Were Scales and Helicopter sold for more than NTA? If not, goodwill = zero.
Printable View
Why is it so difficult to admit that Allan Hubbard clearly did try to save SCF by contributing equity assets?
This is now, clearly, a fact. Whatever you may think about why SCF got into trouble, in the first place; it is clear that Allan Hubbard acted with integrity.
But aren't we seeing the real picture. Hubbard introduced $160m on paper and received $25.6m back in cash.
The $90m helicopters is only worth $45m and Scales is also worth half its introduced value. Yet AH took 100% of the glory for his magnanimous gesture.
Are theses the yardsticks by which we measure integrity?.
Hubbard could have walked away ... left the government to pick up the pieces and kept assets that would have realised about $144m. (There is also the open question of whether Goldman Sachs did a good enough job in the sale process. Given the obvious integrity issues this company has through it's US parent - shorting instruments it is selling to clients - I wonder why this thread is not full of discussion on this point).
This means that the unit of integrity is now the Hubbard (H). Most trustworthy people have a few microHubbards of integrity (after all - one Hubbard is an aweful lot of integrity). Many popular figures in the finance sector actually have negative Hubbards of integrity.
A man of integrity could have walked away, declaring losses as they stood and not through sleight of hand attracting more money into a business that was in fatal dive . Do you really think Hubbard could walk away - of course he couldn't. Even now he's after still after control of Aorangi and HWM and had to be literally prised out of control of SCF.
Would a man of integrity stand by his own abilities - or would he put his hand out for a govt guarantee.
Would a man of integrity take that govt handout and use it sparingly. Or would he use it to ramp up his risk exposure for his own ends, knowing the govt would be their to pick up the pieces.
Would a man of integrity give a realizable $90m with one hand $90m and take $25.6m with the other.
The unit of integrity could well be an h - lower case.
You forget that the Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme was imposed on the industry, by government. Participation in the scheme was mandatory, as a commercial imperative and as a survival imperative. SCF did not create these rules - but they had to live by them.
The inescapable fact and the unanswered question are: "Hubbard made a very significant equity injection" and "Why?"
I cannot understand the facts and answer the question without believing Hubbard was acting with the highest integrity.
Operational issues with SCF are murky. The fact remains that SCF was a complex organisation with many parts and many people involved. You can lay these issues at the feet of the Directors - of which Hubbard was one - but you cannot single out Allan Hubbard as the causal factor. What cuplability do the advisors, the Trustee, the Government assessors have?
Scapegoating of Allan Hubbard is sickening.