Minimoke i have read the report (only 10 pages long) and dont feel any more knowledgeable about the situation. It did not go into any detail whatsoever about the missing 25% of funds which seems crucial to this investigation.
I still stand by my statement that govt officials and bureaucrats have no business telling investors what are appropriate investments for people. The statement that AH was putting money into things that were not appropriate for his investors is totally irrelevant. The real question is whether AH lied about what he was actually doing with their money.
Anybody is free to invest in whatever they feel is appropriate for themselves. If AH investors didnt know or understand what they were investing in because they didnt bother to investigate or just didnt care out of trust then thats their problem. If the investment goes sour they should bear the losses after all they dont expect to share the profits.
If they have been fraudulently misled then there is a case to answer. But to simply say AH investors didnt know what was being done with their money is irrelevant. It might make for an interesting academic study as to why some people are so willing to hand their money over without doing any homework. But thats not a reason for govt to step in an seize a business. It seems to me that the inclusion of this statement was grasping at straws.
In fact a good dose of the free market may make people open their eyes a little bit before handing their money over to strangers. Is there any difference between AH acting (as alleged) as a robin hood helping out the south islanders, which has supposedly led to the current state of affairs and govt officials acting as a robin hood and bailing out the AH investors? I am totally opposed to govt intervention in the market and bailing out investors even if they are victims of fraud.
Agreed. I think what has been so surprising is that no actions have been taken against other firms like hanover or bluechip.Quote:
The AH Stat Man is by no means a dangerous precedent - it is however extremely rare. There are clearly issues around bringing in the Stat Man. Time will tell if that decision was warranted. What does remain is wether there will be consistency in approach in the future - which begs the question why others weren't brought under Stat Man during the GFC. But thats water under the bridge now. Theres enough to mull over with AH's recent activites.