sharetrader
Page 148 of 296 FirstFirst ... 4898138144145146147148149150151152158198248 ... LastLast
Results 1,471 to 1,480 of 2956
  1. #1471
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger View Post
    I've got a lot of time for David Hillary's analysis as he spends not inconsiderable amounts of his own running detailed analysis of the situation, and he's certainly not without a good degree of professional skill.
    I see you like you hypocrisy served heavily sweetened with delusion.

    Roger, you have the mentality of a policeman. However, you cling to his conclusions because they support your position. This is why policemen make terrible lawyers - they think the law is all "procedure" and they do not have the mental agility to argue from first principles. You often find them as property lawyers - where procedure counts and there is nothing new under the sun. Putting this aside ...

    Hillary, has been completely discredited, by me, on this thread. His assessment of the SCF accounts, in particular, I have dealt with suggesting that he does not understand the dynamics of the SCF reorganisation and how this is effecting the balance sheet. His discussion on capital adequacy is seriously flawed - again, no understanding of the restructuring and how it will reshape the business. His view on further asset impairments is simply naive.

    I am sure that Hillary will perform to his usual low standard in his "analysis" of the Statutory Manager's report. (Given that the parts Balance produced are easily dismissed as "evidence").

    The final objection is his basic hypocrisy. He is a self proclaimed defender of natural justice and yet apparently lacks the mental capacity to really understand what this means. Further, his article defending the Statutory Management of Allan Hubbard is a pure grotesque. The twistings and turnings of verbiage - to justify that "a" is not "a", it is in fact "b", in the right light and with a strong wind behind you - is something to behold.

    To David Hillary's tortured words - I have just one: "hypocrite".

    To you Roger, this is probably meaningless. You have your prima facie case (with exactly what you use as evidence, I am not sure). Like a policeman motivating by "winning", you will not let it go until charges are laid. David Hillary is a wonderful ally, for you - here is someone prepared to bear false witness in the court of public opinion.

    My objection to all of this is pretty fundamental.

    The King James says it best in Exodus 20:16, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor"
    Last edited by Enumerate; 19-07-2010 at 11:12 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.

  2. #1472
    special needs
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,122

    Default

    dude, we know each side of the argument. lets see what plays out. from where i kneel, some objectivity from both camps wld be welcomed.

  3. #1473
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Balance View Post

    Now we have AH stating that he did not borrow from Aorangi and the SM Report says he does.
    We also now know that there are at least 60 people of modest means who are dependent on the income from Aorangi. So they probably aren't rich nor experienced investors - so probably due a prospectus

  4. #1474
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,502

    Default Hubbard Interview

    For a 22 minute interview heres the TV3 version. http://www.3news.co.nz/Allan-Hubbard...0/Default.aspx

  5. #1475
    Legend Balance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    21,406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minimoke View Post
    We also now know that there are at least 60 people of modest means who are dependent on the income from Aorangi. So they probably aren't rich nor experienced investors - so probably due a prospectus
    Good point.

    I am surprised that AH's lawyers are not advising him to stop shooting himself in the foot. Maybe they know that there is no case that can be successfully brought for a judicial review?

    Meanwhile, our local Bill Clinton Enumerate continues to duck and dive - hugely amusing. Imagine him fronting up for AH? Credibility = zero.
    Last edited by Balance; 19-07-2010 at 12:09 PM.

  6. #1476
    ShareTrader Legend Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    21,362

    Default

    Enumerate, For those of us with jobs to do, its pretty hard to keep up notwithstanding and with respect, I think those on here including myself have got the gist of your argument and for that matter mine.

    The Securities Act is quite clear and there's no reasonable question Aorangi are in breech of it, hence we have a prima facie case against AH more than worthy of a full investigation. Even if you said there was a fifty fifty chance of each of the 408 investors being exempt under one of the provisions thereof, (habitual, professional, more than $2 million dollars of investments) the odds that all 408 investors would be exampt are 50% to the power of 408.

    My calculator doesn't have enough decimal places to work out the almost infintly small odds that Aorangi are in compliance with the Act, and clearly at least one party, as mentioned before believes they have been wronged as why else would they complain to the Securities Commission ?

    Clearly you believe that a person of AH's standing is above the law and if I'm keen on promoters of investment scheme's complying with the law and if that makes me some sort of policeman in your eye's then so be it.

    I am not bearing false witness, I am merely outling the Securities Laws as I see them, and in case you've forgotten I've had intensive involvement with this area of the law as a victim of such a scheme before, and have had one of N.Z. finest Securities lawyers investigate my families case and extricate ourselves from such a scheme at an all up cost to our family of running close to $100,000, not to mention all my time and the extremly stressful process involved.

    Some of those 408 people are victims in this process, of course in your mind its all the SM's fault, I think you've made that abundently clear.
    Last edited by Beagle; 19-07-2010 at 12:14 PM.

  7. #1477
    Legend Balance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    21,406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger View Post
    Enumerate, For those of us with jobs to do, its pretty hard to keep up notwithstanding and with respect, I think those on here including myself have got the gist of your argument and for that matter mine.

    The Securities Act is quite clear and there's no reasonable question Aorangi are in breech of it, hence we have a prima facie case against AH more than worthy of a full investigation. Even if you said there was a fifty fifty chance of each of the 408 investors being exempt under one of the provisions thereof, (habitual, professional, more than $2 million dollars of investments) the odds that all 408 investors would be exampt are 50% to the power of 408.

    My calculator doesn't have enough decimal places to work out the almost infintly small odds that Aorangi are in compliance with the Act, and clearly at least one party, as mentioned before believes they have been wronged as why else would they complain to the Securities Commission ?

    Clearly you believe that a person of AH's standing is above the law and if I'm keen on promoters of investment scheme's complying with the law and if that makes me some sort of policeman in your eye's then so be it.

    I am not bearing false witness, I am merely outling the Securities Laws as I see them, and in case you've forgotten I've had intensive involvement with this area of the law as a victim of such a scheme before, and have had one of N.Z. finest Securities lawyers investigate my families case and extricate ourselves from such a scheme at an all up cost to our family of running close to $100,000, not to mention all my time and the extremly stressful process involved.

    Some of those 408 people are victims in this process, of course in your mind its all the SM's fault, I think you've made that abundently clear.
    Ignore him, Roger - he will not answer a simple question which goes into the heart of AH's credibility. The man knows he is soundly beaten.

  8. #1478
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger View Post
    My calculator doesn't have enough decimal places to work out the almost infintly small odds that Aorangi are in compliance with the Act, and clearly at least one party, as mentioned before believes they have been wronged as why else would they complain to the Securities Commission ?
    Roger, maybe this highlights your main problem:

    To work out if Aorangi is in compliance with the Securities Act ... you don't use a calculator.

    We are also well aware of Simon Botherway's main problem:

    To work out if Aorangi is in compliance with the Securities Act ... you don't use statutory management.

    If Aorangi investors are your primary concern (though somehow, I really doubt this) - I am prepared to contribute assets to a fund that will pay these investors out at the amount they contributed + 3% per year they were in the fund - less any payments they received from the fund.

    I wish I had significant funds in Aorangi - which explains why I consider my offer to underwrite the "security" of these investors to be less than altruistic.
    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.

  9. #1479
    Legend Balance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    21,406

    Default

    For the benefit of those who have taken their heads out of the sand.

    Who do you believe? AH or the Statutory Manager?

    State your position and be judged accordingly.

    Here's what AH stated (and recorded for posterity by Radio NZ) :

    Excerpt : "Mr Hubbard said that's not the case, as the funds were his in the first place. He says he then had them transferred to the trusts ahead of Aorangi issuing a prospectus.
    He told Radio New Zealand's business editor he "never borrowed" and it was "always kosher".

    Hubbard denies using Aorangi funds
    Updated at 11:51pm on 28 June 2010
    Businessman Allan Hubbard is adamant he did not borrow from Aorangi Securities to invest other entities.
    The Government has placed Mr Hubbard and his wife, Margaret, under statutory management, along with Aorangi Securities and seven trusts.
    Aorangi Securities is also under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office, following a Companies Office report that found irregularities among Aorangi's $134 million in loans.
    Some of these relate to the alleged use of Aorangi funds to invest in the trusts.
    Mr Hubbard said that's not the case, as the funds were his in the first place. He says he then had them transferred to the trusts ahead of Aorangi issuing a prospectus.
    He told Radio New Zealand's business editor he "never borrowed" and it was "always kosher".
    Copyright © 2010 Radio New Zealand

    SM Report states : ""To date we have seen clear evidence that there is an intricate and complex relationship between the affairs of Aorangi, Te Tua Trust and the affairs of Mr and Mrs Hubbard and other associated entities." ""The level of investments in (including loans to) businesses associated with Mr and Mrs Hubbard without registered security is of concern. Most of these investments are in or to farm businesses that have loans from banks secured by a mortgage over the assets of the farm. This could mean, in the case of direct investments in those farm businesses, that Aorangi would only be paid after the creditors of those businesses were fully paid."

  10. #1480
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Balance View Post
    Who do you believe? AH or the Statutory Manager?

    State your position and be judged accordingly.
    Balance, if we had moderation on this thread you would be banned.

    We have discussed and dismissed each of the elements of your "argument". You either cannot or refuse to understand that by simply repeating things over and over - your argument does not improve.

    On top of this ... you choose to "taunt" me with the phrase that I am "Clintonesque". (I am a bit confused about this - are you saying that I am "presidential". That can't be it. Maybe that I would make a wonderful Secretary of State. No, probably not. Anyway - I have a feeling that you will offer a much fuller explanation in due course).

    Here is a novel suggestion. Why don't you go back to the postings that dealt with your assertions and put a counter argument that deals with the criticism. Remember, simply repeating your assertion is not an argument. Ignoring a complete rebuttal is not a proper tactic. Issuing endless "taunts" is not how grown ups debate.
    Last edited by Enumerate; 19-07-2010 at 12:57 PM.
    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
  •