to resort to rude personal comments like this.

 

A bit like the founder of the Facebook Hubbard support group who made racist comments about this chap's wife. Link: http://shareinvestornz.blogspot.com/2010/08/allan-hubbard-ignorant-supporters.html  

Give Hickey the Flickey.

Give Hickey the Flickey.

sensational!    self

sensational!   

self serving!

 

(what will you do now?) 

Well said Bernard,    The

Well said Bernard,

 

 The NZ Government deserve credit also.You guys  have a true leader in John Key and im now sure he has the moral discipline needed in government to lead you guys well through this crisis and to do what will be in best interest for a future NZ. Stick with him!.. the world needs  more John Keys in power.

As a 25yr old forex trader....great vid so interesting.

You guys are now the envy of Aust .....you can have both Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard.

SCF went under because of a

SCF went under because of a lack of governance.A H should have sold the company at age 70,and played around with his numerous toys.After all,he was involved in over 500 companies.Instead of that he employed the new breed of saleperson who have been employed in banking circles over the last 20 years,who lent money to dodgy people.He must take ultimate responsibility because his interests are the majority shareholder in SCF's owner Southbury Group,and because of his longstanding position on the board.Below him in the strructure,those responsible for the governance policies in regard to lending must take responsibility for what can only be described as recklessness.

Now can we talk about the lack of governance and recklessness in regard to the numerous other financial houses which have collapsed in NZ in recent years,and add ANZ Bank in regard to their public relations horror story re  the two ING Fozen Funds,and any other frozen funds you may wish to add.

As we must remember,to single out A H as the great Satan is merely selective morality.

  The timing of the bailout

 

The timing of the bailout of SCF (and its collapse), in light of the earthquake in Christchurch this morning, couldn't have been worse. $1.7 billion for SCF, may well be the amount of money the Government will now have to find to help fix Canterbury. Where is all this money going to come from? So yes, Alan Hubbard, you owe New Zealand an apology.

David B, if you follow the

David B, if you follow the news before making such ridiculous comments, you would have seen a report where John Key said that Treasury has a kitty of 15 billion dollars to cover earthquake relief. My guess is also that many people who have suffered from the SCF receivership who live in Canterbury which also includes South Canterbury will have double damage exposure from both events so don't go arguing that the bail-out is a mistake.

I didn't say the bailout was

I didn't say the bailout was a mistake, I said the timing was unfortunate and that Alan Hubbard owes NZ an apology. The cost of Christchurch's earthquake gives a very clear indication of the size of the economic damage that that man has done to this country.

And I somehow doubt that the Treasury has $15 billion dollars of money lolling around in its basement to cover the cost of earthquakes. This country, mate, in case you hadn't noticed, is broke, and up to its eyeballs in debt. More likely the Crown has lines of credit prearranged to that amount in the event an earthquake should happen. But then I stand to be corrected on that, but not by you, as you admit you're no economist.

Either way the money has to be found, and at great cost to the NZ taxpayer. And before you go off and misinterpret that too, what I’m saying is that there is now even less room for the Government to move on other areas of the economy.

David B, I'm quoting the PM

David B, I'm quoting the PM who said on the TV 3 news video posted today that Treasury has $15 billion for earthquake relief. As you know NZ is prone to earthquakes so the earthquake relief fund wasn't started 2 years ago but has been around for a long long time to which taxpayers have been contributing no doubt for the last 50 years. The PM also quoted figures of around $112,000 for each claim of damage resulting from the Sept 4 earthquake and any damage above that amount will come from insurance companies. 

Such disaster relief funds exist in most reasonably democratic countries. 

We are not saying that the government will spent that $15Billion on this earthquake. They are looking to $2Billion. 

I don't find the first paragraph of your above post to be coherent. The amalgam of timing. I admit this last week has been one of the worst in NZ's history. It should be sobering up a lot of wild posters.

I don't like Bernard Hickey's article because the so-called $400 tax bill for each Nzer  for the SCF bail-out isn't really a big sum of money.

As many investors in SCF are also preferential share holders, they have still lost money because the preferential shareholders are not included in the bail-out. There are 35,000 investors and 20,000 preferential shareholders in SCF so my guess is that those are to a certain extent the same group of people.

My guess is also that there are people from Christchurch and Canterbury who are now facing collateral damage on top of financial damage. 

In light of that, the ordinary taxpayer who hasn't been affected by the earthquake, who doesn't have preferential shares in SCF and who isn't getting a bail-out on investments should just cool-down and stop making all these disparaging comments.

What is $400 compared to someone who has just lost $1million in preferential shares, their houses is full of cracks and the waste water is coming in through the front door?

I think Bernard Hickey should get off the bandwagon and use his media power to raise money for hose affected by the earthquake and call it quits with Mr Hubbard.

 

 

I knew SCF going into

I knew SCF going into recievership was supposed to send tremours through the country, but an earthquake of 7.5 magnitude is ridiculous.

Don't hold your breath for an

Don't hold your breath for an apology Bernard.  As the good lawyers at Russell McVeagh have no doubt advised Mr Hubbard, any hint of contrition is not particularly helpful when it comes to defending civil lawsuits for defrauding investors.  It's the standard strategy adopted by Dick Fuld since the Lehman collapse - portray the receivership as an avoidable event for an otherwise viable business that was caused by outside forces and/or government intervention and had nothing to do with mismanagement or deception.  As the above thread shows, some people already believe Hubbard is the victim here.

Dear Bernard, Please say

Dear Bernard,

Please say sorry. Please say sorry for the fact that you cannot pronounce 'Hubbard' properly.

Please say sorry for cutting all of the tall poppies in New Zealand.

Please say sorry for misleading readers with speculation and your own personal biased opinion.

Please say sorry for the fact that you have achieved SFA in your life and cannot pay enough tax yourself to cover the bailout.

But most of all, Bernard, please say sorry for the haircut. It looks bloody awful.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

The feelings of the New Zealand public

Dear Anon Please don't

Dear Anon

Please don't assume that we're all part of your creepy sycophantic cult and that you speak on behalf of all of us.

Ta.

Mr Hickey, Why don't you

Mr Hickey,

Why don't you just shut up once in a while. I suppose you have the audacity to blame the earthquake on Mr Hubbard as well.

Mr Hubbard has just been ruined. The details or how and why will not change the future of NZ and people like you just provoke animosity and nastiness.

Actually I don't think Mr

Actually I don't think Mr Hubbard has been ruined.He didn't own all of Southbury Group.And he was reported to be a Director/Shareholder in 552 Companies.Not many of that number have gone into receivership.He has promised to support the Aorangi/HMF investors,and he will have to keep his promise on that front as otherwise he will be in big trouble.The first person I ever knew who broke his promise to me was a Catholic Brother,so old Presby Al better not be the second.I think he still has lots of other assets.I think Lachie McLeod should throw his into the hat.He is talking about going farming,so he will need lots of capital for that.Or is he meaning that he will drive round in his ute with white trousers on and watch the workers do it all ?

It depends on whether you are

It depends on whether you are referring to financial ruin or moral ruin. I'm sure the preferential shareholders would like to know if he still has assets lying around to bail out that $120M of preferential shares that haven't been included in the bail-out.

Once every man and his dog, no pun intended, feels they have the right to use your name in any way in public on the internet, whether to support you or to make disparaging comments there is a certain amount of moral ruin. 

Mr Hubbard's daughter has insisted in the media that they are very private people and the public way in which the whole matter is being treated is synonymous with moral ruin.

I have posted elsewhere that while the final outcome of the statutory management may be in the public interest, the way the public is reacting makes the whole matter look like a shambles. The only people who should be seeing the GT reports are the investors themselves, their lawyers and the government. The final conclusions should be delivered to those same people and then Mr Hubbard's lawyers should have the right to respond. 

And only after the government has made their final conclusions based on the response of Mr Hubbard's lawyers only then should information be released to the public.

Being in the public interest doesn't mean that the public has the right to participate from A to Z in the procedure.  In a public inquiry you have hearings before a Board with questions asked. The documents are never released to the public prior to the end of the inquiry and sometimes it is years afterwards that the documents are released to the public.

I don't know how the GT reports got on to the internet. Were they leaked? It is curious because a certain number of seemingly reputable news websites have circulated them. 

 

 

 

Yes plenty of North Islanders

Yes plenty of North Islanders think the earthquake was brought on by God on Christchurch as retribution for Mr Hubbard's sins.Trouble is,Timaru is a bit further south so it missed him.It probably got mixed up with the Hubbards and aimed for Mark instead.It's all on the free for all NBR site.I used to think NBR was a more civilised site than this,but it isn't.

Dear Bernard, You are

Dear Bernard,

You are becoming tiring and not completely honest in your reporting. Today's article in the NZ Herald about Hubbard hiding from the media and not coming up with a buyer fro SCF is completely dishonest.

Hubbard was kicked out of teh day to day running of the company 18 months ago under instruction of his board and supported by SCF's main funder Forsyth Barr. When that didn't work, they appointed Sandy Maier and he has run the company for the past 9 months. He only did one good thing - that was to appoint new senior management and he did a great job with that task. But that was where he stopped adding value. He hired his mates as advisors to do his job ( as he concentrated on his other jobs and directorships ) - they came very expensive and underperformed.

Hubbard was instructed by his legal counsel and bty the promoters of the sale process, Forsyth Barr, to remain silent and FB ( as did Treasury ) also instructed all bidders to not enagge with Hubaard in any way - strange behaviour for a transparent sale process. Hubbard adhered to that bad advuice from FB and Treasury, so when the comapny went into receivership and an orchestrated PR campaign by the Govt and Sandy Maier to discredit Hubbard so that his supporters would be quietened, he made the correct decision to not respond to the Govt PR machine.This was fully supported by Sandy Maier as he had underperformed and the media and bloggers would have had a field sday with this loser - with information about his integrity and dishonesty with prpepaiod fees etc,.

As far as the sale of SCF goes, it was run by Forsyth Barr with the help of Sandy Maier and teh SCF board - a strange combination where the company runs the sale programme on behalf of Treasury who are technically the biggest creditor. Forsyth Barr attracted a number of bidders and ended up with two serious bidders - Hubbard introduced one bidder who didn't seriously engage until the last two weeks of the process. That bidder was the reported $300M bidder as opposed to the Forsyth Barr bidder at $150M.. Maier and his cronies tried to discredit teh Hubbard bidder all through the process without success - proven by the fact that this bidder was the one they finally realised was legitimate the day before the receivership - they were the bidder engaged until 4.37am last Tuesday. The bid never went ahead as the Govt would not accept a deal to minimise their risk at $400M - instead under advice from Treasury they chose to place the company in receivership and take aloss of $600M plus - bizarre - ofcourse it is .

So in future Bernard Hickey, get your facts right before you embarrass yourself and before you seruiously discredit a person like Hubbard who is ten times the person you are - and has 1000 times more credibility.

Hubbard will be proven wrong with teh paperwork and not meeting some regulatory guidleiines etc, but he is not a thief.

So why don't you concentrate on the Strategic Directors and consultant who have benefitted finacially at the expense of the debeture holders. Strategic didn't even qualify for the Govt guarantee and so their investiors lost everything. The receiver for Strategic reported the same time as the SCF receivership and they hav esneaked under the radar.

Isn't it about time you got off your arse and reported on some real crooks. You are either intimidated by them or associated as you have not reported anything of substance about Strategic all along their journety to destruction. Don't foregt they are about to lose about 90% of investors money. Even with the Govy gaurantee, SCF will only lose about 40% of it's value. Maths was obvuiously not one of uyour vbest subjects at school Bernard or integrity.

 

How can you possibly say that

How can you possibly say that Hubbard has credibility after everything we know now !!

Clearly spelling was not your

Clearly spelling was not your particular forte at school either.

 

Another Hubbadite who had access to one of his 'interest free' loans made with other peoples money?

I congratulate Bemused on an

I congratulate Bemused on an informed and inspirational post

.Inky Tulloch would not associate himself with Allan Hubbard if he was a thief.

Those who seek to crucify him can only be described as primitive .

The campaign against him is selective morality

There is no 'campaign'

There is no 'campaign' against Hubbard. Just facts. He mismanaged the company over many final years, and it has cost the taxpayer, of whom I, you and bemused, and but three. Frankly, the whole SCF debacle should have been left in Hubbard's hands, and the destruction of individual wealth should heve extended beyond just his. But that has unfortunately not happened, and as such the reality of the situation is not reflected in your misguided thoughts.

I do not think he is

I do not think he is financially ruined.There is a segment of the public and press who are attacking his morality.

I have personally been involved in a business where salesmanship by a member of the team led to excessive risks being taken,and a number of potential litigation cases reared their head,which had the potential to lead to financial ruin for the business.

When a business is placed in this position,inevitably there is malicious gossip which takes place whilst the litigation takes its course.Inevitably,the reputation of the business is adversely affected going forward.

Such matters commonly arise due to lack of governance,which as we have seen,is accentuated in the case of SCF to the ultimate degree.If you are the owners of such a business and have been the chairman during the time in which the failure of governance occurred,you cannot expect to escape the wrath of those who suffer losses.

Therefore as much as I admire Allan Hubbard,it is inevitable that his reputation will continue to be attacked until matters are worked through.

As for the Grant Thornton reports on Aorangi/Hubbard Funds Management,there are some investors who are somewhat nervous and frustrated at present,thus it is inevitable that details will be leaked.The copies I am privy to have certainly not been leaked.

In regard to the HMF investors who have shares in Souhbury Group as part of their portflio,with a valuation of $10 each as at 31 March 2010,and the preference shareholders in SCF,perhaps it will be a harsh lesson in how funds are dispersed under insolvency.

In the case of SCF,I was a secured debenture holder,and did not expect any other than that debt class to be covered by the GG.

As HMF is a non corporate structure with A H at the helm,it is inevitable that he will fund any eventual deficit.

In saying that,when the value of such holdings has doubled from inception,and has now fallen by 25% from March 2010 valuation,the question will be as to where the line in the sand will be drawn.

I have an insignificant

I have an insignificant amount invested in SCF debenture stock which if I get it back or lose it will not affect my life.

However I do closely know people who had both preferential shares and debenture stock and the amount invested in preferential shares was higher than the debenture stock so they aren't very happy with the current situation.

These people are telling me that the board of directors wouldn't listen to Hubbard for the last few years and just did what they wanted to. So pinning the entire blame on Mr Hubbard gets me very angry and I find Mr Hickey to be too sarcastic to be worth reading.

I have also noticed that the value of Mr Hubbard's wealth went from under $99M to a staggering $500 Million around 2004/2006. From the age when he maybe should have retired at 65 until when he was around 75, his wealth wasn't worth that much in relative terms.

That wealth bubble of $500M which burst also corresponds to the international virtual computerised wealth bubble that burst with the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008 and all else that happened on the financial markets in 2008 and since then which means you still can't point the finger solely at Mr Hubbard.

Until Mr Hubbard's lawyers have the time to respond to the final conclusions of the statutory managers, the public such as Mr Hickey should not be drawing quick conclusions based on 1 or 2 details which can be refuted. 

However, what is terrifying about the statutory management is that the word "litigation" doesn't seem to be part of it. The scope for the lawyers to respond, rebut and refute seems to be limited because of the way the law is drafted. Will the statutory assets just go and sell assets before Mr Hubbard's lawyers have the chance to refute any findings? 

That is where the law itself is a cross between "scorched earth policy" and "state seizure of private wealth" which is a mix of communism and fascism all mixed in together.

If Sandy Maier is supposed to be a recovery expert, where is his lawyer? Who has been advising the Board of Directors of SCF?

My experience with high profile extremely wealthy corporate groups with capital valued in the millions is that they don't cross the road without asking their lawyers what the risks are so why are the directors of SCF not being represented by lawyers?

Good lawyer, bad lawyer not just any lawyer!! It all makes a difference.

 

 

 

"..The copies I am privy to

"..The copies I am privy to have certainly not been leaked.". Sounds like a leak to me! Or isn't information that 'just you' are privy to, a leak?

When you say it has cost the

When you say it has cost the taxpayer,you are of course referring to the government guarantee which was supported by both major political parties.

Various governments over my lifecycle have made policy decisions involving the expenditure of substantial sums of money,which I and other taxpayers have not agreed with.

From my viewpoint,these policy decisions constitute  a cost to the taxpayer.

The government guarantee regime is just another of those policy decisions which some taxpayers do not agree with.

You should be directing your thoughts at those who made the policy decision.

Whether it is a leak is

Whether it is a leak is dependent on the capacity in which I hold the documents.

Such capacities would cover an investor and any person to whom the investor may seek advice in regard to those documents.

And of course, on that point

And of course, on that point you are right. I simply take the postings as I see them; those of information on a public website, from parties of an unknown nature. Without qualification I can not know whether they are privileged information or leaks; only you can.

I've downloaded the 2 reports

I've downloaded the 2 reports from the internet and I'm not an investor in Aorangi Securities or Hubbard Management Funds. So how could I and all the other "public" get to read them? How did they get to the media?

I reiterate my post of

I reiterate my post of 1.02pm. Hubbard was the engineer of this mess. It is a fact, nothing more. The Government Guarantee was a misguided policy that can not be undone ( as you idicate many other previous policy decsions have been) , and the added insult of it being arbitrarily and inclusively applied is shocking. Those who chased SCF for financial enhancement, shareholder security or blind ignorance should have been left to their own fates.

I am amazed there has been so

I am amazed there has been so little media attention to the plight of SCF Pref Shareholders. Are people just too shell shocked, as I am, to do anything but sit back and take the loss. 

Why has the Govt bent the DGS rules to facilitate repayment to overseas investors and others, yet left SCF Pref Shareholders out in the cold? That seems patently unfair. Especially now I have got to stump up with 400 tax dollars to help bail out the so called secured depositors.

I would like to make contact with the original investors (not latecomer speculators) to talk about whether we have any recourse available to recover our money. Like pursuing the Directors of SCF as at 31 August, and immediate past directors, who appear to have been party to gross Company mismanagement. 

You should try the

You should try the Shareholders Association to see if there is a way of addressing this issue. The figures quoted for the number of preferential shareholders are that you are one of 20,000 so there may be room to deal with that through the Shareholders Association.

"I am amazed there has been

"I am amazed there has been so little media attention to the plight of SCF Pref Shareholders."

Plight?

You mean they invested in a private commercial venture which ultimately didn't do well and now they haven't received their lavish taxpayer-funded handout?

Poor them.

Wouldn't it be tragic if they were forced to pursue Hubbard et al at their own cost, the way every other business venture investor is expected to in the event of misadventure?

Luckily for SCF's depositors and investors, certain Very Important Southland Dairy Farmers also had money in the company, and so a welfare cheque was guaranteed.

If only the poor old ever-rorted taxpayer could be so lucky.

Those useless townie bludgers

Those useless townie bludgers stealing from us farmers again.

The worst offenders in this

The worst offenders in this fiasco are :

1) the people who have accepted interest free or cheap loans   eg. Lachie McLeod who was given a $15 million loan that was "secured "by Southbury shares that were also given to him for free and which are now useless.  Other friends of Hubbards who have been given cheap or interest free loans.                                                   2)Torchlight fund which has made a killing of $75 million interest paid out on a $ 100 million loan for less than a year - owned by Kerr and others (??? Hubbard) -Torchlight knew it could only make a killing when it made the loan as it became the first party to be paid out in the event of collapse.       3)Bond holders as they were paid out by the govt. even though they wern't originally part of the govt, guarantee- makes you wonder who was in the know that this would happen.

  sHAREHOLDERS SHOULD GO AFTER THESE PEOPLE-NOT CRYING TO THE TAX-PAYER!

I know someone who invested a

I know someone who invested a six figure sum in SCF Preference Shares against the advice of his financial planner,who had recommended secured debenture stock.

If you are going to invest in debt instruments with a lower security ranking on insolvency,it is important that you understand how it works.

I directed this person to Peter Hensley's website,where under fixed interest explanations,he goes through the various forms that debt can take.

I have had it suggested to me that if you hold preference shares,in the case of insolvency,you get preference in credit.

True but in preference to ordinary shareholders,not unsecured creditors and not ranking equally with preferential creditors.

That is why the sharebroking employee who sold clients into Provincial Finance reedemable preference shares did his clients a disservice,as if he had placed them into secured debenture stock,at least they would have got 92% of their capital back.

I do agree that the demise of

I do agree that the demise of SCF has one root cause and that is governance which has been an absolute disaster.

As much as I do identify with the image A H projects,as the majority shareholder in Southbury Group and longstanding chairman of directors,the responsibility for lack of governance rests with him.

That fact cannot be avoided.

Apart from Real Red Dog, you

Apart from Real Red Dog, you all miss the point.

The Govt Guarantee was Govt policy, not Mr Hubbards. The govt actually qualifies SCF as an appoved institution - why would they do that when the companty was supposedly in such bad shape at that point? Why did they extend the guarantee this year??

SCF at the time of receivership had lost value of approx $400M against a book of $1.8B - this is less than a 25% haircut compared to Strategic Finances 90% and Hanovers 90 to 100%. Any further deterioration caused by the receivership will be caused by the receivership, not Hubbard ( the appointment of a receiver immediatley causes further losses as potential purchasers lower their purchase price ).. 25% is a great outcome in these times and should be congratulated , not criticised. If not why isn't Bernard Hickey and all of you clones not hammering Strategic Finance and Hanover directors and for that matter the Government and it's agencies ( Securities Commission and teh SFO etc ) for the sins of these people - people who financially beniftted at the expense of the investors - unlike Alan Hubbard.

 

Bernard - please stick to

Bernard - please stick to reporting interest rates that is the extent of your investigative ability. 

The facts here are that the top offer to buy SCF was $300m.    Why that was not accepted has not emerged but it will and at that point we can start looking at who was responsible for that not going ahead and why they wanted to ruin Allan Hubbard - which is the effect of the Receivership.  

A business like this in receivership will slowly lose all its value the longer it goes on and all good business will find a new home unless there is a very quick sale.    we know that Receivers make their money out of fees based on time and what real incentive is there for them to hurry?

Purchasers will now be looking at their lowest offer possible and that will now be well below $300m no doubt. 

Reading between the lines there was an agenda here from the start with Hubbards closest so called advisers who had fees at stake to see that they introduced the purchaser and most likely that was going to be frustrated by another unexpected bidder.   One would expect that an impartial receiver would immediately be contacting that party to try and resurrect that interest, but that isnt how receivers work to achieve their maximum benefit (for themselves).

Bernard please try hard not to snuggle up to people who are directly involved in this scam and allow them to use you for their spin.   They are busy right now with pre-emptive propaganda to try to disguise what really happened, fearful that the truth may damage their carefully constructed reputations.   Show us that you aren't just using these occasions for your own benefit but genuinely want to find out the truth rather than continue yoru character assassination of a defenseless old man.

You Hubbard cultists are

You Hubbard cultists are pretty far away in fantasy land!! Its all a conspiracy, not the result of years of mismanagment and so on. No it was definitely mismanaged into the ground. Allan Hubbard, property wide boy. End result.

Nick NZ - you are a confused

Nick NZ - you are a confused man. There are obviously faults on the Hubbard side of all this. He had inadequate systems to manage a business of this size - but then the Securitioes Commission knew that - or sio they say after the event. The SCF board should have been stronger.

But for the 1000th time he is not a thief - he stole not one cent - he may have helped borrowers to an extent that was not prudent - but it was for their benefit not his.

At the time of receivership the loss would hacve been capped at $400M if the Govt had of accepted the $250- $300m. That would have resulted in a loss of 25% of the whole SCF book. Now they are atlking at a loss of $700 -800M.

Why is the Govt continuing such a strong campaign against this man and letting real crooks like Mark Hotchin, Jock Hobbs and Brian Fitzgerald off the hook - Hanover and Strategic Finance.The only reason can be because it is a political situation.

Well John Key is a clever man but I think he needs to forget his ego, his popularity and strenuosly fight back against the poltical influences if he wants to get the South Island vote in the next election. His cameo appearance on Saturday in CHCH viewing the earthquake damage - and the staged fire that erupted just where he was standing ( the only fire since the earthquake ) won't win much support.

I think confused would be a

I think confused would be a better name for you, bemused. Are you a conspiracy theorist, or what! "....the Govt continuing such a strong campaign against this man..' and "..the staged fire that erupted..". Hubbard did cause this mess, and a fire broke out. End of story.

Talk about

Talk about ungrateful!

Hubbard gave awesome deals to Southland dairy farmers and in doing so fatally dodgified his entire outfit, so one of those Southland dairy famers stepped in to save his own money, in the process ensuring that all of AH's greedy worshipers made tons of cash at the expense of taxpayers, but now they are bashing the Southland dairy farmer whose intervention on his own behalf it was that guaranteed their own huge tax welfare bludge windfall!

Truly there is no honour amongst thieves.

"Snobbery is dangerous. It

"Snobbery is dangerous. It stops people seeing things as they really are. You might think I'm drawing a long bow trying to link the born-to-rule Cantabrian arrogance with the SCF collapse. But there is no doubt everyone's fawning reverence for Hubbard led directly to this mess. """"

An expensive lesson in snobbery, by Deborah Hill Cone,

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10670775&ref=rss

Interesting perspective, hadn't really thought of things like this.

 

 

High Country station owners

High Country station owners are interesting.

The husband is usually a 'rugged southern man' archetype, while his wife is almost always the model of finishing school conceitedness.

Sometimes both put on a gentrified air, but more often than not it's just the 'There's No Such Thing As Too Expensive For Me' wife.

However, they both believe that everyone who is not a High Country station owner is a bludging communist, an Aucklander, and probably Maori.

I can't be bothered refuting

I can't be bothered refuting this plainly wrong post in detail.

"I can't be refute this

"I can't be refute this post."

Fixed that for you.

i am sorry . Time for a

i am sorry . Time for a gingernut