NZ’s biggest welfare beneficiary revealed in shock horror Herald exclusive expose’

22 comments on “NZ’s biggest welfare beneficiary revealed in shock horror Herald exclusive expose’ ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Rex Widerstrom 1

   2 September 2010 at 12:07 pm

   Even for the troughers used to doling (pun intended) our money out, $100 million to one beneficiary must surely awaken them from their full-bellied slumber?

   Or will they blithely accept assurances it’s necessary to “make things go smoothly” as the story says.

   Hey look, for $100 million I’ll go smoothly anywhere you want, Paula, knowhadimean?
2. Policy Parrot 2

   2 September 2010 at 12:37 pm

   We all live and act in the political environment in which we are presented with. Labour proposed, and then enacted an extended the deposit guarantee scheme in 2008 to additionally protect finance companies that had typically operated above board from both a domestic crisis of confidence which had sunk a few bad eggs in the predeceding years, as well as to maintain the liquidity of financial markets swept in the maelstrom of the GFC (i.e. willingness of financial institutions to continue to lend to each other).

   There are always unfortunate cases, because too often the Parliament takes the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff rather than the fence approach, and while I sympathise with those who lost money in Bridgecorp, Hanover etc, I would hardly expect that those people who lost their money because of the dodgy actions of finance company directors would begrudge others the opportunity to be protected simply out of spite.

   Having said that, there remains a certain problem with the whole situation surrounding SCF. How were they allowed to sell bonds at such a low price whilst remaining within the deposit guarantee scheme, and why is interest also being paid to depositors rather than simply their original capital?

   Also, with finance companies there needs to be further reform so that conflict of interest associations become less common – several of the finance company collapse relate to the private pet projects of their directors rather than those that would otherwise be considered sensible lendings – finance companies are supposed to be the intermediaries, linking creditors with debtors, not debtors in their own right.
3. MikeG 3

   2 September 2010 at 1:05 pm

   How about looking beyond the headlines – Kerr was a first-ranking debt holder, so would have been one of the first to be repaid from the realisation of the assets of SCF, irrespective of the Govt bailout.

   What is more interesting is the links between SCF, Torchlight, The Securities Commission and the Botherway brothers – now there’s something dodgy to get worked up about.
   • bbfloyd 3.1

     2 September 2010 at 2:30 pm

     and don’t forget the bond holders… over 40% profit out of the bailout
     • wtl 3.1.1

       2 September 2010 at 2:42 pm

       Yes, I don’t get this, something stinks. Were the bonds guaranteed? If they were, why on earth were they trading so low? If they weren’t, why are they being paid out?
   • Jenny 3.2

     3 September 2010 at 5:28 am

     Kerr was a gambler who blew his own money.

     What a loser.

     While many tens of thousands of hard working and honest New Zealanders are doing it hard, due the malfeasance of the likes of Kerr who even with his losses from the failure of SCF, is still a multimillionaire, wallowing in the lap of luxury.

     Only an idiot would try and justify gifting Kerr another $100 million on top of his already vast fortune, from out of our pockets.

     Mike, why aren’t you down at the casino giving your banking details and credit card numbers to all the other sad losers.

     Is it because these gamblers aren’t rich enough for you to make it worth your while to publicly kiss their arse.
4. bbfloyd 4

   2 September 2010 at 2:27 pm

   i’m a little bit incredulous to be honest. i read the article, and the only thing that comes to mind is that this can only be classed as a swindle of the first magnitude.. but it’s our own government perpetrating it!! is there nothing these people will not stoop to in order to enrich themselves?

   should i start storing tinned food now in preparation for the big bang??
5. BLiP 5

   2 September 2010 at 2:45 pm

   Te Ururoa Flavell makes an interesting comparison.
6. outofbed 6

   2 September 2010 at 3:13 pm

   Meanwhile a tumble weed blows though Labour party HQ
   • just saying 6.1

     2 September 2010 at 3:51 pm

     Be fair – focus groups don’t organise themselves, and they take a lot of time.
   • bbfloyd 6.2

     3 September 2010 at 10:39 am

     oottabed.. did you get the idea for that comment after looking in your mirror this morning? or have you got a pathalogical need to constantly bray partisan politics in the absence of any real ideas?
     • bbfloyd 6.2.1

       3 September 2010 at 10:51 am

       and.. of course we can’t forget the fact that the news media are still choosing not to report any comments made by the opposition unless they can either abridge it down to a meaningless soundbite, or cut and splice to make the comments look irrelevant. they were doing it when labour was in govt.. nothings changed…

       maybe a good idea would be to go and have a look on either their blog site, or the main web site. lots of info…
7. OleOlebiscuitBarrell 7

   2 September 2010 at 4:24 pm

   Nice story. If only it were true. Kerr had a first ranking security, so his money was safe anyway as, on everyone’s numbers, SCFL was good for that much. The government just repaid it now (rather than, you know, later) so that it wouldn’t have to deal with him.
   • Bob Stanforth 7.1

     2 September 2010 at 6:27 pm

     Oh, enough of the facts already! Dont spoil a good story with facts!

     Funny really, pitch a story, see if it has legs, it doesnt, abandoned. Cue tumbleweed…
   • Jenny 7.2

     2 September 2010 at 7:45 pm

     ….his money was safe anyway as, on everyone’s numbers, SCFL was good for that much.

     Have you got a citation for that, OOBB?

     Who is “everyone”?

     And what are their “numbers”?
     • MikeG 7.2.1

       2 September 2010 at 8:06 pm

       It’s the point I was trying to make above – as one of the first to get his hands on any money from SCF he would have got his money back (eventually). I am sure that SCF will get at least $100 million from selling it’s loan book etc.
   • The Voice of Reason 7.3

     2 September 2010 at 8:48 pm

     Why pay him early? Hell, why pay him anything? That’s my money you’re talking about and the longer I hang on to it, the better. Tell ya what, lets put it to the vote. Lets have a referendum on whether this bludger gets a penny of public money. I vote NO. You?
     • Akldnut 7.3.1

       2 September 2010 at 11:18 pm

       Too late now TVoR, lets have a referendum on whether or not the gummit should pass a law to force the bludger to pay it back with interest
       • Jenny 7.3.1.1

         3 September 2010 at 6:50 am

         Rather than a referendum, Maybe we should organise a telethon for George Kerr.

         I couldn’t think of better political theatre.

         Where’s McPhail and Gadsby when you need them.

         Why haven’t we got any cutting (and funny) main stream satirists today?
         • OleOlebiscuitBarrell 7.3.1.1.1

           3 September 2010 at 11:58 am

           Why pay him early?

           So the government has total control about how the assets are disposed of. A good thing, I would have thought. This part of it, at least, is perfectly sensible. He has got the secured money he put in back. The government has taken over his position and has profited to that degree. He has not got a free ride here.
8. Herodotus 8

   2 September 2010 at 9:56 pm

   So we had the collective brains of 2 finance ministers, our brightest civil servants, stealing/coping from Aussie we had crap legislation again. Did it not click into anyones minds that finance coy are as complicated vechiles that lawyers can create. Was this not pushed to protect the small investor, max guarantee $250k?
   It would be of interest to see and of those who brought bonds within the last few weeks, and if there was any inside info. But after many cases there is no teeth if anyone ever gets convicted
   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=139940
   Or was this legislation passed with the hope of not being tested then finding out it holds water like a sieve.
   This is not a left/right issue it is NZ being crapped upon, and displaying how poor our pollys are at writting up decient law for the benefit of the country.
   But hang on finance coys have a tiered heirachy as to claims on ownership of assets or clawback of payouts. So to protect the small investor we must extract these big players. But this is our money that is going towards these speculators!!!!
   “Asked on TV3 if it had cynically exploited the Government guarantee, he replied(Sandy Maier): “It might have been cynical, it might have been merely incompetent … it probably violated a lot of prudent lending criteria.” And we protect these fine upstanding people. I wonder what the coys “Statement of Corporate Intent” and other board guidelines on operating activity stipulated for the coys activities
   JAFA’s were dispised by the rest of the country, perhaps those from Timaru ……….

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 1 September 2010 at 11:54 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS