Why "likely"?
Printable View
Since we were talking about points raised in the Fran O'Sullivan article ... the fact you haven't read it is most unhelpful to intelligent debate.
You go on to defend the SFO conduct. You conveniently ignore the fact that the Statutory Management of Allan Hubbard makes this case singular - the oppressive power of the state is complete, in this case - the power to investigate is also complete and beyond the evidential conventions that apply in the judicial system.
Then again, if you had read the article this point would have been clear.
You raise a number of points concerning your views of legal procedure and make the claim that the SFO is conducting business as usual. Further, you conclude with the somewhat startling assertion that given SFO obligations are being met that your standards are somewhat higher than mine.
Given your prior posts asserting how profit motivated Pike River investors were causal factors in the Pike River mine disaster followed on by this latest view that Allan Hubbard is being treated according to judicial convention, by the SFO - I have to seriously doubt whether you are in full possession of your faculties.
You are doing the intellectual equivalent of "dribbling".
You conveniently ignore the fact that the Statutory Management of Allan Hubbard makes this case singular - the oppressive power of the state is complete, in this case - the power to investigate is also complete and beyond the evidential conventions that apply in the judicial system.I notice a few libertarian/Randian types (including O'Sullivan) are desperately attempting to spin this into a spooky nanny state/govt power issue now that charges have been laid. And libertarians are supposed to be against fraud :scared:.
As an astute poster said at NBR "Does a ring come with those beliefs?"
No, just a cerebral cortex ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Capitalist
So, Balance, tell me how Destiny Church upholds the principles of objectivist libertarianism?
Capitalist may wish to explain how Statutory Management is consistent with "due process" and "natural justice" principles that have been foundation elements of our legal system since the Magna Carta. (Principles which incidentally are at the foundation of our political system, not just our legal system; and are certainly not exclusive to objectivism or libertarianism).
I know your intention is make a jokes rather than dwell on the serious issues at hand. However, jokes would be funnier if you demonstrated a basic understanding of the principles you are making light of.
I ask:
In reply:Quote:
Originally Posted by Enumerate
No Balance, you are dribbling again, go back and read the initial question. If you have any trouble with the big words ... you can always Google ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Balance
If Hubbard came around and burned Enumerate's house down he would find a reason to condone it. The SFO case is very strong and there is much more to come out. No point in arguing with irrationalists, as Rand said.
More than a few of these bullet points ring a bell from
http://whitecollarfraud.blogspot.com...-identify.html
- Make excuses as long as you can. Try to have your excuses based on at least one truthful fact even if the fact is unrelated to your actions and argument.
- When you cannot dispute the underlying facts, accept them as true but rationalize your actions.You are allowed to make mistakes as long as you have no wrongful intent. Being stupid is not a crime.
- Always say in words you “take responsibility” but try to indirectly shift the blame on other people and factors. You need to portray yourself as a “stand up” person.
- When you cannot defend your actions or arguments attack the messenger to detract attention from your questionable actions.
- Always show your kindness by doing people favors. You will require the gratitude of such people to come to your aid and defend you.
- Build up your stature, integrity, and credibility by publicizing the good deeds you have done in areas unrelated to the subject of scrutiny.
- Build a strong base of support. Try to have surrogates and the beneficiaries of your largess stand up for you and defend you.
- If you can, appear to take the “high road” and have your surrogates do the “dirty work” for you. After all, you cannot control the actions of your zealots.
- When you can no longer spin, shut up. For example, offer no guidance to investors or resign for “personal reasons.” Your surrogates and so-called friends can still speak on your behalf and defend you.
If Margaret Hubbard had not replaced the two other existing directors in 2009 do you think the Hubbard's would have been personally placed under SM?
You have no possible way of knowing this with out reviewing the evidence ... the case is the linked elements of evidence. How could you possibly understand the strength of the case when Allan Hubbard's lawyer has difficulty gaining access to the charges?
Are you in the SFO prosecution team? If you are, you are now guilty of a significant ethical breach. If you are not, you are speaking without any authority.
Fifty charges have been laid against Mr Hubbard under sections 220, 242 and 260 of the Crimes Act.
220 Theft by person in special relationship
242 False statement by promoter, etc
260 False accounting
What really matters is what Mr Hubbard is indicted for. If you commented on the strength of the case at indictment - you might have some credibility. At this stage of proceedings and given the "Hollywood" style of Feeley SFO - I would suggest you have no credibility.
Ah, but the fun will be lost, Capitalist - it is so amusing to watch a deluded person in action.
This is how Enumerate sounds like in real life :
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Allan-Hub...5/Default.aspx
The Japanese have a proverb: “When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends.”
The Mike Hosking "sound bite" with Paul Carruthers was superficial. However, if you look further into the radiolive site is the following Marcus Lush interview with an Aorangi investor:
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Allan-Hub...6/Default.aspx
Behind your sneering, Balance, it must really irk you that Allan Hubbard maintains such staunch public support.
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.): “Character is that which reveals moral purpose, exposing the class of things a man chooses or avoids.”
Allan Hubbard always puts the interests of his investors or business stakeholders above his own. He did not have to defend South Canterbury with Dairy, Scales and Helicopters. He did not have to subordinate his own interests in Aorangi. His Trust investments, to give capable young farmers a leg up, did not have to compromise his own interests. Yet in each of these cases he chose the path that reveals his true character.
I would much rather be associated with the defense of Allan Hubbard than with:
- Those who would sneer at every misfortune, like Balance
- Those who stupidly believe the "spin" that SCF will cost the crown $1.7b
- Those who think investment success comes at the expense of some other party and that business is fraud
- Those who trust authority over the evidence of their own senses.
Happy to enlighten the deluded one (my good deed for humanity today) on why Hubbard 'defended' SCF with Dairy, Scales and Helicopter.
1. Hubbard had borrowed/transferred money from SCF to his related companies/entities hugely - from $33.9m in 2006 to $230.3m in 2009.
2.Revelations recently that SCF had also generously lent money (hundreds of millions) to management, friends and associates of Hubbard. How much will become clearer in the wash-up.
2. His transfer of entities into SCF were done at inflated prices and in the case of Southbury, actually involved a money go round where SCF bought a stake in Southbury from Hubbard and Hubbard put the money back into SCF! How clever - borrow more money using the govt guarantee, make an investment using that money and mysteriously, the money has become equity!
Net net - Hubbard took more money out of SCF than he put in, especially since the GFC.
So Mr Hubbard was not being generous - he was simply trying to obscure all these related party borrowings and for treating SCF as his own piggy bank.
Good example : http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/5124...ver-up-alleged (he is a sly one, Hubbard)
Alas for him - he was found out and caught.
Simple and so transparent.
Ok, Enumerated/deluded one - you may now continue and resume your delusions.
Some interesting points, Balance ...
I would draw your attention to the fact that related party transactions are not illegal or even commercially unsound - they simply have to be declared. For example, Scales borrowed short to fund various phases of the apple harvest. This is related party but also commercially viable.
Even the situation in which, say, SCF loans Southbury amounts for purchase of investments secured by Southbury's equity stake in SCF - is not illegal, nor necessarily commercially unsound. If you analyse the banking industry - some of these "circular" practices are common.
The key failing with these structures is their sensitivity to changes in risk profiles. Once people begin to imagine the possibility of SCF equity being worthless, for example, this makes Southbury loans vulnerable (as they are secured by this equity) which further precipitates the collapse of SCF.
In these situations, like in the case of bank runs, it is imperative a rational estimate of risk be maintained and that nothing is done to destabilise the situation (or, if collapse is inevitable - rapid moves to freeze status quo and sort out a new ownership structure).
The NZ government, in dealing with the SCF did practically everything wrong.
The government guarantee for the non-bank retail deposits meant that they were going to pay the piper at the worst outcome. Treasury nervousness over this exposure lead to heightened scrutiny of SCF activities. A degree of "group think" probably emerged sustaining the view that Hubbard was conducting a Ponzi scheme or similar high risk irregularity. The regulatory and enforcement entities, that had failed so completely to prevent massive carnage in the sector up to that point, went into a state of heightened paranoia to close the "gate" on finance company failure after all the "horses" had bolted.
The move to put Hubbard into Statutory Management was profoundly stupid.
Despite the innuendo and Statutory Management mis-step, Sandy Meier managed to pull rabbit after rabbit out of the hat. The Hubbard equity assets, partitioning off the "bad bank", the assurances about the deposit rates, the stabilisation of the management team. All the right moves strategically - well communicated - with confidence.
Government, however, moved to a deeper state of panic and fear. Statutory Management of Hubbard, the insane blocking of the restructuring efforts, the sole focus on liquidation realisation of SCF assets in Treasury dialogues - meant that government lost its nerve and was moving to amplify the negative effects of the retail deposit guarantee scheme - almost unconsciously.
To be fair, none of the government people have any real commercial experience. They are usually ex-policy wonks; even those economists with commercial experience are not cut from the same cloth as experienced global central bankers. The Wellington talent gene pool is simply to small to expect leadership, at an appropriate level, to emerge from the people involved. They did what public servants do - imagine the worst and manage with a least risk path.
Of all the people in the mix - you would expect John Key to have some intuition of the deepening crisis. However, it was Power and English who called the shots. Power is probably bright but took too narrow a securities regulation focus; English had the wider focus but did not see the crisis mechanism brewing - together, they presided over a disaster. It is probably no coincidence that the key stumbling points of the crisis occur when Key is out of the country.
In the final analysis - the SCF collapse is a massive NZ government "own goal". They alone took the key steps to destroy the securitisation value of the SCF equity - despite heroic efforts, outside government, to promote stability. This destruction of value will end up as the difference between the SCF recovery value and the retail bond guarantee value.
Of course, any screw up of this magnitude, in the NZ government public sector, needs to have a scape goat. The Treasury mandarins who failed to understand the brewing crisis mechanism and recommended or supported the most foolish response to it are now looking to the SFO to nail Allan Hubbard to their cross. The spin doctors are working overtime to create an appropriate moral background to distract and divert the fearsome force of public opinion well away from the real issues and well away from election time consciousness.
So, this will finally play out in the High Court of Timaru - a quiet regional backwater, perhaps. Well away from the untarnished reputations of those Wellington bureaucrats who failed at practically every step along this unfortunate path to disaster.
Anyone heard of Kerry Grass?
http://business.scoop.co.nz/2011/06/...%93-a-hubbard/
Seems big on opinion and short on fact
She has an impressive set of credentials - if you read her report to the end. In particular, her NEU experience stands out - this is the only investigative unit of government to respond to the collapse of the finance sector with distinction.
Her report is excellent. An excellent chronology and a coherent interpretation of events. I note you can get a copy from the Stand by Hubbard team.Quote:
Originally Posted by Regulatory Review - Kerry Grass
Totally incompetent rubbish from a has-been gun-for-hire. Not one single sentence on Hubbard's lending practices and related party transactions.
Excerpt : "Prior to the SFO investigation and statutory management, SCF’s principal, Allan Hubbard, held a reputation of high trust amongst the investment community. Their trust was well placed."
Trust well placed? 50 criminal charges with more likely to come?
Yes I had. Had also looked her and her company up on line.
You ever tried yoga?
"The Companies Office enquiries started and concluded within three weeks. It appears to have been rushed and I suspect that the allegations in the report were substantiated with innuendos and misinformation."
"The impact of statutory management on share value was demonstrated in 2001 when Air New Zealand’s share price fell by 40% in one day after media speculation that statutory managers might be appointed."
"Hubbard’s business acumen was built on integrity – not greed. An illustration of this is the operations of the TeTua Charitable Trust. Through that entity he provided loans with an interest-free period of up to 5-years."
"Hubbard’s business enterprises give an indication of the level of Hubbard’s expertise. That Hubbard was additionally managing one of NZ’s best performing funds in 2010 (as claimed by PriceWaterhouseCoopers) shows that Allan Hubbard was an astute businessman. When he was forced out of SCF in 2010 as a consequence of a management restructure (a condition required by Treasury) the pillar that was the strength of SCF went with him."
"It was recapitalising and had weathered the storms."
"On 20 June 2010... ....South Canterbury Finance was still standing and its good reputation was resulting in strong demand for its interest bearing products"
etc etc
I stand by my original observation.
Good for you ... I'll stand by Hubbard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Breastwork
Maybe you have a point, Balance ... he has certainly taken your credibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Balance
Well, Balance, you certainly hold your views with absolute conviction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Balance
Further, these views tend to be held firm despite compelling counter argument and even demonstrations of proof to the contrary.
I am sure your marking Allan Hubbard as a mastermind of fraud would seem completely implausible or even patently untrue to the people who know him.
(By the way: this certainty/incorrigibility/falsity content are the three main criteria marking delusional belief).
Are you sure, when you go to this University clinic, that they are studying delusional behaviour on this thread? Do they give you any pills to take? Are they particularly concerned with how you are going on the thread?
Our self oppointed expert on all matters that he has never made an investment in has now made 2284 posts saying the same thing over and over and over....
Talk about a psycho study case.
Instead of polluting this site go and preach your sermons on your local street corner
You did warn me, indeed ... You know something else - you were right! Investment in the SCFHAs turns out to be a very poor investment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Balance
My belief was SCF would be restructured and that an investment in the prefs would turn out to be an excellent "speculation" on the recovery of SCF. You would have to concede from the Treasury eMails that there were plenty of attempts to restructure SCF - the Hubbard aligned proposals preserved preference share capital value.
As I have posted previously, what I did not count on was the profound stupidity of Treasury and Commerce officials in forcing the restructure efforts off the table and liquidating SCF.
SCF was the largest non-bank finance institution. It was the largest finance institution even including Kiwi owned banks. It was and is unacceptable for Treasury to veto viable restructuring efforts at the eleventh hour. They should have been working actively to broker a deal leading to a Hubbard restructure or to force new ownership. Their passive and fearful actions are shameful.
Central Bankers in first world economies must be amazed that Treasury/Reserve Bank Officials in New Zealand behaved like junior administrators. No leadership, no insight, no spine.
This was their test ... they failed.
Count me in as someone who was expecting a better innings.
This financial issue has broadened into very real concerns for the way Allan Hubbard is being pursued as the scapegoat.
The lack of insight and leadership, when it counts; does not mean there is a lack of cunning and guile in making Allan Hubbard the bag man for this fiasco. It is this fact that makes concerns me vastly more than the loss of money. That is why we have these robust discussions ...
Think about this act of extreme generosity by Allan Hubbard.
Lachie McLeod as CEO of SCF diversified SCF's loan book into property development in a big way (hundreds of millions, including loans to himself and other SCFers) and grew the loan book enormously. There is little doubt that he followed in the footpath of the other great South Islander finance company ex CEO of Marac, Brian Jolliffe, in deciding that property was the way to go. We all know the result of that foray into property development - boom and BUST!
For his efforts, Lachie was given a $15m loan by SCF to buy shares in Southbury from Hubbard - an appropriate reward by the ever generous Hubbard for work well done by Lachie.
In Nov 2009, Lachie was let go from SCF after it became clear the magnitude of losses being sustained by SCF on its property related loans.
Again, Hubbard was ever generous - a goodbye package of $500,000 (tax free), part ownership of two farms, holiday pay of $80,000 (poor chap needs to recuperate after so exhaustively built up hundreds of millions of property related loans) and a forgiveness of the $15m loan!
That's typical of Hubbard - ever generous with other people's money. In this case, taxpayers' guaranteed funds.
Want another example of Hubbard's generosity? Have a chat with a certain property developer in Auckland who specializes in coastal property developments who received a 8 figure contribution from Hubbard. All gone. But as the developer paid himself and his hanger-ons multi-million dollar salaries and fringe benefits (entertainment expenses, first class air travel, 5 star hotel accommodation, BMW, Porsche, Audi etc) while the going was good, please do not worry about him and his hanger-ons. They are doing okay.
Balance, I see you have been reading Chris Lee at www.chrislee.co.nz.
Mr Lee is such a wind bag. He alleges all sorts of impropriety at SCF. Why doesn't he take some action? He could, at least, assemble a register of those to whom he offers financial advice of who hold SCFHA. It would be appropriate to prepare for the liquidation of SCF when SCFHA holders become unsecured, subordinated creditors. I would have thought his litany of SCF crimes would have been a basis for involving a litigation funder, like IMF, to make some effort towards recovery actions.
There would be the supreme irony of Chis Lee organising an action against Standard & Poors for assignment of a fraudulent credit rating!
If the SCF saga demonstrated a woeful lack of leadership within the public service; it also demonstrates the same failing in the broader financial service community.
Do you actually take Chris Lee's allegations at face value? It would appear his gets his information from his web of personal contacts. Whoever is feeding him his information needs to be disclosed. This situation requires the skills of an experienced NEU/ASIC investigator - oh, right - you weren't happy with the last one who researched and wrote a comprehensive report. You would rather take Chris Lee at face value (or even worse - as gospel truth).
What Chris Lee has stated in bold print is defamatory in the extreme if it is untrue. I would expect Lachie and Hubbard to sue him for millions. They have not.
I m happy to accept his words in this instance. He was extremely close to Hubbard and was a huge cheerleader until he found out the true Hubbard.
Again, you typify the average Hubbard supporeter - ask a simple question and like that character Paul Carrethurs, you think you are being clever by avoiding it and talking about something else.
Oh well, to be expected.
LOL.
As a Chris Lee aside: I remember reading Michael Warrington grappling with the physical reality of electricity. His conclusion, after much discussion, was that electricity was mobile electrons energised by heat.
This is a hybrid of 20th Century physics (the notion of the electron) and medieval thinking (the notion that heat energy creates mobile electrons in a metal).
Of course, the physical fact is that electricity has nothing to do with electrons. Electricity is caused by the presence of an electric field (which induces forces on charged particles). In conducting metals - electricity is manifest as the flow of electrons or positrons, if the metal is anti-matter. In a plasma, electricity is manifest as the flow of positive and negative ions.
I suppose the moral of the story is to be wary of financial advisers treating outside their field of expertise (or even within the field of their expertise if you consider Chris Lee's track record on risk ratings of financial instruments).
I came into the report with an open mind but have only got as far as the second paragraph which says "The Companies Office enquiries started and concluded within three weeks. It appears to have been rushed and I suspect that the allegations in the report were substantiated with innuendos and misinformation."
If she has a suspicion, there is an onus for her to provide evidence or grounds for her suspicion.. Alleging the Companies office works on the basis of innuendo and misinformation is a very serious accusation yet the Author does not make it immediately apparent why she has come to such an opinion.
If the rest of the article is going to be based on the Authors suspicions rather than on evidence I'm not sure I can be bothered reading much further. It strikes me that she is laying a tone which is one of a lack of validity so scuppers her own position from the beginning. Should I read on?
Ok - lets break it down:Quote:
Originally Posted by Balance
1) You allege a number of transactions.
2) You do not detail the time or context of these transactions
3) SCF was a very large financial services organisation
4) Allan Hubbard was not an operational manager in the recent days of SCF, prior to the collapse
5) Allan Hubbard was one of number of Directors of SCF and was "President for Life" in the days prior to the collapse
To prove your point, you need to show that Allan Hubbard had operational responsibility to conduct the transaction, proceeded to execute the transaction with authority and acted in a defined context of the transaction at a particular time.
You have provided none of these details.
Further, you report that the basis for your allegation is Internet scuttle-rumour "on another web-site". Maybe someone's brother-in-law tweeted about this conversation he overheard between the friend of someone who worked with a mate who had it on good authority that a person close to the action thought ...
Please don't tell me you have been following David Hillary on interest.co.nz ...
(There is also the small point that taxpayers money was not involved in SCF until the receivership event - at which point Allan Hubbard, in Statutory Management, certainly had no ability to execute any transactions at SCF in any way shape or form).
Breastwork made this point, as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by minimoke
As an ex-NEU staffer (and hence, part of the Companies Office - if you define "Companies Office" as the domain of the Registrar of Companies), she is probably entitled to raise this issue.
If I was to edit this report - I would take out or tone down some of these "value judgements". The report needs to be objective to be valuable.
However, I do advise reading through. It is an excellent chronology. It also reveals some hidden detail about the securities regulation/enforcement process. Ms Grass also points out that this version of the report is in some way "draft" - she advises a complete version will be released at the end of August.
I for one am grateful for her excellent work. Compare her efforts to those of the Receiver - she presents a vast amount of fact and cogent argument; he writes boilerplate banality.
"The Companies Office enquiries started and concluded within three weeks. It appears to have been rushed and I suspect that the allegations in the report were substantiated with innuendos and misinformation."
"The impact of statutory management on share value was demonstrated in 2001 when Air New Zealand’s share price fell by 40% in one day after media speculation that statutory managers might be appointed."
"Hubbard’s business acumen was built on integrity – not greed. An illustration of this is the operations of the TeTua Charitable Trust. Through that entity he provided loans with an interest-free period of up to 5-years."
"Hubbard’s business enterprises give an indication of the level of Hubbard’s expertise. That Hubbard was additionally managing one of NZ’s best performing funds in 2010 (as claimed by PriceWaterhouseCoopers) shows that Allan Hubbard was an astute businessman. When he was forced out of SCF in 2010 as a consequence of a management restructure (a condition required by Treasury) the pillar that was the strength of SCF went with him."
"It was recapitalising and had weathered the storms."
"On 20 June 2010... ....South Canterbury Finance was still standing and its good reputation was resulting in strong demand for its interest bearing products"
etc etc
Answer your question?
Was the PWC report ever published?
But if she thinks AH has business accumen as evidenced by Te Tau Trus why would the Stat Man say:
"There are 26 {non - performing} loans in this category.
We have referred many of these loans to Mr. Hubbard as the terms of the loans advised by the borrower have not been documented by Te Tua."
Then "Te Tua is generally an unsecured lender"
and "We are at an advanced stage of negotiating a lease for a property for which rent had not been paid in the 12 years prior to our appointment"
And Te Tua had a book value of $27.8m but by the time you account for provisioning its value is at $10.8m.
So the author holds this as evidence of a man showing business acumen.
I think this shows a bias by the author and her judgement is not credible. I don't think I'll read any further.
I am not about to speculate on a persons reputation or morality as some kind of "Internet game".Quote:
Originally Posted by Balance
I have no personal connection with Allan Hubbard. He will be facing serious charges in the High Court. I imagine that these events will be personally devastating, for someone with his character and background.
He can rely on my voice when it comes to debating the issues of his right to be treated fairly. His Statutory Management and the "Hollywood" style of the SFO are two immediate outrages.
He can also rely on the fact that my voice will not be added to ugly speculation and cowardly innuendo that currently shrouds his life.
Given the obvious difficulties you have in reading anything that challenges your entrenched views - your conclusion offers no surprises.Quote:
Originally Posted by minimoke
Generally I'll express a view based on evidence that is verifiable and reliable.
Your latest author begins her article on the basis of a suspicion with no supporting evidence.
She then asserts AH is a man with business acumen as evidence by the Te Tua trust.
I am prepared to have my views challenged - but I expect a standard of proof a little higher than that provided by your author so far to encourage me to move my view formed so far.
Perhaps someone could enlighten me on how the Te Tua Trust shows AH is a man with business acumen, cos I'm not seeing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by minimoke
So, maybe the Te Tua charitable trust was setup to conduct charitable activities that were less suitable for commercial activities. Maybe these charitable activities include rent and interest forgiveness to designated beneficiaries of the trust?Quote:
Originally Posted by MED Societies Web site
Maybe the Statutory Manager had some difficulties in understanding the structure and intentions of the trust? The questions they raise point to obvious difficulties and the fact they did not engage in any dialogue with Allan Hubbard would point to some inefficiency in resolving these difficulties.
You also seem to hint darkly about the intent and operation of the trust. Given a year long SFO investigation and the fact that no charges have been laid concerning Te Tua; it would appear that further fretting and worrying can only lead to loss of sleep and a potential for an outbreak of hives.
Maybe we should spice things up a bit?Quote:
Originally Posted by belgarion
We could pickup the Michael Warrington "electricity" ideas. Surprisingly, the coupling between the vibrational states of a material ("heat") and electrons in the material gives rise to a phenomenon known as superconductivity. (I doubt Warrington had superconductivity in mind when he was talking about electricity). (Maybe this is more appropriate to the Scott Technologies forum).
Just goes to show ... out of the factually and logically incorrect - interesting developments might arise. Balance's posts spring to mind for some reason.
What do we know about Te Tua Charitable trust.
From Stat Man report no 1: "As noted earlier in this report, Te Tua Trust has provided interest-free loans to business people. We are undertaking a complete review of Te Tua Trust’s loan portfolio of approximately 170 loans". So it was loans to business people not charities. Where is the business acumen there? Does this not have a whiff of something wrong?
Fro Stat Man report #2 "Many of the loans are made to farmers and share milkers in the early years of their business to give them a "helping hand". So business acumen means interpreting farming activities are a charitable purpose.
From Stat Man report #3 "Mr Hubbard advised us that he introduced approximately $25 million of Te Tua assets to Aorangi with the purpose of strengthening the Aorangi balance sheet." So Aorangi is now a charity case?
From Stat Man report # 4 "The state of Te Tua’s loan records is very poor" In my world, being a charity does not excuse poor record keeping by people with business acumen.
I'm not sure I need to hint darkly about Te Tua because its activities speak for itself.
Minimoke is in danger of encouraging bad habits in our University student followers.
He only reads Statutory Manager reports and spurns everything else. No student is going to do very well without reading widely (including work on both sides of a point of view).
He elevates Statutory Manager reports to some form of "revealed truth". No student is going to do very well without maintaining a skeptical attitude to authority.
I would go so far as to suggest that Minimoke is corrupting our University youth by projecting the image of the Statutory Manager as a fair arbiter. The fact is that the Statutory Manager is closer to a paid assassin. They are neck deep in gravy and gravy will flow as long as they can draw out and prolong their investigations. This teaches our University students the nature of corruption and gives tacit approval to this process. Hemlock, Minimoke ... that is the classical remedy!
ROFL, have just asked my 14 year son to read and critique Kerry Grass's review.
His responses;
"My teacher would circle that statement and ask for an example or supporting evidence"
"There is no list of references"
"You can't just say that without saying why"
Now, I know I've got a pretty amazing kid, but do you think the NEU is recruiting?
You should give him the Statutory Managers report and ask him: "Is this worth suspending all a mans property rights; like being put in prison?"
I suggest you re-read my post #2775.
The reason Allan Hubbard attracts such staunch support in his region is because he has dedicated significant resources to the development of farming and support businesses and infrastructure. These developments are not for his direct benefit - but for others; this is the nature of charity.
Te Tua activities are a case in point. If Allan Hubbard wants to promote the economic prosperity of the South Canterbury region by helping people achieve their business goals; by donating his own assets all well and good. Further, if a percentage of his commercial activities are directed to charitable purposes; this has precedent in the commercial world. Do you not understand that this is actually viewed as "best practice" by significant corporates - to support the community they operate in through charitable works?
Finally, on the point of record keeping. Do you think that the Statutory Manager acting in the most efficient manner by not even talking to Allan Hubbard before raising record and bookkeeping questions? I think you should direct some of your ire to the mischievous behaviour of the Statutory Manager - maybe you could productively whittle away the hours to consider what possible benefit the Statutory Manager derives from prolonging, extending and deepening their investigations into Aorgangi/HWM/Trusts?
Simple. The more they dig, the more horrified they are at how callously Hubbard had been using investors' money as his own. And at how he has used false statements and accounts to entice their money.
That is what the 50 criminal (yes, criminal ) charges are about.
SCF probe still going on. Potentially more charges yet.
As for staunch support, any donkey can get that kind of support if he generously give out other people's money left, right and center. Interest free loans, anyone? Better still, non-recourse interest accumulating loans like that Lachie McLeod.
Even Madoff had many supporters to the end.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald...bbard-entities
Excerpt : "Mr Borren says he has talked with statutory managers still battling with the complexity of Mr Hubbard's financial affairs. He says his efforts are free and he is taking no cut. "I still have enormous respect for his first 75 years." But "things had gone pretty bad since"."
Thanks for the correction. Here was me thinking charity was all about the giving of ones own things and the caring without thought of personal recognition for others.
Are we certain the investors in Aorangi thought their money was going into charity - I thought it was going into safe as houses year on year growth investments.
Interesting you think farming is charity - here was me thinking it was NZ largest industry.
By your definition our banking system is a charity - best you let them know as I think you'l find they have a different idea.
So if Mr Hubbards companies are registered charities, but have made loans to commercial ventures, does that ammount to fraud?
Surely it must do.
Before you guys get too excited, run off with the pitchforks and the torches ... I suggest you all calm yourselves.
Consider, if you are able, the Macquarie Fortress Notes (FTNFA.NZX, MFNHA.ASX). This is setup as a charitable trust. This entity will reward the serious student with a number of key observations on how these trusts can be setup and operate ...
Forgive me, if I wait to see some demonstration of actual insight into the situation before I comment further.
However, I suggest you can put away the pitchforks and the torches ... you will not be needing them.
When bad audits go worse ...
http://www.nzx.com/news/5195161/Loss...r-in-spotlight
Statutory Managers from Grant Thornton may have difficulty understanding the Aorangi/Wealth/Trust accounts due to issues that are less Allan Hubbard's bookkeeping and more a basic level of incompetence ...
Out of the frying pan, into the fire ...
The issue of Charitable Trusts is probably worthy of its own separate thread. But to stay on topic, lets not forget that AH has yet to account for the trusts he was rapidly setting up in March 2010 and transferring assets into them before he was knobled.
Then you have the sophisticated Aorangi investors who put $96m into Aorangi with expectations which seems bit at odds with a charity. That aside, some $24m went from Aorangi into Te Tua. So its not so much that AH is charitable, its more his investors are. And then when things at Aorangi get a bit dicey AH offers to transfer $28m of the Trusts assets into Aorangi. Some may say propping up Aorangi is pretty charitable but I think it may be more of a matter of AH realizing that charity begins at home.
I'm not sure any of those Timaru investors need to consider themselves serious students of how trusts get set up and run. If they understand how and why AH moved funds I suspect they are the Tutors.
Forgive me, if I wait to see some demonstration of actual insight into the situation before I comment further.
You and me both. I think we are all looking for some insight which will no doubt come from the evidence that is presented - assuming the matter ever gets to court. I have a sneaky feeling though it will be like the final SCF Annual report and unlikely to ever see the light of day.
What Hubbard had been up to.
Aorangi investments non-existent: SFO
EMMA BAILEY Last updated 10:12 01/07/2011
Some investors in Allan Hubbard's Aorangi Securities believed they had seven-figure sums in the company, but these did not actually exist, the Serious Fraud Office alleges.
Details of the 50 fraud charges laid by the SFO against the Timaru financier are emerging this morning.
Hubbard was due to make his first appearance in the Timaru District Court on Monday, but that was yesterday adjourned to August 29 by agreement between his lawyer and the SFO.
However, documents relating to the case were made available to the media at the court this morning.
One of the charges reads: ''He, with intent to deceive [an investor] made or caused to be made, or concurred in the making of, a false entry in an account. A statement of account for the period 31 December 2009 to 30 June 2010 showing an investment of $5,821,441, when in fact no such investment existed in Aorangi Securities Ltd.''
Another similar charge relates to a different investor's investment of $1.45 million, which the SFO also alleges did not exist.
The SFO laid the charges on June 20 under sections 220, 242 and 260 of the Crimes Act, after a 12-month investigation.
The charges relate to theft by a person in a special relationship, false statement by a promoter and false accounting.
Charges under the latter two sections carry a maximum term of 10 years' imprisonment.
Hubbard's wife, Jean, who was placed in statutory management along with her husband, their companies Aorangi Securities and Hubbard Management Funds, and a number of charitable trusts, has not been charged.
Balance - might have been an input error of Jean's that Alan never picked up on .... kosher
If not seems he was cooking the books eh
Enumerate would say of course that these charges are but sloppy accounting.
How can anyone expect an 80 year old to remember how many shares are held by HFM and Aorangi in various entities? Especially when his pencils are down to the last 1 inch (waste not, see?).
Heck, what's the big deal between a first and second mortgage? Our school system these days says it's okay to come last - as long as you try hard.
As for the $210,000 deposited into Hubbard's own nominee account instead of paying down debt, that's just a temporary arrangement. He just forgot to take it out later. After all, he is an old man.
These are all trumped up charges, designed to destroy an honorable man who will never dream of deceiving anyone.
Aorangi investments non-existent: SFO
EMMA BAILEY Last updated 12:12 01/07/2011
Some investors in Allan Hubbard's Aorangi Securities believed they had seven-figure sums in the company, but these did not actually exist, the Serious Fraud Office alleges.
Details of the 50 fraud charges laid by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) against the Timaru financier have been released this morning.
Mr Hubbard was due to make his first appearance in the Timaru District Court on Monday, but that was yesterday adjourned to August 29 by agreement between his lawyer and the SFO.
The SFO laid the charges on June 20 under sections 220, 242 and 260 of the Crimes Act, after a 12-month investigation.
The charges relate to theft by a person in a special relationship, false statement by a promoter and false accounting.
Charges under the latter two sections carry a maximum term of 10 years' imprisonment.
In a statement on the day charges were laid, Mr Hubbard's lawyer, Mike Heron, said he ''strenuously denied'' the charges and ''at the appropriate stage'' an application would be filed ''to stop the prosecution''.
Two charges allege investors believed they had seven-figure investments when they were not held.
The first charge, of false accounting, reads: ''He, with intent to deceive [an investor] made or caused to be made, or concurred in the making of, a false entry in an account. A statement of account for the period 31 December 2009 to 30 June 2010 showing an investment of $5,821,441, when in fact no such investment existed in Aorangi Securities Ltd.''
The SFO claims a second investor believed they held $1,456,253 when there was no such deposit.
Another charge alleges the same investor believed funds had been deposited in South Canterbury Finance (SCF) but the SFO alleges the bulk of the funds had not been.
A farm partnership, it is alleged, sent $210,000 to accounting firm H C Partners for payment of debt but this was instead paid to Mr Hubbard's Forresters Nominee Company.
Another charge relates to a letter sent to an investor, stating that the majority of Aorangi Securities investments were held by first mortgages. The SFO alleges that this was not the case.
Another charge of false accounting relates to a statement of account sent to 367 investors, showing that approximately $89 million was secured by way of mortgage when according to the SFO ''in fact the majority of investments were not secured by way of mortgage to Aorangi''.
A charge of theft by a person in a special relationship alleges that 500,000 Marac Finance shares held for an estate were transferred without payment to another individual.
Ad Feedback
Twenty-five charges relate to Aorangi investors with investments made on the basis that they were secured by way of mortgage, many by first mortgage.
Ten of the charges of false accounting relate to securities said to be held by Hubbard Management Funds, which allegedly did not exist in the amounts they were said to.
''He, with intent to deceive investors in Hubbard Management Funds made a false entry in an account or document for accounting purposes.
''A statement to Hubbard Management Funds investors showing Fletcher Building Limited securities allocation to investors of 336,300 when that number of securities were not held, resulting in a shortfall.''
The other nine charges relate to the level of securities held in Freightways, NZ Oil and Gas, Pacific Edge, Pyne Gould Corporation, Rakon, Ryman Healthcare, Smartpay, Marac, and Diligent Member Services.
Seven charges of false accounting under Sections 260 and 261 relate to ''statement of account to Aorangi Securities investors reporting investments secured by way of a mortgage when in fact the majority were not''.
Mr Hubbard's wife, Jean, who was placed in statutory management along with her husband, their companies Aorangi Securities and Hubbard Management Funds, and a number of charitable trusts on June 20 last year, has not been charged.
Perhaps you might like to comment on the recent Charities Commission High Court case which emphasised that to qualify as a charitable trust its purpose must be within the spirit of the age old Charitable Uses Act 1601. This essentially say the purpose of a charitable trust must be for :
- the relief of aged, impotent, and poor people;
- the maintenance of sick and maimed soldiers and mariners;
- schools of learning;
- free schools and scholars in universities;
- the repair of bridges, ports, havens, causeways, churches, sea banks, and highways;
- the education and preferment of orphans;
- the relief, stock, or maintenance of houses of correction;
- marriages of poor maids;
- support, aid, and help of young tradesmen, handicraftsmen and persons decayed;
- the relief or redemption or prisoners or captives;
- and the aid or ease of any poor inhabitants covering payments of fifteens, setting out of soldiers, and other taxes.
How does "Mr Hubbard advised us that he introduced approximately $25 million of Te Tua assets to Aorangi with the purpose of strengthening the Aorangi balance sheet" fit into the spirit of this Act?
It's getting near that time.
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/hubbard...96316#comments
What do we have:
- an intent to deceive (telling someone there was a $5m investment when there was none)
- theft by a person in a special relationship (stealing from a dead person and taking some farmers loan repayment and sticking it in his own account)
- false statements by a promoter (saying money was secured by first mortgage when it wasn't)
- false accounting ($89m in mortgages weren't actually secured by mortgage).
We now know the SFO has enough evidence to lay these charges. So we can look froward to AH's version of the truth and see if he can prove beyond reasonable doubt he's not guilty. Oh dear - I smell another David Bain type thread starting - Is AH "innocent" or was he just "Not Guilty". Assuming of course we ever hear a verdict - which I doubt we will.
Either way, seems like charity begins at home.
Very simple now for Hubbard to refute. Were there assets or weren't there assets?
The SFO gave Hubbard and his lawyers all the time in the world (since Nov 2010) to come up with reasonable explanations. All they could come up with were : "This is ridiculous. We are innocent." and of course, the infamous brain scan!
The fact that Hubbard is now charged points towards the obvious.
Enumerate would of course state that it's just a jay walking charge. Wonder how he would feel if it's aged parents who were told by Hubbard that they had $5.8m of investments when the investments do not exist.
"Documents revealing details about the case were released yesterday, including information on charges that he allegedly deceived investors into thinking they had seven-figure sums invested in his company Aorangi Securities.
One of the charges says a statement showing an investment of $5,821,440 was given to an investor "when in fact no such investment existed". Another similar charge related to an investment of $1.45 million which the SFO also says did not exist."
Exactly; and if these assets existed anywhere other than Mr. Hubbard's imagination, they would have been identified or discovered by now. It all reminds me of the book, Jones on Property: quote " There was one curious common demominator with all the major, and minor, NZ property crashes. Almost without exception, the principal of each company has had strong, religious convictions. It makes you wonder, doesn't it .....where the hell was God when the heat was on?"
I suspect Hubbard may have thought his mate, God, had it all under control. After all, he was doing his work for him.
Read page 6 of the latest SM's report :
http://www.grantthornton.co.nz/Asset...7th-report.pdf
"In our introduction to this report we commented on the difficulty being encountered with the
purported introduction of Hubbard Interests into Aorangi. Most of the Hubbard Interests recorded
in Aorangi were introduced by way of journal entry. There are no records of cash transactions in
return for the introduction of the Hubbard Interests."
So it's Hubbard Interests - Credit $xm.
And for Aorangi - Debit ????
And there are those who still believe it's sloppy accounting!
We know exactly as much as we knew when the "50 charges" were announced by press release (that, in and of itself, should cause some concern).
We now have the trial proceeding in the court of Kangaroo, presided over by the dishonourable Injustice Balance ...
Forgive me, if I cannot see any dignity in this squalid display ... I will wait to see what finally emerges at indictment.
Balance me ol mate. Enumerate will chew up and waste endless amounts of your time if you let him. You will never ever correct his myopic vision and you know it so why bother trying ??? Surely there's a more productive use of your time ???.
Hubbard is a silly old sick fool, (albeit well intentioned), who should have known better and has become dellusional in his mission to do good. Greater and greater "errors" and creative accounting were tolerated by Mr Hubbard under the guise of working for a higher purpose.
The takeaway lesson from this extremly sad saga is we all need checks and balances in our life.
There's better and more productive ways to spend my time which is why I havn't bothered posting on this thread for many months.
Thanks, Roger.
Hardly a waste of time to see delusionary behaviour in action when one reads Enumerate postings. Best study of a deluded human being I have seen in a while.
Kinda brings a smile to my face every day.
Cheers!
Fair enough pal, I enjoyed it for quite a while too. Funny thing with working for a higher purpose from what I've seen, little sins get swept under the carpet on the basis that it doesn't matter the greater good justify's the means and little by little by little the circle of deception grows to the point that self rightiousness creeps in and almost anythying is justifable on the basis of the higher purpose. That and juggling a 101 different balls to stay afloat during the GFC is all what's happened here, that said there are many players who are culpable in this sorry protracted saga, heck has anyone emerged from this mess without sufferring at least some degree of reputation loss ?
An extremly well meaning, well intentioned, very sick old man who should have retired years ago and quit while he was ahead. That so many people believed in him is the real scandal. I for one am looking forward to the possibility of seeing the auditors and directors personally sued.
Its perhaps the saddest and most ironic collapse of the GFC era...
Roger me-ole-mate, agree totally.
What is sickening (and not so amusing) is the fact that there are people out there who continue with the deception of the already deceived investors - by spinning the yarn that it is all the government or somebody's else faults that investors are going to end up losing money. Nothing to do with Hubbard - he is a honest man who somehow got on the wrong side of the government!
Don't let the truth get in the way - that Hubbard was busy cooking and forgot that red wine does not mix with seafood!
Yes mate, Hubbards not the only silly old man in N.Z. by any stretch of the imagination :)
Thats not what the charges against him infer.
Since when has "with intent to deceive...." considered to be well intentioned or well meaning.
Or what about when the noose begins to tighten he sets up a pile of trusts and starts transferring loot into them faster than a Jew can count a stash of $100 bills. (if "jew" offends feel free to replace with "Brian Tamaki" "South Auckland Money Lender"; "High Class Hooker" or whatever takes your fancy.
Or what about making a journal entry and never actually transferrring the loot.
Or misleading investors... The list goes on.
How is it well intentioned to declare yourself "President for life". You wouldn't call Mugabe "well intentioned". I'm not suggesting AH is a RM but you get a sense of the ego and the man when these sorts of things start happening.
And if you still are in doubt theres the "no-one in the SFO has the brains to understand the transactions" Newsflash - they do understand the transactions and we are learning about the brains behind them.
Well intentioned - my arse. Theres the "I am a New Zealand hero, nobody in the history of New Zealand has done what I have done." Too bloody right.
What his intentions were we may never know. Getting a free pass to the side of his Lord is probably up there.
Anyone remember the fable about the near bankrupt Plasterer. AH, through SCF, lent him $100,000. When $60,000 had been paid off AH took the remaining repayments and invested them on the mans behalf. He told the man he wouldn't be able to grow his business (despite making $20,000 in loan repayments each year) and without AH's intervention it would be worth nothing. Who knows where the money went - it may have found its way into Aorangi and then into Te Tua but its said AH grew the investments so they became worth $1.5m. This is how AH helped people - belittling their abilities, taking their money and telling them it was worth a truck load more. So wheres the plasterer now? Again who knows. Probably $40,000 in debt with $1.5m of journal entry assets worth nothing. But AH gets home help for free. Maybe someone can tell us how this story actually ended and we can work out what the moral of it is.
minimoke - I was referring too how he started out, there's no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the wheels well and truly came off in later years and there's no question his ego got the better of him along the way too. As mentioned sinning always starts off in a small way and eventually grows little by little to the point of almost moral indignation, (how dare you question my methodoloigies ??) when almost anything is justifable in Alan's mind based on the higher end cause justification theory.
I'm more than happy to leave it to Enumerate's "infinite wisdom and insights" to try and defend "Uncle Alan's" actions.
What kind of person is prepared to pickup a stone and throw it at someone without a care or concern for the justification of that action?Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger
What kind of person is prepared to defend the right of an accused to face his accusers and answer charges?
That is the difference between us.
LOL - that is not the difference.
Do not give yourself any credit for making light of the serious fraud and criminal charges against Hubbard.
Remember this :
... untidy handwriting
... willful bending of paper clips
... jay walking in Timaru
50 charges is absurd. How about demonstrating 1 charge in which there is clear cut criminality or fraud.
----------------------------
What's the moral of this story?
A man was chosen for jury duty who very much wanted to be dismissed from serving. He tried every excuse he could think of but none of them worked.
On the day of the trial he decided to give it one more shot. As the trial was about to begin he asked if he could approach the bench.
"Your Honor," he said, "I must be excused from this trial because I am prejudiced against the defendant. I took one look at the man in the blue suit with those beady eyes and that dishonest face and I said, 'He's a crook! He's guilty, guilty, guilty.' So your Honor, I could not possibly stay on this jury!"
With a tired annoyance the judge replied, "Get back in the jury box. That man is his lawyer."
I guess it depends on where you consider "where he stared out" to actually begin.
If you track his roots you'll find he started out as a local hooligan involved in petty crime who was well known to the local constabulary. His charismatic personality shone through early as a local gang leader and he was smart enough to avoid getting caught.
They were depressing times back then and being beaten by your dad wouldn't have helped his mental health. Which might explain his bought of depression and suicidal thoughts. Add to that the addictive personality of his grandfather and father, exposure to fundamentalism christian beliefs and a feeling of social inadequacy you have a recipe for what.
Now I have no doubt he believed he was doing gods work and I have no doubt the benificiaries of his largesse held him in reverential regard. But somewhere along the way the wheels fell off. To some extent thats life however I tend to draw the line when an individual is going down he knowingly or unwittingly takes others down with him.
Enumerate asks what kind of person is prepared to throw stones. Clearly I am since I am one of the people that has had to pick up the pieces of the mess AH has left behind.
I support Enumerates view that an accused should have the opportunity to face his accusers and defend the charges. We haven't seen all the evidence yet and none of us are in a position to to form a view on his guilt or innocence in relation to the charges he faces. However there is sufficient information in the public domain upon which each of us can form a view on AH's business practices and we might even form a view on the morals of his actions.
That doesn't mean our views are set in concrete - we are entitled to reshape our views as more information comes to light. Thats why its worth popping into this thread from time to time, just to see if there is any kind of rigorous analysis being added to the debate. Its also about get a sense of the seriousness of the issues. Being charged with intending to deceive is a whole lot different from jay walking. I guess that's why some posters don't think its too big a deal when unsophisticated old folk have been taken for a ride.
Being charged with an offense under the Crimes Act means ... nothing. Being convicted of an offense ... well, that is a very serious matter.
Why is it so difficult to understand that Allan Hubbard deserves very careful treatment because of the highly unusual circumstances of the "investigation" into his affairs. He is subject to Statutory Management and conventional powers of investigation have been amplified beyond anything present in the Companies Act. Yet his "offenses" do not appear to be anything like the dark and ominous "defence of the public interest" used to justify Statutory Management.
The "hail fellow, well met" brigade are happy to gossip and slander on this forum. These are not men of principle, these are followers of the herd. It is unsurprising that the NZ financial services market is full of these people - they have been richly rewarded, in the past, by trading information in advance of an informed market. Fortunately, the FMA regulations and FSP will usher in a new generation who do not define ethics as "what you can get away with".
Since we are on the subject of stoning ... I wonder if we are witnessing "those without sin, casting the first stones"; or whether we are in the presence of a pack of wolves turning on the one they view as the weakest?
Are you serious? It means the police believe they have enough evidence to support a prosecution. Thats not a good look in anyone books. Being charged with one offence is bad enough but 50!. And that's only the Crimes At. What about the Companies Act or the Securities Act or the Financial Reporting Act.
You may not think it in the public interest to try to work out how / where the Aorangi money went. But I do since I'd prefer the techniques money managers use to obtain funds from the public and how they are distributed be more widely known. If you prefer these to be kept as little trade secrets kept in that glorified air of Financial Managers then so be it - history is doomed to repeat.