Forsyth Barr managed portfolios seemed to to have been used to to buy a lot of SCFHA preference shares. Was this because Forsyth Barr were the underwriters?
Printable View
Forsyth Barr managed portfolios seemed to to have been used to to buy a lot of SCFHA preference shares. Was this because Forsyth Barr were the underwriters?
What a load of bull****. Posters here have for months been saying there was no certainty that new equity would be introduced. These were comments made not to undermine SCF - they were opinions held without the benefit of rose tinted glasses. Sandy has known all along that "there can be no certainty that the proposals it has been pursuing will be successfully implemented." - he has failed, until today, to tell the market so!
http://www.depositrates.co.nz/news/9...y-finance.html
Looks like Sandy Maier considers the efforts of the cultists "uphelpful".
Lizard, I can't speak for anyone else but when my debenture funds matured from SCF in May 2010 I threw the lot into KIPGC convertible notes.
Current yield at $1.07 approx 7.5%, with no down-side and potential upsaide on conversion if KIP shares are above $1.20 in December 2014.
At the risk of stating the obvious, they are N.Z.'s premier property company with a 77% equity ratio. They're as boring as bats#it, but I've come to love boring after the massive effects of the GFC for three years.
Thanks Roger... I have a feeling finding homes for maturing deposits from various fixed income sources is going to be an ongoing headache for me over next 12 months! If it was all mine, I'd happily go shares, but it's not... Will have a look at the KIPGC.
You're welcome Lizard. FYI KIPGC is the only security on the entire N.Z. market of which I am aware that has no down-side, yet still maintains an upside if KIP shares rally to be over $1.20 in approx four and a half years time, i.e. if there is an eventual solid recovery in N.Z. ( I for one am not holding my breath), owning KIPGC may allow you to participate in it. (they convert at a 2% discount to the 20 day VWAP of KIP shares in December 2014 or $1.20 whichever is the lesser).
With KIP's extremly conservative balance sheet, well diversifed property holdings and well spread tenant base, I can't think of a better place to hide from the on-going effects of the GFC, whilst still giving me potential equity upside if the market at some stage in the future rebounds strongly, but if anyone has any other great low risk stratagies, I'm all ears !!
If you go to their website which from memory is www.kipt.co.nz and click on the tab about their convertible notes there's all the details in there.
From a taxpayer point of view which is the lesser of two evils?Quote:
Originally Posted by NZ Herald
1.55bill from the taxpayer to other new zealanders, who should spend the majority of those funds reinvesting in NZ
or
600bill from the taxpayer to a foreign company, with no guarantee that money will remain in our NZ economy.
One day people will get it .... Alan has a failed business whatever way you look at it ... and he has to recognise it .... and yelling profanities at sweey little reporters on TV tells me he still lives in la la land
Anyway Mr Dann says Alan should apologise
Alan Hubbard owes New Zealand an apology
By Liam Dann 12:30 PM Monday Aug 30, 2010 Twitter
His supporters have written public letters to the Government calling for Alan Hubbard to be treated more fairly. Business Herald editor Liam Dann, a fellow Cantabrian, responds.
Alan Hubbard owes New Zealand an apology. Whatever happens from here it is clear that his failure as a businessman has put hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars at risk.
In the context of the enormous constraints on public spending we face in areas like health and education this is an appalling financial mess that Hubbard has ultimately left the taxpayer to clean up.
Cries from his supporters, that if he'd been left in charge it would all have been alright, no longer ring true.
Put the probe into his personal financial entities to one side. The real story is South Canterbury Finance - the $900 million liability hanging around the taxpayer's neck. That was his baby.
Hubbard lost control of that company earlier this year after it had breached its trust deed. He was removed from the board and given the sentimental title of President for Life.
By that point the Government had already effectively decided the company was too big to fail. That is the only sane reason it could have been allowed it to stay in the government guarantee scheme when it was extended.
So Hubbard's debenture holders were given the luxury of a state guarantee - despite the fact that some of the lending this company did was every bit as convoluted and risky as that of other failed finance companies.
Sandy Maier, who has a reputation as the most skilled corporate fix-it man in the country, is now in charge and frankly appears to have worked magic just to keep it alive this far.
He divided the assets in to three piles, the working businesses, the good loans and the bad loans.
The bad loan "bank" is up to its neck in $600 to $700 million of debt on assets that may yield as little as half of that when they are realised.
When it is euphemistically said that South Canterbury failed to "stick to its knitting" it is the bad bank that people are talking about. That is also the bit that no white-knight investor wants to touch - so it threatens to sink the whole company. To put it in context, it is a bigger failure in its own right than Hanover.
The irony is that because South Canterbury is also a major lender to many productive agricultural businesses it is in danger doing far more damage to the national economy than the likes of Hanover ever could.
It is a great shame that Alan Hubbard - and the South Canterbury management team he put in place during the last days of the property boom - did not stick to their knitting.
But they didn't and they were caught out like everyone else. It is a tragedy that fantastic business story that is Hubbard's career should be so tarnished.
Alan Hubbard is clearly a nice man. It would be surprising if the Serious Fraud Office finds anything of a criminal nature in his accounts. He appears to be a man of honour and integrity.
If this is the case and he wishes to salvage what is left of his reputation he needs stop being so proud and accept what has happened.
His supporters are doing him no favours by encouraging him to fight back at the Government and the designated officials. They are working now to do what is best for the taxpayer.
As it becomes clearer just what this business collapse will cost each of us we can expect public anger to grow. Support for Hubbard already looks parochial. As the embattled community of Timaru continues to back him it will become embarrassing. If Hubbard really cares about his community he should take responsibility for this mess and spare them that.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10669903
I was wondering how this thread started .... way back in 2005 Slelessi posted this ... and was quickly chastised by Capitalist for ramping .... ha ha
Of course the float didn't go ahead ... maybe cause Alan knew things mightn't stand up to public scrutiny .... but that was before the GFC anyway but the foundations of many finance houses were starting to crumble anyway
Amazing how things ahve changed in 5 years eh .... a AAA rating to going broke
he is now saying the govt is not in any kind of discussion with the Company about a bail out option. Now he tells us. Quite happy to let that rumour run its course. Looks like Sandy is tidying up the loose ends before the Receivership / default event is announced. No longer looking at days - it'll all be over in hours.