So you're saying that in 2008 all was rosy in the SCF camp. There were no problems with exposure to property developments or ramping up the values of diary farms? Lachie was doing such a sterling job there was no need for him to leave? You're saying there was no need for related party lending to bolster diminishing capital requirements?
Was it some One World plot to haul those reliable Ashburton Auditors over the coals for their dodgy practices in the 2008 YE accounts?
Don't you remember what the Auditors said back in early 2009. They said that SCF's Chief Financial Officer and Group Accountant weren't being kept in the loop about major transactions. Don't you remember that despite the obvious speed wobbles in 2008 the Directors couldn't be bothered meeting. Was that the government pulling the strings or was it AH?
After SCF got into the Guarantee Scheme the Directors continued with their practice of related party loans on the back if minimal notation at board meetings. Lending out of Timaru continued without the controls applied to other branches. There was no Audit Committee; documents for major transactions were sketchy and no one was in a hurry to provide them. Related party disclosures wasn't happening and "off market" transactions weren't properly documented. The Finance Department as under resourced adn - jeez the list goes on. And you think this is all the Governments Fault?
What the Guarantee did do that was wrong was to allow Finance Companies under its umbrella in the first place. They were paying higher interest to (supposedly) cover the additional risk and SCF used it as an opportunity to offer well over the odds rates. You can blame the govt for letting them get away with it - but not for SCF's downfall.
If you want to see who was responsible for getting SCF into its vast problems you really need to get more creative than trying to blame the government. There is no evidence to support that view - despite it being a labour government run by that twit Cullen.