NZ justice system once again looking after its rich mates

[FJRider]

... and if the advisor was knowingly involved in illegal dealings they should be held accountable.

Most "Financial Advisors" aren't actually involved in the dealings of the investment firms as such. Just get paid by investers for their advice (not that cheap either) But they may have had investments themselves in those companies ... (current or past) and I DO hope a few "Advisors" around the country have lost money too.

The old rule of "You never fly higher than you want to fall" may apply in regards to "investments" ...

Along with "Dont put all your eggs in one basket"

But all said and done ... more effort is being put into the control of slot machines .... than the gambling practices of those that have more than spare change to invest.

[oldrider]

Mmmm not really - Blue Chip perhaps but they were a property investor not a finance company.

I remember Gareth Morgan in about 2004 asking why NZ finance companies were offering such low rates for investment? Banks were paying 7% and finance cos 9.5%, barely above industrial and local authority bonds despite being much higher risk entities.

You might recall in the 1980s finance companies paid 5-9% above the bank rate which was far more realistic.

Which reminds me - this finance co debacle - we've been here before. A whole heap of them collapsed in the late 1980s. Petrecivic (scum) was involved - Euronational Corporation. Now he had Bridgecorp. A filthy selfish amoral little man.

True! And Doug Graeme used his political reputation and Knighthood to promote Petrecivic and his company to fool the unwary! ... Consequence?

Yeah ... but only for the unwary investor that believed in him! ... Go to jail and renounce your Knighthood Dougie, it's the least you can do!

Even worse, if Sir stupid didn't know the state of the company ... why was he endorsing it? ... Surely not for monetary reward?

"I did nothing wrong" ... cries "Sir Douglas" on TV ... Yeah right Dougie, we hear you ........

[Oscar]

True! And Doug Graeme used his political reputation and Knighthood to promote Petrecivic and his company to fool the unwary! ... Consequence?

Yeah ... but only for the unwary investor that believed in him! ... Go to jail and renounce your Knighthood Dougie, it's the least you can do!

Even worse, if Sir stupid didn't know the state of the company ... why was he endorsing it? ... Surely not for monetary reward?

"I did nothing wrong" ... cries "Sir Douglas" on TV ... Yeah right Dougie, we hear you ........

You got most of the right, but I'd would replace "unwary investor" with "stupid greedy investor".

caveat emptor

[scumdog]

You got most of the right, but I'd would replace "unwary investor" with "stupid greedy investor".

caveat emptor

True.

"I'll give you some money and you'll turn it into lots and lots of money for me without me having to do anything"

Wow, big expectation eh...

[Oscar]

True.

"I'll give you some money and you'll turn it into lots and lots of money for me without me having to do anything"

Wow, big expectation eh...

Also most of the busted arse finance companies were offering margins waaay in excess of what the Banks were doing.
If it looks too good to be true...

[FJRider]

True.

"I'll give you some money and you'll turn it into lots and lots of money for me without me having to do anything"

Wow, big expectation eh...

I love a good plan too ... even more if it actually works ...

And if things go wrong ... what is there to lose ... ??? OH WAIT ... !!!

But if things go RIGHT ...

I can pat myself on the back, and tell myself how clever and I am ...

[Zedder]

Most "Financial Advisors" aren't actually involved in the dealings of the investment firms as such. Just get paid by investers for their advice (not that cheap either) But they may have had investments themselves in those companies ... (current or past) and I DO hope a few "Advisors" around the country have lost money too.

The old rule of "You never fly higher than you want to fall" may apply in regards to "investments" ...

Along with "Dont put all your eggs in one basket"

But all said and done ... more effort is being put into the control of slot machines .... than the gambling practices of those that have more than spare change to invest.

The financial advisors in this case were paid brokerage/commission by the ratbags which at times was double and more of the usual rates.

Also, a recent case in NZ (2009) has set the precedent for advisors to be liable for their actions. They have a "duty of care" to their clients and must investigate companies in depth, not rely on published statements and must query investment rates etc.

[Winston001]

True! And Doug Graeme used his political reputation and Knighthood to promote Petrecivic and his company to fool the unwary!

Actually no. Graham was a director of Lombard Finance.


Petricovic was a director (and the main man) of Bridgecorp.


Completely unrelated companies.


There is a theory that a high percentage of corporate businessmen have psychopathic personalities. IMHO Petricovic proves this. Scum.

[Andy67]

Also most of the busted arse finance companies were offering margins waaay in excess of what the Banks were doing.
If it looks too good to be true...

Not exactly right mate, not for the risks involved. I remember one in particular touted S&P B rating. At the time that was loosely equivalent to Solomon Islands sovereign credit risk, ie just above default and so far below investment grade it's unfunny. 150bpts above what a typical trading bank was offering at the time. Problem is financial literacy, it's non existent for most. Shame. As I said in another thread these guys are the real crooks.

[mashman]

Not exactly right mate, not for the risks involved. I remember one in particular touted S&P B rating. At the time that was loosely equivalent to Solomon Islands sovereign credit risk, ie just above default and so far below investment grade it's unfunny. 150bpts above what a typical trading bank was offering at the time. Problem is financial literacy, it's non existent for most. Shame. As I said in another thread these guys are the real crooks.

Funny that so many people don't want to make easy money... and those who do believe that they are a cut above .. where in reality they have nothing more than a little bit of kNOWledge that's no great shakes off of betting on the GG's. Of course there's no gamble involved in investing.

[Oscar]

Not exactly right mate, not for the risks involved. I remember one in particular touted S&P B rating. At the time that was loosely equivalent to Solomon Islands sovereign credit risk, ie just above default and so far below investment grade it's unfunny. 150bpts above what a typical trading bank was offering at the time. Problem is financial literacy, it's non existent for most. Shame. As I said in another thread these guys are the real crooks.

I agree in terms of risk v. reward.
But I am sick to death of seeing greedy and/or stupid people in the media whining about being ripped off.
There are some genuine case of bad advice from intermediaries (including one I saw where a broker invested in three dodgy, and ultimately failed, finance companies for a trust fund for an under 18 year old), but $2m in Blue Chip? Why are they on TV exposing their stupidity to the world

[oldrider]

You got most of the right, but I'd would replace "unwary investor" with "stupid greedy investor".

caveat emptor

True! ... I'll buy that!

[Andy67]

I agree in terms of risk v. reward.
But I am sick to death of seeing greedy and/or stupid people in the media whining about being ripped off.
There are some genuine case of bad advice from intermediaries (including one I saw where a broker invested in three dodgy, and ultimately failed, finance companies for a trust fund for an under 18 year old), but $2m in Blue Chip? Why are they on TV exposing their stupidity to the world

Yep I think we all are and each one a lesson to us all....

Brokers should divulge their commission rates, if they appear out of odds with market rates for particular trades then there is probably a reason and for that reason alone, the individual concerned is less likely to give impartial and/or sound advice.

[superman]

The justice system isn't about looking after 'rich mates'.

The amount of sentence given should reflect how much of a menace they were and how much of a future threat they are to society. He'll never be able to work in a finance company again so the future threat is low. The sentence is purely punishment based.

While if a man held up a store for a few hundred dollars while wielding a knife, the monetary value isn't the big issue. His sentence is to do with rehabilitation and punishment. It's the fact he's willing to threaten members of society with physical harm that puts the most years on the sentence.

Swipe a few hundred dollars out of your kids bank account on the other hand and getting a sentence would be unlikely, more like a fine with monetary reparation to your child.

[mashman]

The justice system isn't about looking after 'rich mates'.

The amount of sentence given should reflect how much of a menace they were and how much of a future threat they are to society. He'll never be able to work in a finance company again so the future threat is low. The sentence is purely punishment based.

He could become a cuntsultant though