South Canterbury Finance Limited

[Alan3285]

Hi Minimoke,

"not a good look" - thats kinda generous isn't it? Look back over the past six months and what has that valuation done? Perhaps given investors greater confidence than if they had seen the accounts with correct valuation; given S&P more confidence with its rating; given the Govt with its Deposit Guarantee scheme. It took a while for previous accounts to come out - someone had a lot of time to make sure the accounts were "correct".

Was the market valuation as at 30 Jun 2009 more or less than the historical cost they used in the financials as at that date?

Alan.

[minimoke]

Hi Minimoke,



Was the market valuation as at 30 Jun 2009 more or less than the historical cost they used in the financials as at that date?

Alan.

Isn't that a question better answered by the ongoing independent revaluation?

[Alan3285]

Hi Minimoke,

Isn't that a question better answered by the ongoing independent revaluation?

I don't understand. Aren't you saying that they overstated the figures in the balance sheet as at 30 Jun 2009 and thus 'misled' investors?

... given investors greater confidence than if they had seen the accounts with correct valuation; given S&P more confidence with its rating ...

If it gave investors and S&P 'greater confidence' then it must have been higher than it should have been, so you are saying that they overstated the value as at 30 Jun 2009?


Thanks,

Alan.

[minimoke]

Hi Minimoke,

Aren't you saying that they overstated the figures in the balance sheet as at 30 Jun 2009 and thus 'misled' investors?

I'm saying that thats perhaps a question best answered by the independant valuation.

I'll also say investors should have confidence in the accounts presented - especially when they took such a long time to finalise; especially when there are applicable accounting standards and when you are run by professionals and you use professionals they ought to know these standards and use them correctly; and especially in turbulent financial times.

[winner69]

and remember that one (main) reason for the delay in the accounts was that they were subject to 'peer review' ...... that sort of suggests that other experts looked at the accounts as well .... oh goodness gracious

What's an even bigger concern that there is to be further writedowns on impaired assets ... so obviously rose tinted glasses were on when they did the last assessment

NBR reported Maier is seeking funding 'with a degree of urgency' and with lack of clarity whether this funding is coming directly inot SCF or whether Southbury is doing the capital raising only causes more uncertainity

How much new capital does SCF need? that depends on the additional writeoffs .... but talk of $300m or more is going around


At least Maier getting things moving ... the big broom sweeping the floor clean might be painful though

[Alan3285]

I'm saying that thats perhaps a question best answered by the independant valuation.

I'll also say investors should have confidence in the accounts presented - especially when they took such a long time to finalise; especially when there are applicable accounting standards and when you are run by professionals and you use professionals they ought to know these standards and use them correctly; and especially in turbulent financial times.

So you're saying that you don't really know, and were just assuming that the accounts overstated the value as at 30 Jun 2009?


Alan.

[Alan3285]

Hi Winner69,

and remember that one (main) reason for the delay in the accounts was that they were subject to 'peer review' ...... that sort of suggests that other experts looked at the accounts as well .... oh goodness gracious

What's an even bigger concern that there is to be further writedowns on impaired assets ... so obviously rose tinted glasses were on when they did the last assessment

NBR reported Maier is seeking funding 'with a degree of urgency' and with lack of clarity whether this funding is coming directly inot SCF or whether Southbury is doing the capital raising only causes more uncertainity

How much new capital does SCF need? that depends on the additional writeoffs .... but talk of $300m or more is going around


At least Maier getting things moving ... the big broom sweeping the floor clean might be painful though

With respect to your point regarding whether the capital comes in directly to SCF or via Southbury which then subscribes for additional shares:

What would be the difference from the perspective of other investors in SCF (prefs, bonds, depositors etc)?

Does one option give greater security than the other? Which one would be more positive to pricing on the listed investments do you think?

Thanks,

Alan.

[minimoke]

So you're saying that you don't really know, and were just assuming that the accounts overstated the value as at 30 Jun 2009?
Alan.

When you bring people in to do retrospective independant valuations and it looks like extra provisioning needs to be done it strikes me that SCF doesn't know so what I know,or don't, is irrelevant.

[winner69]

When you bring people in to do retrospective independant valuations and it looks like extra provisioning needs to be done it strikes me that SCF doesn't know so what I know,or don't, is irrelevant.

right on mate .... cause it sounds like no one knows anyway ... what a mess

[Dr_Who]

right on mate .... cause it sounds like no one knows anyway ... what a mess

Are we surprise that it is in a mess?

A number of us have been putting up warning signs but few wanna listen.