Have you managed to unravel all the related party loans as well as those where deals were done to slide by reporting requirements.
Printable View
Further, on the Aorangi point:
- These investors had returns of 400-500% on the capital they invested.
- Thanks to "government intervention" through the Statutory Management of Allan Hubbard - they will see 300-400% return on their capital.
Pardon me, but if I was offered such a fantastic return - I would fully expect my investment to be highly speculative. Clearly, I would only make this investment if I completely trusted the principal - Allan Hubbard and actively wanted him to to conduct related part transactions with my investments.
The last thing I would want is to be "protected" by the appointment of some dumb a$$ed government Statutory Manager who then proceeds to liquidate my investment because they could not get their heads around the accounting system.
Further - these numbties "discover" HWM and proceed to liquidate this, as well!!
The only justification, Mr Feeley, in support of Simon Power's Statutory Management of Allan Hubbard was if you had discovered a massive PONZI scheme. You did not.
Ministers Power and English are responsible for the Aorangi and HWM losses. Clumsy and stupid intervention - when conventional measures should have been applied.
The follow on collapse of SCF is caused by these initial errors but was magnified by the clumsy and stupid approach, by Ministers under advice, to the reconstruction efforts to save SCF.
The only thing that would have justified this was do discover some massive PONZI scheme. This clearly did not happen.
These government Numbties have wrecked almost $2b of viable investment business. I don't know what is worse - earthquakes in Canterbury or this Key lead National government.
Hello mini, wake up - people invested along side Hubbard to participate in related party deals! What reporting requirements are needed by a private fund do not need Statutory Management provisions to heal the defect.Quote:
Originally Posted by minimoke
Acknowledge the simple fact: Adam Feeley did not find the PONZI smoking gun - he found bookkeeping errors and has had a year to puff these up to some monumental vision of fraud.
Ahhh, Argumentum ad Hominem - usually Balance's only contribution to the forum. You two must be soulmates ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Breastwork
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Out of all the serious points made on forum, so worthy of debate ... and this is the approach you make. I just hope that government lawyers show a similar lack of promise at the Hubbard trial.
I know when the argument against has run out of steam - Balance makes some post about brain scans.
This fallacy is "Appeal to Authority". Balance is branching out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Balance
The thread would be of use in a Philosophy course - the amount of fallacy and broken logic dished up in the argument against the point could be very instructive to a young logician.
So your saying, when the Stat Man says "As noted above most of the loans are non-performing and in many cases interest has never been paid" people would sooner have a related party loan than one that paid interest?
When the Stan Man says "Almost half of that interest due was from borrowers related to Mr Hubbard, and of the half related to Mr Hubbard, only a third has been paid" you're saying investors are happy investing in AH's related party loans even though he wont or can't pay interest.
When the Sta Man says "Aorangi has a substantial equity investment of $10 million in Southbury Group Limited. The receivers of Southbury Group Limited have indicated that there is unlikely to be any return to Aorangi on that investment" are you telling me that is an outcome investors wanted.
These canny Aorangi investors are now facing a loss of $29m in the related party loan portfolio and $17m in the Te tua trust. The cause of those losses can be pointed more to AH and his judgement on loan exposure and ability to repay than it can on the Stat Mans ability to extract value from something that was non-performing when they came onto the scene.
Interesting that you use an ad hominem defence and yet reply with same.....
Moving on before you really get wound up; yes, Helen Amyes does raise a valid point, but it does raise the question, is she not better off under SM than out from under it?
Where does one draw the line between the disqualifiers below and justice being seen to be done?
Public interest considerations against prosecution include:
1. Where the Court is likely to impose a very small or nominal penalty;
2. Where the offence is not on any test of a serious nature, and is unlikely to be repeated;
3. Where there has been a long passage of time between an offence taking place and the likely date of trial such as to give rise to undue delay or an abuse of process unless:
a. the offence is serious;
b. delay has been caused in part by the defendant;
c. the offence has only recently come to light; or
d. the complexity of the offence has resulted in a lengthy investigation.
4. Where a prosecution is likely to have a detrimental effect on the physical or mental health of a victim or witness;
5. Where the defendant is elderly or a youth;
6. Where the defendant has no previous convictions;
7. Where the defendant was at the time of the offence or trial suffering from significant mental or physical ill-health;
8. Where the victim accepts that the defendant has rectified the loss or harm that was caused (although defendants must not be able to avoid prosecution simply because they pay compensation);
9. Where the recovery of the proceeds of crime can more effectively be pursued by civil action;