Nick Smith lies undone

[flyingcrocodile46]

Hi all,

I reckon we need to do more work to discredit Smith and his lies. It isn't hard as his lies are many and contrary evidence is available, just takes a little time to sift through it and put it together.

I have completed 2 parts and was rather hoping that some of you might like to tackle some of his other bullshit statements in a similar fashion. It is probably a good idea to include excerpts from documents used in his character assassination.

The parts can then be used as speech prompters at the national party meetings and to quote to the media. If we can smash his credibility to pieces then he will likely lose his portfolios. I have no problem reading them out face to face with him as I know that they are based on facts (unlike is own bullshit)

The words in italics are mine, the rest is quoted

PM me for clearer copies if you wish to print them out. Curse the 50kb picture limit

[Squiggles]

You may find (i forget) ~62million is the treatment cost only (after the hospital trip), not the ERC and forgotwhatitscalledwheretheyrebuildyourhome part... thus from the earlier arguement motorcycle injuries are cheaper. ERC, well whats your payrate got to do with your choice of vehicle...

[MSTRS:Me]

You may find (i forget) ~62million is the treatment cost only (after the hospital trip),

Nope. It is the total cost to ACC for all new and ongoing claims for previous years, in 2008.
What we don't know is what years those ongoing claims began in.
Theory says they are from prior to 1999 (when full funding was started), but reality tells us that it will be the grand total payout.

[pzkpfw]

Part 1. The line with the "40%" in it needs a look. (i.e. Who's paying for what now?)

[Ixion]

Nope. It is the total cost to ACC for all new and ongoing claims for previous years, in 2008.
What we don't know is what years those ongoing claims began in.
Theory says they are from prior to 1999 (when full funding was started), but reality tells us that it will be the grand total payout.

They date from 1972.

Of the 62M , in very round numbers, $3M relates to claims prior to 1999 , when full funding started (the "residual claims). Approximately (very approximately) , the pay out (in 2008) for NEW 2008 claims was $17 million.

The rest is for still active claims between 1999 and 2007. These cost of these claims should be covered by the money "put aside" in the year the claim happened.

Now, interestingly, if we ignore the stupid "motorcyclists only pay $12M " statement (which is just wrong, I'm working on that ), we find that ACC *should* have taken 17 million roughly in rego levy, plus about $3M in fuel levies from motorcyclists.

So, in effect we are paying our way year by year. But not covering future costs.

[flyingcrocodile46]

They date from 1972.

Of the 62M , in very round numbers, $3M relates to claims prior to 1999 , when full funding started (the "residual claims). Approximately (very approximately) , the pay out (in 2008) for NEW 2008 claims was $17 million.

The rest is for still active claims between 1999 and 2007. These cost of these claims should be covered by the money "put aside" in the year the claim happened.

Now, interestingly, if we ignore the stupid "motorcyclists only pay $12M " statement (which is just wrong, I'm working on that ), we find that ACC *should* have taken 17 million roughly in rego levy, plus about $3M in fuel levies from motorcyclists.

So, in effect we are paying our way year by year. But not covering future costs.

So, the maths indicates that around $40 million may have been spent on historic claims for the last ten year period?

Setting aside the fact that the ACC desired actuarial targets have not been met. ACC has still managed to amass $11 billion (less what ever they had in 99) during this period with current levy income levels. Is that not so?

If so, where is the justification for such huge increases.

Is the rate of fund growth really too small to cover the compounding increase in claim costs? That is the key

[raster]

In the Herald Website today.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10613447

"ACC's investment portfolio rose to $14.3 billion compared to the projected $13.56 billion."

Can someone verify this is correct?

[flyingcrocodile46]

In the Herald Website today.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10613447

"ACC's investment portfolio rose to $14.3 billion compared to the projected $13.56 billion."

Can someone verify this is correct?

That is what the article says. It also refers to an actuarial loss on the ACC claims liability. (that's a shortfall on projected profit to cover what appears to be grossly overestimated future liability.... not a real loss)

Mmmmmm.... 14.3 billion is quite a bit more than the previously touted 11 billion reserve. I wonder if the 14.3 is actual reserve or whether some of it is current operating capital?