Don't you think the Nats would have done the same or more ? The USA certainly did ... and it's the fatcat coporates who are the Nats natural supporters ... That was very a foreign thing for a supposed Laboru Party to do ..Originally Posted by Swoop
Anarchic Wild Child
Don't you think the Nats would have done the same or more ? The USA certainly did ... and it's the fatcat coporates who are the Nats natural supporters ... That was very a foreign thing for a supposed Laboru Party to do ..
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
Come warm yourself by the fire
I imagine this one would cost a bit to maintain.
Pity its not in South Canterbury........ oh wait have I let too much slip
Reactor Online. Sensors Online. Weapons Online. All Systems Nominal.
ArseBiscuit
Are there any other companies currently in the scheme offering good returns?
Sounds like a good way to invest some $$$. No risk, high returns.
Come warm yourself by the fire
errr the banks here are fine. I am not saying they are the best things ever.
But banks in NZ are very secure. So putting money into term deposits is quite safe.
Likewise they have been brought over hot coals enough here to know not to fuck with the public.
US banks are completely different kettle of fish. As they are their own authority.
Reactor Online. Sensors Online. Weapons Online. All Systems Nominal.
Anarchic Wild Child
Err .. how many times has the BNZ been bailed out or bought up? And at what cost?
"Our" banks may be "safe" but they have borrowed from banks that are not safe .. and loaned to dodgey people ... and the whole system is so inter-locked none of it is safe ...
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
Crazy Trevor - RIP
some people would say that buy out was a BARGIN at 1.6 billion
Anarchic Wild Child
If so, why coudn't they sell it on the open market and save the taxpayers heaps of money ?
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
Psyclepath
$1.6 billion is the total investment that have been paid out...less the assets will come to about $600million, total payments in to the government guarantee scheme to date are about $250 million.
So, I'd have to say for a net $350million this is probably the least crap option for the gummint. Walking away would have had other costs that the country would have had to suck up, one way or another.
Only a homo puts an engine back together WITHOUT making it go faster.
Psyclepath
One of the major contributory factors in SCF's demise is that Hanover, Blue Chip etc etc had turned people off putting money into anything with "Finance" in it's name...
Only a homo puts an engine back together WITHOUT making it go faster.
Come warm yourself by the fire
BNZ was sold out. So I am not sure as to how you are referring to them being bailed out.
Banks in NZ/Aus are not borrowing large amounts from the likes of US. They are doing balanced investments in industry, emerging markets, overseas developments and solid (low gain, low risk) investments (Europe, Russia....).
So while they could be dealing with dodgy people - unless you opt for their high return accounts, you are not exposed to this risk.
It might be worth noting that our Government invest more in the US than most banks do.
Reactor Online. Sensors Online. Weapons Online. All Systems Nominal.
Come warm yourself by the fire
Tis also difficult to do a PO after SecCom have looked at your books, and found errors.
Case and point was NZFSU with their "Fudge this" comment.
Reactor Online. Sensors Online. Weapons Online. All Systems Nominal.
dodgy is as dodgy does
Not quite. As I understand it, investing in Auckland's Hyatt hotel/apartment project was the biggest single contributing factor, but overall it was investment in risky and speculative property that was the problem, and because Kiwis think "bricks n mortar" are the best and safestest deal of all time, when told that their 9.5% was secured against mortgages they pulled their wallets out as fast as they could.
Their demise was because these investors wanted their money back and the money was secured against depreciating and illiquid assets. If people had been happy to leave their money in SCF for the duration, in 3 to 5 years the market would have recovered enough to allow them to repay the investors, but people weren't.
Our obsession with property and hunger to buy it at all cost has caused the evolution and growth of organisations like SCF, and our paranoia over investing in equities has meant people prefer to invest in debentures than shares. As a result business owners seeking investment to grow are either unable to access funds or are forced to look offshore for equity partners and our business sector stagnates while property and finance companies boom.
Don't blame me, I voted Green.
Anarchic Wild Child
In 1989 the Government reduces its share to 51% by selling 34%; with 30% sold to Capital Markets Ltd, and the remainder to the general public - In 1990 the Government then had to bail out the bank to the tune of $350million to avoid the bank collapsing ... then in 1992 the National Australia Banking Group became the owners ...
It's the $350 million 1990 bail out I was referring to ...
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
Anarchic Wild Child
Yeah that's true .. but why could they have not sold it to one of the corporations ? Perhaps because none of them saw it as a good deal ...
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
Hardcore Biker
Everyone with half a brain who wanted 3 - 4% more interest than the banks were giving and also a Government guaranteed deposit. You would have to be a Dick to leave money on a low interest deposit with the main Banks when the Government effectively removes the risk of a higher returning investment.
The Scheme as introduced by Labour but with the "behind the scenes" support from National was designed only to give short term support to the Finance and Banking Industry - why I'm not sure.
The real Question is why when we supposedly were over the crisis did Key extend it, especially when National supposedly had information showing that the biggest Finance Company left was in serious trouble, and not meeting its Statutory & trustee requirements. Then just to really rub salt into the wounds they not only return capital but pay interest as well - That for me is the egg turned Key and Bill whilst they remain in National lose my vote.
Don't judge me based upon your ignorance.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks