Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 112182	2010-08-26 22:35:00	Alan Hubbard	Digby (677)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1132096	2010-08-31 22:59:00	Sandy Maier's been publicly saying that Hubbard not only knew about it - but was a contributing factor long before the new board went it. SCF's been in trouble for quite a while - more than 2 years.	Brooko (8444)
1132097	2010-09-01 04:18:00	Yes the Media Reports leave more questions than answers, but I simply can’t understand how the various managers of the company could dig a hole of such magnitude without noticing. :confused: Surely their careers must be at an end and they must be held responsible. It would seem we need a jail for Finance Company Managers, preferably on the Auckland Islands dare I suggest. ;)	B.M. (505)
1132098	2010-09-01 08:13:00	WHat about all these other finance comapny directors, whose business has failed, and many of them have now left the country. Many of their investors lost all the savings. There has been very little said about those directors, and in a few years they will be back setting up new companies. The people who invested in SCF are very very lucky they are getting their money back, plus a fantastic interest rate, and the people who lost money in other finance comapnies are picking up the tab. Basically SCF failed, because NZs economy is fatefully flawed and failing. Also due to the GG, SCF basically had no choice but to offer higher interest rates in order to get new investment, and the only way to repay that back, was to go into more risky lending in order to pay back that interest rate.	robbyp (2751)
1132099	2010-09-01 08:51:00	Basically SCF failed, because NZs economy is fatefully flawed and failing. Also due to the GG, SCF basically had no choice but to offer higher interest rates in order to get new investment, and the only way to repay that back, was to go into more risky lending in order to pay back that interest rate. SCF failed because a few years ago it threw too much money at property developers whose projects failed. Your logic on the GG seems flawed. The GG meant that a lot of people invested at no risk, the previous management splashed that cash around. Then the management was changed to try and rescue SCF. I doubt that much risky lending was done recently.	PaulD (232)
1132100	2010-09-01 09:41:00	Well, before any Government Guarantee was given I would expect the Government to have done “Due Diligence” and established that the Company was in good shape and the Tax Payers money was not at risk . Now, all of a sudden the Company’s broke, and not just broke, broke for Billions . Where did the money get lost? Don’t give me the economic downturn story either, because someone must have pocketed it, as it had to go somewhere . Billions of Dollars didn't just evaporate . :confused:	B.M. (505)
1132101	2010-09-01 10:58:00	SCF failed because a few years ago it threw too much money at property developers whose projects failed. Your logic on the GG seems flawed. The GG meant that a lot of people invested at no risk, the previous management splashed that cash around. Then the management was changed to try and rescue SCF. I doubt that much risky lending was done recently. I don't understand what you mean, as you appear to have agreed with what I said. In the last year, since the new CEO has been in place, the government has had close dealings with SFC stop it going under, thus no there probably wasn't too much if any high risk lending going on since that time. This risky stuff happened around the time the GG was first introduced, and SFC were offering over 8 percent return to keep investors in the game. THe GG has really just delayed these finance comapnies failing by a few years, but the GG has meant that it grew to a bigger size than it was prior to the GG.	robbyp (2751)
1132102	2010-09-01 21:55:00	The crazy thing with that Government Gaurnatee scheme was that I heard (I may have got it wrong) but that the banks had to pay premiums to get into it (fair enough it is an insurance scheme) but that finance companies, being smaller did not have to pay ! That is crazy! (if its true) And I still question Labour that just stood there and let lots of finance companies collapse.	Digby (677)
1132103	2010-09-01 22:16:00	It isn't true. The scheme is changing but big banks paid a fixed % on money above $5B and smaller institutions with less than $5B paid a % on the increase in deposits since Oct 2008 that varied according to their credit rating. www.treasury.govt.nz	PaulD (232)
1132104	2010-09-02 00:55:00	Oh well its all over now the taxpayer has written a cheque. Just hope the people who got bailed are grateful. I just hope investors in NZ take heed of the advice dont put all your money in high gain investments. Put it in established bank for ***** sake .Its about greed and fear like the share market Next time I see some aged European whining on tv about losing their life savings I will scream. An idiot and their money are soon parted	prefect (6291)
1132105	2010-09-02 05:53:00	Oh well its all over now the taxpayer has written a cheque. Just hope the people who got bailed are grateful. I just hope investors in NZ take heed of the advice dont put all your money in high gain investments. Put it in established bank for ***** sake .Its about greed and fear like the share market Next time I see some aged European whining on tv about losing their life savings I will scream. An idiot and their money are soon parted Um, isn't the lesson that you should put your money in high risk high return investments if the government is going to bail you out?	shermo (12739)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7