Originally Posted by
Enumerate
Apart from the fact that the figure of $145.3m has been plucked from thin air ... or, sorry, told to Hillary by someone nameless who got it from Goldman Sachs ... oh, Goldman Sachs ... it must be correct
Why wouldn't the $20m prefs be included in the $145.3 - it is net of debt, after all, and the only way of discharging this obligation is to repay it?
This would seem at variance with what the Receiver stated publically - that "pretty close to $100 million" from the Helicopters sale would flow back to the taxpayer directly and indirectly after complicated processes involving subsidiaries were resolved.
It is almost embarrassing that Hillary puts out this "justification" of his prior analysis. It smells of some kind of scam when it depends solely on the accuracy of a putative "magic number" of $145.3m to be applied to the Helicopters' proceeds. I wonder if this is an IFRS "magic number" or a NZGAAP "magic number"? I wonder if the person communing with Goldman Sachs noted down the tabulated components of the "magic number" so as to verify its application to Internet scuttlebutt according to proper accounting standards?
I would suggest Hillary has laid another trap for those of weak mind.
Oops ... Balance fell in ....