Long term, having faith in Governments could prove equally dumb.
Printable View
Long term, having faith in Governments could prove equally dumb.
And that is something I have a major problem with. Investors in the NZ financial markets should be able to rely on the validity of the statements made by the Chief Executive of a company. If we look back at the statements he made to the NZX and to the press the NZ Investor has been mislead.
Even the government has been economical with the truth - who knew until yesterday that KordiaMentha had been advising them for the past year.
Once again we have been taken for a ride by the inadequate reporting by SCF and a patriarchal government who, in the best of nanny stat mentality thinks "we know best - those wee voters know jack **** so best we don't tell them anything and look after them without their consent.
Let the lawsuits against the Directors and CEO begin, if I had sufferred any injury from the collapse of SCF I'd be in boots and all. Fortunatly I could see the balance sheet was riddled with more toxic matters than you could shake a stick at...remember I predicted another financial nuke bomb would go off in SCF accounts for the year ended 30 June 2010, IF they ever saw the light of day.
There are definitly grounds to sue here and I'd advise anyone who has sufferred a substantial loss on SCF preference shares to be talking to a good securities lawyer.
The financial statements are an absolute scandal and have been for some time. The mis-information is a huge scandal, the related party lending is a huge scandal, the treatment of tax losses e.t.c.
For the record I read the prospectus and investment statements several times and until the recent Listener article I had no idea about AH's illness.
There's a parallel with Apple's situation and the CEO's health issues there and I can't remmeber how that was handled but I am sure it was better handled than the way SCF mis-managed ALL their issues.
There is a poster in this Forum (though I haven't seen him in this thread), Duncan Mcregor. One of his investing techniques is to talk to the "tea lady". Posters have scoffed at it his approach but clearly in the case of SCF it has merit.
I'm not sure companies should be required to declare the state of health of their senior executives or board directors. If they were to do so we would also need to draw conclusions from a persons age, their sexual orientation or any thing else we might have a bias against. However investors might be well advised to look beyond the financial reports and prospectus and do their own investigations into the personal issues of the senior exec. I have three companies I might be tempted to invest in except I know things which aren't in the accounts and that keeps me out of those companies - however another person may draw a different conclusion to me and should be free to invest accordingly.
That is why we must be able to rely absolutely on the statements put out by the company. Lianne Dalziel fiddled while the financial instruments in Rome burned and since then we haven't seen significant change. The courts have said Feltex directors are quite able to rely on the expert advisors of its professional advisors - so they have no liability or responsibility for inadequate reporting. As investors in NZ we clearly aren't - we are all just players in a crapshoot.
Rumour has it that the Govt is going to merge the bad book with Kiwi Rail.
Cheer up mate, fortunatly that was just one family court judge that has a limited understanding of the commerical world. The level of director reposibility required will be tested in a proper case soon...Quote:
That is why we must be able to rely absolutely on the statements put out by the company. Lianne Dalziel fiddled while the financial instruments in Rome burned and since then we haven't seen significant change. The courts have said Feltex directors are quite able to rely on the expert advisors of its professional advisors - so they have no liability or responsibility for inadequate reporting. As investors in NZ we clearly aren't - we are all just players in a crapshoot. Minimoke
The Securities Act is under review, we have a new "so called" super reulator coming into being early next year so hopefully there will be SOME improvement. Having said that my understanding is that on a per capita basis the Australian Securities Commission is funded approximatly ten times as well as our regulators, so until the Govt gets really serious about resourcing the regulatory bodies in an appropriate manner and having punishment's that fit the seriousness of the crime, (none of this home dentention rubbish staying in their multi million dollar waterfront mansions for 12 months), whilst we may see some improvement, I fear we will still be the wild west for some time to come.
Roger said: "I fear we will still be the wild west for some time to come."
Times such as these remind me of a verse from the American folk singer Woody Guthrie's song Pretty Boy Floyd.
Yes, as through this world I've wandered
I've seen lots of funny men;
Some will rob you with a six-gun,
And some with a fountain pen.
Boop boop de do
Marilyn
[QUOTE=Capitalist;317899]Sandy is in fine form - putting the blame right where it belongs:
"A fish kind of stinks from the head. These assets didn’t hop on our books by themselves and these related party loans didn’t make themselves. People mismanaged the place frankly.”
Ahh. Soles, tossed by a big wave onto a warm beach, Sandy.
What Emunerate outlined as well capitalised scaled down South Canty doing what it done well for 80 years or so will probably happen sooner than later. The receiver (ie the govt) will find a buyer who will put in a bit of cash and take over the good loan book and it will be business as usual (or at least as it was 5 years ago)
What Emunerate didn't seem to get was that 'things' had to happen to make all this possible ... if AH continued having any say in things nothing was possible. It has been pointed out a few times on this thread that those 'things' were happening in the background.
Whether govt 'intervention' and the 'lack of transperency' was a good thing or not is open to debate .... but sometimes 'things' have to happen in mysterious ways.
South Canty Finance will live to fight another day ..... investors got their money back .... shareholders lost out as they should have .... above all a good outcome in this case ..... even if there was some 'unfairness' or worries about the role of a govt in such matters
Did you see a couple of those pref shareholders on TV the other night .... methinks they didn't even know they were shareholders ... prob thought they were depositors or something
I'll lose my few thousand on the pref but it was a rationale bet on something irrational happening but it was a risk free bet because you could hedge it with buying some cheap bonds ... it wasn't investing per se it was betting and as Sandy said the croupiers in the casino paid out
Just so we are clear a Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent scheme whereby investors are offered high returns and these returns are paid with money paid in by subsequent investors. The returns don't come form profits made.
Fraud is gaining money by deception for personal or other gain.
Affinity fraud is where a well respected, say, community, religious or business leader is used to prey on the vulnerable - such as the elderly, the unsophisticated and the greedy. The leader uses his influence to convince the investors his scheme is worth while.
I bet we will see nothing from the Regulators in respect of the information given by SCF or the management of SCF over the past nine months.
So is a company that keeps accepting deposits, thereby having sufficient cash to meet withdrawals, although it may be technically insolvent through questionable lending operating a ponzi scheme? Or is it only a ponzi scheme where the intention is simply to meet payments out of new funds. :confused: