Then why are the Serious Fraud Office investigating. I can only assume they beleive there is evidence of serious fraud.
Printable View
Essentially a complaint has been made and issues raised. Investigations are being carried out to firstly determine if there is any substance to those issues. Riding tandem to that is the securing of data (copy paper files , securing hard drives etc) and preventing the movement of funds which may not be in the interests of investors. It may be that the investigations find there is no substance - in which case SecCom and SFO go home with their tails between their legs (but holding the moral high ground because they are "working in the interests of investors" - though why they never did this for Hanover, Bridgecorp etc remains a question to be asked). If there is substance they then have to work out if any offences have been committed. From there they work out if its in the public interest to pursue charges - if so they then get the evidence together and enough evidence to support whoever is going to prosecute those charges. Still early days.
I agree with you. However, I do maintain a different perspective:Quote:
Originally Posted by minimoke
1) Tax payer exposure to SCF through the deposit guarantee was unsolicited by SCF. Another of Cullen's blunders ... Once the guarantee scheme was enacted, there was no choice but to subscribe. The government has no moral right to "defend it's interest" in SCF because it imposed a stupid guarantee on retail deposits.
2) Are Allan Hubbard's supporters excessive and irrational in their support. Too bloody right! Ask yourself why this large community of people exists and why they are voicing such extreme opinions. This gives credibility to the Alon Hubbard legends. It makes me think that SCF will be well supported by a core constituency when the time comes to rolling over the "wall of debt".
3) The issue is not "are Hubbard supporters right or is the SFO right about Hubbard's integrity?". The Registrar of Companies is no fool and has integrity that would match (or exceed) Allan Hubbard. Adam Feeley has been recently appointed to head the SFO. There has been a significant restructure there and a massive step up in the energy and enthusiasm in addressing potential breaches of the various securities acts. This is a very good thing. I think Allan Hubbard is a man of the highest integrity. I also think our bureaucrats are also of the highest integrity and are now working for a Minister that has put intellectual muscle and moral fibre in place to investigate and persue cases. The former minister (Dalziel) was clearly not up to the task and the pre-Feeley SFO matched this degree of incompetence.
I can see this situation can have a positive outcome. The days of informal governance at SCF, based on Allan Hubbard's informal loans processes are over. Maier is in charge now. Allan's wider activities will also be brought into line - the SFO probe will see to that. Allan will be cleared of malicious wrong doing - his integrity will be intact. There will be some changes to the governance of Aorangi and trusts - this will also be a good thing. The SFO will prove it can act and will act ... this will be a triumph for the Minister.
A number of good things will result from this process.
not really too different!
SCF went into the guarantee voluntarily - they could have just said "we stand by the integrity of AH and the strength of our books and do not need the Guarantee. Similarly depositors could have shown their support by investing in non-govt guaranteed deposits. That neither did this should raise concerns and neither should expect the tax payer to back them - particularly now.Quote:
1) Tax payer exposure to SCF through the deposit guarantee was unsolicited by SCF.
I am stunned beyond belief that they seem to think it is OK to be running a sizeable business apparently without systems or paper work. They are quite entitled to think SCF is like getting a newspaper on tick at the local dairy, or a piggy bank with a lose bung - but again the tax payer should not be backing themQuote:
2) Are Allan Hubbard's supporters excessive and irrational in their support. Too bloody right!
And I'm amazed the One Eyed supporters are making it so personal. Its not about AH - theres is a much much bigger picture. And we can all give thanks to Dalziels departure - she was a total waste of space .Quote:
3) The Registrar of Companies is no fool and has integrity that would match (or exceed) Allan Hubbard.
If Maier can pull SCF through now it will be something no less than miraculous. Perhaps he is really AH's legacy.Quote:
Maier is in charge now.
I can only think of four listed securities:
SCF010
SCF020
SCF030
SCFHA
Of those, certainly the SCF010 and SCFHA are not covered in the sense that they mature after the EGS expires (or never in the case of the HA perpetuals).
I'm not certain, but the SCF020 and SCF030 have (previously) been trading as if they are covered.
Alan.
Several interesting comments in this article ...
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/investment...0653710&pnum=1
I was under the impression the complaint was laid some time ago and it was determined there was substance to that complaint, hence the sever actions taken. Otherwise they would have given AH more time as he requested.
Note: l hope for the sake of the Govt guarantee that there is no fraud or other issues and that SCF can trade out.
I note that Chris Lee, in Taking Stock, on his well known web site, takes a very subdued tone on the Statutory Management of Allan Hubbard, his wife, and certain companies. His commentary comes at the end of the multi-topic'ed blog - almost as a footnote. About the only point he makes is that he reckognises that the deep subordination of the perpetuals put them at the highest risk, if SCF folds. I am not really sure if he is saying "sell SCFHA" - you need to read for yourselves at www.chrislee.co.nz.
It is very strange that while Chris Lee seems to be approaching a nadir of despond on SCF, I am beginning to see the signs of capitulation as a buying opportunity!!
There is a piece by veteran reporter Vernon Smellie on www.stuff.co.nz (Business Wire) today which is worthwhile reading. He quotes the views of McDouall Stuart, along these lines.
Something that alarms me is the following quote in today's "Press" from Feeley, the SFO guy:
"We have reasonable belief an offence may have been committed but that is quite different from saying there is a case to be answered and charges to be laid. IF ANYTHING, THAT BELIEF COULDN'T BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH". If that is the case, then why the blazes have they gone about this in a way that, in all probability, has dealt a mortal blow to any chance that SCF can be placed on an even keel. Sure, the Registrar of Companies should investigate any perceived non-compliance with the law, but why announce to the world that they suspect SERIOUS FRAUD until such is proven, if in fact it does exist?
One of the ironies is that the Government says it has taken these moves "to protect investors in Aorangi Securities"; but what about the thousands of Mums and Dads and Grandmas and Grandpas who hold investments in the SCF 2012 bonds and the perpetual prefs; these are not protected by the Govt Gtee, and the SFO's actions have virtually now guaranteed that they will be deeply out of pocket, whereas probably not one cent of Aorangi investors' interest or capital will be at risk.
Another point that doesn't seem to have received much airing: Aorangi doesn't appear to have been soliciting money from the public in general, but its nature is rather that of a club of wealthy friends of Allan's, who have been using his skills to invest on their behalf. That being the case, why the need for a prospectus, etc? If I get together with some of my mates and they decide to pool their cash and have me invest it for them, at what point do I have to register a prospectus?
Just some musings aloud. And its good to see some well-reasoned, balanced, objective contributions coming through on this thread, from the likes of yourself and Minimoke.
Cheers.