Roger ... good one
Put that on the NZO thread and you will be crucified ... wouldn't hink many on that thread would be reading this thread ... they need more thrills
I'll post it if you want
Printable View
Roger ... good one
Put that on the NZO thread and you will be crucified ... wouldn't hink many on that thread would be reading this thread ... they need more thrills
I'll post it if you want
The judiciary needs no help from you in understanding matter of law, I am sure.
Judgments are only possible when charges are laid and a case presented.
Rickard makes some good points:
http://*************nz.blogspot.com/...botherway.html
So here we have the SFO, of which Botherway is a director, in pursuit of Allan Hubbard for "too much paper in his accounting system" (though that doesn't effect the accuracy of the accounts) and "too little paper in the regulatory compliance" (though this does not seem to have worked in endless other finance companies and funds).Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Rickard
She also would not want Balance banned. Free speech is an inconvenient thing.
Sandy knows what he is doing. Hubbard would not be subject to Statutory Management if he didn't. Think about it.[/QUOTE]
best two comments i read today.
No of investors: Aorangi ~400. Hanover 13,000. Unless you want to revisit that question with the benefit of hindsight.
And what about benchmarking?
- Did Hanover have a prospectus - well yes it did so theres a plus
- Did Hanover make regular repayments to its investors - I recall they did. On par
- Did Hanover report increase in assets over time - I believe they did.
- Did Hanover do good deeds (yes they did (just ask the Carnivorous Kauri Snail or Stand Tall
- Did Hanover stand behind their investors - well yes they did. There was $10m a piece on the table while AH had $40m.
- Did Hanover do Related Party transactions. Just like Aorangi - they did.
- Did Hanover appeal to the aged and those requiring regular income. Another "Yes"
- Was Hanover fronted a man the people could trust. Of course, yes.
- Did Hanover file consolidated accounts. No they didn't - and I don't think Aorangi did either.
- Did punters accept at face value what Hanover had on offer. Why yes - just like Aorangi.
- Did Hotchin and Watson hide from media glare (when asked about their Accounts). Yes they did. Just like AH - both were a tad adverse to media of a certain kind.
and digressing for a moment - did Hanover need investor funds as its life blood - yes: just like SCF.
- Did Hanover invest in Property Yes it did (or at least so the Aorangi investors thought) Again on Par with Aorangi
- What did Hotchin say when asked to produce accounts. "Hanover is a private company and not required to publicly report its financial results" Sound familiar?
- And familiar sounding themes? Take the purchase of a photocopier through Ubix which was funded by United. A trail of loans not dissimilar to the farm loans of Aorangi.
- Hanover, like AH had surplus cash that could be moved from one company to another.
- Did Hanover have independent directors - notice a theme here Enumerate?
Anything else you'd like to benchmark?
Darren Rickard .... Sharetraders BONGO ... remember him from years past?
Wonder if Darren really wrote that?
Emunerate.... may I with respect suggest you go to www.standard.org.nz
Must be something there to interest you whcih you could post here
Off Topic:
NZO 1980: 1.40
NZO 1990: 0.50
NZO 2000: 0.20
NZO 2010: 1.20
Not an NZO holder but they have had multiple cheap rights issues and free options issued along the way, and also share splits, a linear price/ inflation relationship may be a bit simplistic, but it gets across the point I guess...
anyway On Topic
Is this the outcome we are expecting from the Stat Man? And if so what material effect will this have on the viability of SCF?
If Mr Maier is successful with SCF's restructure and survival, then do the SCF debt securities offer a good risk/ return at the current price?
??????????????Quote:
Originally Posted by Enumerate;312296
So here we have the SFO, of [U
Sorry, I can't recall the share splits or cheap rights issues, perhaps you could post when they occurred. The last options issue was completly worthless, just ask the poor suckers who excercised there's at $1.50 !! Its a long term dog riddled with fleas.
Anyway, I digress, yes sadly I expect another truly pathetic showing fromn the N.Z. Judicial system when AH is found gulity of breeches of the Securities Act.
I have speculated before that SCF will either be owned shortly by Chineese / Asian interests, but there is of course the possibility that Torchlight might see the lightof day as the major shareholder, otherwise the Govt is likely to have to pick up the peices.
I'm sure Enumerate will be happy to advise on what happens if all the stars happen to come to allignment for SCF. The rest of us would probably prefer to place our money on a single number on the roulette wheel down at the Casino, (better odds and payback ratio).
I cannot think of any financial institution bought by the Chinese in Australasia - that''s not what they are interested in.
Notice how just about every company which is in difficulties is 'talking' with Asian/Chinese interests? Used to be the Arabs. Before them, the Japanese. Before them, the Americans etc.
Heritage Gold last year pulled a lovely one - in discussions with Chinese interests to JV. The market lapped it up and happily supported a capital raising at 3.5c. Today its sp is 2.4c and they are still in discussions!
I can see the Chinese being interested in buying dairy farms in receivership/loan default off SCF. SCF itself is a can of worms which they will avoid.
I liked this one from the interest.co.nz thread. No prizes for naming the resident Hubbard Cultist on this site !!Quote:
by andyh | 18 Jul 10, 4:35pm
I shouldn't preen yourself to
0 points I shouldn't preen yourself to much if I were you. You seem unable to grasp the fundamental problem here. Lets remind ourselves again:
''Grant Thornton warned there was a risk investors owed NZ$96 million may not receive all their money back''.
Never mind this smokescreen about interest payments being made and quarterly statements being issued. The investigators are trying to tell you something that you and the other Hubbard cultists seemingly refuse to accept. That is that these investors PRINCIPLE is now impaired. Ask yourself how that might have happened? Where might the interest payments have been met from? There certainly wasn't much income being generated for Aorangi investors from the interest free loans he was making to friends and associates through the laughably termed 'charitable trusts' was there? Are you really not able to join the dots?
And spare us the chaff that Hubbard will make good from his own funds. He hasn't remotely come close to making SCF whole in the past 12 months (indulging instead in a complex and ineffective shuffling of assets to give the semblance that he was still a multi-millionaire able to 'put things right'). SCF is at death's door and Hubbard has been able to do nothing about it. His latest failure (the 'big third party investor' who was meant to come on board by June 30th) appears an invention of Crafaresque proportions.
Hubbard supporters push bandwagon on to internet
By Anne Gibson
4:00 AM Friday Jul 16, 2010
http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webconte...01_220x147.JPG Facebook pages include Leave Allan Hubbard Alone, while non-Facebook users are being asked to email support. Photo / Supplied
Thousands of people are showing their support for Timaru businessman Allan Hubbard on the internet.
The 82-year-old is being backed by two Facebook pages as well as a bumper sticker campaign which has reached Britain, an email-based group, and special supporter groups.
Facebook's Leave Allan Hubbard Alone has more than 4000 members and Help Allan Hubbard had nearly 700 fans yesterday.
Facebook pictures show Hollywood actor John Wayne as a cowboy on horseback: "When the going gets tough Allan, there's only one man who can sort out these creeps," one of the page's members writes.
Another picture shows a thermometer reading the low political temperature for National in Timaru.
Non-Facebook followers are being asked to email their support to stand.by.hubbard@gmail
Supporters are growing daily and stickers spawned by one of the Facebook campaigns are being distributed by Timaru's Showgrounds Auto Services.
Supporter Rosy Thomas said people not on Facebook can email confidentially. "Please, supporters, pass this on to friends and associates."
In another post, she wrote of Honest Hubbard Supporters.
"Go on a mailing list for updates and for private discussions, strategy, etc," she said.
Lesley Craig of Showgrounds Auto Services said her outlet had quickly distributed an initial 250 bumper stickers with Hubbard's face and a link to Leave Allan Hubbard Alone.
"The second lot was 1000 stickers and most of those are gone," she said. Oamaru signwriter Lance Streeter had paid to have these printed and people throughout New Zealand and in Britain had requested them.
Suzanne Edmonds of Exposing Unacceptable Financial Activities says the Hubbards are innocent and she is regularly posting supportive messages.
"Many people have travelled to Timaru to see Mr and Mrs Hubbard. This is for genuine concern for the Hubbards and with the sake of New Zealand, the country Mr Hubbard has helped build ethically," she wrote on Help Allan Hubbard.
A spokesman for Commerce Minister Simon Power said yesterday Power had "noted the reaction to the appointment of the statutory managers".
The deluge of electronic support expresses parochial sentiment, lashes out at the Government's move against Allan and Jean Hubbard, calls for Serious Fraud Office executives to be run out of town, criticises the Securities Commission's Simon Botherway and posts media articles on the Facebook pages.
A photograph of Hubbard in an armchair with a rug over his knees features prominently on the pages backing the businessman known for carrying a battered briefcase and driving an old VW.
Leave Allan Hubbard Alone has links directly to Prime Minister John Key's email, Power and local National MP Jo Goodhew. Leave Allan Hubbard Alone was established by Rob Clarke of Showgrounds Auto Services and gained 2367 members in its first five days last month.
Loyalty expressed on Facebook remains undented even after the highly critical first report from statutory managers Grant Thornton, released on Tuesday, saying Aorangi Securities investors' money has been frozen.
Tim Clarke, of Russell McVeagh's public law and policy team, confirmed he was acting for the Hubbards and he is expected to try to have their personal funds unfrozen and challenge the process taken to put them into statutory management.
4,173 members on Leave Allan Hubbard Alone
Amazing this social media
Send them more money to yet another another Trust set up to help the Hubbards, this is just getting more comical the longer it goes on.
Enumerate, my 86 year old father has an old Violin you could borrow and record a sad tune, post a you tube clip with a link, then we could hear your rendition while reading your posts, LOL
LOL - Now you have got me splitting my sides laughing! 'Swing low, swing high' you reckon for the sad tune?
I wonder if one of the dodgy looking characters on the facebook page is our very own resident Hubbard cultist - the one with the tattoo and T-shirt? Would hate to meet him in a dark street - he looks like he has not eaten for days due to some investment in a dodgy interest-free loan?
I take it she is one of Aorangi's "sophisticated" investors. If she says she has doubled her money she'll know what doubling her money means
But she is a person who seems to be relying on the mental agility of a person who can't add to $20 in her head. Mrs H apparently only had $20 in her purse but bought $23 worth of groceries. Mrs H may have thought she had $23 in her purse (just like she and Alan thought there was $<$100m in Aorangi. But unfortunately looks like she was mistaken on that account as well.
Hmmm....
Did she receive any 'income' through the period?
I don't know the answer to that myself, so to be fair and balanced, I'll do two examples - you seem sure that she didn't, hence your 'analysis' I guess:
Option 1)
Invested $100 12 years ago and now worth $200 with no other deposits, withdrawals, or income received.
Return = 6% pa (approx) if we compound annually
Option 2)
Invested $100 12 years ago and now worth $200 with income received of $15 pa.
Return = 18% pa (approx) if we compound annually and assume that income is taken out at the end of each year.
NB: This woud be approx 21% pa if the income were taken at the start of each year.
19% pa would be fantastic.... but then we don't know for sure where that money has been invested through the whole 12 year period - it might be 'average' for the risk, or it might be stellar.
As I said, I don't know what the truth is (possibly it lies somewhere between those two examples), but I think many people here could do with getting some real balance into their thinking.
Alan.
Alan,
No point making assumptions as there is insufficient information.
One thing to further note - are the accounts of Aorangi audited? The final return will depend on the valuation of the assets. If the accounts are audited, that is still of little comfort - note the massive write-downs in SCF books after auditors were changed.
What is coming across very very clearly is that she is no professional or habitual or astute or high net worth investor. She is helping to indict AH on gross breaches of Securities regulations.
I don't know the answer to that either - but we do know AH's standard approach was to accumulate and reinvest. We also know he did have an exception with some elderly people who relied on a regular income.
On the face of it I thinks its fair to assume that 12 years ago this woman started with $100. When she got her statement last month she had $200. Now to be fair I would presume that is $200 net so taxes have been paid on income generated over that period. So AH has returned her 6% net of tax and fees over that 12 years. Thats probably not bad given the average 6 month term deposit rate over that period was 5.86% gross.
There is a slight problem though - the statement will be based on the value of the recoverable value of the investment funds - its not like having money in the bank. So if the Stat Man is right and some loans are impaired and some loans are ranked behind secured first mortgage and some loans are unsecured we need to apply an impairment to her $200. Say we knock 10% off the value of her personal fund she's now worth $180.
We could also assume the 10% impairment is light. It seems that AH was prepared for a 30% impairment - thats why he has put $40m of his "own" money into a $130m fund. After all it is AH who has said he doesn't want to see people loose their money because hes that kind of man. So if we knock 30% off her $200 turning $100 into $140 over 12 years doesn't seem such a "genius" investment.
Herald article is funny though
: Investments found to be "at risk".
wow stunning revelations indeed.
I assume in the absence of an offer document Alan will be relying on his personal aquaintance with the investors. That is an exemption under the Act
Well, I have seen enough of the ugly side of human nature, on this thread, to make me never want to come back to view it again. And yet, I suspect I will. Its probably the phenomenon which is known as "The Fascination of the Horrible." I have noticed that here have even been occasions when there have been more viewers on this thread than on the whole of the NZX sector, which never used to be the case.
I get much more satisfaction - and dollar reward - from spending my time in the ASX section. In parting, let me make one final observation: it is surely one of the greatest of ironies that, even if Aorangi investors should finally opbtain less than 100c in the dollar (and I don't believe they will) their combined losses would pale into insignificance when set against the total losses of investors who have placed their millions in companies which have issued Prospectuses / Investment Statements or whatever, and such individuals - sophisticated or otherwise - have had to face the realities of the loss of all, or virtually all, of their investments. And I am talking about companies which have not been found to be in breach of the securities regulations. I speak from practical experience as, unlike the impression a number of others would like to give, I am prepared to admit my mistakes. I maintain a well-spread portfolio, and accept inevitable losses from time to time, just as I appreciate those occasions when I do seem to get it right - and those occasions are increasingly to be found on the ASX.
It will remain a great mystery to me as to why there has been such an outpouring of hostility and bitterness, on this thread, when there are a host of serious loss situations which are far more deserving of investor wrath. Incredibly, the people who are venting most spleen, here, would appear to have not one dollar at stake in any Hubbard connection, if we are to believe their posts.
Dubdee, are you referring to the close business association exemption. If so perhaps you're right. Except can AH get over this threshold? " sufficiently closely connected on a personal basis with the issuer that the assumption could be made that they would each have sufficient relevant knowledge of their relative's affairs or the means of readily obtaining that knowledge"
I don't think he'll make it. There are over 400 individual investors. The accountants here will know if 400 clients is a lot or not many to have a close association. But lets say 400 is quite manageable for an accountant - what about an accountant who is single handedly manging one of the countries largest investment companies which even someone with Sandy Maiers background is taking a while to get the hang of - let alone the new auditors who also took ages coming to grips with the accounts. Not something I'd expect some widowed grannie with no alternative means to cash would be able to do.
This page contains (one) definition of "close business associate":
"Close business associate" means that there must be a degree of intimacy or "business friendship" between the issuer and the offeree although not necessarily a friendship away from business. The closeness must be sufficient to overcome any inequality which might otherwise be present in the relationship.
How many of the 400 or so Aorangi investors that applies to, I have no way of knowing at this point.
It should be noted, for balance, that not all of the 400 have to be covered under this provision, but for Aorangi to be in compliance with the Securities Act, it would seem that all of them would have to fall under one or more of the expemptions in section 3(2) of the act. If they don't then it would seem to be a technical breach of the provisions of the act, but I am not a lawyer!
Alan.
Just for the sake of completeness (and to give Enumerate the citation he often likes) my reference came from Securities Commission v Kiwi Co-operative Dairies Ltd [1995] 3 NZLR 26.
So it seems we are on common ground. The question now arises is: would we expect a qualified accountant in control of or an interest in over 500 entities with at least 400 preferred customers make a "technical" breach. If, say someone like Watson did this might that not be called a "negligent" breach; a "careless" breach" or a "fraudulent breach?.
There is very little if any case law that I'm aware of defining the issue, that's one of the reasons why the case I had with a side company was settled, cost of a high court case is at least $250,000...people are inclined to settle matters if possible when faced with costs like that.
As an accountant in practice I can reliably tell you there's absolutly no way whatsoever you can have a close business association with 400 people, but hey, I'm not a workaholic superman like AH.
COLIN - Your comment that you believe investors will get all their money back is at odds with the initial SM's report.
4100 odd facebook supporters......let me see $136m / 4100 = average interest free loan of $33,170. I'd liike to buy a modest boat, where can I get my $33,000 interest free loan ?
The other point is clearly the complainant feels strongly enough that they should have the protection the Securities Act affords, and it only takes one, for the whole offer to be illegal, personally I think there's a lot more than one.
Balance - Yeah that tune will do nicely mate.
I don't think you become one of the country's wealthiest men by being "careless". Thats kinda counter-intuitive
I don't think you can be a professional accountant running many companies and be "negligent". A"professional" accountant would, I'd have thought, been answerable to his professional body and I've noted NZICA has been silent on this matter. Additionally no-one seems to be pursuing any actions of negligence - so a "negligent" breach seems unlikely.
Of the options I've provided that only leaves "fraudulent" so best someone gives me some more options.
If I am a poor Granny and the person is a professional accountant I rely on their expertise and do not make my own inquiries. I'm poor so I can't afford a newspaper to read those apparently informative articles in the Herald and the wireless goes a bit Phutt when those dull people in suits get to the microphone. But when Marge and I get our Blue rinse done at Chloes she reckons I'm onto a good thing.Quote:
Another question too: If someone tells you that they are exempt under the Securites Act s3(2), does that mean that you can believe them and are covered, or do you have to make your own inquiries?
If I am a sophisticated investor I'd be wondering why my money is going into same fund as the Granny so the question probably wouldn't arise. I didn't get to where I am today by following the Grannies!
Colin,
I think why there is so much passion here is that investors are not expecting any capital variability on debt. People expected the return on and return of their capital, without loss. That of course is naive but mum and dad who invested in those products and who have now lost some or all of their capital feel bretrayed.
They always considered the equity markets Russian roulette so there hasnt been the whinging about losses there, even though these have been severe.Eg Feltex
I think that's probably correct.
For those of us who buy debt securities on market, there is no expectation of a fixed value for the nominal values we hold, but for someone 'putting cash into a fund' or even those who buy debt securities when they are issued, it does seem likely that they view things differently.
Alan.
Therein lies the rub. Tell people who originally invested in the preference shares for the full $1.00 and they're now worth 14 cents that Uncle Alan will look after them and see them right !!Quote:
I think that's probably correct.
For those of us who buy debt securities on market, there is no expectation of a fixed value for the nominal values we hold, but for someone 'putting cash into a fund' or even those who buy debt securities when they are issued, it does seem likely that they view things differently.
Alan.
Fact is Lachie McLeod under AH's directorship, off his own authority, (he was solely able to approve loans over $1m, (source 2009 annual report), wrote some truly appalling loans in the latter part of the decade, and continuing on even though it was abundently clear that the world had changed forever with the on-set of the GFC in August 2007. Lachie sold the company down the river trying to meet lending targets and improve his personal bonus and all the while under Uncle Alan "legendary" directorship....
After all they had a wall of money coming in as soon as the Govt guarantee started so they had to do something "extremly intelligent" with it right ?
Roger, is there any truth the rumour that you and Balance are building an aquarium within which you intend to ensconce a "stock picking" octopus?
I'd actually encourage you both in this endeavor because you can't do much worse than if you rely on your "analysis".
full stop. move along people. nothing to see here.
What would you like me to expand upon Alan ? I invested at 10.5% in debentures after negotiating an extra rate just before the original GG was imposed, it was a almost a dead cert SCF would get entry into the original scheme back in late 2008, so I took a small punt and invested just before SCF were approved original entry and ended up getting a great return all the way through...can't argue with a 10.5% GG return.
Does that make you a genius investing in SCFHA's at 23 cents ? You'd better consult Paul the Octopus on that one mate.
I have been doing a bit of exploring on Facebook.
Allan Hubbard has 4,196 people who like him.
Compare this with John Key, who has 29,330 people who like him.
In terms of celebrity - Tom Jones has 51,003 who like him.
Even Adolf Hitler has 67 people who like him.
You may be surprised to find that the Serious Fraud Office is actually on facebook!
However, like Simon Botherway ... no one likes either of them.
You could just have bought the SCF020 bonds on market at that time for more than 10.5%, no need for extra negotiation. The term may not have been perfect for you but then you can always sell them. Have never got the appeal of debentures.
Anyone else notice the SCF ads with the eyes suggesting they are worth a look for 8% on Stuff.co.nz and other sites? An effective ad as those things go.
Balance, is this what you really think ... or is that the clairvoyant octopus talking:
Maybe the right tentacle doesn't know what the 7 left tentacles are doing? That is why it gets repeated so often.
Repetition does not make this correct.
I think you are missing the key part of COLINs post - which Dubdee responded to:
Now this is the "central mystery" of the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by COLIN
Its current, its could have been avoided with proper management or if Lachie McLeod had the foggiest idea about commercial prudence and its because AH used his VW like a badge, a very cunning marketing trick, right up there with a certain other company using Richard Long as their slight of hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by COLIN
It will remain a great mystery to me as to why there has been such an outpouring of hostility and bitterness, on this thread, when there are a host of serious loss situations which are far more deserving of investor wrath. Incredibly, the people who are venting most spleen, here, would appear to have not one dollar at stake in any Hubbard connection, if we are to believe their posts.
Now this is the "central mystery" of the thread.
Exceptionally cunning subliminal marketing on both counts, so says the Octopus.....
Of course not to forget that there's been a flagrant breech of the Securities Act and then of course there's just the fun at picking holes in all the cultists like yourself just for the sport of it, (not that I would enjoy such a thing of course), LOL.
Will AH see you right if you go down the toilet with your preference shares ?
The point is that lots of money is at risk with the Govt Guarantee. What makes it worse is that the Govt Guarantee for SCF could have prevented action on other serious problems. Thankfully it has not, but why the Guarantee was extended for SCF in the first place concerns me. I am sure AH is honest, it is his competence that is questioned. A lesson that people should plan to hand on companies when they are still active.
I fully understand that you mean this as a taunt, but here is a serious response:
Not only do I believe that Allan will "see us right" - I believe that he has already "seen us right".
The introduction of Helicopters and Scales - as equity assets - was the major part of the "refloating" of the balance sheet.
Allan Hubbard did not have to do this. He could have walked away - after all the equity value of SCF was less than the various assets he introduced. He could have relied on the government guarantee to "see his investors right". If I have any measure of the man - this thought wouldn't even have crossed his mind.
The SCF balance sheet is not what I am primarily depending on, however. SCF, its customers and the community it serves, is something I have seen before - Percy reminded me of the Smiths City recovery. I was a significant capital note holder, in this company. They saw me right.
I will confess that I am deeply impressed by the integrity and intelligence of Allan Hubbard, the man. The Kipling poem "If" reminds me, in verse, of what I can expect of the man, in life:
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'
It is these combination of factors. The basic financial strength is there, this is not a lost cause. The community is behind this business, there is strength in this. Both Maier and Hubbard clearly have the insight and energy to focus available resources to achieve a significant outcome.
Contrast this with the fear and weakness in the investment community. People who would not raise a finger to warn or prevent $6billion of collapse, now smell blood at SCF. However, I smell their fear. It is a wonderful time to stand up and be counted.
I have not finished buying SCFHA, yet. I acknowledge the significant risk, I acknowledge the doubts. This is another "turn of pitch and toss" - I have been here before many times.
No - I would doubt that, and if the SCFHAs dip down to 10c, I'll probably get back in.
The SCF010 is also looking quite attractive, but I am already fully exposed to the NZ Finance sector elsewhere (ALF010 for example) so I don't want to increase that right now.
There are always opportunities.
Alan.
Actually Jaa, I just checked on the Chart of SCF 020's in Novermber 2008 they were trading in the high 9's yield range and then I would have had to pay brokerage to buy them reducing the net running yield to around 9.5% to me..Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaa
You could just have bought the SCF020 bonds on market at that time for more than 10.5%, no need for extra negotiation. The term may not have been perfect for you but then you can always sell them. Have never got the appeal of debentures.
Speaking of brokerage the fact that as an investment advisor at the time recommending SCF I earned 0.75% brokerage of them on top of the 10.5% interest rate was a material additional bonus, very tasty indeed and I remember having a free holiday in Australia on that one.
This is AH in action - the man who had access to hundreds of millions of dollars guaranteed by taxpayers via SCF in 2008 and 2009.
Related party transactions (rpt) increased by over $200m during that period.
On 30 June 2007, rpt were $69.5m, and shf was $209.8m.
By 30 December 2008 as the GFC bit hard, rpt was $170.2m vs shf of $250.5m.
By 30 December 2009, rpt was $295.7m vs shf of $48m (yes, $48m).
----------------------- AH in ACTION -------------------------------------------
Excerpt : "Mr Hubbard said that's not the case, as the funds were his in the first place. He says he then had them transferred to the trusts ahead of Aorangi issuing a prospectus.
He told Radio New Zealand's business editor he "never borrowed" and it was "always kosher".
SM Report states : ""To date we have seen clear evidence that there is an intricate and complex relationship between the affairs of Aorangi, Te Tua Trust and the affairs of Mr and Mrs Hubbard and other associated entities." ""The level of investments in (including loans to) businesses associated with Mr and Mrs Hubbard without registered security is of concern. Most of these investments are in or to farm businesses that have loans from banks secured by a mortgage over the assets of the farm. This could mean, in the case of direct investments in those farm businesses, that Aorangi would only be paid after the creditors of those businesses were fully paid."
Should be:
Winner69 pointed this out some time ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Correction
My apology:
Breastwork I apologise that you are having difficulty keeping up with what is posted on the thread. I know it involves reading, and this may be difficult, in some circumstances ... but there is no real way around this. (Unless of course you have a clairvoyant octopus stashed away in an aquarium hideaway).
I would point out that if "misinformation" hurts your ears - then I would say you will have a terribly unpleasant time on this thread (if you engage the logic processing parts of your brain).
LOL, that was amusing.Quote:
Breastwork I apologise that you are having difficulty keeping up with what is posted on the thread. I know it involves reading, and this may be difficult, in some circumstances ... but there is no real way around this. (Unless of course you have a clairvoyant octopus stashed away in an aquarium hideaway).
I would point out that if "misinformation" hurts your ears - then I would say you will have a terribly unpleasant time on this thread (if you engage the logic processing parts of your brain).
Last edited by Enumerate; Today at 08:04 AM.
I don't think that the structure of the chromosomes has any relevance to the higher qualities of the "soul".
Kipling has been much criticised as being an artefact of an imperial age. However, his words are accessible to everyone ...
Apart from the major works ... his "The Song of the Cities" is very frequently quoted (or, actually, misquoted):
Last, loneliest, loveliest, exquisite, apart --
On us, on us the unswerving season smiles,
Who wonder 'mid our fern why men depart
To seek the Happy Isles!
Well here's one impairment for the year and what a headline!
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...nt-in-14m-debt
Watch TV1 at 7.00 tonight.
It may give some an insight into the real Mr and Mrs Hubbard.
Signing off $14m for peas might have been one of Lachies' Last Legacies.
Interesting timing - Nov 2009!
Things were already 'difficult' for SCF by then, so seems odd that they would actually advance $14m in cash. I wonder if that was actually a rollover of pre-existing loans, becuase if not, it certainly looks like a bad decision irrespective of whether the loans perform or not (which they probably aren't from that article).
Alan.
AH on Close Up TV1 tonight @ 7pm.
It will be more of the PR game of how frugal they have been, the VW they have driven, a few adoring supporters waxing lyrical about how he has helped them etc.
I am very surprised that AH's lawyers have not asked him to keep a low profile as he has been shooting himself in the foot whenever he (and his supporters) opens his mouth.
I guess the lawyers are not confident about getting a judicial review?
One senses that the die is cast and the court of public opinion is where he has been advised to take his review.
The Financial Advisers Act 2008 came into force on the 7th of July.
It would be interesting to understand how both registered and non-registered financial advisers need to regulate their behaviour, especially when dealing with retail clients over the Internet.
It will be interesting to see if a financial adviser posting under an pseudonym on an Internet chat site is required to make disclosure under the Act.Quote:
Originally Posted by Obligation of Disclosure
There are a number of significant obligations:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Financial Adviser Obligations
Clearly there a quite a few provisions for obligations in the Act. It would certainly be an interesting case to see if a financial adviser, posting under a pseudonym on the Internet, was required to maintain their obligations under the act.
There is the matter of the financial advisers code:
http://www.financialadvisercode.govt...draft-code.pdf
There is surprisingly little in the act or code about basic skills. It seems if any idiot can become a financial adviser (and many idiots are):Quote:
Originally Posted by Financial Adviser Code
Just as well Roger and Balance are not financial advisers under the act.Quote:
Originally Posted by Financial Adviser Obligations
Just for safety, I ask that all financial advisers make their minimum statutory declarations before posting.
Hey Enumerate. Not sure that this conversation is relevant to this thread so we could restart it somewhere else but I did actually start a thread on this subject a while back , and my conclusion was that no disclaimer was actually necessary although some disagreed and I'll admit the points are arguable. I suppose one could simply attach a tag like what you do - disclaiming all forum posts from being interpreted as financial advice.
And re the idiocy well I'm doing one of the soon to be legally required qualifications full time this year, a Graduate Diploma in Business Studies endorsed in Personal Financial Planning from Massey University. I wouldnt say that an idiot could pass - its reasonably complex stuff at times especially in the maths side of things
I've only just started the 2nd semester (passed the first 4 papers!) with 4 more to go ,and it seems to be getting harder quite fast.
The regulations are kicking in completely by July 2011 and the legislation is defining a number of qualifications that are acceptable to those wishing to be registered as authorised financial advisors. I cant vouch for the others but this one isnt a walk in the park.
They seem to be gradually watering the legislation down a bit though with some recent redutions in how wide the net swings which is a shame I think I'd rather see it comprehensive now that I'm going to the trouble but also because the whole point of it is to raise the standard.
My "idiot" comment referred to the pre-Act situation in which there were no standards or qualifications required.
I do note your point about the "watering down". Quite significant sections of the Act have been repealed ... mostly around the obligations, surprisingly.
Maybe you could alert the moderator on the post - to have it moved to your established thread.
this is the thread
not too much discussion I dont think people take it too seriously
http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthr...isers-Act-2008
Questions:
Will those who comment backtrack if a breach is found?? or is was it a lose - lose situation for National.
Does this have anything to do with National - the SFO should be independent to political pressure.
Surely after all the money that has been lost in finance companies, the authorities should be praised for finally taking some action - better late than never.
And finally, why are people giving the Hubbard money (a fighting fund is different but on close up it was reported people are giving them cash in the street). Do they not know they are getting $1k per week which is probably more than most Timarians earn (and NZ'ers - -especially on an after tax basis).
What would also be interesting would be if AH would meet the threshold of being an Advisor. Though I guess if he's running a little red book and two sets of ledgers theres little concern of him offering advice over the internet.
Since you are concerned about safety may I suggest anyone considering acting on a posting on an internet forum get their head examined - there would clearly be a suspicion of some mental illness.
We do need people like AH in NZ to support business start ups during the incubation period. Like all venture capital investments, you dont always get it right. The rate of success is very low.
It is extremely difficult to raise capital in NZ for start ups.
Interesting to note that Warren Buffet still lives in the same house he's always been even thou he is worth billions. Interesting ah.
LOL Yeah I'm too scared to write what I really think of the appalling track record of PRC and NZO, well on any relevant thread.Quote:
LOL - obviously some folks here do! The venom one attracts for daring to question the outlandish exuberance of some posters on some stocks (eg. PRC, NZO or ELD) - you would think that their whole investment philiosophies are based on what's written on this site!
By the way, you picked it well on last night's T.V. programme, well done. Just more of the same P.R. from the AH camp...
Really AH should have retired many years ago, Lachie McLeod has really left him in the s#it and with his health problems he couldn't see the wood for the trees regarding the whole GFC...they just kept writing loans like it was business as usual when they should have been proactive and shrunk the balance sheet as the GFC took effect, a classic case of growing old and comfortable and getting side-tracked with health so he forgot to read the tea leaves each morning ?
The truth will come out in the end. National took a bold decision putting AH into SM. The silent majority awaits the truth.
My expectations are that it will show AH trying valiantly to hold SCF and his many business interests together as the GFC hit - hence the huge increase in all the related party transactions over 2008 and 2009. But bad loans are bad loans and bad investments are bad investments. No point throwing in good money after bad.
My gripe remains - I object to taxpayers' money being used to bail out debenture holders in SCF.
An insight into the truth as seen by AH & cultists :
"Mr Hubbard said that's not the case, as the funds were his in the first place. He says he then had them transferred to the trusts ahead of Aorangi issuing a prospectus.
He told Radio New Zealand's business editor he "never borrowed" and it was "always kosher".
SM Report states : ""To date we have seen clear evidence that there is an intricate and complex relationship between the affairs of Aorangi, Te Tua Trust and the affairs of Mr and Mrs Hubbard and other associated entities." ""The level of investments in (including loans to) businesses associated with Mr and Mrs Hubbard without registered security is of concern. Most of these investments are in or to farm businesses that have loans from banks secured by a mortgage over the assets of the farm. This could mean, in the case of direct investments in those farm businesses, that Aorangi would only be paid after the creditors of those businesses were fully paid."
LOL - the above usually brings the cultists scurrying back into their 'interest-free' tents.
LOL indeed. In my experience and i've done this myself to some extent and seen it in other businessmen many other times, when people are really struggling with health or relationship break-up problems their's a high propensity to go into "denial" about their business problems. My observation is this is a profoundy powerful self defense mechanism, sometimes business people just can't cope when all the s#it in the various aspects of their life hits the fan at once...Perhaps old age, health issues and the GFC are a powerful combination for at least a moderate degree of denial ?
There's little question he's tried as hard as he can to keep it all together hence the extremly alarming increase in rpt's you've been alluding too.
Perhaps part of the reason for the SM is AH is in denial that his ordinary shares in SCF are close too, or completly worthless based on a realistic valuation of all receiveables as at 30 June 2010 ? Perhaps this denial has stalled the negotiations regarding new equity coming in, (AH wanting too much for existing equity). Maybe the Treasury by imposing SM and controlling the process have invoked their own self-defense mechanism ?
Is there a link to this Radio NZ interview or a full transcript, rather than the 4 words that are being quoted, potentially out of context, thanks.
searching the radionz.co.nz website will reveal the audios
or click this
http://www.radionz.co.nz/search?mode..._query=hubbard
nothing recent though
this is the most recent one from the 15th July
http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/ckpt/ck...estors-048.mp3
Gracious peat, will have to wait until I get home, no headphones at work :p
Hi to you Westerly. If they're not a dog, what are they...on second thoughts, don't answer that. Have you got any genuine insights you'd like to share...its easy for ANYONE to sit on the side lines and be critical...If you want to be taken seriously, that won't cut the mustard on this blog mate.....
I'm not sure you'll find it. The RNZ quote used by Balance is a web page publication relating to a discussion the Mousiness Editor had with AH - I'm not sure that conversation was actually broadcast. What I've heard AH say is not that it was all kosher - but had he been given time he could have got it all kosher. Apparently Docs were being re-written by solicitors ahead of a prospectus release. There was also the case of the elderly lady who put all of her life savings into Aorangi - thats not a sophisticated investor, nor is it something a Financial Advisor should be recommending.