sharetrader
Page 146 of 296 FirstFirst ... 4696136142143144145146147148149150156196246 ... LastLast
Results 1,451 to 1,460 of 2956
  1. #1451
    Legend Balance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    21,487

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Enumerate View Post
    So, Statutory Management is a form of detention and suspension of rights in an investigation.

    You claim the police can detain a suspect and obtain a warrant for any investigative power they care to imagine; all the while having an indeterminate amount of time (in excess of three weeks, at least) to investigate and come to their conclusions - before any charges are laid.

    Balance ... you are simply a complete idiot.

    You know nothing about our system of justice. Frankly, I have no more time to waste on you.
    LOL - ask him to answer a simple question and he throws a tantrum, picks up a kindergarten ball and sulks.

    Read my reply carefully - I said that's how SM works. Did not say I like it or that it is the same as how the Police operate, can and should operate?

    You have lost, Enumerate - and you know it.

    What kind of a person refuses to answer an simple question?

    Answer - When the truth stares him in the face, is inconvenient and contradictory to what he wants to believe.

    Amen.
    Last edited by Balance; 17-07-2010 at 05:56 PM.

  2. #1452
    ShareTrader Legend Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    21,362

    Default

    "
    So what is surprising about that, in today's climate, Roger? How many IPO's have you seen on the NZX lately? I haven't noticed any. M & A activity? Same story (apart from the sale of Shell assets, which is a unique situation). Subsequent postings of yours would seem to indicate that you have a good understanding of the general economic malaise that has gripped the world and is proving quite stubborn to shake off. I don't see any sale of these major assets happening any time soon, and I would be surprised if the recent senior appointee to SCF, who has specific responsibility for managing the equity investments, sees his appointment as a short-term one. Forced sales of these assets would be a diabolical outcome of the Government's blunderbuss actions
    ". COLIN

    Fair enough, however my point remains that those assets were introduced at theoretical paper valuations, they are not real cash equity as seems to have been widely misunderstood in the market. S & P understand this and have made specific mention of such in one of their credit reports, the rest of the market seems content to think it was just the same as introducing $150 million in cash, which clearly its not as has been so vividly demonstrated by ALF revaluing down the so called assets introduced through the Hanover Con.

    I continue to be concerned by the fact that we have heard absolutly nothing from SCF regarding the current operational performance of either Scales or Helicopers N.Z. - surely they're not hiding something ? Hello, have they ever heard of continous disclosure rules ?

    Balance, your doing a fine job again today of maintaining same, whilst those around you seems ready to fall off their hobby horses. There's just no question whatsoever in my mind that at the very least AH through Aorangi is guilty of very serioius breeches of the Securities Act. Of course some on here would say that all 408 investors were habitual or professional investors and as such Aorangi is exempt.
    Here's what I would say to those Ostrich's with their heads in the sand.

    Clearly because there was a formal complaint at the very least one person genuinely believes that they should have seen all the docummentation provided by an investment statement and prospectus and it only takes one party to have a valid claim under the Securities Act for Aorangi as a whole to be trading in breech of the Act and be compelled to repay ALL investors forthwith.....Enumerate I can quote you the relevant section of the Act if you would like me to look it up, I have a copy here and spent $35,000 on legal fees a couple of years ago with Securities Lawyers so lets assume I'm correct on this one shall we ?

    So AH has a prima facie case to answer. If it turns out that there's a whole pile of related party transactions and the "business model" if you can call it that, doesn't work resulting in significant losses to Aorangi Investors, The Securities Act says the directors of Aorangi are personally liable, so how's AH going to meet any shortfall, which could be quite significant by the sound of the interim SM report ?
    Last edited by Beagle; 17-07-2010 at 12:41 PM.

  3. #1453
    Legend Balance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    21,487

    Default

    And to reinforce your point, Roger, about related party transactions - here's how SCF has been used in the last 2 years as regards related party transactions (rpt) :

    On 30 June 2007, rpt were $69.5m, and shf was $209.8m.
    By 30 December 2008 as the GFC bit hard, rpt was $170.2m vs shf of $250.5m.
    By 30 December 2009, rpt was $295.7m vs shf of $48m (yes, $48m).

    It's so blatant and arrogant - defies explanation how the independent directors and management of SCF could have approved and endorsed such transactions.

    Who is kidding who?

    This is my beef - that SCF was using the govt guarantee to raise money and an increasing amount of the money was being funneled to related parties.

    Some of the posters here might like it and endorse it - I do not and it was what set off the alarm bells for me.
    Last edited by Balance; 17-07-2010 at 12:51 PM.

  4. #1454
    Member Alan3285's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    493

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Balance View Post
    I am sympathetic to AH situation - SM is a crude instrument to use and it should entail judicial over-view before it is applied. On that, we are all agreed.
    I am relieved to hear it.

    That is the crux of the issue for me - that no one shoud be subject to the arbitary seizure of their assets without oversight of the courts, or charges being laid in line with legislation (Securities Act in this case probably).


    Alan.

  5. #1455
    ShareTrader Legend Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    21,362

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Balance View Post
    And to reinforce your point, Roger, about related party transactions - here's how SCF has been used in the last 2 years as regards related party transactions (rpt) :

    On 30 June 2007, rpt were $69.5m, and shf was $209.8m.
    By 30 December 2008 as the GFC bit hard, rpt was $170.2m vs shf of $250.5m.
    By 30 December 2009, rpt was $295.7m vs shf of $48m (yes, $48m).

    It's so blatant and arrogance - defies explanation how the independent directors and management of SCF could have approved and endorsed such transactions.

    Who is kidding how?
    I couldn't agree more. Its clear that AH has been scrambling to maintain his extremly high level's of leverage since the GFC hit and has become increasing desperate to hold his collection of assets together.

    A real Magpie.

    Regarding the Cat....My favourite Dog, Skippy, a Sidney Silky, (similar to an Australian Terrier in looks), got out of the front door the other day when the storm blew it open. He was missing for several hours and when we eventually found him he had a huge grin of satisfaction on his face. I wonder if that could have something to do with a certain cat ?

  6. #1456
    Speedy Az winner69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    37,738

    Default

    If I was an Aorangi investor I'd be miighty pleased they have the Stat Man on their side .... if not for him I fear all their money might have disappeared into thin air ..... they should be grateful .... might miss a few interest payments but might get most of their money back

    Gaynor overlooked the 'cash box' in his little story this morning .... I think the cash box is empty

  7. #1457
    Speedy Az winner69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    37,738

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Enumerate View Post
    7
    Might I respectfully suggest that the commentatory dialogue on one of Bernard's tabloid articles, over on interest.co.nz, is the best place for you contributions.
    Thanks for pointing me in that direction Emunerate

    Really enjoyed his latest article .... and reading some of the comments .... the anti-Bernard ones and the pro omes as well .... quite balanced really

    One of readers comments prob sums up what really is happening ... this from a guy called Richard

    Great article Bernard,

    I have some personal experience from my parents investing intially with SCF, then with Aorangi Securities.

    My parents invested in excess of seven figures in Aorangi. After returning from my OE in the UK I asked them what Aorangi was and what it invested in. The answer was they didn't know. I asked where the investment prospectus or statement was. Again they didn't know.

    They invested in Aorangi due to Hubbard suggesting they do so. They invested more than $1million into a company they did not understand what it invested in other than "Hubbard had been investing for a long time and has a lot of money, he obviously knows what he is doing".

    I believe there were no ongoing statements of balance and fund performance other than the regular payments. As the payments were returning a good percentage return no questions were asked (a la the Madoff scenario).

    Like you I believe Hubbard thrives on the VW image. "He is obviously not a crook, look at the old beat up car he drives". If Hubbard had been a flashy suit how succesful would he have been in Timaru?

    Luckily I convinced my parents to ditch Hubbard earlier this year. No doubt they are sleeping easier because of that.

    Richard




    For those interested

    http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/op...angerous-thing

    But shoeboxes and #8 fencing wire getting a bit depressing

  8. #1458
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    350

    Default

    Are there related party loans - you bet. Thats why most investors put their money in - to invest alongside somebody who was a successful investor. Not only that he had skin in the game (real skin, unlike most of the failed Finance Companies the Securities Commission approved the reams of paperwork for). Even our Stat mates "shock horror expose" suggests equity of over $30million before the investors loose any money. A few overly quick sales of assets should help erode that. It will be interesting to see if Landcorp is as keen to bid as it was for the Crafer farms. I suspect that the no interest loans were made from the equity, not the investors funds.

  9. #1459
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur View Post
    Are there related party loans - you bet. Thats why most investors put their money in - to invest alongside somebody who was a successful investor. Not only that he had skin in the game (real skin, unlike most of the failed Finance Companies the Securities Commission approved the reams of paperwork for).
    Very good point.

    Thinking along these lines, what does all this say about the government administration of the Retail Deposit Guarantee scheme - after all, these companies needed a credit rating and inspection of their accounts by Treasury. They seem to be falling over at a high rate. So, they swoop on a company that is actually solvent; seemingly doing what investors want.
    Do not consider my postings as investment advice. I am here to share research and to speculate on what might be. The boundary between fact and conjecture might not always be clear - best to treat all comments as speculation.

  10. #1460
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    I have to fill this up with at least 10 letters
    Last edited by Enumerate; 18-07-2010 at 07:53 AM.
    Do not consider my postings as investment advice. I am here to share research and to speculate on what might be. The boundary between fact and conjecture might not always be clear - best to treat all comments as speculation.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •