I don’t want to get into too much detail while there are ongoing investigations, and hopefully even new investigations to be opened.
But todays Herald shows us three different ways of dealing with creditors.
While the massive (at least for Oamaru Timaru) rally in support if the Hubbard family is described as misguided by the Herald editorial and Brian Gaynor properly warns us that regulations not personalities count theirs is a quiet dignity that contrasts with the wide boys currently or formerly based in Auckland.
Rod Petricevich living in a $4.4m home while out on bail on Bridgecorp related charges is being pursued around Auckland by debt collectors chasing the $2.2m transfered to a family trust in order to keep it away from investors. They got the Porsche earlier.
And poor old Mark Hotchin is pulling the $30m currently tied up in his new Auckland home out and staying offshore as is his mentor Eric Watson. Poor guys don’t want to look into the eyes of people who lost nearly half a billion dollars as they ripped tens of millions out of Hanover Finance and partied around the world. And it is still continuing.
Gutless.
I feel sorry for the Hubbards
Trying to remember if it is usual for a Minister (Powers) to announce the investigation on Hubbard? Such a declaration must have had a hugely detrimental effect on the Hubbard business, and on public confidence. By the time the questions are resolved will there be any business left?
Actually Trev it was Timaru not Oamaru, if you’re going to be a populist, at least get the population right.
Thanks for tip if not tone corrected Trevor
I would’ve liked to have seen Mark Bryers sentenced to a bit more that 75 hours community service.
@ianmac – don’t think he had a real choice. Received advice. Could not ignore it in my opinion. Needed to pass regulation. Then it must be announced and he was Minister responsible. Statutory management can never be a secret.
Re “Poor guys don’t want to look into the eyes of people who lost nearly half a billion dollars as they ripped tens of millions out of Hanover Finance and partied around the world.”
People like this are the personification of “”It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”
The epitome of capitalism at its worst; money making money can only result in greed.
Next target: that pair of flash Harrys who fled to Switzerland in the late 1990s.
The difference is that the Hubbards look remorceful and you know they cant sleep at night wearas the other T:*^ers are lying in bed trying to think up ways to get around it.
And at the comment regulations not personalities count, well in the real world personalities do count, Just look at our PM, Although i dont agree with many of his partys policies he looked like an average Kiwi bloke at the Football and rugby and his personality does count.
@Spud
Why do you feel sorry for the Hubbards?
Why not let the investigation happen first, if they’re found to have done nothing wrong then he should get sympathy and an apology, if they’re found to have done something wrong then let them be charged
But Rebecca these guys had real jobs in the real world
I saw Petrivic’s golf handicap has dropped dramatically.
I also dont get that Bryer’s only got 75 hours community service. I;d have given him jail or 200 hours emptying bedpans in old people’s homes.
@Loota
I’d have sentenced Bryers to a kick in the ghoulies everyday untill hes pays his debts off
I find the whole situation troubling:
1). Between this announcement and allowing the patenting of software base code (as I understand it from the earlier RA post) Power has shown himself to be {deleted, actionable and personal abuse, Grant}
2). Having built up his fortune over 60 years giving away millions to charity, creating jobs and economic growth Hubbard has his $550,000,000 worth of assets stripped off him for seemingly little justification thus far, he probably will be charged with something minor, I’m guessing related to the fact he’s 82 and some of his faculties have left him… I’ll be suprised if any serious offending comes out
3). The government gets involved to secure the safety of it’s guarantee ($1,400,000,000) and sure enough Standard and Poor’s drop their credit rating AND SCF had to stop taking deposits – real smart, they’ve put everyone’s money at greater risk including their
4). Why are we guaranteeing the deposits of mainly middle class to wealthy investors who gave their money freely with their eyes open with poor people’s taxes..? Bank saving deposits I get, but investment funds..?
5). Why didn’t the government step in to manage Watson’s and Hotchin’s transistion..? Especially when the obviously dodgy moratorium was announced..?
6). Why is the SFO not starting an investigation of Dr. Brash and Mayor Banks..? For their part in the misleading of Kiwisaver investors by a company they were director’s of..?
Good luck to us catching Australia, we can’t even seem to organise an economic piss up in a brewery or chase the real wealthy crooks giving the overwhelming majority of wealthy people who create jobs and economic growth – honestly – a bad name and the Government wants us to become an Financial Hub..? Maybe we should get an appropriately legislated Securities and Consumer Protection Authority first…
@Chris – I’m not going to say why and I stay by my sympathy
@Spud
Interesting, so you have the inside scoop on the investigation of the South Islands riches man…
(sorry not sure how to add sarcasm to this post)
That’s okay
@Grant, sorry about that… Wrong word…
Where is the restorative justice needed to curb the gross profit taking without responsibility.
The mechanism for stripping vast amounts of wealth from the community are bad enough, but the blatant luring of small investors/savers into the shonky world of speculative gambling is appalling.
Punishment by definition is a consequence to reduce a behaviour. The investors are punished that is sure.
Restorative justice would place more effective restriction on those who live by using others money.
Credit counts for little when the money is not real.
Heavy regulation would be a justified consequence of the damage to the planned lives of many over the recent years.
Given the amount of money the government is pouring into Southern Canterbury Finance surely an independent inquiry should be set up to ascertain whether Hubbard was the cause of the bail out being required, or whether, as Hubbard claims, government intervention was the cause. For certainly there has been a difference of operating procedures; Hubbard has steered the company through decades of tumultuous NZ financial history running a quaint (but obviously successful) socialist agenda, meets right wing conservatism. Is there any evidence whatsoever that Hubbard’s operating procedures have atrophied recently, or was he continuing to run his oddly pitched ship, and successfully through another storm? Also, how palatable can it be for a right wing agenda to have a socialist organization as one of the most successful financial companies in the country? Surely tax payers are entitled to know whether their money is being used to clean up a mess that would never have arisen if it were not for philosophical disputes.
Further thinking about the matter leaves me wondering what flagged Southern Canterbury Finance as being in possible trouble? Maybe simply the size of the company, or maybe as John Key stated on the Nation, the company has a lot of excellent assets (loans on their books), alongside a heap of duds. I say maybe, because the consequence of running such an approach is that tax paid on all the good loans is offset by losses incurred on bad loans, i.e., the company is not paying the amount of tax that might be expected. But given the socialist agenda being run by Hubbard, should the government be destroying companies eluding taxes when those companies are acting in the best interests of the country? Frankly a quandry, mostly down to the fact that the government is/was already running programs such as Anderton has been putting in place.
Today Bridgecorp director, Petrovic said
“He relied on the advice of his board, experienced officers of the company and external professional advisers. ”It was not a once-over lightly exercise.” ”
Now, I have a question, if that is correct WTF was he receiving all those high fees for?????