South Canterbury Finance Limited

[minimoke]

Latest Receivers report out PE 31 August 2011. SCF had book assets of $1.9b prior to receivership. We'll recall govt bailed out SCF to the tune of $1.6b

Receivers have so far obtained $463m. (loan book $371m, sale of assets and property $45m, sale of investments $40m, other cash $7m).

On the other side of the ledger the recievers have spent $56.5m($39m on operating costs, $9.5m on asset realisation costs, $7.7 on admin costs)

As at 7 October the tax payer has been given $395m back.

Looks like there is now around $350m of assets left to flog off - but chances are this full amount may not be achievable.

At best SCF had assets worth $813b - a long way short of the reported $1.9b.

At best the tax payer will get back $745m out of its $1.6b bailout. More likely scenario is a total of $600m coming back to the taxpayer which means we have given SCF investors $1b more than they were worth.

So thats Alan's legacy. For all his "good deeds" its taken the tax payer to cough up $1b to stand behind him

[Enumerate]

The government shot down a restructure deal that would have see their exposure capped at $300m.

I bet Bill English is feeling pretty stupid that he took such bad advice.

[macduffy]

Not strictly an SCF issue but it will be interesting to see the final cost of the govt G/- of finance co's and banks once the dust settles. Not much is said about the premiums paid by these parties but, in the case of the banks at least, it's been all "profit" for the govt.

[minimoke]

Not strictly an SCF issue but it will be interesting to see the final cost of the govt G/- of finance co's and banks once the dust settles. Not much is said about the premiums paid by these parties but, in the case of the banks at least, it's been all "profit" for the govt.

As at 30 June 2010 Govt had collected around $237m in fees from banks etc. This covered around $133b in deposits.

The likes of SCF saw a 25% increase in deposits once the Deposit Guarantee Scheme was implemented.

The tax Payer has coughed up around $2b which went to around 42,000 depositors in finance companies that failed. Govt expects to recover around $900m of the $2b.

Can't see how the tax payer ("govt") has profited from this Scheme. The ones who profited are the likes of Alan Hubbard who used the Scheme to increase interest payable on deposits and the greedy/blinded/dense depositors took advantage of these rates and consequently took advantage of the tax payer.

[Balance]

As at 30 June 2010 Govt had collected around $237m in fees from banks etc. This covered around $133b in deposits.

The likes of SCF saw a 25% increase in deposits once the Deposit Guarantee Scheme was implemented.

The tax Payer has coughed up around $2b which went to around 42,000 depositors in finance companies that failed. Govt expects to recover around $900m of the $2b.

Can't see how the tax payer ("govt") has profited from this Scheme. The ones who profited are the likes of Alan Hubbard who used the Scheme to increase interest payable on deposits and the greedy/blinded/dense depositors took advantage of these rates and consequently took advantage of the tax payer.

"The true measure of a man is how he behaves in good times, but how he manages the hard times."

On that score, Allan Hubbard failed miserably.

BUT - he was ably assisted by a number of parties.

Forsyth Barr for example was very happy to promote a few hundred million dollars worth of SCF bonds on the basis of the crown guarantee. Easy sell - they made the big fees, SCF got the money to squander on bad loans and taxpayers pick up the tab.

[macduffy]

Thanks for those numbers, minimoke.

My comment about "profit" applied only to the part of the scheme involving banks, which has turned out to be a nice little earner for the revenue but in no way offsets the huge losses from a poorly administered guarantee of the finance companies.

[minimoke]

Thanks for those numbers, minimoke.

My comment about "profit" applied only to the part of the scheme involving banks, which has turned out to be a nice little earner for the revenue but in no way offsets the huge losses from a poorly administered guarantee of the finance companies.

From the recent banking sector profit announcements it looks like the Schem fee hardly made a dent in their profits. Looks like they knew what they were doing when it came to attracting funds and lending them back out again.

[Balance]

From the recent banking sector profit announcements it looks like the Schem fee hardly made a dent in their profits. Looks like they knew what they were doing when it came to attracting funds and lending them back out again.

The scheme made a lot of sense for the responsible financial institutions like the banks or finance companies - like Marac.

In the hands of the irresponsible (and/or desperate) like Allan Hubbard and SCF, it was as bad a scheme as could ever be put in place.

[Balance]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10765225

$103m ponzi scheme - $65.5m of loans from SCF.

Would have gone on for a few more years for sure if SCF was not placed in receivership last year and the fraud discovered.

Sop much for SCF being a highly profitable finance company and for business being done a a hand-shake.

[sharer]

Amongst today's news feeds: Labour has promised that if elected they will open a new enquiry into the South Canterbury collapse.
Further interesting entertainment to look forward to?