South Canterbury Finance Limited

[Silverlight]

Questions:

If Aorangi or Hubbard Management Funds are found to be in breach of the Act the fines are up to $500,000 for Mr and Mrs Hubbard?

Then up $5m for Aorangi & HMF for each breach?

If you have just 10 investors of the 400 odd have invested have not received a prospectus, does this mean up to $50m in fines for Aorangi & HMF. Which in turn are owned by Mr and Mrs Hubbard, they will have to pay this amount.


Does this then impact on South Canterbury as a business if Mr and Mrs Hubbard no longer own it, as SCF is sold off as a going concern?

How does then impact the listed debt?


Opinion:

Pimie facie it looks if Aorangi has breached the Securities Act, however I think Mr Hubbard comes across very much like a modern day Jimmy Stewart (George Bailey), where the laws of the land have been updated and amended around him, and he now finds out that his non compliance may cost dearly.

I think overarching this is a push from the Securities Commission et al (Diplock), to make themselves look good at catching white collar criminals before they get repleced at the end of this year by the new Financial Markets Authority (FMA), as they have been too lazy for the last 15 years anyway, and all have to re-apply for their jobs.

We have never prosecuted anyone for Insider Trading though the courts or Market manipulation, 1 case, in 20 years, tranzrail was settled.

[Enumerate]

If Aorangi or Hubbard Management Funds are found to be in breach of the Act the fines are up to $500,000 for Mr and Mrs Hubbard?

Then up $5m for Aorangi & HMF for each breach?

I wonder how the courts would deal with this?

To defend the Hubbards, clearly their position would be that Statutory Management gave the Securities Commission unprecedented powers of investigation outside the relevant Act. If there were fundamental questions of the legality of Statutory Management, as applied to the Hubbard's case - then any "evidence" gathered under these powers would be inadmissible.

The Crown, in bringing a section 2 case under the Securities Act, would end up defending its own actions - in a rather public arena.

I think there is much scope for debate on the SFO action. However, I will follow Winner69's lead on this.

[Alan3285]

Questions:Does this then impact on South Canterbury as a business if Mr and Mrs Hubbard no longer own it, as SCF is sold off as a going concern?

How does then impact the listed debt?

In general, the affairs of the (ultimate) shareholder(s) of SCF wont have any direct impact on SCF itself.

However, to the extent that SCF owes or is owed any amounts to / from its shareholders or their other related parties, then there could be some impact.

Also, the abilty of the shareholder(s) to 'stand behind' SCF might be impaired.

Opinion:



Pimie facie it looks if Aorangi has breached the Securities Act, however I think Mr Hubbard comes across very much like a modern day Jimmy Stewart (George Bailey), where the laws of the land have been updated and amended around him, and he now finds out that his non compliance may cost dearly.

I think overarching this is a push from the Securities Commission et al (Diplock), to make themselves look good at catching white collar criminals before they get repleced at the end of this year by the new Financial Markets Authority (FMA), as they have been too lazy for the last 15 years anyway, and all have to re-apply for their jobs.

We have never prosecuted anyone for Insider Trading though the courts or Market manipulation, 1 case, in 20 years, tranzrail was settled.

I wasn't aware that there had never been an insider trading case that went through the courts. Interesting fact!

Alan.

[Beagle]

Questions:

If Aorangi or Hubbard Management Funds are found to be in breach of the Act the fines are up to $500,000 for Mr and Mrs Hubbard?
Then up $5m for Aorangi & HMF for each breach?
If you have just 10 investors of the 400 odd have invested have not received a prospectus, does this mean up to $50m in fines for Aorangi & HMF. Which in turn are owned by Mr and Mrs Hubbard, they will have to pay this amount. Does this then impact on South Canterbury as a business if Mr and Mrs Hubbard no longer own it, as SCF is sold off as a going concern?

How does then impact the listed debt?

Maximum fine personally is $300,000 and five years in prison.

1 breech, i.e. one single investor is found to have been in a position where thay should have received a prospectus and the whole scheme is illegal and all funds are immediatly repayable to ALL investors with interest. Directors are personally liable for immediate repayment and any losses thereon.

Our family had the "immense stress" of waiting for two years whilst the side company we invested through worked its way through settling our family's investment. And of course we were stressed all the way through the process in case they went bung somewhere along the line. Unfortunatly the exact details of the confidential settlement are exactly that, confidential, but what I can say is that it really impacted us and our health. I'm now on blood pressure medication and am likely to be for some time.

As you can see such issues create real victim's Enumerate. Your offer of underwriting carries no legal weight and you know it. Words are cheap PAL. Suggest you put your proposal to the SM and come back evidincing same in writing.

Of course as AH is such a good bloke and has done such good work, a little bit of collateral damage is Okay I suppose......(this paragraph reeks of sarcasm in case its not obvious),....oh you are soooo right Balance, what's the bloody point.....

[Balance]

Maximum fine personally is $300,000 and five years in prison.

1 breech, i.e. one single investor is found to have been in a position where thay should have received a prospectus and the whole scheme is illegal and all funds are immediatly repayable to ALL investors with interest. Directors are personally liable for immediate repayment and any losses thereon.

Our family had the "immense stress" of waiting for two years whilst the side company we invested through worked its way through settling our family's investment. And of course we were stressed all the way through the process in case they went bung somewhere along the line. Unfortunatly the exact details of the confidential settlement are exactly that, confidential, but what I can say is that it really impacted us and our health. I'm now on blood pressure medication and am likely to be for some time.

As you can see such issues create real victim's Enumerate. Your offer of underwriting carries no legal weight and you know it. Words are cheap PAL. Suggest you put your proposal to the SM and come back evidincing same in writing.

Of course as AH is such a good bloke and has done such good work, a little bit of collateral damage is Okay I suppose......(this paragraph reeks of sarcasm in case its not obvious),....oh you are soooo right Balance, what's the bloody point.....

Take heart, Roger. There are many of us who read your postings and find them very useful and enlightening.

I am sure those who are looking for perceptive and useful infor now know who to read, and who not to.

Old adage comes tro mind - "Don't suffer fools - because you will become a fool as well."

We have all had our fun with Enumerate and his rantings and ravings.

[Enumerate]

As you can see such issues create real victim's Enumerate. Your offer of underwriting carries no legal weight and you know it. Words are cheap PAL. Suggest you put your proposal to the SM and come back evidincing same in writing.

My point was a bit subtle, so let me explain.

Since inception of Aorangi, the initial investments have yielded an 400% return (quoted in the TV3 video - cannot immediately find the reference - I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong (was not 800% - was 400%)).

Hence my "offer" to cover the investors initial stake plus 3% pa, less distributions can hardly be described as generous.

However, here is the point. If you made 400% on an investment - by investing alongside a "master" and you had a choice of making a 100% loss but the paperwork was judged complete - which investment would you make?

If we are to take what you say at face value, Roger - here you are crusading against Hubbard because, in your view, the paperwork wasn't correct. Your own bitter experience of investing without "the paperwork", and suffering a loss is one thing.

From all appearance - Aorangi investors have made fabulous profits.

In your mind you have assigned emotional weight to "lack of paperwork" means "great harm done".

So, let us focus the debate. Ignoring the letter of regulation ... where, in the case of Aorangi, is the "great harm". Who has suffered? How have they been harmed?

[minimoke]

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.

I wonder Enumerate.
Would you really want your personal details (and those of other investors) hand recorded in a little red book? Or would you prefer a bit more of a robust accounting system?

In 36 years would you be happy quadrupling your money in Aorangi? (we could take the average 6 month term deposit yield for the past 34 years which equals 8.19%. We could then use say the Rule of 72 and wonder why its taken so long to nearly quadruple your money)

If you didn’t get your money back would you want to be thought of as a charity case by AH – cos that’s what he thinks his depositors are.

Are you a modest person, living an ordinary life, (perhaps even a widow who had your money with other financial advisors) dependant on Aorangis monthly interest payment, like around 60 other Aorangi and Hubard managemtn Fund investors (some of Aorangis depositors are so modest AH reckons they should get a grant from the Social Welfare fund – don’t worry Alna SCF investors will get a grant fromhte Tresury fund!)

Would you invest your money with a man who says he’s given it all away (yet he seems to have a biit more stashed in plaes other than buried in the back yard) Interviewer: “All you’ve ever done is given your money away” AH “Yes........my ideal is to not accumulate wealth”
And you wouldn’t see any warning bells if you were offered access to the HMF, “possibly one of the best performing funds in NZ” when this fund wasn’t advertised and it was special for “clients” only. Say you were promised to “over quadruple your money in 7 years (rule of 72 would only have you doubling your money @average six month deposit rate of 6.38% in just over 11 years) you’d be happy with that wouldn’t you.

Yours is just like a Hotchin / Watson Promise of “and I’ll put $10m in the pot if things go wrong” – you know there ain’t no way you’re going to be called on it.

[Capitalist]

You seem to be familiar with Ayn Rand Enumerate.

May I quote her -- "Emotions are not tools of cognition."

And another "A is A."

Hubbard is required to work within the regulations - A is A.

I am quite sure Rand would not support the taxpayer taking a bath for his oversights.

She also would not want Balance banned. Free speech is an inconvenient thing.

Sandy knows what he is doing. Hubbard would not be subject to Statutory Management if he didn't. Think about it.

[minimoke]

From all appearance - Aorangi investors have made fabulous profits.

But not as well as Hubbard Management funds. AH agrees that he has over quadrupled the investment from $19m to $84m in the past 7 years. Do you wonder, for just a moment, how he managed to do that, yet he couldn't do the same for SCF over that same period?

Oh - and since Aorangi investors make their money on the basis of "Accumulating and reinvesting" how many investor do you think there are that have actually had their capital returned. As far as I can tell the only ones that have had cash are the ones that have had the regular interest payments due to their precarious financial positions.

But its one of these"its too good to be true" finance schemes that actually is true! So the 200 farmers who have had the interest free loans are in for a bit of a shock when they come to the "real world" where borrowing money attracts a cost. No wonder dairy farms aren't selling at the moment - theres no-one out there giving free money away.

[Enumerate]

Now, despite the David Hillary's of this world offering harum-scarum interpretation, you will see that an investor with a 400% yield can hardly be said to have been "harmed".

Further, you might consider that any law that fails to act when investors are decimated (endless examples of this - Hanover springs to mind) but swings into action when investors make 400% - is an ass. (Or maybe the law is not an ass - but those enforcing it are ...).

It actually gets worse than this.

The Securities laws are not the laws of question. It is the investigative powers under the Corporations (Investigation and Management Act). Here the standard of "harm" should be much higher. In fact, there is an obligation for the use of these extreme powers to be in the defense of the public interest.

Where are we at now.

Does the public interest need defending from Allan and Jean Hubbards manual accounting system?

Is Allan Hubbard investing the money so recklessly that by showing an 400% yield those Aorangi investors are in perilous danger of getting too rich too fast?

Where is the public interest?

I would have thought there was greater prospect of defending the public interest by putting Simon Botherway and the SFO into Statutory Management.

The Statutory Management could have forced them to act on Bridgecorp to Hanover .... thereby securing over $6billion of NZ investors capital.

So Roger, pardon me if I think your crusade to save the investing public through higher standards of documentation really should be focusing on the integrity of the people filling out the documents.