Opinion: When our fear of the corporate way and our love for the small business man is a dangerous thing

Opinion: When our fear of the corporate way and our love for the small business man is a dangerous thing

New Zealanders have a history of worshipping at the feet of small businesses and the small business way.

We admire the number 8 wire approach to solving problems. She'll be right, we say. We prefer to rely on our own resources rather than ask for help or create a process or a corporatised system.

We distrust 'corporateness' or big businesses. We think they lack soul and smother creativity. Often they do.

We don't like corporate big wigs with their uppity ways, their flashy suits and their MBA-esque language of 'value-add' and 'value chains' and 'shareholder value'.

We love the idea of the do-it-yourself approach winning every time over throwing money and bureaucrats at a problem. We see the rigour of heavy process and documentation as unnecessary and remote and wasteful.

This distrust of the big and the rich seems to be baked into New Zealand's social and economic DNA.

We have a history of trusting the little guy over the big guy. The Liberal Party reforms of the 1890s of Prime Ministers Ballance and Seddon broke up the large land holdings of the squattocracy, including in North Canterbury, and sold them off to family farmers. Prime Ministers Holyoake and Muldoon governed much more for small business people and farmers than organised labour, big government and big busineses.

My own grandfather was granted 'rehab' land in the 1930s to farm. I now much prefer working to grow a small business than working in a large corporate for a faceless shareholder. We're a nation of small business people born of rural migrants from the mother country who just wanted to create our own farms and be the lords of our own little manors. It may be something to do with a Scottish Protestant background, particularly in the South Island, that values hard work and frugality and independence over corporate greed and status.

Our iconography is all about self-reliance, modesty, restraint and 'not making  a fuss'.

The 'Southern Man' of the Speights ad or the dryness of Fred Dagg give us a flavour of how we see ourselves and who we want to be.

One of the reasons Mark Hotchin and Eric Watson have never been truly popular is they were seen as 'flash Harries', driving fast cars and living in mansions from the profits of their big businesses. 

There's something about wealth and governments and corporates and just-plain-big we just don't trust.

So we now have the Allan Hubbard situation. He is still worshipped and backed by many, often in the South Island, who see him as the ideal financier.

Restrained rather than flashy, selfless rather than selfish, a small businessman backing other small businessmen in his community and a man more interested in building businesses than building processes and profits for shareholders. He is seen as always on the side of the little guy. A man who looked you straight in the eye and did a deal with the shake of the hand. A man who wrote out a cheque on the spot and answered his mail personally. (I'll come back to the cheques and the mail later).

He was as far away from the clever, slick and pin-striped lawyers and brokers and property developers of Auckland and Wellington as you could get.

He drove a 1971 VW while they drove their new Porsches.

His supporters think he is being beaten up by the shiny arses in Wellington and Auckland simply because he failed to dot a few i's and cross a few t's. They think this giant of a 'Southern Man' is being crucified for not playing by the rules of the bureaucrats in Wellington and corporate lawyers in Auckland.

They think small and personal is always better than big and corporate. They think Allan Hubbard has done nothing wrong and he would have been fine if only had been left alone and given a bit more time.

But let's have a closer look at Allan Hubbard's affairs.

We can't look too closely because he has never opened up his affairs to public scrutiny. In fact, he actively discouraged it and has never wanted to become part of the public business sphere in New Zealand.

It is now legendary in investment banking circles how Forsyth Barr once sent a team to convince Allan Hubbard that he should list on the NZX and he simply sent them back to the big smoke without ever even considering the proposal.

He consistently rejected the idea of South Canterbury Finance ever becoming a bank. He still does. It's clear he never wanted the fancy pants lawyers and brokers and analysts and fund managers poking around inside his affairs. And he was admired for this distrust of the big end of town.

New Zealanders now deeply distrust the official apparatus around investments and finance companies. Rightly, they feel trustees, financial advisors, the Securities Commission, the Companies Office and the Serious Fraud Office have failed to provide much protection or justice.

So surely Allan Hubbard's small end of town approach and his personal touch is better?

Maybe not. The report by Grant Thornton released this week is the first real peek behind the curtains of Allan Hubbard's financial affairs.

It is not reassuring. Grant Thornton reports it is concerned about a lack of paperwork, about a "complex and intricate intermingling of affairs", about a lack of security for some loans, about finding investments that were supposed to be secured by first ranking mortgages on land actually being ranked behind banks or not secured at all. They also flagged their concerns about how some loans were on interest free terms to trusts and other businesses associated with Hubbard.

Grant Thornton also discovered an entirely new entity called Hubbard Management Funds that seems to be managing around NZ$70 million, although it's not clear exactly how much is in there because the records are inadequate. It is not listed in the companies office.

"We understand Mr Hubbard has maintained the client investment records manually by way of a hand written cashbook and journal entries, which are then posted to an electronic ledger account," Grant Thornton said.

This is not the first time Hubbard's approach to paperwork has been questioned. Rebecca Macfie wrote an excellent profile of Hubbard in May in the Listener, which cited his approach to record keeping and his appetite for risk.

Associates say he operated on a handshake, and liked to back “battlers” with a strong work ethic. In business deals he loved the chase. “He was all for going wherever the growth was,” according to one source, who says he was very self-assured and strong-willed, but under estimated the role of good process. “And he had been getting away with it for 60 years.”

Not so simple after all

Untangling Hubbard's empire is proving difficult and time consuming for Grant Thornton.

It also proved very difficult for others who tried to figure it out. Several investors have told me they decided not to invest in South Canterbury when they tried to track down the various related parties that sprawled between South Canterbury, Southbury Holdings and various family and charitable trusts. They made similar decisions not to invest in Bridgecorp and Hanover after becoming similarly baffled by their complicated related party dealings. A Companies Office search for companies where Allan Hubbard is a director and shareholder finds 552 results.

For a man who is renowned among his supporters for his simplicity and straightforward approach, Allan Hubbard's financial affairs have rarely been straitforward. His dealings with the public in the form of the media and officialdom have also been far from simple or straightforward.

I look back on my experiences in reporting on South Canterbury Finance since 2006 with a growing sense of unease.

The moment when I started becoming a lot more sceptical was when South Canterbury Finance released its annual report in October 2009, detailing how its bank, BNZ, had withdrawn its NZ$100 million funding line and that its auditor, a Timaru firm called Woodnorth Myers & Co, had warned about South Canterbury's ability to continue as a going concern. There was never a public announcement about these developments.

Up until then I'd taken Hubbard's word that everything was going fine. After all, he had announced an equity injection just months earlier.

The trouble was that equity injection was actually a money go round where South Canterbury bought a one third stake in Dairy Holdings off Hubbard, who then promptly recycled the money into South Canterbury. There's more detail here in this Sunday Star Times article.

Hubbard represented that deal as an equity injection at the time it happened in May 2009. Standard and Poor's was sceptical and downgraded South Canterbury from its investment grade rating to junk status. Check out Page 29 of the annual report.

I became a lot more sceptical after that.

This is no small matter

It's clear to me that Allan Hubbard had no time for people from Wellington and Auckland peeking into his affairs or doing the 'corporate thing' with his business. His auditor was from Timaru, a company called Woodnorth Myers. For most of late 2009 he operated as an executive chairman without any independent directors.

He did not have a typical corporate board for such a big corporate. Despite being nominally just a Chairman of South Canterbury Finance, he was deeply involved on a day to day basis. Hubbard was legendary for working from early til late 7 days a week from the South Canterbury offices.

He opened the mail. He corresponded directly with lenders and investors. He wrote the cheques.

This surprised me when I was told he was still doing this right up until he stood down as Chairman and a Statutory Manager was appointed. One of the most basic disciplines in any reasonably large busineses is to separate the cheque writing from the mail opening. It's always a good idea to watch carefully who doesn't take holidays.

This is no provincial accountancy running a few million dollars worth of assets.

At its peak South Canterbury Finance had NZ$2.35 billion worth of assets. It had well over 10,000 investors. As well as that, it's clear now that Hubbard and his own accounting firm, Hubbard Churcher, was managing a further NZ$200 million or so via Aorangi Securities and Hubbard Management Funds.

How did he keep all that in his head? How can any one person manage to keep all those balls in the air? And write the cheques. And open the mail. While on dialysis three times a week.

South Canterbury Finance's new auditors Ernst and Young, who replaced Woodnorth Myers, also thought some balls had been dropped. On April 12 this year it rewrote the already announced but unaudited accounts and increased the loss for the half year to December 31 by NZ$43.7 million. This was Ernst and Young essentially saying that Allan Hubbard incorrectly valued his assets. By NZ$43.7 million.

So he is now in Statutory Management

It's clear now from the Grant Thornton report and comments made by the Commerce Minister Simon Power that  there were enough concerns about all those balls being in the air that the authorities decided to freeze matters to stop any more falling down and breaking or falling through the cracks.

Yet many people in and around Hubbard's home town, Timaru, believe the authorities and the shiny suits from Wellington and Auckland should have given their great Southern Man more time to keep juggling those balls and writing those cheques and creating those charitable trusts to keep things going for a little bit longer until things were ok. 

We all just needed to trust this one man, just as they had for so long. For just a bit longer.

Hubbard's supporters believe that anyone who drives a 1971 VW and works 7 days a week opening the mail and writing cheques is just like them. He's different from all those corporate types with their independent directors and unconflicted interests and big city accountants and lawyers. How could he possibly be doing anything wrong?

Personality based faith

Rightly, New Zealanders like the idea of the toiling small business man doing his best to build a better life for them and their families.

When a personality as large and as respected as Allan Hubbard seemed to embody all those values of small town New Zealand it was natural people took his promises on faith, particularly when the faceless big city slickers had lost so much of Mums and Dads money in finance companies and on the stock market.

But the problem is Allan Hubbard cultivated that faith in his personality and relied on it to fund his "complex intermingling of affairs".

Again, Rebecca Macfie's Listener report tells of how Hubbard understood deeply how the 'man of the people' image helped win him the trust of investors. The VW, in particular, has become part of his legend. He even used a picture of himself standing in front of it when sending updates to investors.

It’s “like a faithful workhorse. I’ve never been a person who had to have a Mercedes and things like that. I think it’s basically wrong. I do believe the Christian values. When there are so many people suffering in the world, there is ultimately the judgment we all face. And I just don’t think I could explain my life by living a life of luxury.”

The car has also been used as a flag of integrity: parenting guru Ian Grant, whose Parenting Place in Auckland owes its existence to a $6 million donation from Hubbard, recalls how the titan once said of the old VW:

“It’s my sign. Accountants always waste their money on cars, and people see that I drive this and they can trust me with their money.”

Substituting faith for process

My point here is that Hubbard's supporters have made a typically New Zealand mistake of believing that small business is better, more noble and more reliable than big business. They made the mistake of believing that faith in the individual is more reliable than faith in an institution.

Allan Hubbard is a provincial accountant who built a personal and business empire worth close to NZ$2.5 billion at its peak. He could no longer operate solely on the basis of his personality and his own ability to keep all the balls in the air. The authorities eventually decided he should not continue to operate that way.

Just as any small business that becomes very large should institute the disciplines and protections of corporate rigour, investors should have expected those same disciplines and rigours from Allan Hubbard. They didn't get that.

Yet still they believe Hubbard is in the right and the bureaucrats are in the wrong.

New Zealanders' deep love for the cult of the small businessman is alive and kicking.


That's a pity. New Zealand needs a lot more really big businesses that thrive and grow and outperform on a global stage. The only one we have at the moment is Fonterra, and it too is handicapped by the cult of the small business man. Family farmers have consistently blocked attempts to make Fonterra more corporate and open it up to the disciplines of shareholder capitalism.

While we think small and remain small minded about business and investing, we are handicapping our future as NZ Inc.

The tragic case of Allan Hubbard has reinforced again the problems we face in our national pysche.

Unfortunately it has also opened up a gap between small town New Zealand and metroplitan New Zealand, between small business and big business, and between individuals and institutions.

It's time we challenged some of these national traits.

Your thoughts? I welcome your comments below.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

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.



I'm making no judgment about the guilt or innocence of either party.

I'm just saying supporters of Hubbard should not support him just because he doesn't have a flash car and flash lawyer. Although I see now that Hubbard has employed Russell McVeagh to challenge the statutory management.

I'm saying I'm surprised Hubbard is getting such slavish support from people who know nothing about his detailed financial affairs.

Both those who slavishly believed Richard Long and the legend of Allan Hubbard should have done a lot more research and been a lot more sceptical. Both are in the same boat. They believed an image without researching the substance.

I've watched Hubbad and South Canterbury as closely as anyone outside the company for 4 years and I'm saying I don't buy the image or necessarily believe the Serious Fraud Office is wrong to investigate.




Many thanks for the advice. And your view on my point? Which I made in the headline, the intro, the graphic and the final paragraph.



Do you support Allan Hubbard because you have looked in depth at his financial affairs? Or have you just decided to trust him because he seems like a nice man?




North Islander looking in from the outside,

Many thanks. You asked if I had read Rebecca Macfie's article. I quoted from it twice in the article and linked to it.

I spoke to Hotchin several times, although not recently. I asked South Canterbury several times if I could talk to Mr Hubbard. He never agreed to talk to me.

He very rarely speaks to the press, particularly the financial press.

Rebecca's article is so interesting because she actually managed to convince him to talk to her.

He wasn't called reclusive for nothing.

He saw the financial press as inconvenient and unnecessary.




Saying that all large corporates are corrupt because a couple were is just as flawed as saying all lawyers can't be trusted because a couple can't be trusted.

Before condemning the entire model of corporate capitalism, ask yourself, how is it you can comment on a website with a computer without the multinational corporates that built the computer and the components that make up the Internet (or the car you drive or the petrol you buy...etc)



I have been writing over this article over the last week. I have been reporting on South Canterbury for over 4 years. This view is the first time I have written in detail about how Allan Hubbard is viewed and how investors view him.

I'm curious. How do you think it could backfire?

I have made no judgement about Allan Hubbard's legal position or the eventual outcome. I have simply challenged the slavish support he is getting in some quarters.

What do his supporters know about Allan Hubbard's financial affairs? Are they sure they know more about is affairs than the authorities who are now investigating?

Those who judge Hubbard innocent already do so without all the information.

I'm challenging people to ask themselves what evidence they have to be so sure that everything Allan Hubbard has done is correct.

Let's not forget South Canterbury has booked over NZ$250 mln of losses over the last couple of years.


FYI to all TVNZ is reporting that Hubbard is calling for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the decision to put him into Statutory Management.


"I would like my name vindicated, because my name has been linked with fraud," he says.

"The government was under pressure because of all these people had got away with so much money, when my name came up they thought well let's give him the works.

"They picked the wrong fella," he says.

The Hubbards claim the head of the Serious Fraud Office had made up his mind early on in the case, coming down personally to retrieve their secretary's computer. "He obviously formed the view he caught New Zealand's arch criminal gang. What has he caught? A raspberry I'd say," Hubbard says.

I wonder if Hubbard's lawyer reckons talking to TVNZ was a good idea.


Many thanks. You are right. I wrote an article in April 2008 called the 5 survivability factors (which I'll get a link for on Monday) that compared the major finance companies still going at that stage.

It looked at whether a finance company had an investment grade credit rating, a bank line of credit, a strong shareholder in support, diversified funding and diversified lending. South Canterbury had all of those at the time. I thought.

It turned out Allan Hubbard did not have cash resources to inject. He had assets, which have since been injected. We don't know much he has left personally. The bank line was withdrawn (without being announced), it lost an investment grade rating and has since lost both its diversified funding and lending.

It would now be ranked about where Hanover, Strategic and St Laurence were ranked back in April 2008.



FYI Radio NZ is reporting that John Funnell is setting up a charitable fund to help the Hubbards and investors in Aorangi who aren't getting their interest payments.

"John Funnell, who owns a Taupo helicopter business, says Mr Hubbard has been dipping into his own pocket to help investors who rely on interest payments to survive.

Mr Funnell says he and Ian Tulloch, of Tulloch Transport in Southland, have decided to start a charitable fund to assist those investors, as well as the Hubbards.

He says there have been numerous offers from people wanting to donate money, and he aims to have the fund running by Tuesday."


Allan Hubbard seems familiar with how to set up these charitable trusts and may be able to help John Funnell with the the process.

I wonder too about all these Aorangi investors who aren't getting interest payments. The impression given is they are little old ladies who need the interest payments to buy food and pay the power bills.

If that's the case, why were they investing in Aorangi Securities, which was supposedly designed for habitual investors who don't need the protections of a prospectus?




I don't influence who advertises on the site and the advertisers don't influence the editorial content on the site.

We have a Chinese wall on this at interest.co.nz. David Chaston is the Publisher and deals with advertising matters. I'm the Editor and deal with editorial matters.

Kind regards


FYI Aorangi investor Hilary Muir of Geraldine thinks Allan Hubbard is a genius, the NZHerald reports.

"Several points regarding this report ring hollow, especially in relation to the impact on the Hubbards' livelihood. Some means of support could have been initiated prior to this cruel injunction. What is new in this report is the financial capability of Allan Hubbard. Who in New Zealand matches his abilities and who judges a genius?" http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=1065...