Welcome to the real world indeed, Roger.
NZOG allowed an unsafe mine to be developed and operated just as the parent allowed a dangerous dog to be kept - that's the analogy if you don't get it yet.
Printable View
Bollocks Balance!! The father was the Pike River Mine management. NZO came along with funds to invest...funds that Pike River needed to keep going. NZO knew little or nothing about coal mining....NZO acquired a large shareholding of 30% "MAJOR SHAREHOLDER"
Nothing like mini mouses analogy. ...not even close....
A better analogy would have been the kids wanted the dog, the dad couldn't afford it, so the grandparents lent him the money.
Is it the grandparents fault the dad bought a bad dog?
Ah, I knew you would get the analogy. So yes – we do need to see what we can do to ban mad dog managers. The first step would be to introduce a corporate manslaughter regime which continues to apply even after a manager has vacated his / her position (I’d create a similar regime to finance managers as well – though I also fancy reintroducing the hang / draw and quarter method for those folks!). Locking up, financially impairing or irreparably harming a CV may be one way of keeping these mad dogs out of the market. Seeing them slink offshore to a hide in a dairy hardly cuts it.
But we know banning something isn’t the whole answer. We need to look at the complete supply chain. So next would be to look at the importers of mad dogs – that’s the Directors and Owners of companies who take the risks and know the loopholes in bringing in and keeping mad dogs on too long a leash. Financial hardship (penalties) and neutering (banning Directors) might be a good step or two. But it needs to apply right up the supply chain - not just at the street dealer level.
Of course we also have to look at those who demand mad dogs in the first place – there seems to be an underbelly of society who don’t have the ethical or moral constitution to back away from creating demand for something the rest of society abhors. So we need to target the shareholders. We need to ensure there are tools available to shrink their dividend yields and devalue their investment so the risk doesn’t stack up. Perhaps we should even look as far as keeping voter records – and track down those who vote for certain directors who actively keep the supply chain healthy.
At some point we need to help people make purchase decisions so wholesome canines are preferred over mangy mutts.
In the many years I have posted against Balance ,I am going to say something that Balance is completely unable to say. Balance in this very rare case is correct. NZOG did in fact own PIKE and floated it on the market keeping 30% for itself. So finally Balance is correct--that is how NZOG had 30% and not by buying it as Queenstfarmer has stated.
However in this lonely case above he is correct if you follow his usual twisted logic you would get
1/----the bank responsibility for PIKE as they lent NZO money to develop the mine.
2--- The RC rendered to nil as they did not ask Balance for his Facts.
Another very good questions for noggers who Balance suggest live in dark places and don't see the light of day while being fed muck. You have been around during the GFC? it was the banks loaning on dodgy securities but for some reason the world seems to forgive (and encourage) mad dog white collar money lenders.