sharetrader
Page 194 of 296 FirstFirst ... 94144184190191192193194195196197198204244294 ... LastLast
Results 1,931 to 1,940 of 2956
  1. #1931
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Balance View Post
    Fascinating how putting a few $$$ into SCFHA as a punt can warp a person's thinking.
    Balance, you have been played.

    Have you noticed that since the trading halt you vocal mate has disappeared. Perhaps there are now no punters to scare into making a foolish decision?

    It is well known, on this thread, that at the beginning of the year I was very bearish on SCF. This fact has been observed and restated by many people on this thread. I have even made a point of restating it, myself.

    So, for the benefit of Balance and the other Alzheimers patients, I will restate my reasons:

    1) Late 2009, SCF were in complete denial - they were in a very serious situation without leadership or a plan
    2) Sandy Maier, within a few months, completely turned this situation around. He triaged the loan receivables; appointed a new auditor; appointed a new leadership team; focused the team on the goals of restructuring the company in three "divisions"; restored some degree of public confidence (timely accounts, equity restructure, prospectus registration, Trustee relationship) and provided clear leadership. At this point - SCF became a strong recovery prospect.

    We are now at a stage in which these recovery prospects are being tested.

    Ask yourself a question: "In NZ financial circles, who knows the most about the inner workings and prospects for SCF?".

    Some months ago, I asked myself this question. I came up with an answer. I have acted to follow this "smart money" by making an investment in SCFHAs.

    I remain of the view that people selling SCFHAs at less than 15cents are vastly overstating the probability of failure and grossly understating the prospects for recovery. The trading halt, finally, has put an end to the malicious games.
    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. #1932
    Legend Balance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    21,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Enumerate View Post
    Balance, you have been played.

    Have you noticed that since the trading halt you vocal mate has disappeared. Perhaps there are now no punters to scare into making a foolish decision?

    It is well known, on this thread, that at the beginning of the year I was very bearish on SCF. This fact has been observed and restated by many people on this thread. I have even made a point of restating it, myself.

    So, for the benefit of Balance and the other Alzheimers patients, I will restate my reasons:

    1) Late 2009, SCF were in complete denial - they were in a very serious situation without leadership or a plan
    2) Sandy Maier, within a few months, completely turned this situation around. He triaged the loan receivables; appointed a new auditor; appointed a new leadership team; focused the team on the goals of restructuring the company in three "divisions"; restored some degree of public confidence (timely accounts, equity restructure, prospectus registration, Trustee relationship) and provided clear leadership. At this point - SCF became a strong recovery prospect.

    We are now at a stage in which these recovery prospects are being tested.

    Ask yourself a question: "In NZ financial circles, who knows the most about the inner workings and prospects for SCF?".

    Some months ago, I asked myself this question. I came up with an answer. I have acted to follow this "smart money" by making an investment in SCFHAs.

    I remain of the view that people selling SCFHAs at less than 15cents are vastly overstating the probability of failure and grossly understating the prospects for recovery. The trading halt, finally, has put an end to the malicious games.
    Fair enuf, Enumerate and good luck.

    Doesn't change the fact that AH has been cooking the books and shuffling assets around, using investors' money. In the case of SCF, using taxpayers' money.

  3. #1933
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minimoke View Post
    Enumerate, without wishing to rehas old ground but it was AH who did the HMF statements so they included investment's and cash balances that do not exist. What else do you need?
    Mini, have you actually read the Statutory Manger's second report?

    Broadly, the issues against Aorangi are simply matters of opinion. There are dark hints of related party lending - but, wake up everyone, if you want to invest in Aorangi you wanted to invest along side Allan Hubbard - you wanted him to have "skin in the game" - that is why you invested.

    There are no charges laid ... because none of this is a crime.

    What is criminal is that the Statutory Manager will now proceed to crystalise losses in investments that were likely to be viable. In a perverse way, the more the Stat Man loses ... the more he justifies his position.

    If I were an Aorangi investor - this would be the thing that scares me the most.

    In terms of HMF ... let us apply Occam's Razor.

    This simplest explanation of the weasel words in the report is that the Statutory Manager doesn't have a complete handle on what is going on.

    Remember, these are the guys who didn't know HMF existed in the first place!

    These are also the guys who have refused to talk to the key player in this fund - Allan Hubbard.

    How about this as a scenario:

    1) The Grant Thornton Statutory Managers are too stupid to collect the basic information from the people who know what is going on.

    2) Therefore, the Statutory Manger is confused, befuddled ... under pressure from political masters to "nail" Hubbard

    3) The HMF report reflects language that does NOT speak of criminal intent .... the "accounts were not reconciled before the statements went out" - proceeding in good faith with incorrect information is not a crime. (Duhhh, why not ASK HUBBARD the basis on which the statements were made ... this is not rocket science).

    4) The 25% overstatement in asset value figure is calculated ... how? Is this the application of retrospective Stat Man valuations? These are the ultimate weasel words to imply impropriety but not court a lawsuit for defamation. Weak minded people will pick this up and will easily be panicked into foolish action.

    5) There are, apparently "non existent funds". However, there are also "unallocated funds". Why not provide a reconciliation? Why play this for the maximum press impact by implying funds do not exist when a simply conclusion is that the Statutory Manager has failed to complete a reconciliation.

    I am white hot with fury that the Statutory Manager is allowed to liquidate a business that has never been insolvent.

    I am white hot with fury that Simon Power, on the advice of the corrupt Simon Botherway and the incompetent Jane Diplock, has destroyed multiple businesses and damaged the reputation of Allan Hubbard.

    I am white hot with fury that this damage has been rendered by an Order in Council - bypassing and frustrating any and all conventional commercial law. Bypassing the courts and the legal process. Granting all rights to the state and none to Allan Hubbard.

    I am white hot with fury that Allan Hubbard cannot confront his accusers - state his evidence and argue his case.

    I am white hot with fury that malicious interests are allowed to savage both Allan Hubbard's reputation and his business interests in this climate of state sponsored commercial terrorism.
    Last edited by Enumerate; 28-08-2010 at 10:13 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.

  4. #1934
    Legend Balance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    21,484

    Default

    Say what you want, Enumerate and think what you like.
    Last edited by Balance; 28-08-2010 at 10:03 AM.

  5. #1935
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Balance View Post
    Say what you want, Enumerate and think what you like.
    You fail to respond to any of my points.

    You fail to produce any contradictory facts.

    You cling to a conclusion you arrived at some time ago, with no evidence.

    You are, therefore, impervious to rational debate.

    I look forward to the day in which the NZ High Court considers these matters. I think, at this stage, Adam Feeley will get the spanking that he richly deserves.
    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.

  6. #1936
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    765

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GTM 3442 View Post
    Bill, two quotes:

    Whatever colour you are, there's times when you must lose - Kursaal Fliers

    The South Island is sometimes called the "mainland". While it has a 33% larger landmass than the North Island, only 24% of New Zealand's 4.3 million inhabitants live in the South Island. - Wikipedia.
    I understand what you all are saying and agree.... but the point I am making, is can the Nat's/Gvment
    afford politically to shake rural canty/southland any more. There are a lot of mutterings (rural) now in regards
    the treatment of the rural south island. Especially in regards to the $$$ the island earns (%GDP) and the problems.
    Some being. fiber optic, Kawarau Bridge, Milford road, Westland, Gumment services. etc
    Now I dont want to get into discussions in this respect, (not the forum). But I do think there are politicial standpoints.
    If not now, then there will be. Coz the failure of SCF will affect mostly the Sould Island rural community.
    And potential effects on exports ??.
    cheers BB
    PS I am not "Red" & I'm in with the rural play....

  7. #1937
    Legend Balance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    21,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Enumerate View Post
    You fail to respond to any of my points.

    You fail to produce any contradictory facts.

    You cling to a conclusion you arrived at some time ago, with no evidence.

    You are, therefore, impervious to rational debate.

    I look forward to the day in which the NZ High Court considers these matters. I think, at this stage, Adam Feeley will get the spanking that he richly deserves.
    The SM's Reports are too damning and too conclusive of the games that AH had been up to. The evidence is there for anyone to read.

    Start with violation of securities regulations (obtaining funds without a registered prospectus) and falsifying accounts to procure and retain investors' funds.

    No point arguing valuations and opinions etc - cash is cash is cash. What happened to the $6m cash that AH stated HFM had as at 31 March 2010? How did it turn into $350,000?

    Fact is that AH can cast total doubt on the SM's reports by simply verifying where the cash was. Simple, effective and he will then have the SMs running for cover.

    I for one will rise in support of the man. Bet you it is not going to happen however.

    Meanwhile, no charges being laid at this stage mean bugger all - it took the SFO 2 years to lay charges against the directors of 5 Star Finance.

    If you want red-hot anger, try taxpayers' money being used to bail out gross mismanagement.
    Last edited by Balance; 28-08-2010 at 10:07 AM.

  8. #1938
    Legend Balance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    21,484

    Default

    Good example here of SCF's directors and management helping themselves to SCF's finances to speculate in the property market.


    SCF unlikely to recover all of NZ$9 mill loan to Paritai Drive townhouse development by former CEO Lachie McLeod
    Posted in News Friday, August 27, 2010 - 6:09pm, Alex Tarrant

    Paritai Drive Townhouse built with loan to company once directed by Lachie Mcleod and Ed Sullivan. It is now being sold by receivers.

    By Alex Tarrant

    South Canterbury Finance is unlikely to recover all of a NZ$9.1 million dollar loan to a property development company set up by former chief executive Lachie McLeod and a former director Edward Oral Sullivan.

    A receivers report shows the property development company, Arundel Park Limited, built six townhouses on Auckland’s exclusive Paratai Drive. The company was set up in 2006 with McLeod and Sullivan as its two directors. Two of the townhouses at 139 Paritai Drive are now being sold by receivers for NZ$1.8 million each, this realestate.co.nz listing shows.


    Arundel was originally owned by Strathallan Nominee Company, in which Sullivan was a shareholder, according to Companies Office documents.

    In July 2007, the share parcel for Arundel changed hands from Strathallan to Victoria Three Trustee Limited, owned by John Robert Williams of Auckland, documents show.

    McLeod and Sullivan ceased to be directors of Arundel in June and July, 2007, respectively, documents show.

    SCF, as a secured creditor, was estimated to be owed NZ$9,106,288 by Arundel, receivers Stephen Tietjens and Peter Chatfield of Accru Smith Chilcott said in their first receivers’ report on August 20.

    SCF was unlikely to be repaid in full, they said.

    South Canterbury Finance placed Arundel in receivership in June this year after the property company defaulted on a repayment to SCF, the receivers said.

    The receivers’ report said SCF placed Arundel in receivership under the power contained in a general security agreement dated March 22, 2007 - which was before McLeod and Sullivan had ceased to be directors of Arundel.

    Sullivan ceased to be a director of SCF in May this year, while McLeod stood down from the CEO position in 2009.

    The receivers said one of the townhouses had been completed by their appointment in June, three were close to being finished, with two further units to be completed.

    They said they intended to complete all six townhouses, after receiving funding support.

    Four had been put on the market, with one unconditional agreement and two conditional agreements having been signed. Completion and marketing of the other two units should be done in the next few weeks, they said.

    Williams, McLeod, Sullivan, the receivers and SCF could not be reached for comment on Friday afternoon.

  9. #1939
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Balance View Post
    Start with violation of securities regulations (obtaining funds without a registered prospectus) and falsifying accounts to procure and retain investors' funds.
    Neither point is actually made, by the Statutory Manager, in the report. This is your imagination at work.

    No point arguing valuations and opinions etc - cash is cash is cash. What happened to the $6m cash that AH stated HFM had as at 31 March 2010? How did it turn into $350,000?
    If this is your "accounting evidence" you won't even make it past a deposition hearing.

    If you want red-hot anger, try taxpayers' money being used to bail out gross mismanagement.
    Too bad Balance, you as a taxpayer are going to pick up a bill no matter what happens. I suggest you look to Minister Power for a full explanation of why the government decided to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory.
    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. #1940
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    Why, Balance, did you edit your post to remove your assertion that Allan Hubbard will be charged?
    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
  •